Kamulaştırma kanunu bağlamında trampa usulü ile kamulaştırma
Expropriation by exchange method within the context of the expropriation law
- Tez No: 1006768
- Danışmanlar: DOÇ. DR. CENK YAŞAR ŞAHİN
- Tez Türü: Yüksek Lisans
- Konular: Hukuk, Law
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Belirtilmemiş.
- Yıl: 2023
- Dil: Türkçe
- Üniversite: İstanbul Üniversitesi
- Enstitü: Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
- Ana Bilim Dalı: Kamu Hukuku Ana Bilim Dalı
- Bilim Dalı: İdare Hukuku Bilim Dalı
- Sayfa Sayısı: Belirtilmemiş.
Özet
Trampa usulü ile kamulaştırma, paranın değişim aracı olarak diğer değişim araçlarına göre daha isabetli ve güvenilir değerleme yapabilmesi ve herhangi bir değere çevrilirken bir meta olarak para nesnesine olan güvenin ulus devlet güvencesi altında olmasından dolayı malikler tarafından satın alma usulü ile kamulaştırmaya göre daha az tercih edilmektedir. Bu usul, kamulaştırma sürecinin içerisinde idari aşamada yer alır ve kamulaştırma bedeli olarak malike nakdi ödeme yapılmasının istisnasıdır. Kamulaştırma Kanunu'nun 26. maddesinde düzenlenen trampa usulü ile kamulaştırma müessesesi, kanunda irade serbestisine yeteri kadar yer verilmediği için çok sık işletilen bir usul değildir. Bunun için taşınırların da trampaya dahil olabileceği yeni bir düzenleme gereklidir. Bu düzenleme ihtiyaca cevap verme hususunda özellikle maliki tatmin edecektir. Ancak bu düzenleme tek taraflı olmalıdır. İdare malikten taşınır alamamalıdır. Çünkü bu durumda taşınır kamulaştırması yani istimval gündeme gelebilecektir. Yüzde yüz yirmilik üst sınıra riayet edildiği takdirde idareler maliklerin taşınmazlara dair isteklerine mümkün mertebe saygı duymalıdır. Trampa usulü ile kamulaştırma, kamulaştırma sürecinin idari aşamada tarafların uzlaşmasıyla son bulur. Malikler uzlaşma görüşmelerine satın alma usulü veya trampa usulü ile anlaşma imkanlarının olduğu bildirilerek davet edilir. Meşruhatlı davetiyede malikin taşınmazının tahmini bedeli ve trampaya konu olabilecek idare taşınmazlarının değerleri belirtilmemektedir. Bu düzenlemenin kendisine davet yapılan malikin önündeki seçenekleri bir an önce öğrenip bu duruma göre kendisine maksimum fayda sağlayacak şekilde değerlendirme yapmasını engelleyici nitelikte olduğu ifade edilebilir. Malikler iyi yönetişim ilkesi gereği şeffaflık sağlanarak bilgilendirilmeli ve sürece katılmaları ve dolayısıyla yön vermeleri teşvik edilmelidir. İyi yönetişim ilkesinin uygulamalarının en kolay görülebileceği aşama uzlaşma görüşmeleridir. İdareler maliklerin iradelerine kamu yararı çerçevesinde azami seviyede saygı göstermelidir. Maliklerin iradelerinin uzlaşma görüşmelerine yön verdiği bir uygulama iyi yönetişimin kurumsallaşıp içselleştirilmesine de katkı sağlayacaktır. Taraflar uzlaşma görüşmeleri esnasında taşınmaz trampası üzerindeki ve aradaki fark kadar denklik parası ödenmesi üzerinde anlaşabilirler. Bu düzenleme irade serbestisi ilkesine çok dar şekilde yer verdiği için eleştiriye açıktır. Malikin trampa hususundaki iradesi oluştuktan sonra maliki sadece taşınmaz ve denklik parası ile sınırlamak trampa konusundaki seçenekleri azaltıcı mahiyet taşımaktadır. Diğer yandan uzlaşma tutanağı özel hukuk niteliği ağır basan bir sözleşmedir ve bu sözleşmenin ihtiyaca cevap vermesi bakımından irade serbestisi ilkesine uygun şekilde daha geniş seçenekler değerlendirilerek yapılabilmesi gerekir.
Özet (Çeviri)
Expropriation with the exchange method is less preferred by the owners than expropriation with the purchase method, since the money as a means of exchange can be valued more accurately and reliably than other means of exchange, and the reliability of money as a commodity while being converted into another value is under the guarantee of the nation state. This procedure is an exceptional method of acquiring property in which the owner is paid in kind as the expropriation price. Expropriation with the exchange method ends with the agreement of the parties at the administrative stage of the expropriation process. Owners are invited to reconciliation negotiations by informing that they have the opportunity to agree with the purchase method or the exchange method. In the annotated invitation, the estimated price of the owner's immovable and the values of the administrative immovables that may be subject to exchange are not specified. It can be said that this arrangement prevents the owner from being invited to learn the options in front of him as soon as possible and evaluate it in a way that will provide maximum benefit to him/her according to this situation. Owners should be informed by providing transparency in accordance with the principle of good governance, and they should be encouraged to participate in the process and thus to give direction. The stage where the applications of the good governance principle can be seen most easily is in the reconciliation negotiations. The administrations should respect the will of the owners at the highest level within the framework of the public interest. An application in which the will of the owners directs the reconciliation negotiations will also contribute to the institutionalization and internalization of good governance. During the settlement negotiations, the parties may agree on the payment of an equivalence money on the immovable exchange and equal to the difference. This regulation is open to criticism as it very narrowly includes the principle of freedom of will. After the owner's will regarding exchange is formed, limiting the owner only to immovable and equivalence money reduces the options regarding exchange. On the other hand, the reconciliation report is a contract with a predominant private law nature, and in order to meet the needs of this contract, it should be made by evaluating wider options in accordance with the principle of freedom of will. According to Article 26 of the Expropriation Law, the immovable to be given by the administration will know at most twenty percent more than the value of the expropriated immovable. The owner shall pay the difference in value as equivalence money. In the letter of the law, it is stated that the subject of the agreement can only be real estate exchange and equivalence money. However, the law does not specify whether more than one immovable property can be given to the owner, whether two different owners whose immovables are expropriated can be jointly owned or not, whether it is possible for the administration and the owner to have joint ownership on an income-generating immovable, and whether it is possible to give the owner an easement instead of the transfer of the entire immovable. not regulated. The most decisive limitation of the law is that the value of the immovable to be given by the administration can be at most one hundred and twenty percent of the expropriated immovable. Here, the law limited the immovables in terms of value, not in terms of quantity. Therefore, there is no obstacle to the granting of more than one immovable property to the owner, provided that it is in accordance with the value limitation. Such an approach will also contribute to the owner's participation in the process and directing the process in accordance with the principle of good governance. Another issue to be addressed is whether two different owners whose immovables have been expropriated will have the same immovable. Here, while applying the one hundred and twenty percent upper limit rule regarding the real estate, the value of both real estates should be considered as a whole. If the owners agree on shared ownership, this request of the owners should be respected and accepted by the administration. The acceptance of this will of the owners will show that the good governance principle is accepted by the administration. One of the most special cases in terms of increasing the operability of expropriation by exchange method is whether the administration and the owner can have joint ownership of an income-generating immovable. The administration's renunciation of a revenue-generating immovable will mean that it gives up a value that can be devoted to the public interest. The main reason why the owner sees exchange as beneficial and reasonable for himself may be that he is partly a partner in the income obtained from the administration's real estate. In particular, it should be possible for administrations that can create other revenue generation methods to accept this offer. Because in this way, both the income-generating real estate is not completely out of the hands of the administration, and an interpretation-implementation that expands the exchange is preferred in accordance with the freedom of will by respecting the will of the owner. It should be possible for the administration to grant easement, regardless of whether it is regular or irregular, instead of completely transferring the immovable to the owner with dry ownership, provided that legal limits are followed. The limitation of the law was made in terms of the value of the immovable to be disposed of by the administration. In other words, the administration acquires an immovable by expropriation and in return, there is a decrease in value from it. While it is possible for the depreciation to be permanent, it should be possible temporarily. It should also be underlined that this situation is compatible with the interpretation that most of them can do less than those who are authorized to do. Expropriation with the exchange procedure regulated in Article 26 of the Expropriation Law is not a frequently used procedure since the law does not include sufficient freedom of will. For this, a new regulation is required in which movables can also be included in the exchange. This arrangement will especially satisfy the owner in terms of responding to the need. However, this arrangement should be one-sided. The administration should not be able to take movable from the owner. Because in this case, expropriation of movables, that is, istimval, may come to the agenda. If the one hundred and twenty percent upper limit is respected, the administrations should respect the wishes of the owners regarding the immovables as much as possible.
Benzer Tezler
- İmar uygulamalarında tescilli kültür varlıklarına ilişkin koruma alanlarının akk CBS ile belirlenmesi: Zonguldak ili Kdz. Ereğli ilçesi örneği
Determination of protection areas regarding the registered cultural assets in zoning applications with open source code GIS: Case of Zonguldak / Kdz. Ereğili district
HAVA KALYONCU TOPÇU
Yüksek Lisans
Türkçe
2019
Jeodezi ve FotogrametriZonguldak Bülent Ecevit ÜniversitesiGeomatik Mühendisliği Ana Bilim Dalı
DR. ÖĞR. ÜYESİ HAKAN AKÇIN
- Türkiye'de kentsel dönüşüm uygulamaları için matematiksel bir model önerisi
A mathematical model suggestion for urban transformation in Turkey
HALİL İBRAHİM POLAT
Doktora
Türkçe
2017
Şehircilik ve Bölge PlanlamaYıldız Teknik ÜniversitesiMimarlık Ana Bilim Dalı
DOÇ. DR. CANDAN ÇITAK
- Urban transformation as political and ideological intervention in space: A case study in Diyarbakır
Mekana politik ve ideolojik bir müdahale olarak kentsel dönüşüm: Diyarbakır örneği
DİREN TAŞ
Yüksek Lisans
İngilizce
2019
SosyolojiOrta Doğu Teknik ÜniversitesiSosyoloji Ana Bilim Dalı
YRD. DOÇ. DR. BARIŞ MÜCEN