/ public_benefit

Posts

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.

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.

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.

Explained: Occupying the State’s Private Properties

/in , /by

Syria’s State Property Law No. 252 of 1959 allows individuals to occupy, rent and invest in the private state properties, which includes both built and unbuilt real estate as well as non-movable proprietary rights owned by the state as an entity. However, these are not designated for public benefit.

Private state properties encompass various categories, such as Amiri lands, properties registered in the name of the state within the Land Registry or in the state property records, and properties purchased by the state or that have lost their public benefit designation. Meaning, while public state properties are allocated for the public benefit like roads, squares, parks, and beaches, private state properties are intended for public entities, such as buildings and properties specific to local councils.

Law No. 252 of 1959 entrusts the management and oversight of the state’s private properties to the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform. The Ministry issues regulations and decisions necessary for the repair, investment, leasing, distribution, and sale of the state’s private properties, based on fixed annual sums.

In many cases, an individual might occupy a state property unlawfully, without legal permission. For example, one might occupy a state property without a rental agreement, or a tenant might remain after their lease ends, or someone could build on state-owned land without a permit. In such cases, the Ministry of Finance collects the yearly dues for the property after settling the violation, following the procedures detailed in the Public Assets Collection Law. This is also inclusive of penalties and late fees.

Law No. 252 grants the Minister of Agriculture the right to terminate the entitlements of those holding state properties, whether through purchase, rental, or distribution, if they violate contract terms. The process of terminating the rights of those who breach contract conditions is done administratively and is termed “hand removal.” A decision on hand removal can be appealed before a judicial committee formed by the Minister of Agriculture, as per the Agrarian Reform Law No. 161 of 1958, within a month of the decision’s issuance, and the committee’s decision is binding.

The committee consists of three members, led by a judge appointed by the Minister of Justice, a representative from the General Directorate of Real Estate Services, and an employee from the Ministry of Agriculture. This committee isn’t impartial or judicially independent, given that it’s formed by the Minister of Agriculture, who is a party to the dispute.

The Minister of Agriculture also has the authority under Law No. 252 to cancel rights of easement, usufruct, and benefit granted to individuals on state properties if deemed in the public interest, with the possibility to challenge this decision before the aforementioned judicial committee.

This applies, for example, in the case of easement rights, if someone owns land adjacent to a state property and needs to pass through it, while in the case of usufruct and benefit rights, it applies to amiri lands that the state distributes to individuals.

Undoubtedly, the power granted to the Minister of Agriculture exposes those rights holders to the risk of deprivation. This is because the criterion of “public interest” on which the Minister of Agriculture relies when cancelling these rights might be difficult to define.

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: 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.

Explained: Real Estate Rights that Are Subject to Expropriation

/in , /by

Expropriation addresses real estate property rights, including primary and secondary in rem rights on property. Real estate in rem rights are the direct authority that the law assigns to an individual over a specific property without the mediation of another. These rights are categorised into primary in rem rights, which include rights of usage, enjoyment, and easement, and secondary in rem rights that cover collateral mortgages, possessory mortgages, and rights of privilege.

These rights may be taken over upon the expropriation of a given property. For instance, if the public authority takes over the property, it controls ownership of that property and any associated in rem rights belonging to others, such as registered easement rights. The public authority must then compensate the former holders of these rights. Furthermore, the public authority can expropriate a right in rem on a property without taking over ownership, such as establishing an easement on a property by laying an electrical tension line while leaving the property under the owner’s possession.

Under Article 2 of the Expropriation Law, issued by Legislative Decree No. 20 of 1983, expropriation can be applied to both built and unbuilt properties, subdivided or jointly owned. It is also permissible to expropriate lands even if they are allocated for construction, so long as they are included in the expropriation plan to implement public benefit projects.

Agricultural lands have been given special attention in expropriation cases. Under Council of Ministers Circular No. 86/B-15/4778 of 1983, the expropriating authority cannot seize agricultural land and prevent the farmer from exploiting it before an official expropriation decision and settlement of the farmer’s rights.

Authorities may expropriate an entire property or just a part of it. However, if the remaining part of the property becomes unusable, the expropriating authority should then expropriate that part within three years upon the owner’s request and following a decision from the local council stating that the remaining part is unusable. In this instance, the council’s decision must be per Article 11 of Expropriation Law No. 20.

On the other hand, if a public authority expropriates a property larger than needed for a public benefit project, this does not negate the public benefit of the excess portion, nor does it affect the validity of the expropriation decree. The authority has the right to manage the remaining amount according to the expropriation decree provisions based on the determination set by the Court of Cassation under Principle 459 issued by Decision No. 269 of 1984.

It is also permissible for public authorities to expropriate portions of multiple different properties to construct on them after merging and unifying them or subdividing them, as stipulated in Article 5 of Law No. 20.

Article 2 of the Expropriation Law allowed for the expropriation of awqaf (endowments) properties, while Law No. 26 of 2000, which amended the Urban Expansion Law, did not permit such properties. Article 2 of Law No. 26 specifies that endowment properties belonging to various religious sects should not be subject to expropriation under its provisions. Therefore, the expropriating authority always relies on the provisions of Expropriation Law No. 20 when expropriating a property owned by the Ministry of Endowments.

Finally, for properties owned by public entities, Expropriation Law No. 20 does not contain a provision allowing their expropriation. However, the General Assembly of the Advisory Department for Fatwa and Legislation in the State Council stated in its Decision No. 2199 of 2010 that an expropriation order issued by the Prime Minister for a property to benefit of one of the governorates is considered null.

In the rationale of the General Assembly’s 2010 decision, it was expressed that all state interests aim equally to achieve public benefit projects. As such, giving one of these entities the right to expropriate properties owned by another public entity is inappropriate. On the other hand, in a more recent ruling by the General Assembly of the State Council, issued as No. 200 of 2013, it was determined that for the expropriation of a property belonging to a public entity, the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform must be approached to allocate the property. An expropriation decision cannot be issued before this step. Otherwise, it would be considered null.

Explained: The Role of Public Benefit in Unrestricted Expropriation

/in , /by

Public benefit is considered the fundamental purpose of expropriation, justifying the sacrifice of individual ownership for the public good. In theory, no official entity can request expropriation unless it aims to implement projects of public benefit. It is also not permissible for such entities to change the intended project to go against the decision of public use for which the expropriation was issued.

The scope of public benefit can be widened to include all administrative activities involving the provision of public services, regulation of public facilities, construction of infrastructure and establishment of institutions to align with the state’s overall plans and policies.

One requirement of public benefit is that it serves the interest of unspecified people or groups. If it is directed toward a specific group or to individuals, then the public nature of the benefit disappears. The Supreme Administrative Court confirmed this in its Jurisprudence No. 409 of 1980, which considered that an expropriation decree, if it benefits specific individuals by the nature of their work, even if they are not limited, is not immune from legal challenges over violation of the constitution and law, and the judiciary may exercise its oversight.

The close link between an expropriation decree and the concept of public benefit makes expropriation, which lacks the characteristics of public benefit, an infringement on private property. The Administrative Judiciary Court confirmed this principle in Jurisprudence No. 786 of 1996 when it stated that “expropriating part of a property by forcibly including it in an expropriation, despite the lack of need for it in implementing the expropriation project, is considered a major flaw that reduces the expropriation deed to a state of non-existence.”

Although the Expropriation Law No. 20 of 1983 and various judicial rulings have outlined the general guidelines of public benefit, they have left it to the expropriating entity to assess whether there is a public benefit to a given project without clarifying the nature of that benefit or the reasons on which it should base this assessment. Jurisprudence No. 979 of 1978 affirms this, stating that “the assessment of the existence of public benefit in expropriation is left to the discretion of the administration without question from the judiciary.”

Of course, these powers granted to administrative bodies, namely, to assess the existence of public benefit without legal or judicial controls, can lead to administrative arbitrariness and infringement on individual property rights.

Sometimes, the expropriating party may delay the implementation of the expropriation project for so long that the public benefit for which the expropriation decree was issued no longer exists. Although the Expropriation Law does not address this situation, judicial reasoning in issues 9-10 of the Lawyers’ Journal in 1999 confirmed that “Expropriation, which is the forcible deprivation of property, was originally legislated to implement public benefit projects. Considering that the expropriating administration did not implement the expropriation project within 30 years, the idea of public benefit from its expropriation disappears, and with it, the legitimacy of its expropriation.”

The Expropriation Law greatly expanded the concept of “administration.” It includes ministries, public administrations, public institutions and local administrative units, the Baath Party, and “popular organisations,” which refers to various types of unions (workers, youth, women, etc.) set up by the Baath Party. All these bodies can request expropriation to implement public benefit projects, after which an expropriation decree is issued based on the proposal of the relevant minister. This decree is final and may not be appealed, meaning it is beyond judicial oversight.

However, the amendment to the Expropriation Law issued by Decree No. 11 of 1986 required an expropriation decision to come via decree of the Prime Minister, which can be modified or annulled by a decree from the Syrian president. Therefore, the oversight of expropriation decisions lies with the president. Nevertheless, this does not equate to judicial oversight, which all administrative actions should be subject to, given the independence that the judiciary must enjoy, making it the competent authority in determining legitimacy per the requirements of law and justice.

Barring expropriation from judicial oversight could lead to instances of it taking place without actual justifications. This necessitates the establishment of legal controls on expropriation, through amending Decree No. 20 of 1983, and making expropriation subject to administrative judicial review. The administrative judiciary is responsible for settling disputes between public bodies and interests on one side and private entities and interests on the other. Administrative disputes usually concern the annulment of administrative decisions, halting their implementation, or ruling on compensation for any resulting damage to prevent any infringements on property rights.

Explained: Expropriation for Unifying Real Estate Properties

/in , /by

On March 26, 2023, the Council of Ministers issued a decision to expropriate a property in Aleppo, considering it to be public property, and merged it with an adjacent one.

Decision No. 517 expropriated Section B of Real Estate 13480 from Aleppo’s Real Estate Zone No. 4. The property was merged with Real Estate 9637 after its owners failed to agree to implement approved zoning measures for the city of Aleppo. 

The Council of Ministers issued a similar decree, No. 1972, on November 3, 2022, which expropriated Property 1858 and part of Property 1074 from the Northern Qatana Real Estate Zone No. 65 in the Rural Damascus governorate. The purpose of this decree was to merge those two properties with Property 1072 and expropriate part of Property 1854 and merge it with Property 1071. These measures would help implement the approved zoning plan for the Qatana area after the owners of those properties failed to reach an agreement to do so. 

Syria’s Council of Ministers may issue expropriation decrees like the ones above to implement projects that are considered to have a public benefit, according to the expropriation law included in Legislative Decree No. 20 of 1983. There is a wide range of projects that fit this category, including paving new roads or expanding existing roads and constructing squares, souks, houses of worship, military barracks, airports, hospitals, medical centres, agricultural facilities, oil projects, and buildings for the Baath Party or other various organisations, as well as implementing zoning plans, tourism projects, and industrial zones. In addition, expropriation can also extend to real estate or parts of real estate that are unsuitable for construction so that they can be merged and made suitable for construction.  

According to Decree No. 20, during the implementation of an approved zoning plan, if there are any adjacent properties (or parts of properties) that are unsuited for construction (due to small surface area or odd geometric shape), the owners of these properties must agree to merge them so that they can become suitable for construction according to their governorate’s building codes. 

But if these owners fail to reach an agreement, then the local administrative unit may merge the properties and expropriate them in exchange for an expropriation compensation. Administrative authorities must document the process of combining these confiscated properties in the presence of the rights holders. This documentation can serve as evidence of the expropriation. 

These properties must meet certain conditions to be merged. For example, they must be adjacent, be in the same real estate zone, and have the same legal classification. This merging process is a technical transaction similar to the real estate subdivision. First, a sworn engineer inspects the properties on the ground to ascertain their combined shape, draws technical plans, and organises surface area and boundaries records. They then transfer these records to the Land Registry department and later to the relevant administrative authority to approve the technical plans. 

The administrative authority must then sell the newly merged real estate via exclusive auction to the owners of the combined properties. If there is a successful sale through this method, the buyer must pay the relevant administrative unit 15 percent of the sales value to cover administrative expenses. But if this exclusive auction does not reach the expropriation compensation value, the property goes up for public auction under Decree No. 28 of 1969, which regulates contracts made by public authorities. This auction is public and open to anyone, not just the owners of the merged properties. Once a sale is complete, the administrative unit uses the proceeds from the auction to pay the expropriation compensation to the owners of those expropriated properties.

The Expropriation Law allows administrative units to take one-quarter of the confiscated property free of charge in cases of partial expropriation so long as the remaining three-quarters of the property is suitable for use. In such cases, the administrative unit does not pay expropriation compensation for that deducted one-quarter of the property. However, if those remaining three-quarters are unsuitable for use, the entire property is expropriated. 

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