The right to property is a fundamental human right guaranteed by international conventions. In countries like Turkey, where the principles of private ownership apply, this right is guaranteed by laws. The right to property may be restricted by law only in the case of public interest. Nevertheless, the right of ownership of immovable property can be transferred to the public authority only with payment. However, in some cases, a person's immovable property may be de facto converted into a public facility without expropriation. This process is called “confiscation without expropriation”. This concept was introduced into the Turkish Legal System in 1956 by the unauthorized conversion of immovable property for a road. Today, especially in planned areas, a different type of confiscation without expropriation is often seen. Zoning plans are known to be public tools that reorganize properties in public interest. However, the uncertainty in the implementation process of these plans negatively affects the owners of parcels reserved for public use in the zoning plan. This situation is defined in terminology as “legal confiscation without expropriation”. In this study, the subject has been discussed in the light of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions and Turkish judicial decisions, and which institutions are responsible for what kind of zoning functions within zoning plans have been investigated. Official (ex officio) applications and voluntary applications have been compared. Conceptual illustrations on the subject have been prepared. According to the results obtained from the study, it has been stated that all public spaces in the zoning plan are not subject to legal confiscation. Due to their location or characteristics, protected areas, unsuitable geological areas and parcels remaining in agricultural areas can be allocated as public spaces in the zoning plan. In such a case, it is not possible to say that there is legal confiscation. In terms of plan classification, there may be legal confiscation in areas if only a 1/1000-scale implementary zoning plan is in practice. As a solution for legal confiscation, land and real estate arrangements should be made ex officio and without delay. In addition to this, alternative models are also needed. Otherwise, public institutions will be subject to severe financial burdens. Some of the proposals include: granting construction right to zone cadastral parcels affecting public facility areas, or granting the right to construct all cadastral parcels in the plan in specified amounts and also developing a zoning right transfer system.

中文翻译：

---

根据欧洲人权法院的决定，土耳其在没有征用的情况下进行基于分区计划的合法没收

财产权是国际公约保障的一项基本人权。在土耳其等适用私有制原则的国家，这项权利受到法律的保障。只有在公共利益的情况下，财产权才能受法律限制。尽管如此，不动产的所有权只能通过付款才能转让给公共当局。然而，在某些情况下，一个人的不动产可能实际上被转换为公共设施而无需征用。这个过程被称为“没收而不征收”。这一概念于 1956 年通过未经授权将不动产转换为道路而引入土耳其法律体系。今天，特别是在规划区，经常可以看到不同类型的没收而不是征用。众所周知，分区计划是为了公共利益而重组财产的公共工具。然而，这些计划实施过程中的不确定性对分区计划中预留给公众使用的地块的所有者产生了负面影响。这种情况在术语中被定义为“合法没收而不是征用”。在本研究中，根据欧洲人权法院 (ECHR) 的裁决和土耳其司法裁决讨论了该主题，并调查了哪些机构负责分区计划中的哪些分区功能。官方（依职权）申请和自愿申请进行了比较。已准备好关于该主题的概念性插图。根据研究得出的结果，据称，分区计划中的所有公共空间都不受法律没收的约束。由于其位置或特点，保护区、不适宜的地质区域和农业区剩余的地块可以在分区规划中分配为公共空间。在这种情况下，不可能说存在合法没收。在规划分类方面，如果仅实施1/1000规模的实施分区规划，则可能会在区域内进行法律没收。作为合法没收的解决方案，土地和不动产的安排应依职权且不得拖延。除此之外，还需要替代模型。否则，公共机构将面临严重的财政负担。其中一些提议包括：