/ restraint_on_disposal

Posts

Government Seizes Dissidents’ Properties in Suweida

/in , /by

Syria’s Minister of Finance issued on May 23 Decision No. 1229/Q, ordering the precautionary seizure of assets belonging to 15 peaceful activists in the town of Al-Quraya, south of Suweida. This marks the first time peaceful activists in Suweida have been targeted by a precautionary property seizure order, citing their alleged involvement in what the decision referred to as “the ongoing events in the country.” This vague phrase highlights the extent to which the Syrian regime can violate housing, land, and property rights by using exceptional punitive measures against its peaceful political opponents.

None of the activists had been officially informed of the decision, a correspondent for The Syria Report explained. They only became aware of it when one of them attempted to open a bank account a few weeks ago and found a precautionary seizure order on both their movable and immovable assets, preventing them from opening a bank account. The decision was not published in the Official Gazette, which instead included in its second part of Issue No. 26 of 2024, a different decision with the same number, 1229, but without the suffix /Q. This decision, issued by the Customs Directorate of the Ministry of Finance, lifted a precautionary seizure order on certain individuals involved in a smuggling case.

The Ministry of Finance was granted the authority to impose “administrative” precautionary seizures, distinct from court-ordered seizures, under Legislative Decree No. 12 of 1953. This decree applied to the assets of employees and accountants of all state administrations and institutions to enable the state to secure compensation for losses or damages caused through the mistakes or negligence of these employees. Later, this authority was expanded to include the movable and immovable assets of non-employees and their spouses under Legislative Decree No. 177 of 1969.

The Minister of Finance’s decision on May 23 was based on letter No. 7777, issued the day before by Branch 285 of the General Intelligence Directorate (State Security), which requested the seizure of these activists’ property. The Suweida Financial Directorate received the Minister’s decision on May 27, 2024, just days after the Intelligence Directorate’s letter was sent to the Ministry of Finance. This unprecedented haste in issuing the provisional seizure order underscores the significance of the matter for Syrian security authorities.

The Minister of Finance’s decision also relied on the provisions of the Judicial Police Authority Law No. 63 of 2012. Under Law No. 63 of 2012, the judicial police authorities can request in writing that the Minister of Finance take precautionary measures against the property of those accused of terrorism, as part of investigations related to crimes against the internal or external security of the state, and crimes listed in the Counter-Terrorism Law No. 19 of 2012. Law No. 63 also grants the Public Prosecutor and the investigating judge, while handling a case, the right to take these precautionary measures against the accused, or the defendant, including travel bans, until a final judicial ruling is issued.

The Syria Report’s correspondent confirmed that all those affected by the decision are regular participants in the peaceful opposition movement in Suweida, which has been ongoing since August 2023. This is the first time a collective precautionary seizure order of this type has been issued against activists because of their involvement in the peaceful movement in Suweida. The activists are consulting with lawyers to explore how to challenge the decision. Those affected by the decision have the right to appeal it and take legal action against the Minister of Finance within eight days of being notified. However, to date, they have not been officially notified.

The correspondent explained that most of the activists included in the decision had “security investigation notices” issued against them by the General Intelligence Directorate over the past year. A security investigation notice is a formal communication sent to police units and security agencies with the names of individuals wanted for questioning, detention, or arrest. These notices were issued based on security reports filed by informants from the town, accusing the activists of participating in converting the local branch of the Arab Socialist Baath Party in Al-Quraya into a community centre, as well as participating in the general strike, road blockades, protests, and other forms of peaceful opposition in the town.

In the 1980s, Abu Ghaleb Zeid Al-Atrash, one of the leaders of the Great Syrian Revolt of 1923–1925, donated a plot of private land he owned to be transformed into a community centre that would house the town’s consumer and agricultural cooperatives. The townspeople raised donations to build a two-storey building, but the Baath Party took over the building immediately after its completion, seizing it by force and turning it into an office. On September 3, 2023, the townspeople, including some of the activists affected by the seizure order, reclaimed the building and announced its conversion into the Sultan Pasha Al-Atrash Community Centre. Since then, it has hosted various social activities, including educational courses for secondary and middle school students.

Those subject to the precautionary seizure are unable to dispose of their property, such as selling or passing it on through inheritance, and most of their dealings with state institutions are disrupted, including being denied access to the government support system. The Public Prosecutor and the investigating judge, while handling the case, also have the right to take these measures against the accused or defendant, including imposing a travel ban, until the charges are proven by a final judicial ruling. A precautionary seizure decision can only be cancelled by a “lifting of the precautionary seizure” order issued by the Minister of Finance, after the reason for the seizure is revoked. In this case, the reason is the letter from the General Intelligence Directorate, an entity that the judiciary has no authority over.

Since August 2023, Al-Quraya has seen notable peaceful opposition activity against the regime, where activists organised protests and evening gatherings, singing songs and raising banners. In August 2023, Al-Quraya activists blocked the road to prevent Fawzat Shaqir, the retired Major General and Baath Party branch secretary in Suweida, who is also from Al-Quraya, from reaching his workplace at the party’s branch office in Suweida city.

Like the rest of the Suweida governorate, Al-Quraya suffers from a severe water shortage due to the frequent breakdowns of water pumps installed on wells, caused by power cuts, lack of maintenance, and corruption within the municipal council. In the summer of 2024, activists exposed several cases of corruption within Al-Quraya’s town council, some of which were related to the water issue. They led a local campaign calling for the dismissal of the town’s mayor and council members, and they signed a joint statement with these demands, sending it to the governor of Suweida. This was followed by a meeting with the mayor and his deputy, where activists confronted them with the corruption files. The activists also temporarily closed the municipal council’s office for a few days, demanding new council elections.

Explained: Seizing Assets of Defendants Convicted in Absentia

/in , /by

On October 11, 2023, the Second Criminal Court in Damascus issued a judgment against Palestinian-Syrian Oussama Ahmed Majdalawi, convicting him of the felony of possessing drugs with the intent to use. He was sentenced to three years in prison, fined SYP 500,000 and subjected to civil forfeiture, in accordance with Articles 328 and 329 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Since he remains at large, the court ordered the seizure of his assets and properties.

Mr Majdalawi is not the first to be tried in absentia and have his property seized; thousands of such judgments against fugitives from the law are published in the Official Gazette. What is noteworthy in Majdalawi’s case is that he is not convicted of “terrorism,” possession of smuggled goods with intent to trade, or possession of drugs with intent to traffic, which are the most frequent charges in such cases. Instead, his charge is possession of drugs with the intent to use, which highlights the regime is willing to go to seize properties. The Syrian law, in accordance with the provisions of Article 329, allows the seizure of the property of a person convicted in absentia of any felony of a criminal nature.

A felony is defined as any serious crime designated as such by the Penal Code, carrying a minimum sentence of three years imprisonment. Article 328 of the Criminal Code stipulates that the judgment against a fugitive requires their property to be managed according to the procedures for managing absentee property and not handed over to them or their rightful heirs, such as their children, until the in absentia judgment is overturned. Article 329 involves the procedures for publishing the summary of the judgment and notifying the Land Registry and the General Commission for the Management and Protection of State Properties (GCMPST).

Syrian law does not allow a lawyer to represent a defendant in absentia, whether the charge is a felony or a misdemeanor. The defendant must personally appear before the court and attend all sessions until the judgment is issued, after which a lawyer may accompany them for representation. A defendant is considered a fugitive from the law and is tried and sentenced in absentia under the following circumstances:

  1. If the defendant cannot be apprehended after the referral judge issues a decision to transfer the case to the Criminal Court for an in absentia trial. The referral judge is the higher authority over the investigating judge, handling cases concluded by the investigating judge to decide either to dismiss the case or issue an indictment and refer the defendant to the Criminal Court.
  2. If the defendant is on trial while in custody before the Criminal Court but manages to escape before the judgment is issued.
  3. If the defendant is released by the Criminal Court but then fails to attend subsequent sessions.

In the aforementioned cases, the Criminal Court takes measures against the fugitive as a means of pressuring them to surrender. These measures include stripping them of civil rights such as voting, standing for elections, engaging in real estate transactions, registering civil status events, and obtaining personal documents. Additionally, the court prevents the fugitive from disposing of their property by having the Attorney General send a letter to the Land Registry to place a precautionary seizure mark on their properties.

After the trial concludes and an in absentia judgment is issued for the committed felony, the defendant’s assets and properties remain seized as long as they remain at large. This precautionary seizure does not mean that ownership transfers to the state or that the assets are directly confiscated. Instead, the Sharia court appoints a guardian to manage the defendant’s assets and properties without the right to sell them. The management of the absentee’s assets falls under the jurisdiction of the Sharia judge according to Personal Status Law No. 59 of 1953, which is not within the authority of the Criminal Court, which prosecutes criminal offenses.

The convicted person can reclaim their assets if the in absentia judgment is overturned. This judgment is nullified only after the defendant is acquitted in a retrial following their capture or voluntary surrender. At that point, all judicial procedures issued in absentia, including the asset seizure, are annulled, and the properties are returned to the defendant by the guardian.

However, if the convicted person remains a fugitive, their assets and properties are not seized indefinitely. In this case, the judgment expires after the statute of limitations, as specified in Article 162 of Penal Code No. 148 of 1949.

The statute of limitations is 25 years for crimes of premeditated murder or drug trafficking, which are punishable by death or life imprisonment. For severe felonies punishable by temporary imprisonment, the statute of limitations is double the sentence duration, with a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 20 years. For instance, if an in absentia judgment imposes a temporary imprisonment of seven years, the statute of limitations would be 14 years.

For less severe criminal cases, the statute of limitations is always 10 years. For example, if the Criminal Court sentences an absent defendant to 3 years in prison for the felony of drug possession with intent to use, based on Article 43 of Drug Law No. 2 of 1993, the statute of limitations in this case would be 10 years.

The statute of limitations is calculated from the date the judgment is issued. However, it can be interrupted if the convicted person is apprehended or if the court takes any judicial action against the convicted person, such as searching their home or issuing a warrant for their arrest. In such cases, the statute of limitations is reset and begins anew.

Once the statute of limitations is complete, the criminal judgment is nullified, the penalty is not enforced, and retrial is not permitted. At this point, the convicted person has the right to request the court to lift the precautionary seizure on their properties in the real estate registry, return their seized funds, and release the guardian, who must then provide an account of their management of the convicted person’s assets and properties.

Furthermore, the seizure of a convicted person’s properties in absentia does not affect the rights of others. If a judgment for seizure is issued on the defendant’s assets, including inherited property where they share ownership with others, the court can impose a precautionary seizure only on the defendant’s share as determined by the inheritance certificate. One of the heirs may file a lawsuit for partition in the Civil Reconciliation Court in their area against the other heirs, including the guardian representing the convicted person in absentia. The guardian then manages the convicted person’s share as part of their duties.

Explained: Freezing and Seizure of Property in New Amendments to the AANES Anti-Terrorism Law

/in , /by

On June 23, the Autonomous Administration in North and East Syria (AANES) amended the Anti-Terrorism Law No. 7 of 2021, without providing justifications for conducting these amendments. Even after the new amendments, the law remains similar to the Syrian regime’s Anti-Terrorism Law No. 19 of 2012, which threatens housing, land, and property rights.

Law No. 7 of 2021 criminalises and punishes anyone who conspires to commit a terrorist act, establishes or joins a terrorist organisation, funds it, or possesses, manufactures, or transports weapons and explosives with the intent to commit a terrorist act, or promotes such acts. Besides imprisonment and fines, the law grants the public prosecution and the court the authority to freeze the movable and immovable assets of anyone who commits these crimes, provided there is sufficient evidence, to protect the rights of the AANES and the victims.

The new amendments to Law No. 7 of 2021 maintain the penalty of freezing the assets of those accused of terrorism but omit its definition without providing an alternative. Originally,  Law No. 7 defined the freezing of assets as prohibiting the disposition of movable and immovable assets, including preventing their transfer, conversion, or change in form for a certain period, or during investigation and trial stages. This definition was verbatim from the Syrian regime’s Anti-Terrorism Law No. 19 of 2012.

Law No. 7 of 2021 had granted the public prosecutor discretionary power to freeze the movable and immovable assets of those accused of terrorism if there was sufficient evidence. The purpose of freezing assets is to prevent the accused from smuggling the assets and ensure the rights of the victims and the AANES. Under the new amendments to Law No. 7 of 2021, grants, in addition to the prosecutor, the governing body of the People’s Defence Court the right to freeze the assets of those accused of terrorism. This aims to address cases where the public prosecutor refrains from freezing the assets.

The Governing Body of the People’s Defence Court is the judicial body that tries defendants appearing before it. The People’s Defence Court is specialised in handling terrorism-related crimes and those threatening the security and interests of the AANES, according to the Social Justice Charter issued in 2019. This Charter acts as a judiciary law, outlining the types, levels, and jurisdictions of courts, as well as the appointment, rights, dismissal, and removal of judges.

The People’s Defence Court is an exceptional court, which contradicts the AANES’ Social Contract that prohibits the establishment of exceptional courts. This court does not allow defendants to have legal representation by a lawyer, nor does it allow defendants to know the charges against them, thus it does not adhere to the criminal procedure law of ordinary courts in the AANES, Law No. 8 of 2020. Therefore, the court can freeze and seize the assets of defendants during their trials in absentia, without retrial upon their capture. This exceptional status enables the People’s Defence Courts to potentially violate defendants’ rights, including property rights, through asset freezing and seizure based on trials lacking fair trial guarantees.

This bears a significant resemblance to the Anti-Terrorism Court Law No. 22 of 2012, effective in regime-controlled areas, which states that the Anti-Terrorism Court is primarily responsible for hearing terrorism cases. This court has extensive exceptional powers to disregard legal procedures and fair trial guarantees; it can try defendants in absentia, impose the harshest penalties, and confiscate all their movable and immovable properties. The law does not require retrial upon the defendants’ capture unless they voluntarily surrender.

A notable difference between the terrorism courts of the regime and the AANES is that, Law No.  7 of 2021 grants the People’s Defense Court the discretionary power to decide whether to confiscate the property of a defendant convicted of terrorism or not. This is in contrast to Law No. 19 of 2012, applied in regime-controlled areas, which mandates the Terrorism Court to confiscate the property of a convicted defendant.

Justice Ministry Imposes Fresh HLP Restrictions

/in , /by

On March 10, Minister of Justice Ahmed Al-Sayed issued two circulars that restrict the ability of property owners in concerned areas to manage their properties. The first, No. 3, concerns lawsuits related to the partition, subdivision, termination of common property and correction of property descriptions. The second, No. 4, deals with the irrevocable power of attorney in areas undergoing beautification and the termination of common property.

Circular No. 3

Circular No. 3 is directed at judges in judicial bodies dealing with cases related to the termination of common property ownership, subdivision, and the correction of property descriptions. It mandates adherence to the content of previous circulars issued by the ministry concerning these cases. Additionally, Circular No. 3 emphasises that the Judicial Inspection Directorate (JID) and public prosecutors monitor the proper application of the circular and report any violations.

JID is an independent judicial entity headed by a judge, affiliated with the Higher Judicial Council and the Justice Minister. Its role includes regular inspections of the work of judges, courts, judicial departments, public prosecution, notary public offices, bar associations, and their branches, among other legal and judicial entities. A public prosecutor is a judge who works under the supervision of the Attorney General in the public prosecution office, is assigned tasks by the Attorney General, and receives complaints about the judicial system and public prosecution.

Circular No. 3 requests judges, the JID, and public prosecutors to adhere to the contents of a previous circular, No. 40 of 2016. This circular asserts that the relevant administrative units must be represented in cases concerning the subdivision and correction of property descriptions. If the co-owners of a common property do not agree on its voluntary partition, they must file a lawsuit in court for its division among them through a judgement that can be executed in the Land Registry, except in cases of obstacles such as construction violations. To ensure no such violation exists, the administrative units must be represented in these cases as the executive authority in the concerned real estate area, knowledgeable about zoning plans and building codes.

Furthermore, Circular No. 3 instructs judges, the JID, and public prosecutors to comply with the procedures and provisions of Article 64 of the Local Administration Law No. 107 of 2011 concerning partition, subdivision, and zoning cases, as stipulated in the previous Circular No. 27 of 2021. Zoning cases are legal actions filed by a property owner if they suffer a loss due to the zoning of the area, such as receiving inadequate compensation.

Article 64 of Law No. 107 of 2012 states that it is not permissible to divide, subdivide, or zone lands within the boundaries of an administrative unit, or to subdivide any already built construction, without a certified plan from the administrative unit. This plan must delineate the property boundaries and its surroundings, including the locations of main and side streets, and public utilities.

Circular No. 4

Meanwhile, Circular No. 4, addressed to notaries, the JID, and public prosecutors, responds to a previous letter from the Central Authority for the Supervision and Inspection (CASI) regarding some notaries’ violations of the provisions of Article No. 4 of the Beautification and Termination of Common Property Law No. 166 of 1967 and its amendments. These violations involve documenting irrevocable power of attorneys in property areas subject to beautification and termination of common property operations.

The CASI is an independent regulatory body affiliated with the Prime Minister, aiming to achieve effective supervision over the state’s administrations and institutions. This is to improve performance, preserve public funds, enhance productivity and efficiency, and facilitate the provision of services to citizens.

Law No. 166 of 1967 on the beautification and termination of common property is still in force. Its first article clarifies that the purpose of beautification and termination of common property operations is to partition commonly owned agricultural lands among their owners, or to beautify excessively fragmented agricultural lands by providing the owner with a single plot instead of several scattered ones. This aims to facilitate the investment and reclamation of lands. Article 3 of the law stipulates the formation of a committee in each real estate area to conduct beautification and termination of common property tasks. This committee includes the area’s real estate judge, the director of the Land Record in the governorate, the head of technical services directorate, a representative from the General Union of Farmers, and an expert from the local community appointed by the governor as a member.

Article 4, mentioned in the Justice Minister’s circular, specifies that upon the formation of the Beautification and Termination of Common Property Committee, all courts must refer all cases related to real property rights within the concerned property area to this committee. Furthermore, implementation departments must refrain from enforcing any cases related to the real property rights of that area. Additionally, the Land Record must abstain from accepting and registering any property transactions for the mentioned area until the completion of the operations is announced and the properties resulting from the beautification and termination of common property are registered in the names of their owners in the Land Record.

Law No. 166 of 1967 sets the duration of the Beautification and termination of common property Committees’ work at six months for a property area that does not exceed 100 properties after beautification, and eight months for an area with 200 properties. However, if the committee’s work exceeds these periods, the law states that the committee should not receive any additional compensation. In practice, there are entire areas where the committees have not completed their work despite decades passing since their formation. This includes areas of Damascus, such as in East Tijara, Adawi, and the planning area of South Midan.

Circular No. 4 also requests notaries to refrain from documenting any irrevocable power of attorney that includes the authorisation to sell property in an area where beautification and termination of common property operations have been announced, due to what the circular describes as preventing the obstruction of the committees’ work.

The incomplete work of the committees has led property owners, who are in need to sell their properties, to draft sales contracts and have them notarised as irrevocable power of attorney, wherein the seller delegates the buyer to transfer the property ownership to their name upon the completion of the beautification and termination of common property operations. Thus, the new circular stops this method of selling in areas under beautification and termination of common property until the committees have completed their work, arguing that these notarised irrevocable power of attorney obstruct the committees’ work due to changes in ownership.

Explained: Damascus Eases Security Restrictions on Real Estate Transactions

/in , /by

A letter from the Office of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, No. 3039/1, issued on March 6, maintains the requirement for security approvals on certain real estate transactions “for the time being,” but has eased some of its other requirements and effects.

Pre-approval from the security services is a condition for the notarisation of real estate sales and general power of attorney transactions performed before a notary public. This security approval is issued by the Political Security Division of the Ministry of Interior and is considered an unlawful restriction on the property’s ownership right.

The Political Security Division can grant or deny the security approval for the person concerned with the real estate transaction. Security approval can be denied for various reasons, such as if the person concerned is wanted for investigation or arrest by one of the branches of the security agencies. Technically, this security request is an illegal procedure, because it is not based on a search warrant issued by the judicial police for a clear charge. Instead, the request for investigation or arrest may just be a malicious report filed against the person by a security informant, or due to a name similarity, or even due to other restraints on Disposal of the person’s property. In the event of an absentia conviction for a felony on the person concerned, or by the Antiterrorism Court, the Ministry of Finance imposes a precautionary seizure on their movable and immovable properties.

Letter No. 3039/1, marked “confidential and urgent,” is directed to the Ministries of Interior, Public Works and Housing, Finance, Justice, Local Administration and Environment, and is based on another letter, number 054/3, issued on February 29 by the National Security Office, a body affiliated with the Presidential Palace.

The format of Letter No. 3039/1 is similar to internal official confidential correspondences, some of which were leaked to the media. These included the implementation of gradual restrictions on real estate transactions since the early months of the Syrian uprising in 2011. This began with circular No. 85 dated June 15, 2011 from the the General Directorate of Cadastral Affairs, which agreed with the content of a letter from the Office of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, i.e., the Prime Ministry, No. 1355 dated June 8, 2011, regarding the requirement for prior security approval on specific real estate transactions. The exact nature of these transactions was not clarified. However, the requirement for prior security approval on real estate sales and permanent lease contracts (known as furoogh contracts in Arabic), in all zoned and unzoned areas, was added through circular No. 463 from the the General Directorate of Cadastral Affairs issued on August 12, 2015, which agreed with the content of a letter from the Office of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers No. 4554 issued on August 4, 2015. Circular No. 463 stated that the purpose of requiring prior security approval was “to ensure the legal and security rights of citizens, and those wishing to sell their properties or transfer them to others.”

In September 2021, the Ministry of Justice issued Circular No. 30, which linked the issuance of a judicial mandate to manage the assets of absent or missing people to the condition of obtaining the necessary prior security approval. In August 2022, the Ministry of Justice issued Circular No. 22, making obtaining security approval a condition for completing procedures for death declaration cases in Sharia courts.

What is new in Letter No. 3039/1 is the emphasis on the Political Security Division to justify the reasons for not granting security approval, with the aim of “allowing citizens to review the relevant authorities and properly address their situations.” The letter also called on the Political Security Division to ensure that the procedure of refusal applies only to the concerned individual, without affecting their family; parents, spouse, and siblings. Prior to this, the Political Security Division would refuse to grant security approval to all relatives of the concerned individual.

Letter No. 3039/1 also stated that the decision to grant or deny security approval should be made within a timeframe not exceeding 48 hours.

In cases where security approval is denied for an individual who owns a share in a commonly owned property, this should not affect the shares of the other partners, who should still be able to sell their shares and proceed with the termination of the common property, with the restriction remaining only on the share of the individual concerned. Previously, the denial of security approval for one individual would halt all real estate transactions for all partners.

Furthermore, the denial of security approval for the individual concerned no longer affects the shares of others in profit-sharing and joint venture agreements. These contracts serve as investment agreements between the owners of a property and its investors, with rights and responsibilities for all parties defined by the profit-sharing or partnership agreement.

The same principle now applies in the case of voluntary partition, an agreement among all partners in a property to exit the state of common ownership and divide the property among themselves by mutual consent. If one of them objects, judicial partition can be pursued through a lawsuit to end the common ownership. The inability of one of the partners to obtain security approval no longer prevents the possibility of voluntary partition of the property and exiting the state of common ownership among partners. Previously, the denial of security approval for one of the partners would stop the entire voluntary partition process.

Also, the refusal to grant security approval to the individual concerned is no longer an obstacle to the transfer of rights through inheritance to the rest of the heirs. This includes the inheritance of properties and real estate rights, such as the right to dispose of Amiri lands. It has become possible to proceed with the transfer of inheritance from the deceased to the heirs, even if one of them has not received security approval. Previously, the failure of one of the heirs to obtain security approval prevented the process of inheritance inventory.

In cases where a property is commonly owned by individuals, among whom some are unable to obtain security approval, within areas subjected to zoning, development, or urban planning laws, or real estate investment regulations, this is no longer considered an obstacle as per the new letter. It is now possible to include the property in the project, while maintaining a provisional seizure mark on the share of the individual concerned.

Coerced Farmland Sales South of Damascus Amid Rumours of Al-Salam International Highway Project

/in , /by

Damascus traders are pressuring property owners west of the old Damascus-Suweida road to sell at lower prices than the prevailing prices in the area. The reason for the focus on these properties is unclear, though recent rumours hint at a possible reinstatement of the Al-Salam Highway project passing through the area or the start of a new industrial zone project.

These properties belong to the village of Khirbet Al-Shiyab, which is part of the Kisweh district in the Rural Damascus governorate. Khirbet Al-Shiyab is located on the administrative border between the governorates of Damascus and Suweida, adjacent to the village of Khalkhala and its military airport in the northern rural part of the Suweida governorate. The area is close to the city of Sayyida Zeinab in Rural Damascus. It contains military sites belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and its allied Syrian militias. Although the village of Khirbet Al-Shiyab is small, part of its land has been expropriated since the 1960s for the benefit of the Ministry of Defence, with air defence brigades such as Brigade-157 and Brigade-155 having their headquarters nearby. Due to the presence of Roman and Ottoman archaeological sites, the village also has seen expropriations for the benefit of the Directorate of Antiquities and Museums in the Ministry of Culture.

It appears that Damascus real estate traders have been looking for agricultural land in the area for months and are purchasing land whose property records have no disposal restrictions. This has caused a stir in the real estate market in Khirbet Al-Shiyab, as well as in neighbouring villages and towns such as Matala, Najha, and Al-Adiliyah, raising their prices.

The reason for the rush to buy land in this area is unclear. However, some influential traders and businessmen initiate the purchase of land or properties in specific areas, often due to their prior knowledge of plans to implement investment or service projects that could increase property prices there. Thus, these traders can profit by purchasing properties at low prices and then selling them at higher prices after the planned projects are implemented.

For example, Mohammad owns 10 hectares of land in Khirbet al-Shiyab communally with two partners, holding a title deed since before 2011. The land is agricultural, with one of its edges stretching 50 metres along the old Damascus-Suweida road, and it is bordered to the west by the Al-Salam Highway project. Mohammad told The Syria Report that Damascus real estate traders, some with close connections to security and military bodies, are pressuring land and property owners in the area to sell below the prevailing market rates. Mohammad explained that one trader offered them SYP 20 million per dunum (about USD 1,350), while the current rate in the area is much higher (SYP 120 million). When the partners refused to sell, personnel from the Brigade-157 air defence set up a tent on their land. The officer in charge of the tent told Mohammad that a military point and air defence system would later be established on their land to “counter Israeli attacks.”

According to Mohammad, the tent and the threat of establishing a military site on their land were coordinated between the real estate trader and officers from Brigade 157, all to pressure the partners into selling the land at a low price. However, Mohammad managed to remove the soldiers’ tent through his acquaintance with an officer in the military intelligence division responsible for the area.

In any case, this is legally considered property extorsion, meaning taking over someone else’s property without their consent or obtaining possession of it without a legal title to ownership or a legitimate reason.

A similar situation happened with Said, who told The Syria Report that he was forced to sell part of his land to a Damascus trader at much lower than the market rate to get rid of a military force that had taken over his land under the pretext of installing an air defence system. Said adds that after the sale was completed, the military personnel withdrew and left no trace behind.

Notably, these lands in Khirbet al-Shiyab were previously proposed as part of the Al-Salam Highway project, a commercial international route connecting Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. The Al-Salam Highway is expected to cross the Syrian-Lebanese border at the Masnaa-Jdeidet Yabous point, then pass through the towns of Abu Qawooq, Mazraat Al-Nafoor, and Husseiniya in Quneitra, and the cities and towns of Zakia, Moadamiyet Al-Sham, Khan Al-Shih, Qatana and Khirbet Al-Shiyab in Rural Damascus, and Ghbaggib and Mankat Al-Hatab in Daraa, reaching the Nassib-Jaber border crossing with Jordan.

Rumours about the Al-Salam Highway project began in 2006, coinciding with a property-buying spree along its proposed route by real estate brokers on behalf of the Mashreq Investment Fund company, owned by businessman Rami Makhlouf. The company managed to purchase hundreds of hectares along the proposed route. Most of these lands are rocky and unfit for agriculture. Some of the lands were taken by the regime’s Seventh Division, preventing their owners from using them without officially expropriating them. This buying spree led to a rise in land prices along the proposed route, with the price per dunum (1,000 square metres) reaching SYP 2.5 million (approximately USD 50,000 at the time) from a pre-2006 price of SYP 20,000 (about USD 400).

The situation was not without complications. Most of the properties purchased by Mashreq Investment Fund were undivided shares of commonly owned lands, meaning Mashreq became an additional communal partner. Therefore, in March 2019, Mashreq lawyers filed lawsuits against the other share-owning partners in various locations to terminate the common ownership. For example, a meeting was held between the real estate judge and the common partners in the city of Zakia to agree on termination. During the meeting, brokers offered the remaining common owners in those lands to sell their shares to the company for USD 3,000 per dunum. However, most of the partners refused the offer and refused to agree to a subdivision plan that would transfer their shares away from the proposed highway’s route.

Despite renewed discussions about reviving the Al-Salam Highway project, no tangible changes have occurred except in Khirbet Al-Shiyab. Instead, there are plans for another project in the area, potentially driving Damascus traders to purchase land there. A source from the village speculated to The Syria Report that the motivation behind land purchases could be a proposed plan to establish an “eco-friendly” industrial zone. This initiative was previously announced by the Director of Decision Support and Regional Planning in the Rural Damascus Governorate, AbdulRazzaq Damiriya, in December 2018 and also by the Director of Industrial Zones in Damascus, Asaad Khalouf, in February 2019.

The proposed industrial zone project would cover 250 hectares of land next to Khirbet Al-Shiyab and is expected to include eco-friendly industries such as textiles, pharmaceuticals, wood crafts, traditional heritage crafts, and more. Mr Damiriya mentioned to the official news agency SANA that the governorate had signed a contract with Tishreen University to prepare the general and detailed zoning plans and planning studies for the new industrial zone, including land use plans, topographics, and subdivision plans. He noted that most properties proposed for the industrial zone are state-owned, while 30 to 40 hectares are privately owned.

Mr Damiriya stated that the rest of the land would not be expropriated but would be developed under a public-private partnership law. According to Law No. 5 of 2016 on public-private partnerships, such partnerships are contractual relationships of agreed duration between a public entity and a private sector partner. The private partner invests in designing, constructing, executing, maintaining, rehabilitating, developing, managing, or operating a public facility or project for the public entity, aiming to contribute directly to public service or any service in the public interest to the contracting public entity or on its behalf to the end beneficiary. Despite Damiriya’s announcement that work on the industrial zone would begin in 2019 and the subdivision of plots would be completed by 2020, no developments have occurred on the ground since then.

Calls to Subdivide Properties in Upscale District of Damascus

/in , /by

According to pro-government media reports, during a regular meeting of the Damascus Governorate Council in mid-January 2024, members called for the subdivision and correction of descriptions for the Adawi and Eastern Tijara areas and the issuance of ownership deeds for their properties.

Nouri Salman, the director of the Provisional Land Register at the Damascus Directorate of Cadastral Affairs, explained to the semi-official Al-Watan newspaper that the subdivision and correction of descriptions for these properties are within the jurisdiction of the Damascus Directorate of Cadastral Affairs and the Damascus governorate. He added that to subdivide and correct the descriptions of these properties, a request must be submitted to the Damascus governorate to open a technical mandate for the horizontal subdivision of the area, followed by its vertical subdivision, the so-called “Building subdivision”, after which the deeds can be transferred from the Provisional Land Register to the Land Register in the Directorate of Cadastral Affairs.

The technical mandate is a process of technical inspection of a property to determine its boundaries on the ground, carried out by a committee from the Directorate of Cadastral Affairs, with a representative from the administrative unit to which the property belongs. Opening a technical mandate means submitting a request to the Directorate of Cadastral Affairs in the concerned governorate to schedule a date for the technical inspection of the property.

The correction of descriptions is an administrative transaction conducted by the Directorate of Cadastral Affairs upon request from the property owner. The process aims to match the property descriptions recorded in its Land Record with its actual condition. For example, a property may be recorded as agricultural land while it is actually a multi-storey building.

Meanwhile, the subdivision of a property is a technical transaction conducted by the Directorate of Cadastral Affairs based on a request from the property owners. The aim is to divide the property into separate and independent properties. The property subdivision process is conducted as if the property were commonly owned.

Horizontal division involves:

  • Splitting the land into plots prepared for construction.
  • Assigning each a number.
  • Entering them into the Provisional Land Register.

Subsequently, the owner of one of these plots can obtain a construction permit for a building with multiple floors and residences. After the building’s completion and the sale of these homes, the plot can be vertically subdivided, creating a new land record for each apartment within the building as an independent property. These real estate occurrences are then transferred from the Provisional Land Register to the Permanent Land Register.

The Eastern Tijara and Adawi areas in Damascus are an urban extension, partly informal, located east of Damascus city. Al-Tijara and Al-Adawi are considered upscale neighbourhoods in Damascus, known for their modern construction, spacious apartments, high prices, green spaces, parks, and public amenities. The extension of the area began in the 1950s on agricultural lands known as Al-Adawi orchards.

In Eastern Tijara and Adawi, there are three types of properties: first, licensed buildings on zoned land with ownership deeds, subdivided and registered in the Land Registry, each residence having an independent land record, allowing relatively easy sale and purchase unless there are restraints on disposal against it. Most of these buildings were constructed in the 1950s and 1960s.

Second, particularly in the western part of the Eastern Tijara neighbourhood, are buildings licensed and constructed by housing cooperatives on zoned land. Most are subdivided horizontally, not vertically. These buildings were erected during the 1970s and 1980s. Reasons preventing the vertical subdivision of properties include the death of one of the owners and placing restraints on disposal mark on the entire original property until the heirs agree on dividing their shares or unresolved building violations. In such cases, the real estate occurrences are registered in the Provisional Land Legister using ownership documents issued by the Directorate of Housing Cooperation in the Ministry of Public Works and Housing to establish ownership and complete sale and purchase transactions. However, these are not transferred to the Land Registry because the property has not been subdivided vertically.

Thirdly, there are unlicensed buildings erected on zoned land more than 40 years ago in the far eastern part of the area. Still, they have not been horizontally subdivided and, therefore, not vertically subdivided either. These buildings were constructed in the 1980s, marked by construction chaos in Damascus, when landowners built on their plots before subdividing them horizontally into building-ready plots, yet adhered to the urban planning and building regulations, aiming for future licensing. In the area, there are multiple cases where a single piece of land has several buildings on it. However, it still remains as one property not subdivided into construction-ready plots. Therefore, all these buildings and the residences within them are still owned in common by their owners, with one land record. The process of horizontal subdivision has been hindered over time, especially with multiple building violations, generations of heirs, and restraints on disposal. Many of these homeowners have no proof of ownership other than court judgments affirming their purchase contracts.

According to The Syria Report’s local correspondent, there are hundreds of affected individuals in the second and third types of buildings, where these homeowners and residents cannot secure loans with their properties as collateral, obtain restoration permits, or sell them officially. The market value of these residences is much lower than their counterparts in the same area. Initiating a technical assignment process for description correction and subdivision is not as straightforward as local authorities claim. The Directorate of Cadastral Affairs requires all co-owners of a property to apply for description correction and subdivision, a hard task due to the presence of hundreds of heirs and their legal representatives, not to mention those who have emigrated or are absent.

Explained: Real Estate Brokerage

/in , /by

In mid-January, Syria’s Council of Ministers discussed a memorandum presented by the Ministry of Public Works and Housing to regulate the profession of real estate brokerage, establish real estate brokerage companies, and create an electronic platform to organise the sector and increase its efficiency. No media outlet has published the text of the memorandum, and it appears that the issuance of a law specific to the real estate broker profession may follow this step.

Syrian legislation currently lacks such a law. Real estate brokerage is currently regulated by decisions issued by the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, the latest of which was Decision No. 2139 of 2010. This decision is per Commercial Law No. 33 of 2007 and Companies Law No. 3 of 2008. Real estate brokerage is supervised by the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Protection, making the Ministry of Housing’s presentation of a memorandum to regulate the profession noteworthy.

To date, there are no real estate brokerage companies in Syria; instead, the profession is carried out by real estate offices, most of which are unlicensed, and those who engage in real estate brokerage are popularly known as “dallal,” or “brokers.” Real estate offices are widespread across all Syrian regions, and there are no figures on their numbers. They do not have a syndicate.

Decision No. 2139 of 2010, with its 15 articles, regulates real estate brokerage, the mechanisms for licensing, and penalties for violations. The decision defined the profession of real estate brokerage as mediating in the sale, purchase, rental, and investment of legally transferable properties and buildings, with the real estate broker being the person who practises the profession.

According to the decision, the Ministry of Domestic Trade and its directorates have the authority to license a real estate broker to practise the profession, provided they are Syrian, over 21 years of age, have obtained a high school diploma, are not employed by the state, and have not been convicted of a serious felony. The broker must have an office that could be owned or rented, an occupancy document, a court rule, or a purchase contract in areas not yet subdivided. Additionally, the broker must have a commercial register and an administrative licence from the concerned governorate or municipality. Copies of the licensing decision must be sent to the Ministries of Economy and Trade, Housing, and Interior, as well as to the governorate and its finance directorate. The real estate brokerage licence is nominal and cannot be transferred to others or inherited after death.

If the terms of the licence are breached, if the broker ceases to practise for a year, or upon their death, the licence will be cancelled. In case of violation, the Ministry of Domestic Trade has the right to close the real estate broker’s office for a month. Brokers are subject to consumer protection laws for supply violations and financial offences and the penal code for criminal matters, such as forgery and fraud (stricter penalties are applied to these).

Real estate brokers must display their licensing documents when reviewing or registering real estate sales or rental contracts at any official entity like the Land Registry and municipalities. They must also clearly display their fees and licences in their offices. The decision requires brokers to maintain a registry of the real estate sales and rentals they mediate, with numbered pages indexed and stamped by the chief clerk of the Court of First Instance in the concerned governorate.

Decision No. 2139 prohibits brokers from engaging in any real estate brokerage before obtaining a recent real estate record for the property in question to ensure no restraint on disposal marks. There are approved templates by the Ministry of Local Administration for sales and rental contracts that brokers must adhere to and keep a copy of.

Decision No. 2139 sets the broker’s commission at a rate of 0.5 percent of the sold property’s price, and one percent of the property’s annual rental value. This commission is charged to the seller and the lessor, not to the buyer or the lessee. However, it is common practice for the broker to receive up to five percent of a sold property’s price, while the commission is usually split equally between the seller and the buyer, with each paying 2.5 percent. Generally, brokers do not adhere to a specific rate, and the commission is subject to multiple factors related to the buyer, the seller, the property’s location, and its prevailing price.

In the local real estate market, the value of commissions that brokers receive remains high despite the market downturn caused by financial inflation and currency depreciation. The market slump was further exacerbated by an increase in property supply due to travel, displacement, and migration, while the commission rate increased as sellers competed for the services of the most renowned brokers in property sales.

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.

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: Improvement Fees

/in , /by

An improvement fee is imposed on landowners whose properties (finished and unfinished) benefit from work carried out by public authorities. The local administrative unit collects the fee.

The Financial Law of Administrative Units (Law No. 37 of 2021) regulates how administrative units may collect certain fees, including improvement fees. Previously, Law No. 98 of 1965, repealed by Law No. 37, governed the provisions for improvement fees.

Under Law No. 37, among the public benefit works that generate improvement fees are those carried out by public entities, such as opening and widening roads, markets, malls, squares, and public parks, constructing bridges, water, and flood channels, implementing urban planning and development laws, tourism and leisure projects, amending building regulations and the building code system, and establishing real estate development zones.

The executive office of the administrative unit identifies the areas that benefit from the improvement works and issues a decision to this effect, which is then published in the Official Gazette, a local newspaper and on the notice board of the administrative unit. The Directorate of Cadastral Affairs is also notified of the decision regarding the areas covered by the improvement and the properties within them to place a restraint on the disposal of those properties. Law No. 37 prohibits local Cadastral Affairs directorates from processing property transfer transactions for these properties before fully paying the improvement fee.

According to Law No. 37, the value of the improvement is estimated by a committee formed by the governor and headed by an advisory judge appointed by the Minister of Justice and includes two real estate appraisers appointed by the governor and two experts representing the property owners. The committee must complete its work in estimating the value of the improvement within three months. The committee must also consider the property’s current value before the project implementation and value after the improvement.

The committee creates an alphabetical list of the property owners’ names, their property numbers, the current value before and after the improvement, and the cost of the fees, which is then sent to the administrative unit. This unit, in turn, notifies the owners. Publishing this information in the newspapers is a notification to those owners who cannot be reached directly.

This provides a legal justification for the administrative unit to rely on public announcements instead of direct notifications, potentially depriving the owner of the opportunity to object to the committee’s decision. In any case, the right to object is limited to formal matters, such as a computational error in the fee’s calculation. The owner can object to such mistakes within 30 days of the notification or publication date. If the property is co-owned by several partners, an objection by one is considered to be an objection by all. Objection requests are submitted to the administrative unit, which then refers them to the committee to correct errors within ten days of submission.

The improvement fee can be directly collected from the property owner, but its payment can be deferred until a transaction is conducted on the property, such as applying for a construction permit or subdividing the property. Law No. 37 allows the person liable for the fee to send a request to the administrative unit’s executive office so that they can pay the improvement fee in interest-free instalments over six months. However, the fee must be paid immediately in cases of property ownership transfer, if the owner conducts legal transactions for travelling abroad, is declared bankrupt, fails to pay an instalment on time for more than 15 days, or in the event of the owner’s death.

The improvement fee equals half the value of the improvement made on the property. In cases where a property listed for an improvement fee is expropriated, the fee is deducted from the expropriation compensation before payment to the owner. There may be a delay in the disbursement of expropriation compensation to the rightful recipient until the committee estimates the said fee.

Pro-Regime Militias Extorts Property Owner in Rural Damascus

/in , /by

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

/in , /by

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

/in , /by

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: 

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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. 
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