Unlawful Occupation of Property in Türkiye: Claiming Ecrimisil Damages

An owner whose property is occupied, farmed, rented out, or otherwise used by someone without legal right or permission can claim compensation for that unlawful use, in addition to seeking an order to end the interference itself. This compensation, known in Turkish practice as ecrimisil, does not require proof of the occupier's bad faith, though bad faith can affect the amount and period covered.

Unlawful occupation disputes commonly arise when a foreign owner discovers that their land or building in Türkiye has been occupied, cultivated, rented to a third party, or otherwise used by someone without the owner's consent, sometimes over an extended period during which the owner was abroad. The owner has two related but distinct interests: ending the ongoing interference (through an action to prevent interference, elatmanın önlenmesi) and recovering compensation for the value of the unauthorised use during the period it occurred.

Turkish civil law protects an owner's right to use, enjoy and dispose of their property and gives the owner a claim to prevent interference by others. Compensation for the value of unauthorised use of another's property is recognised in Turkish practice as a distinct claim, assessed by reference to what the occupier gained or what a reasonable rental value of the property would have been during the period of occupation, rather than requiring proof of actual loss suffered by the owner in every respect.

Turkish courts typically calculate compensation for unlawful occupation based on expert assessment of the property's rental or usage value for the relevant period, considering the property's location, condition and type of use. Courts also examine how the occupation began and continued, for example whether it started with permission that was later withdrawn, or without permission from the outset, since this can affect the compensation period and amount. Courts distinguish this claim from a separate criminal law route that may apply where occupation involves illegal seizure of land.

A debated issue is the interaction between claims for unlawful occupation compensation and separate claims for physical damage caused to the property during the period of occupation, which may need to be pursued together or separately depending on the facts. Another point of practical debate is how far back compensation can be claimed where the occupation has continued for a long period, since this interacts with the applicable limitation rules.

An owner should establish ownership of the property, the fact and period of unauthorised occupation or use, and the absence of a valid legal right (such as a lease or licence) on the part of the occupier. Where the occupation is ongoing, the owner will usually also seek an order requiring the occupier to vacate or stop the interference, alongside the compensation claim.

Claims for compensation for unlawful occupation are subject to limitation periods that generally run from each period of use, meaning that older periods of occupation can become time-barred while more recent periods remain claimable. Because of this rolling effect, owners who discover unauthorised use of their property should act promptly to protect the full period of their claim.

These claims are generally heard by the civil courts of general jurisdiction at the location of the property. Where the occupation also involves criminal conduct, such as unlawful seizure of land, a separate criminal complaint may be pursued in parallel with the civil claim.

• title deed records confirming ownership of the property;
• evidence of the occupation, such as photographs, witness statements or official reports;
• any prior permission or lease that has expired or been withdrawn;
• evidence of comparable rental values for similar properties in the area;
• correspondence or notices sent to the occupier demanding they vacate or pay;
• records of visits, inspections or local authority reports concerning the property.

Owners sometimes assume that simply notifying the occupier or local authorities is enough, without pursuing the formal compensation claim within the applicable time limits, resulting in lost periods of compensation. Another common mistake is failing to document the property's condition and rental value at the relevant time, which weakens the compensation claim later. Foreign owners who are absent for long periods should be aware that unauthorised occupation can sometimes continue undetected for years, making periodic checks on property in Türkiye important.

Ecrimisil claims depend heavily on evidence of the occupation period and comparable usage value, so early documentation is important once unauthorised use is discovered. We recommend that owners who become aware of unauthorised occupation of their Turkish property act promptly, both to stop the ongoing interference and to preserve their compensation claim for as much of the relevant period as the facts and time limits allow.