Specialised Courts Assigned to Examine Assad-Era Property Ownership Cases

On October 20, the Syrian Ministry of Justice issued Decision No. 2064, designating specific courts to examine cases of property ownership, unlawful seizure, and illegal possession of real estate that have occurred since 2011 up to the fall of the Assad regime at the end of 2024. The decision stipulates that the Second Chamber in both the Courts of First Instance and Appeal within each judicial district will be tasked with hearing such cases.

A single court, whether a Court of First Instance or an Appeal Court, may comprise several chambers, each with jurisdiction over specific types of cases depending on judicial distribution or the volume of pending lawsuits.

Decision No. 2064 aligns with the Code of Civil Procedure Law No. 1 of 2016, which grants the Courts of First Instance jurisdiction over all real estate disputes, regardless of the property’s value. The decision specifies that all ongoing cases must be referred to the Second Chamber of either the Court of First Instance or the Court of Appeal, as it holds judicial authority to review such matters.

Procedural process

The procedural path requires that a lawsuit concerning a property ownership dispute be filed before the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance, accompanied by evidence and supporting documents proving ownership. Claimants must also request placing a notation of the lawsuit on the property record, since the case concerns the ownership itself. The ruling issued by the Court of First Instance may be appealed exclusively before the Second Chamber of the Court of Appeal, as specified by the new decision. The Court of Appeal then re-examines the facts and evidence, allowing parties to submit additional documents, raise defences, and present new motions during the appeal stage.

After the Court of Appeal issues its ruling, it may be challenged before the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation’s role is limited to reviewing legal errors contained in the Appeal Court’s judgment, without reconsidering the facts of the case.

If the Court of Cassation finds no legal error, it issues a decision rejecting the appeal. However, if it identifies a legal flaw in the contested ruling, it issues a decision annulling the judgment and returning the file to its legal reference (the Court of Appeal that issued it) for reconsideration and correction of the identified error.

Reducing delays and granting immediate enforcement

In practice, these procedures sprawl out over an average of two years. The new ministerial decision acknowledges this issue and recommends that courts handling such cases shorten the intervals between hearings. It also calls for ensuring that these courts are not burdened with unrelated cases, restricting their jurisdiction exclusively to property ownership disputes, which would help expedite proceedings.

The decision further encourages courts to issue their judgments with a clause of immediate enforceability. Normally, civil court rulings, including those issued by Courts of First Instance, cannot be executed while they remain subject to appeal before higher courts. However, the Code of Civil Procedure allows a court to grant immediate enforceability if it finds sufficient justification.

Decision No. 2064 encourages courts to activate this provision. For example, if a Court of First Instance rules to revoke the registration of a property from the defendant’s name and transfer it to the plaintiff, the court may also decide to make the judgment immediately enforceable, allowing the plaintiff to take possession even before the appeal period ends. If the ruling is later overturned and the plaintiff’s claim is dismissed, the property would then be returned to its previous state and ownership restored to the defendant.

Ministry’s explanatory statement

On October 23, the Ministry of Justice issued an explanatory statement regarding Decision No. 2064, outlining the reasons behind it. The ministry stated that its objective is to establish a comprehensive plan to address cases of property seizure and restore properties to their rightful owners. It concluded that the most effective solution is to dedicate specific courts to these cases, requiring them to shorten hearing schedules and simplify procedures to expedite the resolution of disputes and the restitution of rights.

Although the statement referenced the “Clear Expropriation Committees” previously formed by governors in several governorates, neither Decision No. 2064 nor the explanatory statement clarified whether these committees will continue operating alongside the courts. Practically speaking, the continuation of their work seems unnecessary following the activation of the civil judiciary’s role under the ministry’s new decision.

These committees had been limited to assessing the legitimacy of possession and control over properties without examining the “substantive right” of ownership. Their role was to evacuate a property if the possessor was deemed to have no legitimate right to it, without investigating legal documentation. In many cases, the committees referred plaintiffs to the judiciary to prove their rights and obtain a ruling confirming their ownership of the property.