/ Expropriation

Posts

Profile: Expansion Areas in Aleppo City

/in , /by

For decades, the Aleppo City Council has been working on expanding the city, incorporating large areas, in the north and west, into its master zoning plan. While some of these expansion areas include informal settlements, they also encompass non-informal areas that have been fully expropriated, rezoned, and subdivided.

Since the approval of Aleppo’s master zoning plan in 2004, ratified in 2005, the City Council has prepared detailed studies and plans for 14 areas within it. These include informal settlements aimed at accommodating the city’s population growth. The total expansion areas stretch north and west of Aleppo, covering 24,000 hectares and encompassing the entire real estate areas of Kafr Hamra, Kafr Dael, Balleramoun, and Handarat, as well as parts of the real estate areas of Haritan, Al-Shuqayf, and Al-Castillo.

These fourteen areas had previously undergone a long history of expropriation or rezoning before 2004 under one of the following laws: the Cities Planning and Urban Development Law No. 9 of 1974, the Urban Expansion Law No. 60 of 1979, or its amendment by the Urban Expansion Law No. 26 of 2000. It is worth noting that the Planning and Urban Development Law No. 23 of 2015 replaced Laws No. 60 of 1979 and 26 of 2000.

However, under the 2004 master plan, all previous expansion areas were subjected to the provisions of the Urban Expansion Law No. 26 of 2000. Within the plan, the expansion areas were divided into eight areas and given new names: Northern N1-N2-N3-N4 and Western W1-W2-W3-W4.

For non-informal expansion areas, Law No. 26 of 2000 stipulated the application of its second article, involving the full expropriation of the area, followed by the preparation of a detailed plan after deducting one-third of the land for free, used for public infrastructure. The resulting residential plots, after valuation, are to be handled by selling 60 percent of them at cost price to public entities and housing cooperatives, and giving back 40 percent to the original landowners of the expropriated land.

Under Law No. 26 of 2000, the Aleppo City Council expropriated these areas, rezoning them, and divided them into plots ready for construction. The council took on the task of preparing the plots for construction, which included levelling the land and providing the necessary infrastructure and public amenities, such as roads, parks, water, electricity, and sewage networks. The costs of these facilities are added to the overall cost of the area, affecting the price of the plots that the council is entitled to sell.

There are three categories of construction-ready plots:

Firstly, plots for public structures: These include buildings for the city council, schools, hospitals, police stations, mosques, cultural centres, and sports fields. Public sector institutions are expected to construct these buildings and hand them over to the relevant authorities without any financial compensation.

Secondly, plots for service buildings: These include markets, commercial shops, and professional trade markets, which the city council has the right to sell to the private sector.

Third, residential plots: These are intended for residential buildings and constitute the largest portion, representing 60 percent of the total plots. These plots are allocated to housing cooperatives and public sector institutions for cooperative and social housing projects.

Additionally, within this category, shares equivalent to the estimated value of their expropriated properties are allocated to the original landowners, who must build on these plots at their own expense. Alternatively, owners can be paid expropriation compensation within five years of the expropriation decree.

The City Council allocated some of the construction-ready plots in the N1, N4, and W3 areas to registered housing cooperatives in Aleppo. The council assigned each cooperative a specific number of plots, distributed equally among them. These plots were sold to the cooperatives under official contracts, with payments made in instalments.

In late 2009, the City Council began distributing the construction-ready plots purchased by the housing cooperatives. The cooperatives are responsible for constructing residential buildings on these plots and selling them to their applicants. In 2011, the Prime Minister issued letter No. 14071 to the Ministry of Local Administration and Environment and the Ministry of Economy and Foreign Trade to complete the distribution and handover procedures for the plots allocated to housing cooperatives in the N1, N4, and W3 areas. However, the entire process came to a halt due to the revolution, the subsequent war, and the ensuing siege and destruction in Aleppo.

The Aleppo City Council did not fulfil its required tasks of preparing the plots for construction or providing them with infrastructure and public facilities. One of the flaws of Law No. 26 of 2000 is that it did not impose any time limits, financial penalties, or interest for delays in the rezoning and subdivision of the expansion areas. The law also did not require the administrative units to compensate those affected by the expropriation of their properties for delays in handing over the allocated plots or failing to pay expropriation compensation. The same applies to the housing cooperatives, which were unable to meet their commitments to their applicants.

Armed opposition forces managed to take control of parts of the western expansion areas, but in early 2020, regime forces, supported by militias loyal to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, regained control of these areas. Meanwhile, some northern expansion areas are currently under the control of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units. The remaining expansion areas are almost completely destroyed due to battles and heavy shelling by regime forces between 2013 and 2016.

AANES Expropriations Spark Dispute

/in , /by

AANES recent moves to expropriate lands to implement a water project in Hassekeh and a project to expand the road between Qamishli and Malikiyah has sparked controversy among property owners due to the lack of fair compensation and legal uncertainty.

In August 2023, the Local Administration and Environment Authority in the Jazira region launched a project to bring water to the city of Hassakeh. This project involves the expropriation of agricultural lands south of the city of Amouda. The urgent need for water in Hassakeh seems to have compelled the Autonomous Administration in North and East Syria (AANES) to expedite the water conveyance project before passing an expropriation law. As a result, the compensation process for expropriated lands is left to the discretion of local officials, causing landowners to raise objections.

According to the administrative regulations of the AANES, the Local Administration and Environment Authority is the highest authority overseeing regional municipalities. The Jazira region includes the cities of Qamishli, Hassakeh, Amouda, and Malikiyah. In August 2023, the Authority decided to expropriate five hectares of agricultural land in the villages of Sanjaq Saadoun, Kandour, Sanjaq Khalil, Kar Khaled, and Qazlajoukh, south of Amuda. The project, designed and executed by the Local Administration Authority, involved drilling twenty wells, installing a pumping station, laying pipelines, and constructing a water collection basin. However, due to some objections, the Authority has only managed to complete nine wells to date.

According to Article 58 of the Municipality and Democratic Municipalities Union Law No. 4 of 2024, issued by the Democratic Assembly of Peoples, the legislative arm of the AANES, the Regional Municipalities Union Council is responsible for approving strategic projects, such as road construction and expansion and the establishment of infrastructure facilities. The law allows municipalities to expropriate any property for public benefit in exchange for fair compensation, as per the expropriation law, and after confirming that there are no local administration-owned properties that meet the service project’s needs.

Former Co-President of the Local Administration and Environment Authority in North East Syria, Media Bozan, previously stated in 2022 to the AANES’ website that several committees had been formed to prepare a final draft of the expropriation law. However, a legal source told The Syria Report that the expropriation law has remained under review since 2022 and has not yet been enacted. The delay is attributed to the absence of property records specific to the AANES.

The lack of an expropriation law prompted the Property Committee of the AANES Categories Union to form a subcommittee at the beginning of 2024 to study compensation for expropriated landowners. The Categories Union, one of the AANES’ institutions, is responsible for regulating professional activities in the markets. The committee comprised three expert members from the Property Committee and determined compensation values for each expropriated plot of land individually, without disclosing the pricing criteria. Compensation values were set in USD per dunam of expropriated land. It is customary in AANES areas to price property sales and appraisal values in USD, whereas rents are documented in Syrian pounds. For example, the authority set the compensation value at USD 3,000 per dunam for land irrigated by artesian wells (that is, a well in which water is under pressure and flows to the surface naturally) and adjacent to the main road, while estimating USD 1,500 per dunam for other nearby areas.

According to the procedures followed by the Local Administration Authority, if a landowner accepts the compensation value, the next step is for the owner to sign a waiver deed organised by the authority’s legal office. This is followed by the signing of an expropriation contract between the authority and the owner, which includes a declaration of the expropriation compensation value.

Some landowners considered the compensation amount unfair compared to current market prices in the area. Some refused to hand over their land to the authority and declined to accept the compensation. Consequently, the authority issued warnings through a notary public to landowners, urging them to review the Local Administration Authority and sign the waiver and expropriation deeds. The warnings stated that if the expropriation compensation is refused, the compensation amount would be deposited in the court’s fund, and the project would be carried out forcibly.

The authority was supposed to deposit the compensation amounts with the notary public’s fund in the city of Amouda. However, this did not happen after one of the expropriated landowners filed a lawsuit against the Local Administration Authority. According to The Syria Report’s sources, the authority decided to hold off on depositing the expropriation compensation until a court ruling is issued in the case.

On another note, it is unclear how the expropriated properties can be transferred to the AANES’ municipalities in the absence of specific property records. The administration continues to rely on ownership documents issued by the land Record in Hassakeh, which is under the Damascus government’s control. The Damascus government does not recognise the AANES, its municipalities, regions, or any of its decisions. According to The Syria Report’s sources, the expropriated lands south of Amouda are still registered in the names of their original owners in the Land Records of the Damascus government and have not been converted into public property under the name of Jazira region or the Local Administration Authority.

Meanwhile, work has been ongoing for eight months to expand the main road between Qamishli and Malikiyah, involving the expropriation of 18 metres on both sides of the road, with nine metres on each side. This project threatens landowners adjacent to the road in more than 20 villages, as parts of their lands are being expropriated for public benefit. The Local Administration and Environment Authority is executing the project slowly, funded by international organisations that the authority has not disclosed but are part of early recovery programmes in the region.

Unlike the water conveyance project to Hassakeh, the AANES refused to pay financial compensation for the expropriation, arguing that the remaining lands on both sides of the road would become commercial properties, increasing their value. A legal source told The Syria Report that municipalities have so far refused to respond to complaints submitted by the expropriated landowners on either side of the road. If this neglect continues, the affected owners will file lawsuits against the municipalities to demand compensation for the expropriated portions of their lands.

Explained: Management of State Properties

/in , /by

The regulations governing the management of state properties have undergone various administrative and legal phases. These properties have been supervised by several institutions, directorates, and public bodies, the latest being the General Commission for the Management and Protection of State Properties (GCMPST), established under Law No. 43 of 2023.

Public and Private State Properties

According to Syrian legislation, state properties are divided into two categories: public and private. Public properties include real estate and movable assets owned by the state or legal entities such as state institutions, intended for public benefit. These properties cannot be disposed of, seized, or acquired by prescription. On the other hand, private state properties, as defined by State Property Law No. 252 of 1959, are not designated for public benefit. They belong to the state as a legal entity, regardless of whether they are under the state’s actual control or under the control of other individuals. Private state properties are classified into 12 types, the most notable being Amiri lands, properties registered in the Land Record in the name of the state, and abandoned and dissolved lands.

Agrarian Reform Institution

Since the 1950s, various Syrian legislations have been issued to address encroachments on public and private state properties. Notable among these are the State Property Maintenance Law No. 84 of 1955 and Law No. 273 of 1956, which does not recognise buildings constructed on state property through usurpation, seizure, or unauthorised occupation. However, the institutional framework for managing state properties began effectively during the era of the United Arab Republic (1958-1961), with the establishment of the Agrarian Reform Institution under the Agrarian Reform Law No. 161 of 1958. This institution was officially responsible for the maintenance and management of state properties and was independent of the Ministry of Agriculture. It enjoyed financial and administrative independence, governed by a board of directors with extensive powers. The institution’s authorities included confiscating land and distributing it to farmers, selling confiscated land to the private sector, and exchanging parts of confiscated land for cash or in-kind compensation.

In 1959, Law No. 252 was enacted, giving the Agrarian Reform Institution full jurisdiction over state properties, excluding properties that fell under the jurisdiction of ministries based on special laws. Article 7 of Law No. 252 of 1959 granted the board of directors of the Agrarian Reform Institution the authority to determine the rental value of state properties exploited by others without lease contracts or whose lease terms had expired, and to assess the value of state lands on which unauthorised buildings had been constructed.

State Property Directorate

In 1967, the Ministry of Agriculture was merged with the Agrarian Reform Institution, forming what is now known as the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform. Alongside this merger, the powers of the Agrarian Reform Institution in overseeing expropriated lands were transferred to a newly established entity called the State Property Directorate. This new directorate was also given the responsibility of overseeing other private state properties, including abandoned and dissolved lands.

The directorate operated under the provisions of the Agrarian Reform Law No. 161 of 1958 and Law No. 252 of 1959. Unlike the Agrarian Reform Institution, the directorate lost its financial and administrative independence and became a department within the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform.

The State Property Directorate has a simple organisational structure: a central directorate in Damascus, directly affiliated with the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform, and regional offices in the provinces. These offices are responsible for distributing, selling, leasing, investing, and exchanging state properties within their jurisdiction. According to the Badia Law No. 62 of 2006, the lands of the Badia region were also added to the responsibilities and oversight of the State Property Directorate.

Directorate of State Property Affairs

It is important to distinguish between the State Property Directorate under the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform, and the Directorate of State Property Affairs under the Ministry of Local Administration and Environment and its governorate offices. The latter is tasked with inventorying, investing in, and managing properties controlled by governorates, opening registers, organising the records of governorate real estate, and facilitating the transfer of state properties to governorate ownership.

General Commission for the Management and Protection of State Properties

On December 28, 2023, Law No. 43 was issued, establishing the General Commission for the Management and Protection of State Properties (GCMPST). The aim of GCMPST is to generate stable and lasting resources for the public treasury by managing, maintaining, and investing in private state properties. This GCMPST is based in Damascus and is affiliated with the Minister of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform.

The tasks of the GCMPST include implementing the provisions of State Property Law No. 252 of 1959 and Agrarian Reform Law No. 161 of 1958 and their amendments. These are the same laws that applied to the former State Property Directorate. The GCMPST is also permitted to establish branches in the provinces.

Law No. 43 of 2023 stipulates that the GCMPST will have a director-general and a board composed of eleven representatives from various ministries and bodies, chaired by the Minister of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform. The board includes the director-general of the authority, the assistant director of the authority, the director of the Directorate of Planning and International Cooperation Commission, representatives from the General Directorate of Cadastral Affairs, the Regional Planning Commission, the General Union of Farmers, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Water Resources. The board chair can invite relevant experts to attend council meetings without voting rights. The board’s responsibilities include approving strategies and annual plans related to the protection of private state properties, approving the annual budget proposal, and the annual report on the authority’s activities, proposing legislation related to the GCMPST’s work and internal regulations, and accepting donations and contracts with experts.

Explained: The Management and Investment of Confiscated Assets

/in , /by

On April 4, the Council of Ministers issued Decision No. 16, containing the executive instructions for Law No. 26 of 2023, related to the Disposal of Movable and Immovable Properties Confiscated under a Final Judicial Ruling, under the name “Special System for the Management and Investment of Confiscated Assets.” Law No. 26 of 2023 concerns the management, investment, and transfer of ownership of movable and immovable assets confiscated from those convicted by a final court ruling issued by any competent court dealing with felonies or terrorism, in accordance with various preceding laws.

Distribution of Responsibilities among Ministries

The special system, issued by Decision No. 16, consists of six chapters comprising 23 articles and was published in Part I of Issue 15 of the Official Gazette on April 16, 2024. The system assigns the responsibilities and tasks of implementing Law No. 26 of 2023 among the government ministries. It assigns the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform the task of managing and investing in lands outside of zoning plans, while the Ministry of Finance is tasked with managing and investing in properties within zoning plans, as well as movable assets. The system requires the Ministry of Justice and the Military Judiciary Administration to send certified copies of final non-appealable court rulings to the Ministries of Finance and Agriculture for the necessary procedures.

Decision No. 16 also mandates the Ministry of Justice to circulate judicial rulings on the confiscation of convicts’ properties through the National System for Provisional Seizure Orders to facilitate the execution process on those properties. The National System for Provisional Seizure Orders is an electronic system launched by the Ministry of Communication and Technology in 2018, in collaboration with the Ministries of Finance and Justice, and with the participation of the entities involved in issuing and executing these orders. These entities include the Ministry of Transport, the Central Organisation Financial Control, the Combating Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Commission, the General Directorate of Cadastral Affairs, the General Directorate of Customs, and the banks. The scope of the system includes all precautionary measures such as provisional seizure, compulsory insurance, and asset freezing, which restrict the disposal of ownership and are issued by the competent authorities as a precautionary measure to safeguard public assets. This means that after the issuance of final, non-appealable court rulings that include the confiscation of convicts’ assets, the Ministry of Justice circulates these rulings through the National System for Provisional Seizure Orders, allowing them to be converted from provisional to executive seizures.

The Ministries of Agriculture and Finance are responsible for following up on the execution of final court rulings that confiscate properties and registering them under the name “Syrian Arab Republic” or in the official records of confiscated assets, regardless of which judicial authority issued those rulings. The official records of confiscated assets are detailed registers containing information about these assets, their descriptions, the actions taken regarding them, and proposals for their management and investment.

Investment of Confiscated Properties

Decision No. 16 requires the General Directorate of Public Revenues under the Ministry of Finance and the General Commission for the Management and Protection of State Properties, established by Law No. 43 of 2023 and affiliated with the Ministry of Agriculture, to maintain detailed records of confiscated properties. These records should include information about the properties, their descriptions, the actions taken regarding them, and proposals for their management and investment.

Each of the Ministries of Finance and Agriculture, within their respective areas of responsibility, is to form a special committee for the management and investment of confiscated properties. These committees are tasked with proposing ways to manage and invest in these properties and protect them from damage. Specifically, the committee formed by the Ministry of Finance is responsible for managing and investing in movable properties and properties within zoning boundaries, while the committee of the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for managing and investing in lands outside of zoning boundaries.

Additionally, the ministries can invest in, lease, or sell the confiscated properties according to the provisions of current laws, such as the Contracts Law No. 51 of 2004, the Investment Law No. 18 of 2021, the Real Estate Sales Law No. 15 of 2021, the State Property Law No. 252 of 1959, the Trade Law No. 33 of 2007, and others.

Decision No. 16 also allows the Ministers of Finance or Agriculture to transfer confiscated properties to other public entities upon their request, provided they explain their need for these properties. The committee for the management and investment of confiscated properties in each ministry will study the proposal and submit it to the minister, who will then forward it to the Prime Minister for a final decision. If the transfer of ownership is approved to an administrative public entity, the transfer is done free of charge. However, if the transfer is to an economic public entity, that is, a state-owned company, that entity is required to pay a fee determined by the Prime Minister for the benefit of the public treasury.

Other public entities can request the allocation of confiscated properties from the Ministries of Finance or Agriculture in the same manner as property transfer. Allocation involves placing these properties at the disposal of a public entity for a specified period and purpose, after which the properties must be returned. The Prime Minister can cancel the allocation if the public entity violates the specified conditions.

According to Decision No. 16, the revenue generated from the management and investment of confiscated properties is directed to the public treasury and deposited into a special account for confiscated assets. The Ministries of Finance and Agriculture are required to submit regular reports to the Cabinet detailing the status of the investment and management of confiscated properties, the profits achieved, and any difficulties encountered.

When transferring property ownership to the name “Syrian Arab Republic,” third-party claims such as lawsuits, mortgages, or seizures noted on the property record are disregarded. Consequently, any claims made by third parties on the confiscated property are considered futile.

Confiscation of a Company or Store

If the confiscated properties include a store or a company, they remain subject to the regulations governing them, whether company law, commercial law, or tax laws, to ensure the rights of the treasury. The Ministry of Finance appoints a representative to oversee the management and investment of the store or company, or the confiscated share thereof. This representative submits their report and recommendations on the process.

The Committee for the Management and Investment of Confiscated Assets within the Ministry of Finance is responsible for identifying the companies and stores, and the type and scale of the commercial activities they engage in, to make appropriate investment decisions. The Minister of Finance has the authority to propose changes to the legal structure of the confiscated company, merge it with another company, liquidate it, withdraw from it, or sell the confiscated share.

It should be noted that if the confiscated property is a share in a real estate property or a store, this can negatively impact the remaining partners due to the restrictive measures imposed by Decision No. 16. The encroachment on the ownership of the remaining partners might compel them to relinquish their shares for less than their market value. Decision No. 16 does not address the rights of the partners and fails to establish any rules to protect their interests.

No Compensation for Owners of Razed Properties in Central Darayya District

/in , /by

In the summer of 2018, the former mayor of Darayya in the Rural Damascus governorate, Marwan Obeid, announced on his personal Facebook account the commencement of a park construction project over an area of two dunums (0.2 hectares) that used to house old homes. Subsequently, municipal workers cleared the remnants of these houses and removed the debris. Since then, no change has occurred at the site, and none of the former property owners have been compensated.

The area, known as the Shreidi Triangle, contained large, old “Arab-style” houses built from brick and roofed with wood. In the triangle were six homes belonging to four families from the city: Al-Halaq, Abu Bakr, Koshk, and Fattah. Surrounding the houses were more than ten shops facing the adjacent streets, all dilapidated with thick walls constructed in the old style.

These properties were expropriated in the 1970s to create a public park. The residents resisted the takeover by staying in their homes, refusing to evacuate, and not accepting compensation for expropriation. Until 2011, the situation of these houses remained unchanged, and the expropriation decision was not implemented. In reality, the houses remained standing, but their structural safety deteriorated due to the owners’ inability to obtain restoration permits because of the expropriation decision. The owners were also unable to conduct any real estate transactions on them. The only action they took was to rent out some rooms facing the main streets as commercial shops.

The city of Darayya witnessed peaceful opposition to the regime since the beginning of the 2011 uprising. Due to its proximity to Damascus and the Mezzeh military airport, Darayya was subjected to a severe siege by regime forces between 2012 and 2016, which ended with the forced displacement of its inhabitants after entire neighbourhoods were levelled to the ground due to aerial bombardment by regime forces.

Local sources told The Syria Report that the triangle remained relatively intact until the forced displacement of its residents. These sources indicated that the area was subjected to demolition and bulldozing by the regime forces controlling the city between 2016 and 2018 and that the Triangle area was destroyed when the regime forces allowed the first visit to the city in 2018.

In 2018, the Urban Planning Directorate at the Ministry of Public Works and Housing discussed four proposed urban plans within the city of Darayya’s zoning plan. That same year, the Executive Office in the Rural Damascus governorate announced that the zoning plan for the city of Darayya was ready. In both instances, no change occurred in the Shreidi Triangle area, which remained designated as a public park.

In August 2018, the Rural Damascus governorate permitted residents to return, provided they submitted documents proving property ownership within the city and obtained prior security clearance. The partial return began in mid-2019. Since then, the city’s Executive Office has continued to remove some buildings it declares are at risk of collapse, unfit for habitation, or pose a danger to passers-by and neighbouring residents.

Abu Mohammad, one of the homeowners in the Triangle area, told a correspondent for The Syria Report that he owned a spacious Arab-style house comprising five mud rooms, a large courtyard, and shops facing the street. He added that before 2011, he attempted to lift the expropriation order on his house but lost the lawsuit he filed. In the winter of 2013, a military force affiliated with the regime took over the Shreidi Triangle area as part of its ground incursion into Darayya and established military sites there. Abu Mohammad stated that he remained in his house, confirming that the Triangle area did not suffer significant damage, did not witness notable battles, and was not subjected to bombardment. In the summer of 2016, Abu Mohammad and his family were displaced following the forced displacement of all Darayya’s residents, leaving his house intact. Only in 2019 did Abu Mohammad learn that his house, along with all the homes in the Triangle area, had been bulldozed.

Abu Mahmoud, the owner of a shop in part of a traditional clay house in the Shreidi Triangle, told The Syria Report that his old shop collapsed in 2012 due to lack of maintenance and the vibrations caused by indirect bombing targeting nearby areas. Abu Mahmoud had to move his shop’s contents to an adjacent room that was not damaged. At the end of 2012, he left Darayya and only returned in 2019 to find that the adjacent room had also been bulldozed, and he could not find any of his shop’s contents.

Everyone interviewed by The Syria Report, including homeowners and shopkeepers in the Shreidi Triangle, mentioned that they had not received any compensation for the expropriation of their properties before 2011. Today, after some of them returned and discovered the entire area was bulldozed, and they have yet to receive any compensation, any notification about the execution of the expropriation, or any notice requiring them to contact any official authority. Thus, it’s as if they never owned anything in the area, and the park, which had yet to materialise, was more important than their homes.

Flood Compensation Falls Short in Akkar Plain

/in , /by

On February 6, Syria’s Council of Ministers announced the allocation of compensation of SYP 6 billion (USD 455,000 at the official market rate) for those affected by floods in the Akkar Plain region of the Tartous governorate. The plain was hit by rains and floods on January 12, flooding about 1,000 hectares of agricultural land, damaging crops, and ruining around 4,000 plastic greenhouses. Many farmers in the Akkar Plain have faced difficulties proving ownership of their lands, hindering their right to receive compensation.

The Akkar Plain extends on both sides of the Homs-Tartous international road, reaching Tripoli in Lebanon. Dozens of villages and towns, the largest of which is Safsafah, are spread throughout the Plain, through which five rivers run: Al-Kabir Al-Janoubi, Al-Abrash, Al-Arous, Khalifeh, and Abu Al-Ward. The Plain is also rich in groundwater, making agriculture the primary source of income for its 100,000 inhabitants, especially those working in greenhouses. There is an agreement for sharing the waters of the Al-Kabir Al-Janoubi River, signed with the Lebanese side in 2002, which included the construction of a joint dam near Talkalakh in Syria. However, the dam has yet to be implemented.

In the Akkar Plain, farmers face an array of ownership-related obstacles. Farmers and their heirs still commonly own many of the agricultural lands. One of the reasons for the failure to terminate common ownership in the area is the incomplete delimitation and census work that began in 1925. After the government enacted the Agrarian Reform Law No. 161 of 1958, the process of terminating common ownership came to a halt. The policy was revived in 1980 under Legislative Decree No. 166 of 1967, which ordered the consolidation of agricultural lands and the elimination of common ownership. However, with the passing of Law No. 31 of 1980, the government set a cap on private ownership. Efforts to terminate common ownership restarted in 1988 but faced problems related to the transfer of massive expropriated lands in the area from the ownership of the Ministry of Agriculture and Agricultural Reform to the Ministry of Irrigation. In 2007, the Ministry of Agriculture halted its work to terminate common ownership, and no relevant measures have been taken since. 

There are no reliable figures on the number of farmers who own their land in the Akkar Plain or the sizes of these lands. Agricultural reform and reclamation laws led the state to expropriate large parts of the Plain, exceeding 60 percent of its total area. The government redistributed some of these expropriated lands to farmers between 1958 and 1974, a process that stopped without official justification. It is important to note that not all the lands that farmers received under the agricultural reform law were officially documented in the Land Registry. This is in part due to incomplete delimitation and census work.

Some farmers managed to register their ownership of land they purchased from institutions affiliated with the Ministry of Agriculture before sales stopped in 1986. Another group of farmers, known as “social research” recipients, were allocated agricultural reform lands based on studies showing that they owned no other land. This group also managed to register their ownership.

The area also sees many “mughariseh” contracts, which, according to the Agricultural Relations Regulation Law No. 56 of 2004, grant farmers partial land ownership at the end of the contract in exchange for planting and cultivating crops.

It’s also worth noting that there is a widespread practice of leasing state lands, public properties that are unauthorised for occupation, and properties belonging to Waqfs of Tripoli (Lebanon) that the Waqfs of Tartous manage (Waqfs are Islamic charitable endowments). There are disputes over public ownership between the Ministries of Irrigation and Agriculture. 

These complexities in the distribution of ownership, bureaucratic procedures, sporadic expropriation policies, and unfinished delimitation and census work have deprived the owners of the Akkar Plain of rightful flood compensation.

Therefore, on February 6, the Council of Ministers responded to the damages from the floods by relying on two memoranda issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Irrigation. The two memoranda based their compensation valuation on the results of previously formed damage assessment committees tasked with cataloguing agricultural damages in the Tartous governorate. These committees were originally formed under Tartous Governorate Decision No. 961 of 2009 to inventory and evaluate the assets of sewage facilities in Tartous City. It’s unclear how these committees are related or what their expertise is in assessing flood damages in the Akkar Plain.

The state provided compensation to some of those affected, and the costs for rehabilitating infrastructure, services and agricultural roads, as well as drainage clearing, were covered through the “Drought and Natural Disaster Agricultural Production Impact Mitigation Fund,” established by Decree No. 114 of 2011 and linked to the Minister of Agriculture. The fund has a cap on its compensation budget, which depends on its assets and revenues from the public treasury, the General Union of Farmers, donations, and the interests of its funds in banks. According to the decree of its establishment, the compensations provided by the fund cannot exceed 80 percent of its assets. Its mission is to compensate those whose agricultural production is affected by droughts, natural disasters, and other changes in climate conditions.

Local media outlets reported that the farmers were disappointed by the small compensation they received but did not provide information on the value of this compensation. Local media also reported that the government only compensated a minority of farmers, which farmers also lamented. The Minister of Agriculture stated that those who owned their land and had obtained agricultural regulation documents were eligible for compensation.

The Tartous City Council, during its first session in 2024 between January and February, proposed to re-submit a repeated recommendation to the Council of Ministers for the establishment of an Akkar Plain Management and Investment Authority, similar to the authority created for the investment of Al-Ghab Plain. This official authority would be responsible for infrastructure projects, sewage, and water drainage to face floods, especially the annual threat of Al-Kabir Al-Janoubi River flooding, which poses a risk to farmers in the winter season.

Explained: Laws for Handling the Properties of Criminal Convicts

/in , /by

The legal handling of movable and immovable properties confiscated under a final judicial ruling, as per Law No. 26 of 2023, does not represent an exceptional case within Syrian legislation. Instead, it can be seen as an extension of previous laws such as the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 112 of 1950), Penal Code No. 148 of 1949, and the Antiterrorism Court Law No. 22 of 2012.

Law No. 26 of 2023 is concerned with the management, investment and transfer of ownership of movable and immovable properties belonging to convicted individuals, which have been confiscated under a final judicial ruling issued by any court, whether it is specialised in felonies or terrorism, and under various preceding laws.

Code of Criminal Procedure

Article 322 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 112 of 1950) stipulates placing the assets of a defendant convicted in absentia under government control. This is done to exert pressure and compel the individual to surrender themselves for a direct trial concerning the alleged charges. Defendants are tried in criminal courts for crimes deserving a penalty of more than three years imprisonment, including premeditated murder, aggravated theft, forgery of official documents and intentional harm leading to permanent disability.

The criminal court adheres to the procedural rules set out in Law No. 112 of 1950 when issuing an absentee ruling to seize the defendant’s properties. It is obligated to retry the defendant when they are arrested or surrender themselves.

Before the start of an absentee trial, the Criminal Court notifies the fugitive defendant with a “deadline notice,” granting them ten days to turn themselves in. The notification of the deadline is posted at the defendant’s last known residence, in the public square of their town, and on the door of the Criminal Court. If the deadline expires without their appearance, the court’s president issues a decision to place the defendant’s assets under government management. The public prosecutor sends a letter to the Directorate of Cadastral Affairs and State Property Management to seize the defendant’s real estate assets. Only after these steps are completed, does the defendant’s trial in absentia begin. Following the issuance of the absentee judgement, the Criminal Court places the defendant’s properties under state management according to the procedures for managing the assets of an absent person, as per the Personal Status Law No. 59 of 1953.

These assets do not enter the state treasury but are managed by a guardian appointed by the Sharia Court. Article 328 of Law No. 112 of 1950 does not permit the confiscation of the assets of a defendant convicted in absentia, but only their management through a guardian, with the assets to be returned to the convicted individual or their heirs (beneficiaries) once the absentee judgement is nullified. The convicted person in absentia may reclaim their properties upon the lapse of the absentee judgment by limitation or the cancellation of the judgement following the arrest of the defendant or their surrender. At this point, the proceedings of the in-absentia trial and the issued judgement are nullified, and a retrial is conducted in the Criminal Court.

In this case, Law No. 26 of 2023 allows the management and investment of the properties of a person convicted in absentia before the Criminal Court despite not transferring ownership to the public treasury. This includes renting out the property, where the rental income goes to the public treasury. However, the property remains owned by the person convicted in absentia.

Penal Code

Article 69 of the Syrian Penal Code No. 148 of 1949 grants the Criminal Court overseeing the crime the authority to confiscate all items resulting from a felony or intentional misdemeanour or items used or prepared for committing the crime. Thus, Penal Code No. 148 of 1949 covers the actions of the Criminal Court and the Court of First Instance in misdemeanour crimes.

The confiscated assets do not include all of the convicted person’s properties but are limited to the items that were used in the commission of the crime or were prepared for its commission. The Penal Code only specifies that these confiscated items cannot be reclaimed. The law does not provide any provisions regarding the management, investment, transfer of ownership to the state or disposal of these confiscated assets in any manner.

Consequently, Law No. 26 of 2023 does not have a clear role in cases considered to be under the provisions of the Penal Code No. 148 of 1949.

Antiterrorism Court Law

Meanwhile, Antiterrorism Court Law No. 22 of 2012 stipulates the confiscation of properties of the defendant convicted in absentia and the transfer of their ownership to the public treasury. Law No. 22 of 2012 exempts the Antiterrorism Court from following standard legal procedures. It does not oblige it to retry the convicted individual unless they voluntarily surrender themselves. Therefore, an in-absentia trial is considered a legal basis for convicting the accused, which contradicts the guarantees established for a fair trial. This is because an in absentia judgement does not consider the defendant’s right to defend themselves, to be informed of the charges against them or to monitor the correctness of the procedures.

The Antiterrorism Court has extensive powers regarding the assets of the defendant. According to the court’s law, the public prosecutor issues an order to freeze the movable and immovable assets of the defendant, whether they are being tried in person or in absentia. Then, after the verdict is issued, their assets are confiscated for the public treasury’s benefit, following the Ministry of Finance procedures.

Here, Law No. 26 of 2023 authorises transferring the ownership of assets confiscated by a judgment issued by the Antiterrorism Court.

Explained: Syria’s Law on the Disposal of Confiscated Properties

/in , /by

After its approval by the Parliament on October 30, President Bashar Al-Assad ratified the Law on the Disposal of Movable and Immovable Properties Confiscated under a Final Judicial Ruling. This Law, No. 26, was issued on December 7, and published in the Official Gazette.

Law No. 26 of 2023 contains only seven articles. Article five granted the prime minister the authority to issue special regulations for the management, investment, and transfer of ownership and allocation of confiscated properties under a final judicial ruling based on a proposal by the ministers of finance and agriculture and agrarian reform.

The Law also assigned the Ministry of Finance the tasks of managing and investing in real estate within zoning plans and managing movable properties and company shares if they were confiscated by a final judicial ruling issued by either the Antiterrorism Court or the Criminal Court. Meanwhile, the government gave the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform authority to manage lands outside of zoning plans that were confiscated under the aforementioned judicial rulings.

Article three stipulated the transfer of ownership of confiscated properties and assets to public entities under a final judicial ruling. The prime minister, based on the suggestion of the concerned minister, determines these entities via decree. The Law also applied its provisions to properties that were confiscated before its issuance, where they are seized for the management, investment, and transfer of ownership to public entities in the state.

Law No. 26 sparked widespread controversy due to its potential violations of housing, land, and property rights. Therefore, the Ministry of Finance published a document detailing the justifications for enacting the Law. The ministry clarified that the legal framework for confiscation rulings under a final judicial decision was based on the provisions of the Penal Code, the Antiterrorism Law No. 19 of 2012 and other existing laws.

The justificatory document was issued without a number or date. It rationalised the need for Law No. 26 of 2023 due to the lack of legislative texts governing the management and investment of movable and immovable properties confiscated under a final judicial ruling, and the absence of legislative provisions for transferring the ownership of such properties to public entities. Previously, these procedures were organised through ministerial decisions. The document considered Law No. 26 as a regulation for transferring the ownership of confiscated properties to the state and determining the entity responsible for their management, thereby preserving them and ensuring their optimal investment.

The justificatory document focused solely on justifying the need for a law to legislate the management of confiscated properties and their ownership transfer to the state. However, it did not justify the property rights violations within the Law itself. The final judicial confiscation rulings, especially in crimes classified as “terrorism,” are based on show trials that lack legal principles and the rules followed in criminal procedures. The exceptional courts that issue these rulings do not possess the characteristics of neutrality and independence, and the defendants do not have the opportunity to defend themselves. Often, the outcomes of these trials are predetermined and politicised, aiming to impose the harshest penalties on opponents of the regime and confiscate their properties.

For instance, the membership of antiterrorism courts includes security officers, which contradicts the conditions for appointing judges as stipulated in the Judicial Authority Law No. 98 of 1961, creating a flaw in the formation of these courts. 

Additionally, the trials conducted before them do not adhere to the legal procedures outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused in these courts do not have the guarantees of a fair trial in terms of the trial’s public nature, presence and the right to defence. Article 7 of the Antiterrorism Court Establishment Law No. 22 of 2012 exempts the court from adhering to legal procedures in all prosecution and trial stages. Under this Law, the court can issue a conviction and confiscate properties in absentia. The terrorism court also violates the defendant’s right to appeal, as its in absentia judgments are not subject to retrial if the accused is apprehended, which contradicts the general rules that the annulment of an in absentia criminal judgment upon the apprehension of the accused and the initiation of a new trial.

These violations are sufficient to invalidate the rulings issued by the terrorism court, including the confiscations of the convicts’ properties. The nullity extends to all procedures for transferring ownership of confiscated properties to the state under Law No. 26 of 2023.

Here, it is essential to distinguish between Law No. 26 of 2023 and Law No. 43 of 2023, which pertains to establishing the General Commission for the Management and Protection of State Properties. Law No. 43 included provisions for organising a general commission for managing and protecting state properties, its formation and defining its tasks. Its main functions focus on managing, maintaining, and investing state properties, which may include assets previously confiscated by a final judicial ruling from the terrorism court and then had their ownership transferred to the state under Law No. 26.

Conflict Between State Entities Hinders Major Car Expo Project Near Damascus

/in , /by

Since June 2023, construction work on the Car Expo Centre project in the Al-Dweir area of Rural Damascus has stopped due to problems related to property transfer between two government entities and restraints on the disposal of some properties.

This project is the first of its kind in Syria. It will include plots designated for showrooms, industrial workshops and offices, administrative buildings, a driving school track, and recreational activities. The project extends along the Damascus-Aleppo M5 highway, covering an area of 145 hectares administratively affiliated with the Douma City Council. The urban planning of the exhibition city has been outlined according to Urban Planning Law No. 5 of 1982. Currently, work still needs to progress beyond some preparatory and primary infrastructure work.

In September 2018, the government decided to establish the project in Al-Dweir, and assigned its joint management to the governorates of Damascus and Rural Damascus, with the aim of planning, zoning, managing, and investing in the city and concentrating all professions related to car trade and manufacturing there.

The Car Expo Centre complements a separate project to zone the northern entrance of Damascus. At the end of 2018, the Damascus and Rural Damascus governorates agreed to rehabilitate and zone the north entrance of the capital city, remove informal settlements there and dismantle the old car market in the city of Harasta, which was destroyed during the fighting from 2013 to 2018.

The joint administration of the Car Expo Centre is keen on pursuing the owners of car showrooms in Harasta who have been issued demolition notices, pressuring them to close and expedite their transition to Al-Dweir. Previously, the joint administration forced showroom owners in Harasta to pledge they would not demand any compensation and to apply for plots in the Car Expo Centre in Al-Dweir if they wanted to continue in the car trade. Additionally, all car shop owners in areas warned of demolition along the northern entrance of Damascus were alerted to the necessity of applying to the new expo centre.

In June 2023, the semi-official Al-Watan newspaper reported that work on the expo centre project had stopped due to disagreements between the public companies implementing the project and the joint administration of the centre over financial dues and contracts. The newspaper confirmed that the implementing companies had withdrawn their machinery from the project site.

Faraj Al-Akka, the expo centre’s project manager, told Al-Watan at the time that the halt in work was due to the joint administration’s inability to pay the dues of the public companies implementing the project. This is because the project relies on self-financing, that is, through payments made by applicants to plots in the expo centre.

To collect payments from the applicants, it is initially necessary to complete the transfer of the project land ownership from the General Establishment for Road Transport (affiliated with the Ministry of Transport) to the joint administration of the expo centre. After that, the joint administration must divide the land into plots and allocate them to the applicants. According to the plan, there are three types of plots in the expo centre: large plots ranging from 2000-5000 square metres for large car showrooms and car assembly factories, medium-sized plots from 500-1000 square metres for new and used car sales stores, and small plots of 250 square metres for car spare parts shops.

Mr Al-Akka stated that administrative procedures are slowing down the property transfer process, and some properties have restraints on disposal. He also mentioned that there has yet to be a specific date for the completion of the property transfer process.

Hisham Hawa, the mukhtar of Douma between 1975 and 2012, told The Syria Report that the government first expropriated the lands in Al-Dweir in 1979 for the benefit of the Ministry of Defence. The Sharaf, Saleh, Burkhash and Hajjeh families from Douma and the Al-Istwani family from Damascus own these lands. A portion of these expropriated lands was used to establish military camps, some of which still exist today, as well as the Adra Central Prison near the Wafideen Camp for Palestinian refugees.

In 1992, ownership of a part of these expropriated lands was transferred from the Ministry of Defence to the General Establishment for Road Transport. This portion was later allocated to establish the Auto Expo Centre project.

Therefore, the dilemma appears significant due to several public entities owning this area. The transfer of ownership between the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Transport still needs to be completed, hindering the transfer process between the Ministry of Transport and the joint administration of the expo centre.

Mr Hawa explained that the reason for the complexity and delay is that some property owners previously placed restraints on disposal notes in the Land Registry after resorting to the judiciary and refusing compensation for the expropriation. He added that despite the takeovers, some of the expropriated properties designated for the expo centre are still listed in the Land Registry under the names of their original owners.

Explained: Judicial Oversight of Expropriation Decrees

/in , /by

Article 7 of Expropriation Law No. 20 of 1983 grants immunity to expropriation decrees, stating that they are conclusive and not subject to appeal or review.

This means that an expropriation decree is not subject to judicial oversight, which clearly violates Syria’s 2012 constitution. Article 51 of this constitution prohibited the immunity of any administrative act or decision from judicial oversight. In theory, Article 7 of Expropriation Law No. 20 should have been amended to align with the 2012 constitution. However, to date, no amendment has been made to the text of Article 7 of the Expropriation Law.

However, not all expropriation decrees are immune. As the judicial body responsible for administrative cases, the State Council has considered an expropriation decree void in some instances, most notably if issued by an unauthorised administrative body.

For instance, the Administrative Justice Court in case 3013/4 of 2009 declared the nullity of an expropriation decision due to a jurisdictional flaw, as it was issued by a city council instead of the prime minister. This rendered the expropriation null and void, as if it had never existed, with all the consequent effects and results.

In an earlier jurisprudence, the State Council had previously affirmed that expropriation by ministerial decision is considered null and void. Only the prime minister has the authority to issue expropriation decrees, as per Legislative Decree No. 11 of 1986, while the cancellation or amendment of a decree requires a presidential decree.

On the other hand, the administrative judiciary oversees the fulfilment of conditions set by Article 7 of Expropriation Law No. 20 of 1983 before issuing an expropriation decree. These conditions include the expropriation being made by a decree issued based on a proposal from the competent minister, declaring the existence of public benefit, and relying on various conditions such as the opinion of the administrative body within whose boundaries the expropriation falls, the opinion of the executive office of the related governorate, and the opinion of the executive office of the General Union of Farmers’s branch in the governorate regarding properties to be expropriated outside the administrative units’ zoning plans.

In this context, the administrative judiciary’s rulings have been contradictory. For example, the administrative judiciary considered the proposal of the competent minister a fundamental condition before issuing an expropriation decree, according to the decision of the Administrative Justice Court number 1724/3 Base 358/3 of 2012. Conversely, the decision of the Administrative Justice Court number 564/3 Base 4742 of 2001 held that the non-approval of the General Union of Farmers does not prevent the issuance of expropriation decrees.

This decision allows the issuance of an expropriation decree without relying on the opinion of one of the entities stipulated in the law. Thus, legally, there is no hindrance to not considering the opinion of other entities mentioned in the Expropriation Law. This highlights the contradiction in the administrative judiciary’s rulings, which conflicts with the principles of justice and the proper application of legal rules, and raise concerns about other unlawful infringements on property rights.

The Supreme Administrative Court, in its decision number 107 of 1972, considered that overlooking the diagram showing the section of the property to be expropriated, or the absence of an estimate for expropriation compensation, invalidates the expropriation. In decision number 112/2 of 1997, the court held that issuing an expropriation decree without recording it in the Land Registry or clarifying or paying the property’s value to the stakeholders renders the expropriation decision null and void.

The administrative judiciary’s oversight of the expropriation decree also includes publishing that decree in the Official Gazette and notifying the concerned party. However, judicial precedent has taken two different stances here.

Earlier rulings considered the expropriation decree as having a personal nature, requiring notification to the concerned party, and not just publication in the Official Gazette. However, the State Council reversed this stance. Per the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court number 154 Base 363 of 2002, publication in the Official Gazette became sufficient. This latest judicial precedent negatively impacts the property rights of the owner of the expropriated property, as it denies them the individual nature that requires notifying them of the expropriation decree.

Administrative and Legal Obstacles Prevent Confirmation of Property Ownership in AANES Areas

/in , /by

Admist rising real estate prices, increasing pressure of housing needs for displaced people in the Autonomous Administration in North and East Syria (AANES) areas, and the continuous migration of locals abroad, residents seek to document their property ownership by all available means. However, they face obstacles, mainly due to the judicial overlap and the dual authority in charge of real estate documentation between the Damascus government and AANES authorities.

Many people in AANES areas are trying to legally confirm their ownership by filing lawsuits to ensure sales contracts in the civil courts, for the first instance, under the Ministry of Justice in the Damascus government. In this case, the buyer only receives a judicial decision to confirm ownership if the property is located within a zoning plan. The Damascus real estate authorities refuse to carry out lawsuits to confirm sales contracts for properties outside of zoning plans and require a letter from the concerned municipality indicating the zoning nature of the property and the Building Code followed. The issue is that the zoning nature of most real estate areas outside major city centres is still undivided commonly owned land. As in all informal settlements, landowners sell parts of it or properties built on it as undivided shares.

For example, Ahmad has a property in Hassakeh city and confirmed the sales contract by a judicial decision from the civil court of first instance. However, when Ahmad sold his property, the same court refused to confirm the previous sales contract it had issued and asked the new buyer to obtain a letter from the municipality showing the zoning nature of the property. When he consulted the municipality, they conducted a topographic survey of the property and compared it with their zoning plans. They found that the house was built on land designated for a public park.

Expropriation for public benefit is exclusively done by a decision notified to the stakeholders, with appropriate compensation. However, in Ahmad’s case, the land was noted in the zoning plan to be a public park, but in reality, it had not yet been expropriated for that purpose. As long as the expropriation decision is not issued, the property is not public property. Therefore, ownership can be confirmed until the expropriation decision and compensation are properly issued. However, this did not happen with Ahmad, as his lawsuit was dismissed, and he could not confirm the sales contract and transfer the property to the new buyer.

Similarly, Khaled, who purchased a house and filed a lawsuit to confirm the sales contract, was surprised to find that the land on which the house was built was designated in the zoning plans to construct a school. Khaled could not confirm his ownership in this case, so he cancelled the sales contract and recovered what he had paid to the seller.

In reality, as long as there is no restraint on the disposal of the property, the owner has complete freedom to manage it. Even if the property is marked for public benefit in the zoning plans, the court should decide to confirm the sales contracts and not deprive the buyer of confirming their ownership, even if the implementation of those plans is delayed. Over the past years, the war has disrupted the urban expansion of cities and towns and, therefore, the process of updating the zoning plans and aligning them with realities on the ground.

Khalil said that when he filed a lawsuit to confirm the purchase contract of his house, which he has owned for decades on the outskirts of Qamishli city, the civil court of first instance demanded a legal permit. A legal permit is an administrative process conducted by the Directorates of Agriculture and Real Estate Affairs if the property is located in border areas outside of zoning plans. In this case, prior security approval endorsed by the Ministries of Defense and Interior is required.

As Khalil discovered, the Qamishli municipality had been planning to zone that area for years and included it in the city’s zoning plan. However, administrative procedures delayed this process, and then the war led to the neglect of the issue, which remains unresolved.

On the other hand, the AANES does not recognise the allocation documents issued by municipalities affiliated with Damascus after 2011. Allocation documents are akin to property ownership documents issued by municipalities to confirm the ownership of properties, most of which are lands sold to individuals. The AANES bases this on the regulations and systems law it issued in 2014 to regulate urban development. AANES authorities require those wishing to obtain an allocation document to purchase properties from its municipalities exclusively.

This applies to properties sold by municipalities affiliated with Damascus after 2011. The AANES does not recognise the allocation documents issued by the regime’s municipalities after 2011 and asks their purchasers to obtain new allocation documents from its municipalities. The buyer is forced to repurchase the property from the AANES’ municipalities. A buyer may choose not to do this, but if they want to build on the land, they must, again, obtain a construction permit from the AANES’ municipalities. Here, it becomes necessary to obtain an AANES allocation document.

Another Qamilshi resident, Layla, said that she obtained an allocation document from the Damascus-affiliated Qamishli municipality in 2013. However, in 2023, the AANES’s municipality asked her to repurchase the same land from them to issue a construction permit for it.

Demolition of an Illegally Built Mall in Damascus Halted

/in , /by

On November 5, the semi-official newspaper Al-Watan published a post on its Facebook page stating that a legal solution to halt the demolition of the BigFive Mall, which was built on public property without a licence, in Damascus was reached. As a result, the mall will become the Damascus Governorate’s property. The newspaper indicated that the state will carry out demolition and removal work on the mall when the area’s zoning plan is implemented in five years.

On October 23, the Executive Office of the Damascus governorate unanimously passed Decision No. 990, which included revoking the legal settlement decisions related to unlicensed construction on Property No. 722 in the Midan district. The decision entailed instructing the Directorate of Services Departments in the Damascus governorate to issue immediate demolition orders for unlicensed construction on the property.

The Directorate of Services Departments deemed the previous settlement decisions made in 2018 to be void. These legal settlements were based on evidence from the mall’s investor, claiming the building’s construction violations occurred before 2012. They thus were not covered by the Building Violations Decree No. 40 of 2012. It was later revealed that the evidence provided by the mall’s investor was false and that the violations occurred after 2012, as confirmed by aerial photos of the site.

The investor was warned to leave the premises and remove its contents, facades and equipment within 15 days, after which the Central Demolition Workshop of the Service Department in the governorate would demolish the building.

Initially, the property covered an area of 60 square metres and had a two-story traditional “Arab-style” house. The Damascus governorate expropriated the land in 1964 to build a park, but the plan was never implemented. In 1998, the Ministry of Education took over the property, intending to turn it into a school. Then, in 2005, the Damascus governorate reclaimed the property and decided to convert it into a residential building. It is unclear how the governorate changed the property’s classification to residential while owning it or whether it was leased out to tenants. Throughout these various stages, the building changed and had new floors added and expanded, eventually reaching four stories.

It is unclear when the property’s classification was changed to commercial and when a fifth floor was added. However, this process seems to have taken place before 2012. In 2018, the Damascus governorate issued five demolition orders (No. 6-10) for unlicensed construction on property, but these were not implemented. Later that same year, the governorate issued nine decisions (No. 891-899) to settle building violations on the property.

According to Decree No. 40, to legally settle an instance of unlicensed construction, the construction must have occurred before 2012. It must not pose a structural risk to the building. The violating building or section of the building can be legalised, added to the relevant construction permit and recorded in the Land Registry after the responsible parties pay fines. 

The municipal services directorate is responsible for addressing the violation. The directorate’s duties include calculating fees and fines resulting from unlicensed construction that can be settled and preparing the necessary financial decisions. It sent a committee to inspect the illegal construction site and verify its illegality using aerial photographs of the area taken in 2012 before Decree No. 40 of 2012 was issued. In cooperation with the Ministry of Defence, these photographs were captured by the Ministry of Local Administration through an aerial survey of Damascus. Unlicensed construction within the building, not observable in aerial photos, is compared with the building’s plan attached to the building’s real estate records.

The BigFive Mall is located in the heart of Damascus’s densely populated and commercially active Midan district. The mall overlooks the Southern Ring Road and currently consists of a five-storey building, each floor housing a single restaurant, with juice and ice cream shops in its forecourt. The mall sees busy commercial activity daily and employs about 150 workers.

One of the mall’s notable investors is the Damascene businessman Bilal Al-Naal, a Syrian People’s Assembly member whose role in trade and investment has become prominent in recent years. Mr Naal was previously the general manager of the now-dissolved Desert Falcons security company, which is accused of involvement in war crimes and manipulating humanitarian aid delivered on behalf of various United Nations agencies. He has been on the U.S. sanctions list since 2020. Mr Naal was also a former investor in the Qasioun Mall before it was taken over by his business rival, Wassim Qattan, who currently resides outside of Syria following accusations related to building violations that caused the collapse of a building facade in Damascus’s Al-Malki district.

AbdulGhani Osman, a member of the Executive Office in Damascus Governorate in charge of municipal services and utilities, told the semi-official Al-Watan newspaper that aerial images of the property showed that the unlicensed construction there occurred after 2012, necessitating the implementation of Building Violation Decree No. 40 of 2012. In other words, the unlicensed construction on the site cannot be settled. Mr Osman concluded that the settlements granted to Property No. 722 in 2018 were void, as there is no new building licence on the site, which is still considered a four-storey residential building with a single electricity meter (there is a complaint in this regard from the Damascus Electricity Company, No. 845, issued on October 16, 2023). Consequently, the building was expanded, and an additional storey was added without a permit, along with excessive restoration work.

Mr Osman added that the property could not be expropriated because it is privately owned, contradicting previous statements that it was expropriated for the benefit of the Damascus governorate. This adds to the conflicting official statements about the property. However, it aligns with a declaration by Reema Jourieh, the director of municipal services, stating that Property No. 722 is divided into three parts, according to the zoning plan: one part will be a park, one part will extend a public street, and the last part shares a roof with neighbouring properties. This indicates that the property is partially expropriated but still partly privately owned. However, there is no information about the owners of this section.

Mr Naal or the investors of the restaurants in the mall did not issue statements.

The Damascus governorate’s decision sets a precedent by revoking a building violation settlement file. Obtaining a settlement for a violation, paying its fines, and registering it in the property ledger is a highly complex process, requiring significant influence and years of follow-up with the governorate, the Directorate of Cadastral Affairs, the Directorate of Finance, the police departments and security branches. This usually occurs only after paying substantial bribes, which depend on the value of the property, its location and the extent of the unlicensed construction.

Explained: Can a State Entity Expropriate a Property Before the Issuance of an Expropriation Decree?

/in , /by

Syria’s Expropriation Law No. 20 of 1983 stipulates that a property can only be expropriated by a decree issued on the recommendation of the relevant government minister. This decree must declare the public benefit of seizing that property – that is, public entities can only expropriate properties after such a decree is issued. However, Law No. 20 permits public entities to expropriate properties in two specific circumstances without or before the issuance of such a decree.

In the first case, a public entity can implement what is known as “marking the property,” i.e. marking the property’s Land Record for expropriation based on the detailed zoning plan for the area and, initially at least, following an expropriation decree. Marking the property on the zoning plan prevents the owner from disposing of it. Expropriation Law 20 No. 1983 does not specify a time limit for issuing an expropriation decree after marking the property. 

According to The Syria Report’s HLP legal consultant, this represents a constitutional violation as it infringes on property rights without obliging the expropriating public entity to issue the expropriation decree within a specific period.

The Supreme Administrative Court’s Decision No. 15 regarding Appeal No. 25 of 1980 clarified that merely marking the property on a plan, indicating its designation as a government building, is insufficient to prevent the owner from disposing of it. A formal expropriation decree is necessary, as anything less would strip the owner of their rights using an illegal method and an unauthorized authority, making the expropriation mark unlawful and subject to cancellation, according to the HLP legal consultant.

However, the Supreme Administrative Court’s Decision No. 84 regarding Appeal No. 1204 of 2004 reversed Decision No. 15 of 1980. The court justified its decision by stating that zoning plans cannot be challenged before the Council of State. These plans are deemed general zoning decisions. Those affected by the plan can object within the timeframe specified in the Urban Planning Law No. 5 of 1982.

Article 5 of Law No. 5 of 1982 explains that objections to proposed zoning plans must be made within 30 days before a technical committee that the governor forms. However, this committee is merely administrative and has no judicial authority. This deprives the rights holder of seeking redress before the competent administrative court, which violates the principles of justice. The decision to mark property for expropriation based on a zoning plan is an administrative decision restricting the owner’s right to dispose of their property. Such decisions should be challengeable before the competent court, according to the HLP legal consultant.

In the second case, Law 20 No. 1983 allows a public entity to seize a property before the expropriation decree is issued, provided the property is undeveloped, such as agricultural land. Developed properties cannot be seized before the decree is issued and the property’s value is estimated.

Therefore, if the entity seizes a property before issuing an expropriation decree, they are obliged to compensate the property owner according to the principles of tort liability as stipulated in the Syrian Civil Code and subject to regular judicial jurisdiction. This approach was adopted by the Court of Cassation in Decision No. 857 with Base No. 984 of 2022, stating that if the entity’s expropriation of a property is proven illegal, it constitutes material extortion requiring compensation, with jurisdiction vested in the regular judiciary.

SSG Demolishes Idlib Residential Buildings for Road Expansion

/in , /by

The Ministry of Local Administration and Services in the Syrian Salvation Government (SSG) began a campaign in September to demolish properties and homes to widen the road connecting the city of Al-Dana to the town of Deir Hassan, in northern Idlib countryside. The demolition operations included both licensed and unlicensed buildings. The road expansion aims to alleviate the severe traffic congestion in the area, which is home to many camps for Syrian IDPs.

Those opposed to the road expansion say it has had negative impacts on shops and building owners, who have not received compensation. They believe it benefits some traders who purchased properties on either side of the road, anticipating their value to rise after the expansion. The road expansion is expected to attract investors interested in establishing shopping centres, restaurants and parks on both sides of the road, similar to the situation on the Bab Al-Hawa-Idlib highway. 

Many buildings were constructed on both sides of the road after 2011, during the period when the area fell out of the regime’s control, and before the establishment of the opposition-run local councils in northern Idlib. Later, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Al-Nusra Front) would take control of the area in 2014.

One local homeowner told The Syria Report that he built his home in late 2011 on land he owns. However, he expanded his construction onto land earmarked for road expansion in the old zoning plan for the area. Last June, like other property owners, he received a notice from the Ministry of Local Administration and Services to vacate and demolish the parts of the building that were unlicensed. Then, in September, the ministry forced the owners of unlicensed buildings to demolish them themselves and remove the rubble at their own expense. Those owners received no compensation for their demolished properties. They also received no financial or logistical assistance in demolishing them, as they were built on public property without a licence, as the local homeowner said.

Notably, the ministry did not issue a decision to expropriate the targeted lands for road expansion and has no clear legal methodology for compensating the owners.

Saeed Al-Ashqar, an advisor to the SSG’s Minister of Local Administration and Services, told The Syria Report that the demolished buildings were mostly unlicensed and built within the road expansion zone. He refuted claims made by some owners of demolished unlicensed buildings that they received no compensation. He said that only three unlicensed buildings were completely demolished, and their owners were compensated, without specifying the amount or method. The owners of nine other partly-demolished unlicensed buildings were compensated.

Licensed buildings were demolished in agreement with their owners, and they received compensation from the SSG, according to Mr Al-Ashqar, who did not specify the compensation amount. Licensed buildings that were demolished date back to a time before the old zoning plan, which included road expansion. In contrast, licensed buildings set back from the road by a minimum distance and with a front setback were not demolished.

Mr Al-Ashqar further argued that the road serves over a quarter of a million people. The road’s expansion and rehabilitation are initiatives by the Ministry of Local Administration to stimulate trade and the economy in the area and address the traffic congestion. A new zoning plan for Al-Dana city was introduced at the beginning of 2022, including road expansion. Al-Ashqar said that the expansion will increase the road’s width to 24 metres over a distance of 1,750 metres, and the area will be serviced with the necessary infrastructure, including electricity, water, and sewage networks.

Aleppo Souks Company Begins Restoring Souk Hanano

/in , /by

Recent weeks have seen the Aleppo Souks Company start rehabilitation and restoration works in East Aleppo’s Souk Hanano, beginning with the removal and relocation of rubbles from the site. The restoration processes include the complete reconstruction of the market, which is expected to be completed by the end of 2023, with the market set to open its doors at the beginning of 2024.

According to the Aleppo Chamber of Commerce, the souk will be designated after its restoration to support small and micro commercial and craft projects, with the aim of supporting production and the national economy, as well as providing job opportunities for people affected by the February 6 earthquake.

In 2008, the city council identified seven areas in Aleppo in which to establish popular markets. Then in 2009, the Aleppo Souks Company was established, in partnership between the Aleppo City Council and the Aleppo Chamber of Commerce. The company worked to equip and invest in plots owned by the city council in the ninth and 10th real estate districts in Aleppo city,, to establish two popular markets, among the seven predetermined locations, intended for leasing: Hanano and Dahret Awad Markets.

An official in the Aleppo City Council told The Syria Report that the Hanano Popular Market includes 409 shops covering an area of 3,646 square metres, established in 2009 on endowments properties and other properties expropriated by the city council. 

The Dahret Awad market includes 184 shops, established on an area of 2,000 square metres that were private agricultural lands expropriated by the city council. Owners of the expropriated properties in the two markets were compensated with long-term commercial lease contracts in the market. 

The council source added that, when construction of the two markets was completed in 2009, the shops were rented out with 20-year contracts, with the council and Chamber of Commerce sharing the collected rent payments via the Aleppo Souks Company. All the shops are rented under the old Tenancy Law No. 111 of 1952 and its amendments, which means tenants cannot be evicted as long as they continue to pay the rent. These properties are subject to compulsory extension, meaning the extension of the lease is obligatory regardless of the landlord’s wishes.

After 2011, the two markets came under opposition control and their shops closed due to the fighting. Between 2012 and 2016, when the Syrian opposition controlled the eastern districts of Aleppo, both markets were hit by the regime’s targeted aerial bombardments, leading to widespread destruction of shops, infrastructure, water, sanitation and electricity networks.

In 2016, the Aleppo Souks Company opened a new market, constructed in a similar manner near Aleppo’s branch of the Syrian Engineers Syndicate in western Aleppo, named Souk Al-Harir (“The Silk Market”). The Aleppo City Council provided some of the affected traders from Dahret Awad and Hanano with commercial shops in this new market, but there was little commercial success and business ventures there struggled. In 2019, the city council announced its intention to revitalise and reactivate the Aleppo Souks Company to alleviate the significant damages the markets in Aleppo had sustained during the war period.

The Syrian Ministry of Economy and Foreign Trade had previously ratified the bylaws of Aleppo Souks Company LLC in its Decision No. 126 of 2009. According to Official Gazette Issue No. 43, part 2 of 2016, the ministry later issued Decision No. 1698 in 2016, which approved amending the company’s bylaws in accordance with the Companies Law, issued under Legislative Decree No. 29 of 2011. According to this amendment, the company’s objective is to establish popular and commercial markets, malls, exhibitions, and commercial and tourist events with multiple aims:

  1. Tackling the issue of the affected shop owners, street vendors, and stallholders in Aleppo.
  2. Providing job opportunities and commercial spaces for citizens, including the families of war “martyrs” and those with special needs.
  3. Maintaining the aesthetics of the Old City and conducting environmental awareness campaigns.
  4. Stimulating commercial and tourist activity in Aleppo.
  5. Establishing temporary and permanent commercial markets and malls on plots of land, whether owned by the Aleppo City Council or other entities.

Notably, according to the 2016 amendment, the founders of the Aleppo Souks Company are the Aleppo City Council and the Aleppo Chamber of Commerce, both represented by their presidents. The company’s headquarters is in the Seven Seas area next to the Chamber of Industry in Aleppo city. The company’s capital is SYP 424,094,000, divided into 100 equal shares: 60 percent belong to the city council and 40 percent to the Chamber of Commerce. The company has the right to own real estate or fixed assets, while the city council provides the land for the souks and the Chamber of Commerce contributes to construction and equipment costs.

The company is managed by a four-member board of directors who are elected by the general assembly. Two members come from the city council and two from the Chamber of Commerce. The president of the Chamber of Commerce in Aleppo serves as the chair of the company’s board. 

Limited information is available about the company’s management, but Mohammad Saleh Al-Mallah, the then-president of the Chamber of Commerce, managed the company until 2011. He was succeeded by Ibrahim Fatouh until August 2016. Today, the company is chaired by Amer Al-Hamwi, president of the Aleppo Chamber of Commerce. According to The Syria Report’s sources, Hamwi is closely associated with Hussam Qaterji, who, despite being on the US and European sanctions list, is a member of the People’s Assembly, and the president of the international Qaterji Group. This group includes the Qaterji Real Estate Development and Investment Company.

Aleppo City Council Harms Shop Owners in Souk Qastal for Qaterji Company’s Benefit

/in , /by

The majority of the shops in Souk Qastal Al-Hajjarin in the old city of Aleppo, around 150 shops in total, remain closed for business despite the fact that regime forces have controlled the entirety of the old city and eastern neighbourhoods since forcibly displacing the opposition in late 2016.  

 

 

Historically, Souk Qastal Al-Hajjarin was known for its laurel and olive oil soap factories. In 1875, the neighbourhood contained 138 homes, bordered to the south by the Hatem and Jeb AsadAllah streets, to the north by Bhesita street, and to the east by the Ali and the old tanning workshop streets, an owner of one local historic shop told The Syria Report. 

Important landmarks in the souk include the Salhiya or Qadiriya corner, one of the oldest street corners in Aleppo, as well as the Sharbaji Mosque, the Nahuieen Mosque, the Shadhiliya School, the Wati Mosque, and the Orphans’ Office. Also in the souk is a water station built by the deputy of Aleppo, Yalbugha, in 1753, the New Bathhouse, and the Oil Khan, open since 1742. The souk has a water well that opened in 1900 and was known as Qastal Al-Hajjarin, the name that the souk itself eventually took.

A road passes through Souk Qastal Al-Hajjarin leading to the Bab Al-Faraj square, and another road to Bab Al-Janan. Three years before World War I, Sheikh Mahmoud Ibn Sheikh Mohammed Khair Al-Din Al-Halwi, a professor of the Salhiya Sufi Order, built 13 commercial shops on awqaf, or endowment, lands and leased them for the benefit of the Sufi Order. 

During the First World War (1914-1918)war, the local authorities of the Ottoman Sultanate demolished a number of houses and shops in the neighbourhood and widened the roads. With the end of that war and the collapse of the Ottoman Sultanate, the neighbourhood expanded, and the shops proliferated, making Souk Qastal Al-Hajjarin one of the most prestigious historic souks in old Aleppo.

In the second quarter of the 20th century, the Aleppo municipality opened a street in the old souk destroying many archaeological landmarks. On both sides of the new street, modern buildings appeared, occupied by bank branches, jewellers, gold shops, precious fabrics shops and carpet traders.

The shops in Souk Qastal Al-Hajjarin belong to their owners, most of whom inherited them from their fathers and grandfathers within families native to the area. In 1974, the Aleppo City Council took over all the shops in the neighbourhood – around 150 shops in total – for the purpose of zoning and expanding the Bab Al-Faraj area. According to the plans set for the project, the majority of those shops were slated for demolition. While waiting for the expansion and demolition, the Aleppo City Council rented those shops to their owners, and they became occupants via rental contracts. 

Then in 1986, UNESCO listed the old city of Aleppo on the World Heritage list. Consequently, implementation of the approved zoning plans was halted, but the shops remained owned by the City Council. The situation remained as it was until 2011. The zoning plan was not implemented and the shops were not demolished – nor, however, were they returned to their owners or compensated for.

The souk witnessed a general strike in mid-2012 as part of the Syrian revolution, making it clear that many occupants were against the regime. From 2012 to 2016, the souk became a site for regime forces to position themselves near the frontline with the opposition, which at the time was entrenched in the old city of Aleppo. The souk was subjected to vandalism and destruction, primarily when the regime forces opened the talaqiyat in its walls and ceilings, which are openings used for shooting and mortar shells, as well as for monitoring, sniping and reconnaissance. These talaqiyat were also struck by opposition forces in their response to regime weapons fire. This is besides the demolition operations that occurred in the historic souk to make way for armoured vehicles and heavy military machinery.

Despite the regime forces regaining complete control of east Aleppo in 2016, they did not help shop owners restore and rehabilitate their properties in the souk. On the contrary, they tried to obstruct such work. In 2018, the Aleppo City Council issued Decision No. 78 to again seize the shops, preventing their occupants from repairing and reopening them before paying the full rent due for the years 2012-2016. The council also decided to triple the rental prices for the shops.

One shop owner told The Syria Report that the City Council seized his shop in 2018, along with dozens of neighbouring ones. They were forced to pay SYP 2 million in rent due for the years 2012-2016, during which the shop was closed due to regime forces’ positions in the market and its transformation into a military zone.

Some former shop occupants refused to pay the new rents, amid rumours that the City Council will return and force them to vacate the shops even if they make the request back payments. Meanwhile, some shop occupants have filed lawsuits against the City Council.

In an even more unusual step, in August 2022, the City Council issued Decision No. 4532, cancelling the previous Decision No. 78, and reinstating the old lease contracts with the market shop occupants, provided that the legal claims are withdrawn. Then the council returned in 2023, and raised the value of the shop rents many times over. Now the monthly rent per shop is around SYP 250,000, though rents vary based on shop size.

According to some shop owners, the City Council’s policy is an intentional move to evict the remaining souk occupants in favour of the Qaterji Development and Real Estate Investment Company. Some accuse the Qaterji company of influencing the governorate and city councils, pressuring them to force shop owners to leave. The ultimate goal is unclear.

 Interviewees told The Syria Report they suspect that the company’s final aim is not just to lease the shops after their owners have vacated, but is linked to a broader project related to emptying the shops first and then embarking on a complete souk renovation project. Some occupants pointed to the possibility of Qaterji partnering with international or local organisations for the souk’s renovation, and then reinvesting in it. Some shop owners said that they are even deprived of benefiting from Decree No. 13 of 2022, which grants extensive tax facilities and exemptions within the old cities in the provinces of Aleppo, Homs and Deir-ez-Zor.

Hussam Qaterji, an Aleppo MP for the People’s Assembly since 2016, is one of the most prominent businessmen loyal to the regime to have thrived during the war years. Qaterji primarily worked in buying oil and wheat for the Damascus government from northeastern Syria during its control by the Islamic State organisation, and later by the Syrian Democratic Forces. He heads the Qaterji International Group, which includes various companies, one being the Qaterji Development and Real Estate Investment Company established in August 2017, and headquartered in the Aleppo governorate building.

Several shop owners said that some employees of the Aleppo City Council and the governorate council are now working for the Qaterji Company. They receive high wages from the Qaterji Company on the condition of continuing in their official jobs in the municipal councils. Shop occupants accuse these employees of facilitating the Qaterji Development and Real Estate Investment Company’s business interest at the expense of the shop owners, as well as the governorate and city councils.

Explained: Compensation for Expropriation

/in , /by

Property expropriation is legitimate in Syria but it remains an administrative act that affects individual property rights. According to the law, any administrative authority, when expropriating for public benefit, must pay fair compensation to the owners of expropriated properties. This acts as a safeguard for property rights against uncompensated or free expropriation.

The 2012 Syrian Constitution mentions fair compensation for expropriation – this means that the compensation amount should not be less than the current value of the expropriated property, and it should be paid in full and immediately. However, the expropriation law enacted by Decree No. 20 of 1983 gives the expropriating administration a five-year period to pay this compensation. If the administration is late in payment, they are obliged to pay a legal interest of six percent for each year of delay.

Expropriation Law No. 20 stipulates assessing the value of expropriated properties based on their value immediately before the expropriation decree date. It did not consider any subsequent price increases due to the expropriation project, commercial speculations, or the passage of time.

The advisory opinion of the State Council No. 106 of 1983 followed the same approach, considering that the assessment of expropriated property values is based on their status at the time of expropriation, without taking into account any subsequent changes in their descriptions, whether due to the owners, public entities, or as a result of the execution of the expropriation project.

After specialized committees assess the property’s value and compensation according to the expropriation law, their decision is final and cannot be reviewed. Even if the expropriating administration delays payment for more than five years, the owner of the expropriated property does not have the right to request a reevaluation of the property.

This legally mandated payment period is unduly long, allowing the expropriating administration to delay its payments. Such delays can be detrimental to the owner of the expropriated property, especially if they need to purchase another property. The current value of a property, assessed at the beginning of the payment period in Syrian pounds, is lower than its value five years later at the end of that period, considering the fluctuation in the exchange rate of the Syrian pound and its purchasing power.

The 1983 expropriation law did not distinguish between licensed and unlicensed buildings when discussing the estimation of compensation value for the expropriated property. The law considered that the property value assessment includes the land, buildings, and construction. Meanwhile, real estate departments at the governorate level compile a list of property owners set for expropriation, registered rights holders, their respective shares, and their sizes. The expropriating entity then notifies the owners and the beneficiaries of the estimated value of these properties. Compensation from the expropriating administration is limited to those whose names appear in the list of rights holders and will not cover owners of unlicensed buildings constructed on public properties.

 

The administration can expropriate the property before paying the compensation. This goes against the principle of fair compensation, which necessitates that the administration should pay before taking possession of the property.

The expropriation law specifies two methods for payment of compensation: direct payment and deposit. In direct payment cases, the expropriating entity pays the compensation directly to the property owner or deposits the amount as a trust with the property registry until the property owner and a representative from the expropriating entity are present. The owner’s acknowledgment of receiving the compensation is then documented, and the property’s ownership is transferred and registered under the name of the expropriating entity. For this payment method, the property’s record must be free from any notes or restrictions.

The second method is the deposit: the expropriating entity deposits the compensation in the name of the owner at one of the public banks, after which the property’s ownership is transferred to the expropriating entity.

Explained: Expropriating Free of Charge One-Quarter from a Piece of Real Estate

/in , /by

Syria’s Expropriation Law, enacted by Decree No. 20 of 1983, grants certain public entities the authority to deduct the equivalent of one-quarter of the area of a property that is partially expropriated, free of charge and without compensation. The Expropriation Law justifies this measure by arguing that the value of the remaining portion of the property will increase due to the improvements made to the deducted one-quarter. This assumption stems from the idea that the value of the rest of the property will increase due to the implementation of public benefit projects that may be implemented by public and private entities on the expropriated land. 

As a consequence, public entities now have legal authority to expropriate, without compensation, one-quarter of the area of any property – so long as the expropriation affects only a portion of the property while the remaining part stays with the owner and remains usable.

Article 31 of the Expropriation law from 1983 outlines the provisions for this free one-quarter deduction and specifies its conditions – these relate to the administrative body entitled to expropriate, the projects that permit the deduction of the free one-quarter, and the specifics of the expropriated property itself.

The first paragraph of Article 31 states: “Administrative entities and units, the Syrian railways institutions, the Syrian Civil Aviation Authority and the General Directorate of Syrian Ports, may, free of charge and once only, deduct the equivalent of one-quarter of the area of the property being partially expropriated. This deduction is permitted for road and street construction or expansion, for establishing and expanding reservoirs, airports, ports, squares, public parks and markets, and for implementing railway, irrigation, drinking water, oil, gas and electricity projects, provided the remaining part of the property remains usable.”

Only the entities mentioned above have the right to expropriate the free one-quarter. Other entities may not – though the judicial ruling in Decision No. 474, Base 2101 of 1986, stipulates that, in such a case, expropriation by the public entity must be based on a legal document, namely the expropriation decree. If the administration seizes the property unlawfully in a manner that contradicts the law that protects property rights, it is deemed an infringement on individual rights. Thus, the entity does not have the right to deduct the free one-quarter.

Article 31 also explicitly mentions the projects for which administrative entities can deduct a free one-quarter of a property for implementation. A free deduction cannot be made for any project not explicitly mentioned in the text of Article 31. This restriction prevents excessive expropriation without compensation, which constitutes an infringement on property rights. For example, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court, in Decision No. 227, Base 135 dated 10/05/1965, affirms that the free one-quarter deduction is not permissible if the expropriation is for investment projects.

Furthermore, for a public entity to deduct the “free” one-quarter legally, it must only expropriate a portion of the property, not its entirety. When expropriating the entire property, the administrative entity must pay the full compensation. In practice, if such an entity expropriates a part of the property and deducts the free one-quarter, and later decides to expropriate the entire property, they must then compensate for the one-quarter they previously did not pay for, in essence paying full compensation for the property.

As mentioned earlier, the remaining, non-expropriated part of the property, should be usable by the property owner. If it is not, then the property owner can request the administration to fully expropriate it within three years from the date of initial expropriation, according to Article 11 of Decree No. 20 of 1983.

Jurisprudence in Decision No. 417, Base 1056 dated April 20, 1992, confirmed this principle, stating that the deduction of the free one-quarter is contingent on a part of the expropriated property remaining usable. If this condition is not met and the entire property is expropriated, full compensation must be paid.

In any case, expropriation without compensation under the guise of a free one-quarter deduction contradicts the 2012 Syrian constitution, which emphasises the protection of private property – namely, expropriation is only permissible for public benefit and in return for fair compensation. The Expropriation Law’s given justification for the right to deduct one-quarter of a property without compensation is that it will benefit the remaining part of the property through improvements. However, this assumption is not based on realistic grounds. On the contrary, such expropriation can potentially harm the remaining part of the property.

Pre-Fab Homes in Jabrin: For Earthquake Victims, or Militias Members?

/in , /by

Local militias in Aleppo, loyal to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, have reportedly seized 150 out of 450 pre-fab homes meant to benefit civilians impacted by the February 6 earthquake, according to a local source. 

Only 300 of these pre-fab homes would have reached its destination in the Jabrin area, which had been designated for the temporary housing, according to the source. Out of the 150 pre-fab homes seized, the Baqir Brigade militia, loyal to the Revolutionary Guard, has seized 30 dwellings, setting them up near their stronghold in the Belloreh neighbourhood in eastern Aleppo. And local militias in Aleppo loyal to the Revolutionary Guard, have seized 120 of the dwellings and moved them to military bases and locations they control in Azzan, Assan and Al-Hader in southern Aleppo governorate, as well as Nubl and Zahraa in northern Aleppo. 

On April 15, the state-run SANA agency quoted a member of the Aleppo governorate’s Executive Office, saying that the body has allocated 13 hectares in Jabrin for a Popular Mobilisation Forces relief initiative. The Iraqi Popular Relief Force is the civilian arm of the Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces, comprised of armed, majority Shiite Iraqi factions. 

The relief initiative coordinator previously told SANA that the project aims to set up 500 housing units. Each dwelling is 36 square metres and consists of two bedrooms, a salon and its annexes, and is equipped with a solar panel. Iron is the primary material used in manufacturing these units, along with sound and thermal insulation materials. They are to be furnished and can accommodate six to eight people. These dwellings, constructed by the Popular Relief Forces, appear to be little more than tin sheds, according to published photos.

The Syria Report’s local correspondent noted that there is confusion surrounding the distribution process of these pre-fabricated homes in Jabrin to the earthquake victims in Aleppo. To date, the Aleppo City Council has not issued any lists of eligible recipients for these homes, nor any clarification on how to apply for them or what criteria applicants must meet. Meanwhile, residents in Aleppo say there are rumours that these homes will be distributed to members of local militias loyal to the Revolutionary Guard. 

In March, the Aleppo governorate operations room adopted a plan to construct pre-fabricated temporary housing units to shelter those affected by the earthquake. The units were planned to be set up over 50 hectares in Jabrin, an area near Aleppo International Airport, surrounded by an industrial zone and the Aleppo train station. The area was incorporated into the administrative borders of Aleppo city in 1996 and had been the site of a refugee shelter and camps established in 2017.

Most of the land in the town of Jabrin is publicly owned, and was acquired by the state in various stages since the 1980s. Originally, Jabrin’s lands were private agricultural properties owned by local villagers. 

In 1981, however, the Aleppo City Council acquired 323 hectares of this land to establish an industrial zone. The council also planned to set up a vocational zone in Jabrin specifically for car maintenance workshops. Many industrial and vocational plots have been developed over the past decades through collaboration between the Aleppo governorate and Aleppo City Council, along with the General Federation of Artisans Associations (GFAA), although a formal industrial zone and vocational area have not fully materialised.

Despite these extensive land expropriations in Jabrin, the area has not seen any significant benefits. The town still lacks basic services like electricity, water and sewage facilities, and most of its construction is unlicensed. However, the acquisitions have not stopped. 

In 2004, the Minister of Irrigation issued Decision No. 1739 to implement a water canal from the main channel in Maskana to the Queiq River, and Decision No. 840 in 2005 to build feeder channels to the plains of southern Aleppo. These decisions led to the expropriation of many properties and parts of properties in the town and its remaining lands.

Decree No. 840 was issued to acquire most of Property No. 466 in Jabrin for the irrigation project in the southeastern plains of Aleppo. The project uprooted 15,000 olive and pistachio and grape vines, in addition to arable grain-cultivated lands.

 In 2006, Decree No. 460 was issued, stipulating cash payments as compensation for the properties and parts of properties that were expropriated for the project. However, according to The Syria Report’s local correspondent, the majority of those affected in the Jabrin area have not received any compensation for their expropriated lands.

During the conflict, the site of the Jabrin Industrial Zone remained under the control of regime forces as it was close to Aleppo’s civilian and military airports. The industrial area has become a hub for local militias loyal to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, including the Al-Quds Brigade, which has its main base in the nearby Al-Nayrab camp. A local source in the Jabrin area told The Syria Report that between 2012-2016, displaced people from eastern Aleppo neighbourhoods lived in designated areas of the industrial zone in Jabrin. Meanwhile, pro-regime militias allocated some of these areas as depots for their vehicles, weapons and ammunition.

After regime forces regained control of east Aleppo in late 2016, the City Council promised to rehabilitate the Jabrin Industrial Zone, and complete and hand over the real estate plots within the zone. It also aimed to encourage the relocation of trades and crafts from inside Aleppo city to Jabrin. However, the council’s promises remained unfulfilled, and the Jabrin Industrial Zone remained as it had been previously.

In 2017, a shelter centre for displaced people was opened in the Jabrin Industrial Zone. That same year, the Aleppo City Council stated that work had begun on completing the first phase of the vocational area for car maintenance in Jabrin, after the site had been divided into multiple project phases. However, no actual progress has been made on the project.

A year later, in 2018, the Aleppo City Council allocated the centre to receive displaced residents from the Shiite villages of Kafraya and Al-Foua in the Idlib countryside. In recent months, the Aleppo Defenders’ Brigade militia, affiliated with the Syrian branch of Hezbollah, relocated more than 400 families from Kafraya and Al-Foua from the Jabrin shelter to apartments in areas under their control in the neighbourhoods of Bab Al-Nayrab, Al-Marjeh, Al-Firdous, Al-Balloura, Karm Homad and Al-Maadi. These apartments were originally owned by people who had been forcibly displaced to opposition-controlled areas in northwestern Syria.

In 2019, Aleppo City Council formed a follow-up committee to rehabilitate the Jabrin Industrial Zone in preparation for transferring the craftspeople. Many of the applicants and allottees on plots in the Jabrin Industrial Zone, whether built or still in the planning stage, were internally displaced by the war. According to the GFAA, those people’s subscriptions will be cancelled on the grounds of defaulting on their instalment payments.

Explained: Easement Rights for Public Benefit

/in , /by

On July 9, 2023, the Prime Minister’s Office issued Decision No. 1141, which sets easement rights for a series of properties located within the route and perimeter of the high-voltage electricity line 66, running between the towns of Al-Kiswah in Rural Damascus and Al-Sanamayn in Daraa. Decision No. 1141 also included the establishment of easement rights for public benefit, such as the right of way across another person’s land and the placement of poles and towers, including the extension of electrical and aerial cables.

Articles 960 to 993 of the Syrian Civil Code No. 84 of 1949 regulate the provisions of easement rights.

Under Article 960, an easement is defined as an obligation imposed on a specific property for the benefit of another specific property owned by another person. In other words, an easement is an in rem right that is applied to a property for the benefit of another property, rather than a personal right for the property owner. This concept was also confirmed by the judicial interpretation of the Court of Cassation No. 622 base 663, dated August 28, 1960. Essentially, easement limits the authority of the property owner in using some of their rights on their property or granting neighbouring property owners usage rights on the designated property.

Next, Article 961 of the Civil Code lists the types of easements. A natural easement occurs due to natural events, such as the flow of water from higher ground to lower ground and does not require official documentation in the Land Registry. A legal easement, whether for public or private benefit, also does not require a Land Registry entry. The third type is a consensual easement, arranged by individuals on their properties through mutual agreement — this type requires documentation in the Land Registry.

Article 967 of the Civil Code refers to specific laws and regulations that determine the legal easement rights for public benefit, such as enabling access to beaches and riverbanks, or facilitating the construction, maintenance or usage of public pathways or facilities, especially military installations on land or at sea.

Syria’s Expropriation Law, issued by Decree No. 20 of 1983, granted public entities the right to establish easement rights on properties that may be expropriated for the implementation of public benefit projects. Under Article 37 of this decree, establishing easement rights for public benefit must be done through a decree based on the proposal of the relevant minister, while easements must be compensatory. This is due to the clear impact these easements can have, causing harm to certain property ownership rights. For example, in the case of establishing easement rights for the passage of high-tension electrical wires over private properties, this leads to damage to all such properties through which the wires pass, causing a decrease in their value. Therefore, justice requires compensation for property owners adversely affected by this.

However, the more recent Decision No. 1141 from July did not include any reference to potential compensation for property owners who have had easement rights imposed on their properties. This means the decision violates Article 37 of Expropriation Decree No. 20 of 1983. In this case, the owners of these properties could resort to the administrative judiciary to demand compensation for the easement rights imposed for public benefit on their properties.

Finally, expropriation or easement for public benefit carried out without a decree, as is the case with Decision No. 1141, constitutes an infringement on property rights. Jurisprudence, as per Decision No. 606 base 640 of 1996, considers that expropriating someone else’s property without issuing an expropriation decree is an unlawful act. The general jurisdiction of the ordinary courts would handle compensation claims in such instances.

HelpAbout usContact usAdvertise with The Syria ReportTerms & conditions
Copyright © 2026 The Syria Report – all rights reserved. Your use of this website is subject to our legal terms & conditions