Governorates Establish Committees to Restore Seized Properties

More than six months have passed since the fall of the Assad regime, but a unified legal mechanism to handle the restoration of properties that were seized and transferred to others has not yet been issued. Efforts to return properties have been limited to some governorate councils forming administrative committees to receive complaints and offer proposals to resolve them. However, these attempts remain scattered, lacking coordination, a unified operating mechanism, or even a basic agreement on the nature of the properties targeted for resolution.

In Homs, the governor issued Decision No. 1 on January 13, 2025, which provided for the formation of a committee to address cases of property extortion. This refers to the obvious and overt seizure of a property without legal grounds, whether that be a deed of ownership, a rental contract, or any official document proving legitimate possession. The formation of the committee is based on Article 45 of the Local Administration Law No. 107 of 2011, which states that in cases of “clear expropriation” of a property, the governor has the right to decide to restore the situation to its original state. The administrative decision to remove the expropriation remains effective until it is either revoked or amended by the governor or until a final judicial ruling is issued regarding the ownership dispute.

The committee formed by the governor of Homs is authorised to receive applications from individuals whose properties have been seized, provided these applications are accompanied by documents proving ownership, such as a title deed, a recent land registry certificate, or a court ruling confirming the sale, duly authenticated. Once the claim is verified, the committee may decide to evict the unlawful occupant and restore the property to its original state, without waiting for the lengthy judicial process.

Subsequently, the governor of Aleppo issued Decision No. 9 on March 4 to form a committee tasked with examining what was described as “cases of unlawful property seizure” during the Assad regime, and to take the necessary administrative steps to return rights to their owners. It appears from the decision’s context that “unlawful seizure” refers to property extortion.

Legally, neither the Aleppo nor Homs committees have the authority to determine ownership. For instance, if the person who seized the property holds a title deed, such as having acquired the property through a final allocation decision following a public auction based on a ruling from the Terrorism Court, the administrative committee cannot take any action. In such cases, the matter must be settled by the courts to determine the annulment of the property registration and the invalidation of the transfer of ownership.

A different approach was taken in the Hama Governorate. The General Secretariat of the governorate issued Circular No. 917/1 on May 19, announcing the start of accepting complaints and requests regarding cases of property seizure, in order to “protect citizens’ rights and safeguard private properties in the governorate,” as stated in the circular. The circular identified two types of seizures for which the General Secretariat would accept complaints:

The first type are property seizures carried out “customarily” during the Assad regime era, whether these properties were registered in the name of the state or not. The circular did not provide additional clarification about the terms “seizure” and “customary,” leaving their definitions, how the seizures were carried out, and how to distinguish between cases where the property was registered in the name of the state and those where it was not, unclear. Generally, the word “seizure” refers to the illegal expropriation of property by individuals, whereas “customary” was not previously used to describe property seizures, leaving it open to interpretation without clear definition.

The second type includes properties confiscated by rulings from the Antiterrorism Court or similar courts such as the Field Court. Circular No 917/1 specified only properties that were registered in the name of the state, excluding properties confiscated and sold at public auction to others based on rulings from the Antiterrorism Court. These latter cases were excluded from the scope of the circular.

The circular stated that applications would be accepted at the governorate building during official working hours and must be submitted by the property owner, their legal representative, or one of their heirs within 30 days from the date of the circular’s issuance. It did not specify provisions for those unable to submit their applications within the mentioned period or the process they could follow to file complaints about their properties.

The circular required the applicant to attach supporting documents, such as a personal ID and proof of ownership in the form of a property certificate dated no more than three days prior to submission. The certificate must include the names of the owners and annotations recorded in the property register. If the applicant is an heir, the circular requires a certificate of inheritance to prove this status, along with a letter of authorisation from the other heirs or co-owners of the property.

Apart from the confusion between legal concepts and the ambiguous language, the circular’s insistence on including a property certificate listing the owners contradicts its objective of addressing cases of properties registered in the name of the state. This approach is illogical unless it is intended for cases of clear expropriation where the property remains in the original owner’s name. Furthermore, the circular did not specify how complaints and requests would be reviewed or whether a committee would be formed to examine the submitted applications, nor did it specify which body would be responsible for this task.

By insisting on attaching a property registry certificate to the complaint, the circular implicitly restricts eligible complaints to properties located in formally zoned areas with registered property records. The circular did not mention the possibility of submitting requests in cases where the ownership document is a court ruling. The lack of explicit mention of this possibility means it is not permitted. Usually, when ownership proof is a court ruling, this involves properties in informal housing areas or unauthorised properties in formally organised areas not covered by property registries.

From a legal perspective, cases concerning the transfer of private ownership to the state cannot be settled by an administrative committee or a governorate’s general secretariat. An administrative committee, regardless of its composition, is not qualified to determine the substance or origin of ownership rights. Cases of this nature require a judicial body that operates according to a clear and unified legal methodology at the national level.