The Constitutional Court's decision dated 18/01/2022, with application number 2018/25664, published in the Official Gazette dated 22.02.2022 and numbered 31758 [S.G. Application], essentially concerns the claim that the right to property was violated due to the failure to pay the receivable as the order of priority list had not been finalized, the failure to accrue interest on the auction price during the finalization process, and the depreciation of the receivable due to inflation.

The applicant asserted that the state failed to take the necessary measures within the scope of its positive obligations to prevent the devaluation of the receivable, resulting in material damage, and therefore argued that their property right had been violated.

Within the scope of the relevant decision, the Constitutional Court made the following findings:

• The way to prevent the auction price collected from losing its purchasing power is by accruing interest on the money,
• The issue of accruing interest on the auction price collected from the sale of immovable property falls within the scope of the duties of enforcement offices, and this process does not impose an excessive burden beyond the normal administrative functioning of the enforcement office,
• Considering that the issue of whether the auction price collected from the sale of immovable property is accrued interest falls within the scope of the enforcement offices' duties, the failure to accrue interest is related to positive obligations [Fatma Yıldırım decision], and within this scope, enforcement authorities must take certain measures to protect property rights while performing their duties,
• It was stated that the enforcement office's failure to minimize the negative effects of a slow enforcement process on the applicant by simply placing the auction price in a term deposit account constitutes a violation of the state's positive obligation under the right to property.

Based on all these findings, the Constitutional Court made the following evaluations regarding the specific case:

• The approximately four-year period between the date the order of priority list was prepared and the date the applicant was actually paid was deemed unreasonable,
• According to the data of the Turkish Statistical Institute, 100 TL in June 2014, when the order of priority list was prepared, had an inflation-adjusted equivalent of 148.47 TL in July 2018, when the payment was made,
• During this process, it was expected that the administration would take measures to prevent the receivable from losing value due to inflation, within the scope of its positive obligations to protect property rights,
• The right to property, guaranteed under Article 35 of the Constitution, was violated in this specific case,
• Merely determining the existence of a violation would be insufficient in terms of compensating for the applicant's losses,
• Considering inflation data, it was determined that the applicant suffered damages due to the failure to accrue interest on the payment amount from June 2014, when the order of priority list was prepared, to July 2018, when the payment was made, and therefore, material compensation should be awarded to the applicant.

To access the relevant decision, click here.