Most of the eleven pieces of legislation published in the Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) in the week of 3-9 August 2026 consist of seven decisions of the Constitutional Court (AYM), delivered on various dates and published in the Official Gazette this week. Two topics stood out among these decisions: the removal of the administration’s exemption from providing security in actions for de facto expropriation (kamulaştırmasız el atma), and the Court’s assessment of the principle of legal certainty in property tax valuation; both directly concern property owners and investors in Alanya. In addition, decisions on criminal and administrative procedure, the disciplinary liability of public officials and personal rights, as well as amendments to regulations in the field of education, were also on this week’s agenda. The series ends with this week; in this article we have grouped the week’s developments by subject.
Two Important Constitutional Court Decisions in Real Estate and Tax Law
The Administration’s Right to a Stay Without Security in De Facto Expropriation Cases Has Been Abolished
The Constitutional Court annulled the provision of the Expropriation Law that allowed administrations, in actions for de facto expropriation, to request a stay of enforcement without providing any security, on the grounds that it was incompatible with the right to property and the principles of a fair trial.
Who is affected? Owners whose property has been taken over by the administration without formal expropriation, real estate investors and the administrations that are party to these cases.
Practical consequence: Administrations will now have to provide security under the general rules in enforcement proceedings brought against them; this means property owners can collect the compensation awarded more quickly.
In de facto expropriation disputes that arise from time to time in and around Alanya in connection with beach areas, the coastline and tourism projects, this decision stands out as a development that strengthens the position of property owners.
The “Neighbourhood” Criterion in Property Tax Valuation Before the Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court examined the provision of the Property Tax Law that determines the tax value of land plots and fields on the basis of “each neighbourhood”, in response to the claim that the law does not clearly specify which value is to be used for plots adjoining more than one street or road; it emphasised that the principles of legality and legal certainty must be observed in taxation.
Who is affected? Owners of land plots and fields, property taxpayers and owners of buildings fined for unlicensed construction — since these fines are also calculated on the basis of the tax value of the land.
Practical consequence: It becomes clear that the methods used to calculate tax value must be transparent and predictable.
In Alanya, where tourism and construction activity is intense, it becomes all the more important after this decision for property owners to follow closely how property tax and fines for unlicensed buildings are calculated.
Jurisdiction and Finality Rules in Criminal and Administrative Procedure
Aggravated Fraud Cases Remain with the Criminal Court of First Instance
The Constitutional Court rejected the request to annul the provision transferring jurisdiction over aggravated fraud offences from the high criminal court (ağır ceza mahkemesi) to the criminal court of first instance (asliye ceza mahkemesi), holding that the rule is not contrary to the Constitution. According to the decision, cases filed before the high criminal courts before the provision entered into force will continue to be concluded under the former procedure in accordance with the transitional provisions.
Who is affected? Persons tried for, or victims of, aggravated fraud, and criminal defence lawyers.
Practical consequence: It becomes clear which case will be heard by which court; the single-judge structure of the criminal courts of first instance may speed up proceedings in newly filed cases.
In Administrative Proceedings, Decisions Referring a File for Lack of Jurisdiction Are Final, but Do Not End the Dispute
The Constitutional Court found it consistent with the Constitution that a regional administrative court’s decision to send a file back to the court of first instance in cases such as lack of jurisdiction or recusal of a judge is deemed “final”. The Court also emphasised that this finality does not definitively resolve the dispute; the parties may still appeal (istinaf) and appeal on points of law (temyiz) against the new decision to be given by the court of first instance.
Who is affected? Parties to administrative and tax cases, the courts hearing these cases and the administrations.
Practical consequence: Although the decision directing the file to the correct court cannot be challenged, the parties’ avenues of redress remain open until the decision on the merits.
Where a jurisdiction or venue problem arises in administrative cases filed in Alanya concerning real estate, commercial disputes and tax matters, this decision provides guidance on how the process will work.
Public Officials: Disciplinary Investigations and Asset Declarations
This week two separate Constitutional Court decisions on the disciplinary liability of public officials were published in the Official Gazette. In the first, the individual application of a teacher concerning a disciplinary investigation completed without taking the teacher’s defence or hearing witnesses was dismissed as incompatible ratione materiae, on the grounds that the right to a fair trial essentially covers judicial proceedings and that allegations concerning the investigation stage fall outside the scope of that right. In the second, the Constitutional Court found that the “long-term suspension penalty” of up to twelve months that may be imposed on general law enforcement personnel (police, gendarmerie, coast guard) who fail to submit an asset declaration is regulated sufficiently clearly in Law No. 7068 and is therefore consistent with the principle of legality.
Who is affected? Public officials, in particular civil servants undergoing disciplinary investigation, and general law enforcement personnel.
Practical consequence: It becomes clear that procedural complaints during a disciplinary investigation must be taken to the administrative courts rather than brought by individual application; it is confirmed once again that neglecting the asset declaration obligation can have serious consequences.
Personal Rights: Reissuing Diploma Details Under a New Identity
The Constitutional Court held that the university diploma of a person who has changed his or her name or gender by court order must, on request, be completely reissued in accordance with the new identity details, rather than merely being annotated against the old details. According to the Court, leaving the old identity details visible on the diploma violates the person’s right to respect for private life.
Who is affected? University graduates who have officially changed their name or gender by court order, and the universities obliged to meet such requests.
Practical consequence: Universities must meet such requests within a reasonable time on the basis of clear and objective criteria.
Two Regulatory Amendments in the Field of Education
Two of the week’s remaining pieces of legislation concern education. Under an amendment to Trakya University’s postgraduate regulation, students at the thesis stage may request one additional semester during a disaster or epidemic, and female students who give birth may request two additional semesters; in addition, where the thesis topic requires it, a second supervisor may be appointed from outside the university. A separate regulatory amendment postponed the transition period for private higher education accommodation services by two years, from 1 August 2026 to 1 August 2028.
Who is affected? Postgraduate students, universities and businesses providing private student accommodation.
Practical consequence: Students will be able to benefit from additional time during the thesis process; accommodation providers have gained two more years to comply with the new standards. These provisions have no direct connection with legal practice in Alanya.
Other Developments
The week’s two remaining pieces of legislation are largely administrative and technical in nature. The Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency adopted a provision allowing it to take into account the analysis results and guidelines of countries and organisations with international standards in its drug inspection and analysis processes; this may speed up approval processes for drug manufacturers, importers and distributors. In addition, a notice of acting presidency was published under Article 106 of the Constitution for the period of the President’s visit abroad; this is a routine administrative act ensuring the continuity of state functions and does not affect legal practice in Alanya.
Conclusion
The key development of the week of 3-9 August 2026 was the Constitutional Court’s decisions on de facto expropriation and property tax valuation; both decisions have direct practical value for property owners and investors in Alanya. In addition, the decisions on criminal and administrative procedure, the disciplinary liability of public officials and personal rights are also important from a legal monitoring perspective. With this article, our six-week series of Official Gazette summaries comes to an end. If you are facing a specific legal situation, it would be helpful to consult a lawyer to assess how current legislation applies to your particular circumstances.
This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Source: Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete).
Legal Notice: This text has been prepared for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. sophoshukuk.com makes no referral, guarantee or promise of outcome. Each case must be assessed on its own particular circumstances; for your specific dispute, please obtain professional advice from a lawyer.