In Türkiye, rapid urbanization, industrialization, and the expansion of energy infrastructure projects render it inevitable for electrical power transmission lines (PTLs) to traverse privately owned real property or for utility poles (pylons) to be erected on such property. The right to property, guaranteed under Article 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, may only be restricted for the public interest and by law. The statutory framework permitting the administration to interfere with private property on the grounds of public interest is the mechanism of "expropriation" regulated under Article 46 of the Constitution. However, in practice, administrative authorities or authorized distribution and transmission companies frequently interfere with private property physically or legally without conducting a lawful expropriation procedure or prior to completing expropriation proceedings. In the Turkish legal system, this situation is designated as "de facto expropriation" (unlawful seizure/taking without expropriation) and confers various compensation rights upon real property owners.

 

This study examines in detail the impact of high-voltage and low-voltage lines as well as pylons on private property, de facto expropriation lawsuits, the methodology for determining easement compensation, compensation for unlawful occupation, issues of legal standing to be sued, technical safety distances, statutes of limitations, and relevant decisions of the Constitutional Court.

 

1. Introduction and Legal Nature of De Facto Expropriation

 

Although de facto expropriation lacks a explicit statutory definition, it is defined as the situation where the administration physically or legally takes possession of privately owned real property for reasons of public interest without complying with the procedures and principles stipulated by law. This act of the administration constitutes a tortious act within the meaning of the Law of Obligations. In the face of this interference, which constitutes an unlawful infringement upon the right to property, the property owner may demand the cessation of the administration’s unlawful act (action for prevention of interference and demolition/removal), or alternatively acquiesce to the factual situation and demand payment of the actual value of the real property.

 

In our legal order, de facto expropriation manifests in two main forms:

 

• Physical Seizure: Physical interference with real property by the administration or licensee legal entities without the consent of the property owner and in the absence of a lawful expropriation decision. The erection of utility poles (pylons), the installation of transformers on the ground, or the routing of power transmission lines through the airspace above the property constitute typical examples of physical seizure.
• Legal Seizure: The long-term restriction of the owner's right to property and power of disposition through zoning plans or regulatory restrictions without any physical interference by the administration.

 

Compensation actions brought due to power transmission lines or pylons crossing real property are mixed-nature lawsuits. In these actions, while the court decrees the payment of the value of the property or easement determined by expert panels to the plaintiff owner, it simultaneously rules for the registration/cancellation of the ownership of the ground area occupied by the pylon in the name of the administration and the establishment of an easement in favor of the administration over the airspace traversed by the overhead line.

 

 

 

2. Corporate Responsibility, Allocation of Authority, and Passive Legal Standing

 

One of the most critical procedural obstacles encountered in compensation lawsuits to be filed due to power transmission lines and utility poles is the issue of "passive legal standing", which refers to whether the action is brought against the correct legal entity. When Article 19 of the Electricity Market Law No. 6446 and the provisions of the Expropriation Law No. 2942 are evaluated together, the legal regimes and responsible actors of production, transmission, and distribution activities in the electricity market are distinctively separated.

 

As a result of the privatization and restructuring processes in the Turkish electricity sector, the allocation of authority, ownership, and responsibility has been shaped according to two main types of lines:

 

• Transmission Lines (High and Extra-High Voltage): These are lines that enable the transportation of electrical energy over long distances at high voltages (generally 154 kV and 380 kV). The ownership, construction, and operation authority over these lines belong to the Turkish Electricity Transmission Corporation (TEİAŞ), a public economic enterprise. An owner whose property is traversed by a transmission line or upon whose property a transmission pylon is erected must direct their lawsuit directly against TEİAŞ.
• Distribution Lines (Medium and Low Voltage): These are lines operating at 36 kV and below, through which electrical energy is delivered to the end consumer. Although the ownership of these lines belongs to the Turkish Electricity Distribution Corporation (TEDAŞ), their operational rights have been transferred to regional private electricity distribution companies (e.g., BEDAŞ, AYEDAŞ, Toroslar EDAŞ, etc.).

 

According to the established jurisprudence of the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the defendant party must be determined by examining the voltage level of the line subject to de facto expropriation, the date of its installation, and the scope of the operating rights transfer agreements. If an action is brought against TEİAŞ even though the line is a distribution line, or against TEDAŞ/a private distribution company despite the line being a transmission line, the lawsuit is dismissed due to the lack of passive legal standing.

 

Although courts may allow the rectification of the defendant to the correct administrative body in cases of misrepresentation of the legal representative within the framework of the rules of "change of parties" or "voluntary correction of the party" regulated in Article 124 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK No. 6100), directing the lawsuit against the correct institution at the outset is critical for procedural economy.

 

The institutional division of responsibilities and the principles of passive legal standing in transmission and distribution infrastructure are summarized in the table below:

 

Line Type	Voltage Level	Owner / Licensee	Operating Entity	Correct Defendant (Passive Standing)
Transmission Line	154 kV – 380 kV (High Voltage)	TEİAŞ	TEİAŞ	Directorate General of TEİAŞ
Distribution Line	36 kV and below (Medium/Low Voltage)	TEDAŞ	Regional Distribution Company (EDAŞ)	TEDAŞ and/or Relevant Private Distribution Company
Private Generation Connection Line	Variable (Plant Output)	Private Generation Licensee	Private Generation Company	Relevant Private Legal Entity / Institution

 

3. Types of Interference with Real Property and Compensation Rights

 

The compensation items that a real property owner may claim due to energy infrastructure facilities are grouped under three main headings according to the nature of the interference and the damage sustained by the property.

 

3.1. Ownership Expropriation Compensation for Pylon Location

 

The ground area upon which the legs of the utility pole (pylon) rest and are fixed completely eliminates the owner's power of disposition. Therefore, pursuant to the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, the pylon location is accepted directly as a physical seizure of ownership. The court decrees that the full current market value of the ground area occupied by the pylon as of the lawsuit date be paid to the owner, and that this area be registered in the land registry in the name of the defendant administration or canceled from private ownership.

 

3.2. Air Line Crossing and Easement Expropriation Compensation

 

When high-voltage or low-voltage wires pass through the airspace above the property, ground ownership remains with the owner, but the usage rights above the property are restricted. Pursuant to the last paragraph of Article 11 of the Expropriation Law, the easement value corresponds to the depreciation in value that will occur in the entirety of the real property due to this right.

 

The fundamental mathematical model guiding judicial practice in calculating the Easement Compensation Amount (İKB) is as follows:

 

{İKB} = {DDO} \ F \ M

 

Where the variables in this equation represent:

 

·         İKB: Easement Compensation Amount for de facto expropriation (TL).

·         DDO: The Depreciation Rate occurring in the entirety of the real property (%).

·         F: The total parcel area of the real property (\{m}^2).

·         M: The ground market unit value of the real property per square meter (\{TL/m}^2).

 

The nature of the real property (land plot vs. agricultural land) is the primary criterion in determining the Depreciation Rate (DDO):

 

·         Land Plot: Real properties situated within zoning plans or benefiting from municipal services are considered "land plots". Value determination for land plots is established by comparison with recent, similar sales of comparable properties prior to the lawsuit date (comparable sales methodology).

·         Agricultural Land: Real properties outside zoning plans and used for agricultural purposes are considered "agricultural land". The value of agricultural land is calculated using the "net income capitalization method" based on official regional agricultural data, net crop yield, crop rotation systems, and production costs.

 

3.2.1. Upper Limit Rule in Court of Cassation Jurisprudence

 

According to the settled decisions of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers and the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, regardless of how large the area affected by the easement is, the Depreciation Rate (DDO) to occur in the entirety of the property due to the passage of a power transmission line cannot exceed:

 

·         35% of the total ownership value for agricultural lands.

·         50% of the total ownership value for land plots.

 

3.2.2. Principle of Integrity of Ground and Integral Parts (Buildings and Structures)

 

If there are integral parts such as buildings, facilities, pools, or fruit trees on the real property, the easement compensation calculation cannot be made solely based on the ground value. In accordance with the decisions of the Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers (E. 2011/5-806, K. 2012/352), the combined value of the structure and ground on the property must be determined, and the calculated Depreciation Rate (DDO) must be applied to this total value (Ground Value + Structure/Building Value) to calculate easement compensation. Applying depreciation only to the ground while omitting the building value constitutes grounds for reversal.

 

3.3. Compensation for Unlawful Occupation

 

The physical seizure of or line installation over real property by the administration without performing a lawful expropriation constitutes a tortious act. The rightful owner may claim the ownership or easement value of the property and may also demand ecrimisil (unlawful occupation damages) for the administration's past unauthorized usage.

 

Legal principles to be taken into account in ecrimisil claims are as follows:

 

·         Five-Year Statute of Limitations: Ecrimisil claims are subject to a retroactive 5-year statute of limitations. The owner may request ecrimisil for a maximum of 5 years retroactively from the date of filing the lawsuit.

·         Minimum Rental Income Principle: The amount of ecrimisil is calculated by expert witnesses based on the "minimum rental income" principle, considering comparable rental values, loss of agricultural income, or restriction of use.

·         Lawsuit Date Limitation: According to Court of Cassation practice, by filing a lawsuit for compensation due to de facto expropriation, the owner is deemed to have consented to the transfer of ownership and usage to the administration. Therefore, ecrimisil can only be requested for the period up to the filing date of the lawsuit; ecrimisil is not calculated for any period after the lawsuit date.

 

4. Technical Safety Distances, Zoning Restrictions, and Holistic Expropriation

 

The impact of power transmission lines and utility poles on property rights is not limited to the physical space occupied by the wires. Pursuant to the Regulation on Electric High Current Installations, safety clearances (safety distances) must be maintained around the lines.

 

4.1. Regulation on Electric High Current Installations and Approach Distances

 

According to the Regulation, the minimum horizontal and vertical safety distances of high-voltage line conductors to structures, roads, and trees under maximum swing conditions increase incrementally depending on the voltage level.

 

The basic safety clearances stipulated in the regulation according to nominal voltages are presented in the table below:

 

Nominal Voltage (Un​)	Minimum Operational Clearance (ao​)	Phase-to-Phase Clearance (a)	Horizontal/Vertical Approach Distance to Buildings
0.4 kV (Low Voltage)	60 mm	72 mm	2.5 – 3.5 m
3.5 – 10 kV	140 mm	170 mm	3.5 – 5.0 m
30 – 36 kV (Medium Voltage)	320 mm	390 mm	5.0 m
154 kV (High Voltage)	1330 mm	1600 mm	8.5 – 10.0 m
380 kV (Extra-High Voltage)	2500 mm+	3000 mm+	12.0 m+

 

Note: Safety distances may vary depending on the conductor cross-section, span length between poles, and sag/swing caused by ambient temperatures.

 

4.2. Loss of Zoning Rights and Psychological/Environmental Factors

 

Even if a land plot traversed by a high-voltage line has a construction permit for 5 floors according to the zoning plan, the number of floors to be constructed may be restricted to 2 or 3 floors due to safety distances required under the Regulation on Electric High Current Installations. This directly curtails the zoning rights and construction area of the plot by 40%–50%.

 

Furthermore, scientific studies and judicial precedents accept that the electromagnetic radiation anxiety created by high-voltage lines, noise emitted from conductors, and the visual detriment created by pylons (psychological and health factors) diminish the market value and commercial salability of the real property. The position of the pylon, visibility ratio, and how the line traverses the plot (bisecting it down the middle vs. clipping a corner) are direct components that increase value depreciation.

 

4.3. Remnant Parcels and Demand for Expropriation of the Entire Property

 

Under Article 12 of the Expropriation Law and judicial precedents, if the remaining portion of the parcel (remnant parcel) becomes unusable due to its geometric shape, reduction in size, or zoning restrictions as a result of a power line or pylon installation, the owner may request from the court the expropriation of the entire real property and payment of its full value.

 

Particularly in cases where the ratio of the pylon area to the total parcel area is high, or where the line bisects the plot directly down the center rendering construction completely impossible, courts rule for the payment of the value of the entire parcel.

 

5. Historical Periodization, Statute of Limitations, and Constitutional Court Rulings

 

Statutes of limitation and procedural rules in de facto expropriation cases are subject to different legal regimes based on the historical period in which the interference occurred.

 

5.1. Principle of Non-Applicability of Statutes of Limitation

 

Because the right to property is an absolute and in rem right, actions for ownership and easement values based on physical seizure by the administration are not subject to any statute of limitations or forfeiture periods. Even if the administration erected a utility pole decades ago, the registered owner or their heirs may file a lawsuit for compensation based on current market values.

 

In the past, the "20-year forfeiture period" rule contained in Article 38 of the Expropriation Law was annulled by the Constitutional Court for violating the freedom to seek remedies and the right to property, thereby reinforcing the principle that ownership cannot pass to the administration merely through the lapse of time.

 

5.2. Provisional Article 6 of Law No. 2942 and Period Differences

 

·         Interferences Between 09.10.1956 and 04.11.1983: Physical seizures occurring between these dates are evaluated under Provisional Article 6 of the Expropriation Law. For cases in this period, an administrative application and mandatory settlement procedure were primarily envisaged; in the event of litigation, fixed court fees and fixed attorney fees were applied.

·         Interferences After 04.11.1983: Pursuant to decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Court of Cassation, the restrictive provisions of Provisional Article 6 to the detriment of the owner cannot be applied to physical seizures occurring after 1983. In seizures from this period, pursuing a settlement with the administration is not a prerequisite to litigation; the owner may file a lawsuit directly in the Civil Court of First Instance (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi). Proportional court fees are paid upon filing, and proportional attorney fees are awarded in favor of the plaintiff. The value of the property is determined based on current market rates as of the lawsuit date.

Differences between historical legal regimes are compared in the table below:

 

Parameter	09.10.1956 – 04.11.1983 Period	Post-04.11.1983 Period
Statutory Basis	Expropriation Law, Provisional Art. 6	General Provisions and Judicial Precedents
Mandatory Settlement	Present (Prerequisite to filing suit)	None (Direct lawsuit permissible)
Statute of Limitations	None	None
Fee & Attorney Fee Type	Fixed Fee and Fixed Attorney Fee	Proportional Fee and Proportional Attorney Fee
Valuation Principle	Market Value as of Lawsuit Date	Market Value as of Lawsuit Date

 

6. Judicial Precedents and Application Parameters Matrix

 

The primary judicial parameters and legal grounds applied in disputes involving power transmission lines and utility poles are summarized in the matrix below:

 

Compensation / Claim Item	Legal Grounds	Competent Court	Evaluation and Calculation Method	Statute of Limitations Status
Pylon Location Value	Law No. 2942 Art. 11 / Const. Art. 35	Civil Court of First Instance	Full market ownership value of pylon area + Registration/cancellation in Land Registry	No Statute of Limitations
Easement Value (İKB)	Law No. 2942 Art. 11/last para.	Civil Court of First Instance	\{İKB} = \{DDO} \ F \ M (Plot: Comparable Sales, Land: Net Income)	No Statute of Limitations
Land Plot Max Depreciation	Court of Cassation HGK Precedents	Expert Witness Panel	Maximum 50% value loss over the entirety of the parcel	Not Subject to Time Limits
Agr. Land Max Depreciation	Court of Cassation HGK Precedents	Expert Witness Panel	Maximum 35% value loss over the entirety of the parcel	Not Subject to Time Limits
Unlawful Occupation (Ecrimisil)	TCO No. 6098 Art. 49 / Court Precedents	Civil Court of First Instance	Retroactive from lawsuit date based on minimum comparable rental yield	5 Years (Retroactive)
Building + Ground Integrity	Court of Cassation HGK Decisions	Expert Witness Panel	Application of DDO rate to total of (Ground Value + Structure Value)	Not Subject to Time Limits

 

7. Conclusion

 

Power transmission lines traversing and utility poles erected upon privately owned real property cause significant loss in the economic and actual value of the property, despite serving the public interest. To avoid violating the constitutional right to property, while lawful expropriation by the administration remains the primary obligation, property owners hold extensive rights to compensation in cases of de facto expropriation.

 

In line with the analysis and examination of precedents conducted herein, the following points stand out:

 

1. Proper Determination of Passive Standing: Prior to filing a lawsuit, the voltage level of the line (transmission vs. distribution) must be carefully examined; claims for lines above 154 kV must be directed against TEİAŞ, whereas claims for low/medium voltage lines must be directed against TEDAŞ or the relevant private distribution company.
2. Compensation Calculation Principles: When determining easement values, the comparable sales method must be applied to land plots, and the net income method to agricultural lands. Values of structures and buildings on the property must be integrated into the calculation, and the depreciation rate must be applied over the combined total of the ground and its integral parts.
3. Statute of Limitations Guarantees: While claims for ownership and easement values are exempt from statutes of limitation, it must be borne in mind that ecrimisil claims for unlawful occupation are strictly limited to 5 years retroactively.
4. Environmental and Zoning Constraints: Zoning losses and psychological value depreciation created by the safety distances under the Regulation on Electric High Current Installations must be detailed in expert reports; in cases where the remaining parcel becomes unusable, expropriation of the entirety of the parcel should be requested.

 

Protecting the right to property and balancing unlawful administrative actions can only be achieved through properly structured judicial processes and technical expert assessments conducted in accordance with statutory rules and established precedent standards.