Abstract:

Interferences with property rights can only be carried out in the public interest in a manner prescribed by law. Although the law provides different options for this purpose, land that is subject to private property is acquired through expropriation. The Expropriation Act grants former owners the right to return the property under certain conditions and to take it back if the property is not needed. The administration can de facto take possession of privately owned land illegally without expropriation. In addition, it can violate the property rights of individuals without legally taking over the property that it has long confiscated. As a result of the lawsuit that was filed after the confiscation without expropriation and the court has made a decision to register the property on behalf of the administration and accordingly the administration does not need the property after a while or not for the public benefit or another public service is not regulated by law that the former owner can take back the property from the administration or the right of return of the property. There is a legal loophole in this regard. This legal loophole can be closed by analogy with the provisions of the Expropriation Act. In order for a legal provision to be applied by analogy, there should be no legal provision regarding the event to be applied, the event should be similar and the result should be the same. As a rule, there is no obstacle to analogous application in private law. Due to the nature of public law, an analogy can be made under certain conditions. There are different views in the areas of constitutional, criminal, tax and administrative law under public law. In administrative law, analogy is mainly carried out in some favorable cases. The provisions of the Expropriation Act on the return of the expropriated property to the previous owner and the owner’s right of repossession apply comparatively to hand assignments without expropriation.

Keywords: