Minority foundations face problems in property returns

In August of last year, the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government adopted legislation to return all confiscated immovable property belonging to minority foundations in Turkey, a long-overdue step towards expanding the rights of minorities in the country. The decree allows foundations to reclaim real property declared back in 1936. All real property, cemeteries and fountains are to be returned to their rightful holders as per the decree. Immoveable property currently belonging to third persons will be paid for. The process has been ongoing for some time, as foundations were given 12 months to apply to authorities.

According to recent figures, 165 foundations have so far applied to the Directorate General for Foundations (VGM) seeking to reclaim 1,500 units of property that were confiscated and later given to the Treasury in 1974. The Council of Foundations meets every two weeks to review the applications. So far, 69 properties have been returned, eight have been paid out and applications for 88 properties have been rejected. One of the largest plots of land returned so far is an area near the site of the demolished Ali Sami Yen Stadium in Şişli. The Bulgarian Egzarh Foundation's rights over the property have been restored.

Most of the applications concern property located in İstanbul. However, there have been applications concerning Diyarbakır, Bursa, Hatay, Balıkesir, Edirne and İzmir.

No concrete information was available regarding the 88 rejections, and the spokesperson for the representatives of minority foundations at the VGM was not available for comment. However, Etesya Tırtır, head of a joint property commission set up by various minority foundations, said the 88 included many items that were present on asset lists submitted by foundations in 1936. “We might have to go to court over these. It is wrong not to return them. For many, there isn't adequate paperwork, but the state should find the paperwork and documents itself. It is very difficult for foundations to find deeds, registration records dating back to before 1936. The state demands papers from the Land Registry, and then rejects the claims citing inadequate paperwork.”

Among the rejected 88 items there are also those that have been sold to third parties. Tırtır said another problem was that an earlier asset declaration from foundations -- one from 1912, when a Unionist government was in power -- cannot be cited for the reclamation of confiscated property. “What they are returning now are things like cemeteries that are currently being used by foundations. So we are using them now, only the deed is with the municipality,” he said. The main reason why many foundations are prevented from even filing for other buildings, schools and hospitals, he states, is because the 1912 declaration is not included in the scope of the 2011 decree.

Mor Gabriel Monastery

The failure to succeed in the attempt to right past wrongs is not limited to problems in the VGM's claims assessments. A new legal challenge has baffled and greatly upset the priests of the Syriac Mor Gabriel Monastery, located in Mardin.

In June, the Supreme Court of Appeals reached a final verdict concerning the monastery, which has stood for more than 1,600 years. The high court said that half the land on which the monastery sits belongs to the Treasury, overruling the earlier decision of a lower court.

Syriac Orthodox Mor Gabriel Monastery Foundation President Kuryakos Ergün told Today's Zaman that the high court's ruling had no legal basis. “We don't want to go to the European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR] against Turkey. We hope to resolve this among ourselves.”

Ergün said if the Treasury drops the case, which it doesn't seem it intends to do, the issue would be resolved. He also said they had applied to the VGM, but had not yet received a response.

Mor Gabriel's story is interesting, as it is a fairly recent one. In 2008, some Muslim villagers in the region suddenly claimed that the land that had been used for hundreds of years by the monastery actually belonged to them. The court rejected their claim. The monastery is also included in the 1936 declaration. But the Treasury appealed the ruling, claiming the land did not belong to the villagers or to the monastery but to the state. The Supreme Court of Appeals overruled the local court's decision, but the court insisted on its verdict. Finally, in June, the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals settled the case in favor of the Treasury.

Many, including Ergün, suspect the challenge against the monastery's ownership of the land is a hostile response to many Syriac Orthodox individuals returning to their homeland, Mardin. Ergün recalled that a Syriac metropol, during a visit to Germany, called on Midyat's Syriac community to return home. The challenge against Syriac ownership of the monastery came one year later.

All these developments indicate that in spite of the well-meaning 2011 directive, non-Muslim groups are still struggling to take back what is rightfully theirs. It is not only new legislation that is needed but a fundamental change in mentality.