NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

288 NEWSLETTER 2020 interest. The exercise of the right to property shall not contravene the public interest .” In the Decision, it is emphasized that the property right is not unlimited, and this right could be restricted for the purpose of public interest and by law. However, it is stated that in the interventions in the form of deprivation of property right, a fair balance targeted between the public interest and the individual benefit of the owner could only be achieved by paying compensation to the owner. In the assessment made in terms of the concrete case, it is stated that the Regional Court of Appeal subjected an inspection the report to a re-judicial review. Together with this, it is also emphasized that the defendant administration did not express its objections to the report in the partial claim or even in the petition of reply in the additional claim, but only in the petition of appeal. It was evaluated that this situ- ation made the report arguable with the objections that have not been raised before and, consequently, caused the defendant administration to benefit from its own fault. The Constitutional Court expressed over all that this situation is incompatible with legal certainty and predictability, and also violates fair balance, because it does not provide the guarantees foreseen in the judicial procedure for the protection of property rights, and by major- ity vote decided that the property right has been violated. In addition, the Constitutional Court also evaluated the requests for non-pecuniary compensation and retrial upon the request of the Applicant, decided to send the decision to the Regional Court of Ap- peal for retrial, and to reject the claim for compensation. At this point, the Constitutional Court considered that the retrial would provide suf- ficient compensation as the violation stemmed from the court decision, and rejected the claim for compensation. A dissenting opinion was submitted in rebuttal to the majority decision (“Dissenting Opinion”). Dissenting Opinion In the Dissenting Opinion, it is stated that the majority decision found that there was a violation only because the determination made by the previous expert report was not accepted fully, and that there