The shore edge line disputes, one of the most complex issues of property law in Turkey, closely concern thousands of title deed owners. The determination that a property with a previously valid title deed remains within the “shore area” through subsequent technical assessments brings along issues regarding property rights, cancellation of title deeds, and serious financial losses.
In this guide, we examine the legal fate of immovables located within the shore edge line in light of the current jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court (AYM) and the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay).
1. What is the Shore Edge Line? What Areas Does It Cover?
According to the Shore Law No. 3621, there are two basic concepts regarding the coastal strip:
Shore Line: The boundary between the lowest point where the water recedes and the highest point where it overflows.
Shore Edge Line: The boundary of natural areas such as sand, pebbles, and reeds formed by seas, lakes, or rivers in the direction of the land.
Legal Consequence: Areas between the shore edge line and the sea are legally considered “Shore”. According to Article 43 of the Constitution, shores are under the jurisdiction and disposal of the state; they cannot be subject to private ownership and cannot be acquired through prescription (statute of limitations).
2. The Fate of Titled Immovables Remaining on the Shore
For immovables that were registered in the names of individuals during cadastral works but were later found to be within the “shore edge line” through updated maps, a “Title Deed Cancellation and Registration Lawsuit” is filed by the Treasury.
The results of this lawsuit are as follows:
Title Deed Cancellation: The court rules that the immovable cannot be subject to private property and cancels the title deed record.
Registry Record: The immovable is deleted from the land registry and marked as “non-registered” or public property.
Usage Restriction: The owner cannot build on this area and completely loses the right of disposal.
3. Liability of the State for Compensation (TMK 1007)
The most critical question for the citizen whose property is seized: “Who will compensate for my loss?”
Pursuant to Article 1007 of the Turkish Civil Code; “The State is responsible for all damages arising from the keeping of the land registry.” This is strict liability. In other words, regardless of whether the state made a mistake, the damage of the person who became the owner by relying on the title deed record must be compensated.
Important Note: The Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation accept that canceling the title deed of a property remaining on the shore without paying compensation to the owner is an “interference with the essence of the right to property” and “disproportionality.“
4. Current Judicial Decisions and Precedent Approaches
Approach of the Constitutional Court (AYM): The AYM emphasizes that the state cannot impose the consequences of its own administrative errors (such as faulty cadastral determinations) on the citizen. If the use of the property is blocked or the deed is canceled, compensation must be paid based on the real market value.
Court of Cassation Jurisprudence: The Court of Cassation does not accept the right to property remaining only on paper. It stipulates that even if the title deed is not canceled, a compensation lawsuit can be filed due to “legal confiscation” if the property cannot be built upon because it remains within the shore edge line.
5. Frequently Asked Questions in Compensation Lawsuits
6. Conclusion and Legal Support
Shore edge line disputes are multi-faceted cases involving technical expert reports, mapping engineering data,constitutional property rights, and international human rights law. Therefore, it is of great importance to act with an expert real estate lawyer from the beginning of the process to prevent loss of rights.
Remember: Although interference with the right to property for the sake of public interest is possible, it is against the principle of the rule of law for this interference to be without compensation. When the decisions of the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation, and the ECHR are evaluated together, it is clear that the damages suffered by bona fide owners must be covered by the state.
This article is for informational purposes; it is recommended to consult a law firm for your specific legal disputes.