{"id":7261,"date":"2022-02-02T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2022-02-02T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.efeshukuk.com\/?p=7261"},"modified":"2022-02-03T20:00:01","modified_gmt":"2022-02-03T17:00:01","slug":"ecrimisil-nedir","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/efeshukuk.com\/en\/ecrimisil-nedir\/","title":{"rendered":"What is Ecrimisil?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Ecrimisil
What is Ecrimisil?<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

What is Ecrimisil? \u2013 Izmir Lawyer<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is Ecrimisil?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>
\n

ecir, -cri<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

name, archaic <\/em>Fee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

missile, -sli<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. <\/strong>name, archaic <\/em>Equal, similar, example<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. <\/strong>name, archaic <\/em>Amount.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The term "ecrimisil" literally means equivalent payment; however, in everyday life, it is used to mean compensation for unlawful occupation. In Turkish law, ecrimisil is compensation for unlawful occupation that can be demanded from the property owner for the use of their property by third parties without their consent or any legally justifiable reason. \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In order to discuss compensation for unauthorized use of property, there must be evidence of malicious use and the property owner must have suffered damages as a result of this occupation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is the statute of limitations for claiming compensation for unlawful use of property?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As briefly mentioned above, while there is no comprehensive regulation in our legislation regarding compensation for unlawful use of property, it is observed that a five-year statute of limitations is applied, particularly in the context of precedents set by the Supreme Court. Therefore, when calculating compensation for unlawful use of property, a calculation is made retrospectively for five years. In this context, rights to compensation for unlawful use of property that are not claimed within five years will be subject to the statute of limitations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Which court has jurisdiction in cases of compensation for unlawful use of property?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Within the framework of general legal principles, the civil courts of first instance where the wrongfully encroached property is located have jurisdiction over matters related to compensation for unlawful use of property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Compensation for Unlawful Use of Property within the Scope of Legal Legislation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

While our legal framework does not contain comprehensive regulations specifically addressing disputes over compensation for unauthorized use of property, particularly those arising between private individuals, a definition has been established within administrative law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

compensation for unauthorized use of property<\/strong>, Regulation on the Administration of Treasury Assets<\/a> Within this scope, it is defined as "compensation demanded by the Administration due to the occupation or use of Treasury real estate by real or legal persons without the permission of the Administration, regardless of whether the Administration has suffered any damage or whether the occupier is at fault.". <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although our legislation regarding private law relations does not include a definition, compensation for unlawful use of property finds application within the framework of general legal principles and Supreme Court decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Relevant Supreme Court Decisions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Supreme Court of Appeals, 8th Civil Chamber, Case No: 2021\/2546, Decision No: 2021\/5481<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

...The plaintiff's attorney claimed that the defendants were generating income by renting out or using the independent sections numbered 6-11-14-15 and 17, and the shop-type independent sections numbered 19-20-21-22, located on the immovable property numbered 37645, parcel 4, which was inherited by the parties from their common ancestor, ..., and that the defendants did not give the plaintiff his inheritance share of this income. Consequently, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 16.02.1999 with daily register number 04681 from Ankara 16th Notary Public, preventing the defendants from benefiting from the properties. Simultaneously, a lawsuit for the dissolution of the partnership was filed on 12.05.1999, and the main lawsuit concerns the period between 07.12.2007 and 07.12.2012. In the consolidated case, the amount was 10,000.00 TL, and in the case itself, 6,000.00 TL relates to the period between 07.12.2012 and 06.02.2015.\u00a0compensation for unlawful use of property<\/strong>The plaintiff requested that the defendants be held jointly and severally liable for the damages, and in a petition dated May 18, 2015, declared that they were withdrawing from the consolidated lawsuit regarding independent sections numbered 6, 11, 14, 15, and 17.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The defendants' attorney argued that their clients were not the owners of independent units 6, 11, 14, 15, and 17 of the properties in question, and that independent units 19, 20, 21, and 22, which are shops, had been vacant and unrented since 1998, therefore requesting the dismissal of the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The First Instance Court, on the grounds that the plaintiff was prevented from exercising his rights arising from his inheritance share in these properties despite the notice issued by the plaintiff against the defendants, and that the condition of being prevented from using the properties was met with regard to the apartments classified as shops, partially accepted the main lawsuit and awarded 3,917.57 TL for the shops in question. compensation for unlawful use of property<\/strong> The defendants are ordered to pay the plaintiff the amount owed, along with legal interest accruing from the date of the lawsuit, December 7, 2012, jointly and severally; the claim for the excess amount is rejected; and the consolidated lawsuit is partially accepted, awarding 2,141.35 TL for the shops in question. compensation for unlawful use of property<\/strong> The defendants shall be jointly and severally liable for the amount owed to the plaintiff, along with legal interest accruing from the date of the lawsuit, February 6, 2015; the claim for any excess amount shall be rejected; and in the consolidated case, regarding independent sections numbered 6, 11, 14, 15, and 17... compensation for unlawful use of property<\/strong> The request was rejected due to waiver. The defendants' attorney appealed the decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the appeal review conducted by the Regional Court of Appeal, it was determined that the amount in dispute and decided upon was below the finality limit stipulated as of the date the decision was rendered; therefore, the appeal was definitively rejected in accordance with Article 352 of the Code of Civil Procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ministry of Justice requested that the decision be overturned in the interest of the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The main and consolidated lawsuit is between the stakeholders. compensation for unlawful use of property<\/strong> It relates to the request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As stated both in legal doctrine and in judicial practice;\u00a0compensation for unlawful use of property<\/strong>, In other words, compensation for unlawful occupation is compensation that a non-possessing right holder can claim from a bad-faith possessor who is not the rightful owner, as evidenced by the jurisprudence dated 08.03.1950 and numbered 22\/4. The Unification Decision emphasized that unlawful occupation cannot be likened to a lease agreement established by the mutual consent of the parties, that it should be considered an unlawful act by its very nature, and that compensation for damages resulting from unlawful occupation is required.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

compensation for unauthorized use of property<\/strong>, Because it is a special form of compensation for damages, characterized as damages due to wrongful occupation, It is at least a loss equivalent to rental income.<\/strong> Therefore, the difference between positive damage resulting from normal wear and tear due to unlawful occupation and the benefit (negative damage) that the owner or possessor is deprived of.\u00a0compensation for unlawful use of property<\/strong>It determines the scope of the law. Unlawful occupation is considered an unlawful act (Decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals, General Assembly of Civil Law, dated 25.02.2004, no. 2004\/1-120-96).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another point to note is that, according to Article 6 of the Turkish Civil Code, the claimant is responsible for proving their claim., compensation for unlawful use of property<\/strong> In cases concerning claims, the plaintiff must first prove the existence of the occupation, its duration, and the extent of the occupied area. In other words, for the court to issue a decision accepting the claim, it must be proven beyond a doubt that the properties in question are in the defendants' use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In light of the principles explained above, when the specific dispute is examined, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants generate income by renting out or using the shops in question themselves. compensation for unlawful use of property<\/strong> It has been determined that the plaintiff requested and relied on witness testimony in the lawsuit, and the court granted a definitive deadline for the submission of witness names in accordance with Article 140\/5 of the Code of Civil Procedure; however, the plaintiff did not submit a witness list within the specified period. Furthermore, the defendant's witness, who stated that he resided in the building where the properties in question are located, testified that the shops had been empty for a long time. It has also been understood that the expert report, which was used as the basis for the court's judgment, stated that the shops were empty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, since the court failed to prove that the properties in question were unlawfully occupied by the defendants, and should have dismissed both the main and consolidated cases, it decided to partially accept them as written. Furthermore, the failure to award legal fees to the defendants, who were represented by counsel, for the dismissed portion of the case is contrary to procedural rules and law. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Ministry of Justice in the interest of law must be accepted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSION: For the reasons shown above, the appeal filed by the Ministry of Justice in the interest of law is accepted; and in accordance with Article 363 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, the judgment of the Ankara 15th Civil Court of First Instance dated January 15, 2019, with case number 2012\/639 and decision number 2019\/36, is REVERSED in the interest of law, without affecting its legal consequences; a copy of the decision shall be sent to the Ministry of Justice. This decision was made unanimously on June 24, 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here are some other articles that might interest you:<\/mark><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n