Violation Of The Right Of Ownership Due To The Taking Back Of The Vehicle Purchased By Tender Without Paying Any Fee
Events
The applicant filed a lawsuit at the Civil Court of First Instance (the Court) against the Ministry of Justice and the Directorate of Muhakemat at the Defterdarlık Muhakemat Müdürlüğü, claiming compensation for the damages he had suffered as a result of the stolen vehicle he had purchased from the Execution Directorate and the cancellation of his registration as the owner of the vehicle. Court decided to accept the case and to recover the cost of the vehicle and the expenses incurred by the applicant from the defendants and to give it to the applicant.
The parties appealed against the aforementioned judgement. The Regional Court of Appeal, which examined the appeal requests, decided definitively to annul the judgement and dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the chassis number change made in the vehicle subject to the lawsuit could only be understood by experts in the field and that the Enforcement Directorate did not have any fault.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his right to property was violated as the vehicle, which was purchased through an open tender held by the execution directorate, was taken back without any compensation in connection with an offence committed before the tender.
The Court’s Assessment
Enforcement bodies, which are established for the collection of non-consensual receivables and equipped with the powers of public power within this framework, may be required to take certain measures to protect the interests of the creditor, debtor and all parties purchasing the foreclosed property and the property subject to the enforcement proceedings while fulfilling this duty.
It cannot be said that the existence of legal and material defects in the vehicle during the sale of the vehicle sold through an official tender is not related to the positive obligations imposed on the state. In this context, it is clear that the transactions, actions and inactions that can be attributed to the administration prior to the execution and tender process, such as the incompatibility of the registration and material facts due to the failure to keep the traffic registry in accordance with the truth, and the dysfunction of the principle of trust in the registry due to this incompatibility, are also related to the positive obligation of the administration.
On the other hand, as a reality dictated by the principle of good governance, public officials, who are required to act at the appropriate time, with the appropriate method and, above all, consistently, have various instruments that they can use to prevent the grievances of the parties to the tender. In this context, public officials involved in the registration, inspection and tender stages of the vehicle have the obligation to reveal the irregularity in the vehicle by acting in accordance with the principle of good governance, and accordingly, they have the opportunity to prevent the tender from being concluded in this way.
In the concrete case, the applicant could not be prevented from being harmed due to the failure of the administrative authorities to utilise their useful administrative and legal instruments. Accordingly, it appears that the state authorities did not do their best to protect the applicant’s right to property, and it is also understood that the administration neglected its “supervision and control obligation”.
As a result, the applicant was deprived of the opportunity to obtain compensation by proving the damage suffered and the existence of a causal link between the transactions and actions of the administration and the damage, and thus to balance the burden imposed by the administration, due to the interpretation of the Regional Court of Appeal that the administration is not liable for compensation on the grounds that the chassis number change made in the vehicle subject to the case can only be understood by experts in the field and that there is no defective action of the Enforcement Directorate. Therefore, it was concluded that the intervention imposed an excessive personal burden on the applicant, the fair balance between the public interest purpose and the protection of the right to property was disrupted against the applicant and the intervention was not proportionate.
The Constitutional Court decided that the right to property was violated for the reasons explained.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.