Compensation for Unauthorised Occupation (Ecrimisil) and Removal of Interference

Two separate claims, usually one action

If your property is being used without permission, two separate legal claims arise:

Removal of interference (men'i müdahale). The claim that the interference be stopped, the occupied part vacated and any additions removed. Its basis is the owner's power of disposal over the property (Article 683 of the Turkish Civil Code, TMK).

Ecrimisil (compensation for unauthorised occupation). It is the equivalent of the income you were deprived of because you could not use the property in the past period. The amount is calculated by a court-appointed expert on the basis of comparable rent or agricultural income according to the character of the property. In practice it may be claimed retrospectively for a five-year period.

The bad faith requirement

A claim for ecrimisil requires the user to be in bad faith: knowing, or being in a position where he should have known, that the property does not belong to him. Ecrimisil cannot be claimed from a person in good faith who genuinely believes himself to be the owner, but removal of interference can still be sought in that case.

A notice can help prove awareness of the owner’s rights, but it is not invariably the starting date of compensation. Bad faith and the period of unauthorised occupation are assessed from the facts. Between co-owners, prior exclusion from enjoyment (intifadan men) is generally required, with recognised exceptions depending on the property and use.

The special position between co-owners

In shared ownership every co-owner has the right to benefit from the whole property. For that reason one co-owner's use of the property is not in itself unauthorised occupation. For the other co-owner to claim ecrimisil, as a rule he must have notified the other side that he wishes to benefit from the property and have been denied use despite that. This rule, called the requirement of exclusion from use (intifadan men), is not required in certain cases (such as sole use of the income-producing part of the property).

If the use dispute between co-owners has become permanent, the lasting solution is an action for dissolution of co-ownership.

Boundary and encroaching structure disputes

A neighbouring parcel building across the boundary is common in land files. Here the site inspection and the cadastral expert are decisive: the boundary on the sheet is compared with the actual boundary on the ground. If the encroaching structure was built in good faith and the encroaching part is small, the law in certain cases allows the owner of the structure to be granted ownership or an easement over the encroaching part (Article 725 TMK). For that reason not every encroaching structure automatically ends in demolition.

For general information purposes; every file is assessed through a site inspection and court-appointed expert examination.