Properties of Armenians from Hatay not returned despite Constitutional Court ruling: Church Foundation files criminal complaint

The legal process initiated for the return of 36 properties in Hatay has not been concluded despite the Constitutional Court (AYM) ruling. The Armenian Church Foundation argued that the properties had passed to the Treasury and private individuals over time. The Foundation applied to the General Directorate of Foundations in 2012 for their return, but the request was rejected on the grounds that the properties were not included in the 1936 Declaration.

Following this decision, the Foundation applied to administrative courts. The Hatay 1st Administrative Court and the Council of State's 10th Chamber rejected the Foundation's request, citing the 1936 Declaration. Consequently, the Foundation filed an individual application with the Constitutional Court in 2018.

According to a report by Agos newspaper, in its 2022 ruling, the Constitutional Court determined that the Foundation was not within Turkey's borders in 1936 and that it was impossible for it to have submitted a declaration. The Constitutional Court emphasized that the Foundation's specific situation was not taken into account in the application of provisional articles 7 and 11 of the Law on Foundations, and that this situation led to a 'violation of the right to property'.

The Constitutional Court sent its decision to the Council of State's 10th Chamber and the Hatay 1st Administrative Court. The Council of State complied with the Constitutional Court's ruling and referred the file to the Hatay 1st Administrative Court. On November 19, 2024, the court notified the General Directorate of Foundations of its decision regarding the return of the properties.

THEY ISSUED THE SAME DECISION AGAIN AFTER LOSING ON APPEAL

The General Directorate of Foundations, objecting to the Constitutional Court's ruling, took the decision to appeal. The Council of Foundations met on November 11, 2024, and once again rejected the return of the properties on the grounds that the Foundation did not submit a declaration in 1936.

The Council of Foundations' decision included the following statement:

''Under provisional article 11 of the Law on Foundations No. 5737, for properties to be registered, the foundation must be recorded in the 1936 Declaration.''

The Armenian Church Foundation has filed a criminal complaint with the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office against the members of the Council of Foundations. Describing the failure to implement the Constitutional Court's ruling as 'unlawful', the foundation's lawyer Sebu Aslangil cited articles 10, 35, 153, and 138 of the Constitution, arguing that the Council members did not comply with the Constitutional Court's ruling.

Regarding the decision, Aslangil stated, ''Constitutional Court rulings are final and binding. The Council of Foundations' failure to comply with this ruling is unlawful.''

News Source: 12punto