The court decided that the law does not conflict with the provision of the Constitution that compensation for property taken for public needs must be fair, as it makes it possible to fairly compensate all related losses.
“The court found that such legal regulation complied with the requirements implied by the constitutional principle of fair compensation for property taken for public needs, the requirement to maintain a balance between the interests of the public and the interests of the person who owns the buildings together with the plot of land is taken for public needs,” the CT said in a statement released on Wednesday .
The person litigating in the courts asked the Supreme Court to state that the Land Law must provide for the right to non-pecuniary damages for the taken housing.
According to the Constitutional Court, the state, when taking land from residents, must individually determine the compensation for the taken property, taking into account not only the value of the equivalent property, but also its exclusive significance for the owner, but the laws cannot create conditions for abusing the right to compensation.
“According to the Constitution, such legal regulation of compensation for property taken for public needs cannot be established, which would create conditions for the owner of property taken for public needs to abuse his right to receive compensation, among other things, to demand compensation for non-pecuniary losses incurred as a result of property taken for public needs in all cases, and not only when they arose due to the exceptional significance of the seized property for its owner”, stated KT.
“Only in this way would compliance with the requirements implied by the constitutional principle of fair compensation for property taken for public needs be ensured, and the requirement to maintain a balance between the public and private interests of the person whose property is taken for public needs be respected,” the court stated.
The person who applied to the Court of Justice claimed that following the state took over the only home he owned, where he lived with his family for a long time, he was not assessed and compensated for non-pecuniary damage. Neither the courts of the first instance nor the courts of appeal awarded him this damage on the grounds that no illegal actions of the authorities once morest him were established, and the Supreme Court did not accept the cassation appeal.
According to the person who submitted the complaint to the CT, the claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage was rejected by the courts precisely because the Land Law does not stipulate the state’s obligation to compensate it, when human housing is taken along with the plot.
According to the court, the Land Law provides the prerequisites for making an individual decision on fair compensation for a plot of land and buildings taken for public needs in each case, including compensation calculated based on the market value of such property and the losses suffered by its owner, as well as non-pecuniary losses caused by exclusive takings for public needs. the meaning of buildings for their owner.
KT also emphasized that, according to the law, in the event of disagreements between the state and the owner of the plot of land to be taken over the proposed compensation, the losses suffered and the fair compensation should have been determined by other courts, deciding the dispute on its merits.
#law #correct #calculation #compensation #statetaken #land #housing #Business
2024-07-06 21:23:12
