October 2025 – In its decision dated 12 December 2024 and published in the Official Gazette No. 33046 on 13 October 2025, the Constitutional Court examined the constitutionality of long-term seizure measures imposed under Article 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Law No. 5271) through land registry annotations.
The Constitutional Court held that the extended maintenance of such seizure annotations, even without physical confiscation, constitutes a disproportionate interference with the right to property protected under Article 35 of the Constitution, and that the limited interpretation of Article 141(1)(j), which allows compensation only where there is physical seizure- renders the right to an effective remedy under Article 40 ineffective.
Background
Under Article 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seizure measures may be implemented by physically confiscating property or by entering an annotation in the relevant registry.
Pursuant to Article 141(1)(j), individuals may seek compensation if such measures are unlawfully imposed.
However, the Court of Cassation’s settled case law has held that compensation may only be claimed where the property was physically seized, excluding cases where the restriction consisted solely of a registry annotation.
The Constitutional Court’s Assessment
The Constitutional Court found that long-term registry annotations may significantly and continuously restrict an owner’s ability to dispose of or use their property, amounting to an effective deprivation of property.
It concluded that limiting the right to compensation to cases of physical seizure fails to provide an effective remedy and violates Articles 35 and 40 of the Constitution.
Recognising the structural nature of the issue, the Constitutional Court issued a pilot judgement, calling on the legislature to establish an effective compensation mechanism for individuals whose assets remain under prolonged seizure through registry annotations.
Outcome
The Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to property and the right to an effective remedy, awarded non-pecuniary damages to the applicant, and instructed the Parliament to introduce a legal framework ensuring effective redress for long-term seizure annotations.