NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

289 CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW has been no evaluation as to whether the amount determined by the Regional Court of Appeal in the additional claim reflects the real value of the real estate or not. Moreover, it also stated that the approach of the majority decision extends the principle of binding conclusive evidence (the scope and limits of which is controversial even in judicial decisions and in doc- trine, and which is a law-level protection) even beyond the principle of immunity of final judgement (which is no doubt a constitutional guarantee). Moreover, it is stated in the Dissenting Opinion that accepting that the expert report, which is clearly based on an erroneous calcula- tion, and which would lead to the applicant’s unjust enrichment, is binding in other trials (citing the principle procedural law in the form of the binding of conclusive evidence) is incorrect. Conclusion The Constitutional Court, in the examination made upon the application due to the facts that became conclusive evidence in the partial claim were not taken into account in the additional action and evaluated the issue within the scope of property right, it concluded by majority that the property right was violated. Although a dissent- ing vote was written, the Constitutional Court ruled that the right to property was violated, through a majority vote. With this decision, the Constitutional Court ruled on an important issue, as it was also subject to the decisions of the Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, and concluded that the property right, one of the most important guarantees of the constitution regard- ing economic rights was violated.