Individual Application

The Facts

In 2017, the Valuation Commissions appraised the minimum unit values of lands per square meter for the period of 2018. However, legal actions were brought for the revocation of the appraisal by these Commissions as the determined unit values for certain areas were excessively high compared to those appraised in 2017. Pending the aforementioned cases, Provisional Article 23 was added to the Real Estate Tax Law no. 1319, which stipulated that the increase in values considered to be excessive could not be over a certain ratio.

The tax courts found it unnecessary to adjudicate the pending cases, taking into consideration the newly-introduced statutory arrangement. A number of tax courts ordered that the litigation costs be covered by the parties, stating that no examination and assessment could be made regarding the rightfulness of the parties since the proceedings became devoid of substance and were to be thus discontinued in accordance with the relevant statutory provision, while some others held that the litigation costs be covered by each party by half. The tax courts also awarded both parties counsel’s fees.

The applicants appealed against the said decisions. One of the them maintained in his petition of appeal that an application should be lodged with the Constitutional Court for the annulment of the relevant statutory provisions. However, the applicants’ appellate requests were dismissed by the regional administrative court with final effect.

The Applicants’ Allegations

The applicants claimed that their right of access to a court had been violated due to the award of litigation costs and counsel’s fees against them. One of the applicants also argued that his right to a reasoned decision had been violated, stating that the alleged unconstitutionality, which had a bearing on the merits of the proceedings initiated against the decisions issued by the Valuation Commission regarding the minimum unit values of lands per square meter that were subject to real estate tax, had not been addressed.

The Court’s Assessment

1. Alleged Violation of the Right to a Reasoned Decision

The tax courts, considering the fact that the minimum unit values of lands per square meter for the period of 2018 was determined directly by the legislator, concluded that it would make no sense to examine whether the decision of the Valuation Commission complied with Article 29 of Law no. 1319. In this regard, they acknowledged that the proceedings became devoid of substance and therefore be discontinued.

The right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 36 of the Constitution does not include a guarantee enabling the inferior courts to review the constitutionality of a given statutory provision applicable to the dispute before them. Nor does this right ensure the inferior courts’ application to the Court for constitutionality review. However, the fact that the right to a fair trial does not contain such a guarantee does not relieve the incumbent authorities of their obligation to address the applicants’ claims on the merits of the dispute regarding their civil rights and obligations. In this sense, the complaint as to the alleged unconstitutionality of a provision that is applied to the pending disputes as soon as being put into force and that leaves no margin of appreciation to administrative authorities and courts should be regarded as a substantive claim. Thus, the inferior courts’ failure to address the alleged unconstitutionality raised by the parties may give rise to the violation of the right to a reasoned decision in the circumstances of the case.

Although the Court is not the single authority to review the constitutionality of statutory provisions, the power of annulment rests solely with it when an unconstitutionality is at stake. Accordingly, in cases of alleged unconstitutionality of the statutory provisions that are considered to have revoked the administrative actions and have a bearing on the outcome of the pending proceedings, it is vital that the inferior courts address such claims with relevant and sufficient reasons. Although the inferior courts do not necessarily bring every alleged unconstitutionality before the Court for a review, they are to substantiate why they have not found it necessary to bring it before the Court, since the latter is the only competent authority to annul the statutory provisions. Otherwise, the substantial claims of the applicants regarding their civil rights and obligations would not be addressed and the dispute would not be duly resolved.

In the present case, the tax court acknowledged that the minimum criteria to be applied for the period of 2018 was directly determined by the law; however, it refrained from making an assessment whether the relevant provision complied with the constitutional guarantees regarding taxation. Nor did the regional administrative court addressed the applicant’s claim. Accordingly, the inferior courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient grounds in their not addressing the alleged unconstitutionality of Provisional Article 23, which therefore infringed the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision.

Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to a reasoned decision.

2. Alleged Violation of the Right of Access to a Court

The award of litigation costs and counsel’s fees against the applicants, as well as the dismissal of their request that the costs incurred during the proceedings be covered by the other party may constitute an interference with the right of access to a court. In the present case, the litigation costs incurred in the actions brought by the applicants against the municipalities were to be covered by them as a whole or in half. Besides, the defendant administrations were awarded counsel’s fees. Hence, there was an interference with the applicants' right of access to a court.

While some tax courts ordered that the litigation costs be covered by the parties, as the relevant case became devoid of substance and was to be thus discontinued upon the introduction of the impugned statutory provision and therefore no assessment could be made as to the rightfulness of the parties to the case, some others held that each party would be held liable to cover half of the litigation costs. The tax courts also awarded both parties the counsel’s fees.

In this regard, it has been observed that Article 331 of the Code of Civil Procedure no. 6100, forming the legal basis for the applicants’ covering the litigation costs incurred, puts an emphasis whether the parties were justified on the date when the action was brought. The tax courts, on the other hand, considered that the rightfulness of the parties could not be examined or evaluated since the proceedings became devoid of substance and were to be discontinued due to the newly-introduced statutory provision. However, it has been understood that the tax courts disregarded the grounds relied on by the legislator in enacting the law and failed to consider whether the interference by the legislator would be considered to infringe the constitutional obligations regarding taxation.

Under these circumstances, pursuant to the subsequently-introduced Provisional Article 23 of Law no. 1319, it must be acknowledged that the public authorities were unjust in so far as it concerned the increase of value over 50% of the unit values determined for 2017. It has been concluded that that the conclusion reached by the tax courts without taking this issue into account in applying Article 331 of Law no. 6100 to the present case was manifestly erroneous. Therefore, the award of litigation costs and counsel’s fees against the applicants had no legal basis.

Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right of access to a court.