Explained: Expropriations by Municipalities in AANES Areas

On April 7, the Democratic People’s Council, which serves as the legislative authority for the Autonomous Administration in North and East Syria (AANES), issued Law No. 4 concerning municipalities and the Democratic Union of Municipalities. This law is equivalent to the Local Administration Law No. 107 of 2012 in the areas controlled by the Damascus government, encompassing similar powers and responsibilities for administrative units.

According to Law No. 4 of 2024, a municipality is a local, self-sufficient administrative service unit with social and developmental functions. It exercises legal powers within its jurisdiction, enjoys legal personality, and has a degree of financial and administrative independence. The municipal council is directly elected by the people, with the number of members determined by the population size of the city or town it manages.

The law grants extensive powers and responsibilities to the municipalities of the AANES, with one of the most significant provisions found in paragraph 17 of Article 4. This clause authorises municipalities to expropriate any property under the following conditions: the expropriation must be for public benefit, involve fair compensation, and be confirmed as necessary due to the unavailability of suitable properties owned by the local administration, as per the expropriation law.

However, the primary issue with this provision is the absence of an approved expropriation law within the AANES. In contrast, expropriations in areas controlled by the Damascus government are regulated by Expropriation Law No. 20 of 1983.

The second issue is that the expropriation conditions outlined in paragraph 17 of Article 4 are too general to effectively regulate a process as significant as expropriation, which affects property rights. This paragraph requires further elaboration and clarification through an independent expropriation law that clearly defines public benefit and fair compensation.

Public benefit is a fundamental requirement for expropriation by a public entity. If this requirement is not met, the expropriation is invalid, as established by Judicial Precedent 786 of 1996 from the Syrian Court of Cassation. However, the determination of public benefit in expropriation falls within the authority of the expropriating body, according to Judicial Precedent 979 of 1978 from the Syrian Court of Cassation. This means that the expropriating authority decides whether a project serves the public benefit, based on which the expropriation decree is issued.

According to Syrian Expropriation Law No. 20 of 1983, fair compensation must be assessed by specific criteria, evaluated by a specialist committee known as the Preliminary Valuation Committee. The valuation can be appealed before a higher committee called the Review Committee. The compensation assessment process must consider factors such as the property’s location, size, and any buildings or structures on it. Compensation must be paid within five years. If the payment period exceeds this, the expropriating body must pay legal interest at a rate of six percent per year for each year of delay.

Specific mechanisms for paying compensation must also be established. Payment can be made directly to the property owner, deposited in the owner’s name in a bank, or held in trust at the Land Record until the owner, accompanied by a representative of the expropriating body, appears to document the payment before the Director of Cadastral Affairs and register the property in the name of the expropriating entity.

The last condition mentioned in paragraph 17 of Article 4 requires verifying that there are no properties owned by the local administration that meet the needs of the service project. This condition is meant to demonstrate the necessity for expropriation. According to a judicial precedent published in issues 5 and 6 (1999) of the Lawyers’ Journal, it is established that “the basis of property expropriation should align with the needs of the public benefit project. If it is proven that the expropriation exceeds the project’s needs, the legitimacy of expropriating the excess parts is nullified.” This means that if the legitimacy of expropriating a property is nullified, the affected party can file a lawsuit in civil court to annul the expropriation based on the lack of necessity for the expropriated property.

However, the AANES’ Municipal Law No. 4 of 2024 does not specify any mechanism for verifying the unavailability of local administration-owned properties, nor does it detail how this verification should be conducted or which entity should be responsible for it. In practice, the AANES has allowed the owner of the expropriated property to file a complaint with the expropriating municipality. If the complaint is rejected, a lawsuit can then be filed in court. In cases where multiple properties are expropriated together, it is customary for the affected parties to collectively file an objection to issue a decree to stop the expropriation. This can be submitted either to the Executive Council, which functions as the government in the region and is accountable to the legislative council, or to the governing committees in the area, which are bodies under the Executive Council with specific responsibilities like the Local Administration and Environment Authority. A collective objection is considered a more significant form of pressure than an individual objection, but it typically occurs only when several properties in one area are expropriated.

Affected individuals residing outside AANES areas can approach its representative offices in some countries or Syrian embassies to arrange for an agent within the region. This agent can file objections on their behalf regarding the infringement on their property rights. However, there is no law or procedural system that outlines the mechanism for filing complaints and objections to expropriation.

For all these reasons, granting AANES municipalities the power to expropriate, amidst the absence of an expropriation law, procedural regulations, and judicial oversight, and in the context of war and displacement, could result in expropriation becoming a violation that threatens property rights.