restraint_on_disposal – Syria Report

Posts

Pro-Regime Militias Extorts Property Owner in Rural Damascus

29-08-2023/in HLP, News /by Rand Shamaa

Hammoud purchased a 10-hectare plot of land overlooking a main road in a Rural Damascus governorate town in 1993. The land was within the town’s zoning plan, and Hammoud obtained a construction permit for an industrial facility and a residential apartment adjacent to it. The total built-up area on his land was more than 400 square metres. Hammoud, who had lived abroad, invested the fruits of his many years of hard work in this project, aiming for it to serve as his retirement guarantee and an future asset for his children.

However, Hammoud continued to travel overseas for work, which slowed down the industrial facility and apartment building construction. The buildings were not completed until 2005. He did not wish to take out loans to import machinery for the facility; instead, he preferred to take his time with the industrial project, continue to work abroad for an extended period, and use the facility building as a warehouse for storing goods. By 2011, he had finished building the apartment, and it was ready for him to move in.

However, the strategic location of the land (overlooking the town and a main road), along with the size of the industrial facility and its technically sound construction using reinforced concrete, made the entire project attractive to the various military forces that traded control of the area. By the end of 2012, as the pace of peaceful demonstrations in the region increased and acts against the regime escalated, a regime-affiliated armed group seized Hammoud’s land. They turned the facility into their base, bringing in equipment and ammunition. Once, when Hammoud approached his property hoping to meet the officer in charge, he was driven away and threatened with death should he return.

Regime forces remained on Hammoud’s property for over a year before relocating elsewhere and handing it over to the pro-regime militia, the National Defence Forces (NDF). During its occupation, the NDF looted the facility and adjoining apartments, stealing all its contents, including the suspended ceilings and roof tiles. The leader of this local armed group was killed in 2015 during armed clashes with the opposition in the area. Afterwards, the group disbanded and left the site, during which Hammoud was abroad. Upon hearing the news, Hammoud returned to check on his land and properties.

However, when he arrived, Hammoud was surprised to find yet another pro-regime militia had taken over the site. The militia’s leader had initially joined an armed opposition faction at the start of the uprising but later reconciled with the regime forces and formed a local militia, coordinating with Military Intelligence. Aside from fighting against opposition factions, this militia was also involved in wartime economy tactics, such as kidnapping for ransom, drug and arms trafficking, and car theft.

The militia reportedly considered Hammoud’s property an ideal base of operations, using it to hold kidnap victims, dismantle stolen cars for parts, and store and distribute drugs. They altered the facility and the apartment’s structure, building additional sections and demolishing walls in certain areas. The militia leader made the site his headquarters, setting up an office decorated with stolen goods from other regions, where he received his visitors.

As their illicit business ventures thrived, the militia took over several villas and homes in the same town, using them as residences for their members and families. Most of these homes and villas belonged to regime opponents or expatriates who had not returned to the town since 2011 due to the war and lack of security. Legally speaking, these takeovers are known as property extortion, i.e., taking over someone else’s property without their consent, or asserting control over someone else’s property without any legal ownership or valid reason.

Since 2015, Hammoud has tried every means available to reclaim his property. Initially, he sought the help of intermediaries to negotiate with the militia leader. He also turned to the legal system and hired a “top-notch” lawyer, one who had connections with officials in the military and security forces, allowing them to mediate with those parties. Such lawyers demand high fees, often off the books, frequently claiming the funds are used to bribe officers, officials and judges. Hammoud says his lawyer led him on for two years, taking significant fees without any results, not even filing a lawsuit. Other intermediaries proved no better, rustling in Hammoud and spending exorbitant amounts of money to no avail.

A high-ranking regime military officer facilitated the first direct meeting between the Hammoud and the militia leader and took place in the militia leader’s luxurious office, which Hammoud says he no longer recognised as his property. An additional storey had been built, escalators installed, and armed guards were stationed everywhere, treating the militia leader with reverence, even kissing his hand as he passed or entered his office. Hammoud describes the scene as reminiscent of a mafia film.

The mediator turned out to be a close friend of the militia leader, revealing an evident prior agreement between them that he said would be a middle-ground solution: Hammoud would pay $150,000 for the militia to vacate the site, compensating for the alterations the militia leader had made to the property. Stunned by the amount, Hammoud immediately rejected the offer and made to leave. But the mediator stopped him, Hammoud says, suggesting another solution: that Hammoud writes off half the property in the militia leader’s name, making them partners in ownership. Hammoud also firmly rejected this offer.

Other mediators also stepped in at different stages, albeit reaching similar terms. With every door seemingly closed before him, Hammoud eventually turned to the judiciary and hired another lawyer to file a case for eviction from his extorted property. The militia leader did not attend any court sessions but had a group of lawyers represent and defend him. The defence was based on the militia leader’s claim that he had purchased the property from its owner. Yet, he failed to present the sales contract, alleging it was lost.

The militia leader’s legal team made offers throughout the trial to Hammoud to relinquish his property or pay compensation to the militia leader in exchange for eviction. Due to the lack of evidence, the trial court ruled in Hammoud’s favour, allowing him to reclaim his property; the appellate court did the same. However, each time the judicial police accompanied the property owner to implement the court’s eviction decision, a high-ranking official contacted the police chief, persuading him to abandon the site without enforcing the ruling.

Finally, after a full year of delayed implementation of the ruling, Hammoud was forced to seek the assistance of a high-ranking regime military officer. This officer intervened by dispatching a military force that accompanied the judicial police, and they evicted the occupants. And though Hammoud regained his property, there is still a legal restraint on disposal transactions related to it. He says he does not know the reason for this restriction. Still, he suspects it is an attempt by the militia leader’s lawyers to keep matters unresolved and force him to pay compensation.

Fire Ravages Damascus’ Historic Sarouja Neighbourhood

25-07-2023/in HLP, News /by Rand Shamaa

On the morning of July 16, a fire ravaged a section of the historic Sarouja district in Damascus. The fire occurred during a heatwave that affected most of Syria and caused several other blazes, including a wildfire on Mount Mazzeh the day before. The Sarouja fire, however, resulted in widespread destruction to several historic Damascene homes that were used as residences or small industrial workshops for leather, shoes and manufacturing materials, which contributed to the rapid spread of the flames.

Among the damaged properties was a home dating back to the 19th century that once housed the last Hajj Amir (commander of the annual Hajj pilgrimage) of the Ottoman Sultanate era, AbdulRahman Pasha Al-Youssef, who was killed in 1920. The fire also affected the house of Khalid Al-Azm, a Damascene politician and the last head of a democratically elected government before the Baath Party’s military coup in 1963. Azm’s house, which dates back to the 18th century, was partly used as a museum.

The Sarouja neighbourhood dates back to the Mamlouk era and is named after Mamlouk prince SaremEddin Sarouja, who died in 1342. The neighbourhood was built northwest of the capital’s Old City, outside its historic walls. It became a destination for Mamlouk princes, who built palaces, schools, mosques, and baths in the area. In the Ottoman era, the district housed senior employees of the Sultanate in Damascus, causing it to expand in the style of Ottoman architecture, earning it the nickname “Little Istanbul.” After the French Mandate 1946 ended, the neighbourhood became popular among the Damascene elite.

With the Baath Party’s political takeover in 1963, Sarouja began to be marginalised for ideological reasons, as it was a bourgeois area feared for its democratic leanings. The Baath Party did not hesitate to dispossess the elite residents of the district of their property, pushing many residents to leave the area and altering the socio-urban fabric. Concurrent with the wave of nationalisation and agrarian reform at the time, the Master Plan for Damascus, known as the plan by French architect Michel Écochard, was issued in 1968. This plan leaned more towards the modern planning and organisation of the contemporary city of the time rather than preserving the district’s old historical fabric.

In the 1970s and 1980s, under the Écochard plan and its amendments, the Damascus governorate appropriated large parts of Sarouja to construct public utilities such as streets and traffic junctions and prepare sites for building government and commercial institutions. In the late 1970s, the governorate cut through Al-Thawra Street, dividing the neighbourhood between east and west, and confiscated the necessary land and multi-storey buildings on either side of the thoroughfare. This expropriation took place without compensation or with significant delays in paying the affected parties. Some historic houses in the district were demolished, and modern facilities and towers were built in their place, including the General Directorate of Cadastral Affairs building and the Souk Al-Khaja. The governorate also granted land in Al-Bahsa area to the west to merchants to construct commercial buildings and hotels.

The Écochard plan also envisioned the construction of a major traffic and commercial axis within Saruja called King Faisal Street, but it has not yet been implemented. This axis aims to create a traffic throughway from the centre of Damascus to its east, running along the northern wall of the Old City. However, implementing the road means confiscating a large part of Sarouja and removing the southern part of the neighbourhood to connect Al-Thawra Street with Bab Touma Square. This road plan was discussed several times before 2011, and the idea has been modified multiple times to become both a traffic and tourist throughway zoned as a tourism area. Despite this, the project was obstructed due to pressure from local residents, intellectuals, and archaeologists.

Amid the popular rejection of the road construction plan, the Damascus governorate has resorted since the 1980s to prevent the issuance of restoration permits throughout the district, considering any restoration work without a licence to be a form of unlicensed construction that must be removed immediately. As a result, the district began to suffer from severe neglect, containing historic ruins in desperate need of restoration. According to The Syria Report sources, the Damascus governorate often uses this method when faced with criticism of an expropriation decision.

This has led to the collapse of more than one building in the neighbourhood, as happened in February 2019 when a house fell due to rain. In 2007, one person was killed when the dilapidated roof of his house, for which the governorate refused to grant a restoration licence, collapsed on him.

Since 2011, the district has experienced even worse neglect, especially as some residents were not far removed from the protests opposing the regime. As a result, the governorate intensified its crackdown on unlicensed construction and provided the bare minimum of services. Sarouja saw a complete absence of safety and civil defence measures and lacked a proper fire brigade as the old district’s narrow streets could not properly fit full-size fire trucks.

Like all parts of Damascus, Sarouja has been experiencing recurring fires in the recent heat waves, often aided by the proliferation of informal electricity networks. Additionally, the harsh electricity rationing programs, which reach up to five hours of power cuts vs one hour of connection, impose additional electrical loads on power transformers due to the excessive power demand in the brief supply period.

Alongside the hot weather and poor maintenance, some transformers explode, causing fires to break out and spread. Despite the neighbourhood residents’ demands for improved services and the refurbishment of the electricity networks, they have always been met with negligence by the government and officials. This may not be a direct, intentional act against Sarouja, as much as simply corruption and laxity in the Damascus governorate, lack of funding, poor planning and a decline in efficiency.

And aside from the property expropriations, some of the burned buildings are classified as historical, meaning that the owners of these properties are prohibited from disposing of or restoring them. This has turned these buildings into a dispute between the state and the original aggrieved owners, with many cases pending in the courts since decades ago. The prohibition has also led to problems among the heirs of these properties and disputes between old tenants refusing to vacate them.

A source from the Damascus governorate told The Syria Report that the property situation in the Sarouja neighbourhood, like many areas of historic Damascus, is a large cluster of unsolvable legal issues accumulated over decades. While the source suggested that the fire was most likely unintentional, its results may benefit more than one party. The Damascus governorate is keen on resolving the built-up issues and proceeding with the execution of expropriations and establishing commercial and tourist projects. Some property owners also benefit from the burning of the buildings as it removes their historical status, allowing them to construct new buildings in their place.

Explained: Restraint on Disposal

15-11-2022/in Analysis & Features, HLP /by Rand Shamaa

Under Article 768 of the Syrian Civil Code, property owners are free to dispose of their properties and use and exploit them as they wish, within the limits of the law. However, some laws limit that freedom, as in the so-called “restraint on disposal” (“manaa al-tasarrof” in Arabic). This limit can be defined as a precautionary measure imposed by specific laws to prevent an owner’s property disposal.

Restraint on disposal note placed on the Land Record of the real estate nullifies any sale, gift, mortgage or waiver of the property to others. This restriction is usually put in place to preserve the rights of some public entities. For example, Law No. 39 of 1986, concerned with conditions for buying housing from public entities, prohibits buyers or those allocated social housing from disposing of those properties within the first 15 years of purchasing and paying off the properties. Restraint on disposal notes shall be placed on the Land Record of the real estate during the entire specified prohibition period.

Later, Real Estate Development and Investment Law No. 15 of 2008 prohibited such investors from disposing of the land plots they came to own following the zoning process until they had constructed something on the plots. A restraint on disposal note is imposed on those plots until the construction is complete.

Law No. 61 of 2004, which addresses beneficiaries of state-owned properties, prohibits them from disposing of lands distributed to them within the first five years of registering those properties under their names in the Land Registry. They still need to obtain the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform after that period has ended.

And finally, Law No. 10 of 2018, which allows for the establishment of zoned real estate areas, prohibits any individual from disposing of their commonly owned share in such an area following its establishment.

Types of restraints on disposal

The executive instructions of Legislative Decree No. 82 of 2010 define different types of urban communities, building plots, and conditions for licensing construction. It stipulates that the Land Record for such properties must be free of any restraint on disposal measures to obtain construction licenses for building plots.

Legislative Decree No. 82 further clarified restraint on disposal notes that can be added to the Land Record.

First: Precautionary seizure, executive seizure or administrative seizure.

Second: A mortgage note, which can be placed on a real estate property as a form of security for a financial loan, whether that loan is from an individual or a bank

Third: A right of usufruct note, which may be placed on a real estate property to prevent the person with the right of usufruct over the property from disposing of it. Right of usufruct entitles a person to use and exploit a property without disposing of that property.

Fourth: A temporary record note, as stipulated in Article 26 of Land Registry Law No. 188 of 1926. A temporary record note is a precautionary measure placed in the Land Record of the property for a limited time. It has three types:

Optional temporary record: This is when someone purchases a real estate property through a contract and then requests that a temporary note be placed on that property’s Land Record until the procedures for formally transferring ownership are complete. The period for this type of note is ten days but can last as long as six months if the two sides agree to do so.
Judicial temporary record: This can be done by sending a request to the Civil Court of First Instance. The court then issues a decision granting or rejecting the request, which, if granted, lasts for one month.
Mandatory temporary record: This occurs when the Land Registry secretary refuses to transfer property ownership, after which the stakeholder appeals their decision. The secretary then must place a temporary note on that property’s Land Record until the Court of Appeals issues its decision.