Explained: Challenges of Restoring Property Ownership Post-Assad

After the fall of the Assad regime in late 2024, citizens attempted to reclaim properties that had been confiscated, seized, or usurped – including those located within zoning and redevelopment areas. However, recovering these properties has now become a complex issue due to administrative and legal complications, making the transitional administration’s recent circulars addressing the matter largely symbolic. 

A realistic solution requires a comprehensive legal review and the establishment of clear mechanisms for restoring rights and compensating those affected. In this article, urban planning expert Main Kafa explores the multiple dimensions of the issue and presents proposals for potential solutions.

Legal violations under the Assad regime

Since 2011, the Assad regime passed a series of laws and decrees enabling the seizure of private property. Chief among them was Decree No. 63 of 2012, which allowed judicial police authorities and the Ministry of Finance to place precautionary seizures on the assets of the accused without a court order. Meanwhile, the Antiterrorism Court Law No. 22 granted the public prosecutor powers to freeze property. These powers were further reinforced by a 2019 circular from the Ministry of Local Administration, which accelerated confiscations and facilitated the transfer of seized properties to the state.

Figures from the Ministry of Finance in 2017 revealed more than 40,000 cases of asset seizure based on vague terrorism charges. For instance, in March 2024, dozens of families in Zakia, in the Damascus countryside, had their properties seized following local clashes with groups affiliated with the Fourth Division – highlighting the ease of levelling accusations and the impossibility of self-defence. In such cases, men are often conscripted, killed, detained, or forced to flee, leaving women and children particularly vulnerable to homelessness following asset seizure.

Additional exceptional laws allowed tampering with property records. Decrees No. 11 and 12 of 2016 permitted the creation of alternative registries and electronic document versions, weakening verification processes and facilitating forgery. Decree No. 66 of 2012 and Law No. 10 of 2018 introduced zoning projects in destroyed or informal areas, compensating owners with regulatory shares only if they proved ownership within a short deadline, depriving many of their rights and transforming ownership into collective shares without fair guarantees.

Beyond legal frameworks, field violations occurred during the conflict, including illegal occupation of property, such as in Baba Amro in Homs. Document forgery spread due to chaos and lack of oversight, enabling illicit appropriation. This legal, administrative, and security environment made reclaiming confiscated properties nearly impossible, especially given the displacement of owners, loss of original documents, and the paralysis of the judiciary.

Current obstacles to restitution

On January 21, the General Directorate of Cadastral Affairs issued Circular No. 1, suspending documentation of all actions that create, transfer, or amend real rights in property – including registering legal disputes – without a clear timeframe for resuming operations. A similar circular from the Ministry of Justice banned the registration of lawsuits related to property sales validation.

Though no official justification has been given for this freeze, it likely aims to prevent fraudulent property transactions or those initiated by individuals implicated in crimes under the former regime. However, this freeze effectively restricts the rights of legitimate owners and complicates the real estate landscape, especially since no mechanism or timetable was provided. Only some administrative actions unrelated to ownership transfer (like issuing cadastral records, survey data, description corrections, and subdivisions) were exempted.

There is no clear appeals or grievance mechanism. Property seizure orders issued by the Antiterrorism Court remain in effect, even though the court’s rulings are no longer considered legitimate. Despite a February 18 circular permitting contract registration and legal notation after aligning supporting documents with the cadastral law, the measure has limited impact and does not enable the removal of seizure notations or restoration of confiscated rights.

Proposed solutions

Restoring confiscated properties requires sweeping judicial and legislative reform – an expectation of the constitutional declaration. However, the current transitional constitutional declaration undermines judicial authority and independence by granting the president unchecked powers over judicial and legislative appointments. Articles 47 and 48 refer to judicial independence and justice procedures, but lack effective enforcement mechanisms or impartial oversight.

To address the situation, here are some potential measures:

1. Conduct a nationwide survey to identify confiscated or seized properties, assess current status, and evaluate any new rights associated with them.
2. Prepare inventories of properties seized under rulings by the Counterterrorism and Field Courts. Access to records from the Ministries of Justice and Finance must be expedited.
3. Suspend all measures resulting from property confiscation orders issued by military and terrorism courts, including unexecuted rulings and property transfers to the State.
4. Establish specialised property courts and create an independent body – under international oversight – to handle complaints and facilitate restitution of homes and other assets.
5. Engage international legal expertise to assist with the comprehensive review of Syrian property laws under transitional justice frameworks. If new laws are adopted, ensure their transparent passage and implementation to foster public trust, particularly in light of the president’s near-total control over the legislative process.
6. Avoid unjust evictions of secondary occupants without fair conflict resolution mechanisms, which could otherwise exacerbate homelessness and deepen societal divisions – especially for those without alternative housing.
7. Mobilise skilled support networks, including volunteer engineers and lawyers, to help rightful owners draft applications, identify properties, and gather required documentation.
8. Set up legal-engineering aid clinics in municipalities to document grievances, offer legal and technical advice, and refer individuals to the appropriate service providers.
9. Train legal and judicial professionals on alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and identify which disputes can be addressed under such frameworks.
10. Ensure vulnerable groups have access to these mechanisms and are protected from discrimination based on gender, religion, region, or political opinion – particularly addressing the common gender bias in traditional frameworks.
11. Enhance access to information, allowing civil society actors – especially unions – to obtain cadastral and zoning maps so they can meaningfully contribute to restitution efforts and reconstruction policymaking.
12. Support union independence, recognising that unions are civil society entities, not state institutions, as was the practice under the old regime and its immediate aftermath.
13. Activate and modernise the Official Gazette, making it publicly accessible online, and partner with the media to disseminate accurate information to the public.

These preliminary measures can pave the way for transitional justice in property matters and resolve many of the existing and emerging challenges exacerbated by rushed or retributive legal approaches. Without such systemic reforms, administrative efforts will remain superficial, perpetuate dysfunction, and leave the property issue hostage to unresolved political calculations.