Allocation of part of Atatürk Farm and Zoo Land to Ankara Metropolitan - Tailor-made laws in the Western Balkans and Turkey

Law No. 7144 regarding the Amendment of Some Laws

Act of Parliament, amendment

Substantive: Allocation of some of Atatürk Farm and Zoo with a right of usufruct to Ankara Metropolitan Municipality for 29 years.

Personal: Ankara Metropolitan Municipality.

Territorial: Ankara Atatürk Farm and Zoo Land.

Temporal: 29 years

Law No. 7144 regarding the Amendment of Some Laws

16 May 2018

Justice and Development Party (AKP)

Justice and Development Party (AKP)

On Friday, 11 May 2018, an omnibus bill of 23 articles relating to the amendment of some laws was brought to the Planning and Budget Commission after the close of business (see page 28 here). The commission was designated as the main and only commission for deciding on the omnibus bill. Deliberations were scheduled for Monday, 14 May 2018, just two days (a weekend) after the bill was submitted to the commission. Moreover, the bill was not transferred to and discussed in the other relevant commissions that could act as auxiliary commissions, which is important due to the diverse content of the bill and the need for expert opinion on the various issues.

According to the opposition’s opinion document, another problem is the context of the draft and the deliberations. The drafting and discussions of the bill coincided with the run-up to two major elections. Opposition MPs claimed that drafting and passing this omnibus bill – despite it not being absolutely necessary – six weeks before the general and presidential elections was against law-making principles and Parliament’s rules of procedure. Furthermore, the preamble of the bill referenced “the need to resolve long-standing issues that concern a large part of society in light of the 24 June 2018 presidential and general elections”. The opposition felt that this proved that the bill sought to influence public opinion and voters. The law-making process of the said bill violates the constitution, the rules of procedure of the Parliament and the general principles of law-making as there was not enough time and expertise to discuss the diverse content of the omnibus bill. Also, no deliberations with relevant stakeholders and sub-commissions at the Grand National Assembly of Turkey took place. For separate discussions on the ways in which omnibus laws in Turkey are problematic (see here).

The intention was that Ankapark amusement park, which was constructed by Ankara Metropolitan Municipality on the land in question, would be operated by private companies. However, the former version of the Atatürk Farm and Zoo Law constituted an obstacle to that intention. According to the then mayor of Ankara Metropolitan Municipality, some legal arrangements “were needed” (see also here).

Parliament

As with other omnibus laws, opposition MPs voiced criticism of the way the bill was discussed, drafted and passed. In particular they criticised the timing of the bill – just before the general and presidential elections. After the bill was passed and on the eve of the Ankapark tender, the Union of Chambers of Turkish Architects and Engineers took the tender and Article 3 of Law No. 7144 permitting the contract to the Constitutional Court on the grounds of unconstitutionality. In the annulment petition, it was argued that even though Ataturk’s Forest Farm had been Ataturk’s personal property and had been donated to the state treasury with a condition and an obligatory transaction, the land had been used for a different purpose with the new law (see here and here). The Court rejected the appeal (see here and here).

Public contracting

By giving the right of use/lease of the farmland to Ankara Metropolitan Municipality, the amendment also benefits the private companies that got work as a result, in particular GBM-Yapi Celik Joint Venture, which consisted of Chinese and Turkish operators. However, this venture subsequently went bankrupt. See here for more details.

This amendment legitimises recent mega projects (e.g. Ankapark) in the Atatürk Forest Farm area, which have been threatening its spatial totality and constitute a threat to one of the few remaining urban green spaces in Ankara (see page 197 here).

The collective memory of Ankara is negatively affected by the new amendment as it provides the legal basis for the continuation of big projects and allows private companies to operate in the Ataturk Farm Forest, which is likely to change the historical structure of recreational areas (see pages 33–44 here).

This amendment also goes against Ataturk’s legacy, violating the conditions of the land’s conditional bequest as Ataturk donated this land to the state treasury on condition that it be used for agricultural education purposes (see here).

Moreover, the amendment indirectly impoverishes citizens, considering the fact that construction and management costs of these mega projects are extremely high and are borne by the citizens (see here and here).

The legalisation of an otherwise unconstitutional contract relating to a green area in the heart of Ankara helps legitimise the development and commodification of the entire city, including this land, which was donated to the treasury by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The bill also legitimises a costly project that is deemed both unnecessary and detrimental to the city by many stakeholders. For instance, the chairperson of Ankara Chamber of Architects sees this law as unlawful (see here) and argues that the new law will do irreversible harm. The project is estimated to have cost Ankara Metropolitan Municipality €639 million. The park has not attracted the expected number of visitors and is now no longer in operation, with accumulated electricity, heating, personnel costs (see here and here).

Since 2010, the AKP has increasingly been using omnibus laws to amend an important number of disparate and unrelated laws at the same time. Those opposed to omnibus laws argue that they are not adequately discussed; that laws about controversial issues that require more detailed discussions are being made together with other laws, which increases the likelihood of them being adopted without sufficient time for deliberation and objection. See here for a general discussion about omnibus laws in Turkey.

As far as Law No. 7144 is concerned, opposition MPs repeatedly stated that the relevant commissions and institutions were not consulted, that the necessary analyses were not completed and that the law-making process was a fait accompli (see here). This article was passed as part of an omnibus law that amended 18 different laws at once after a deliberation process that violated the constitution, the rules of procedure of Parliament and the principles of law-making (see here).

The Republican People’s Party (CHP) asked the Constitutional Court to annul the amendment on the grounds that Ataturk Forest Farm was Ataturk’s personal property and that he donated it to the state treasury in a letter dated 11 June 1937. On the basis of this letter, the CHP asserts that this donation was a conditional and obligatory transaction and with this amendment, both Ataturk Farm and Zoo Law No. 5659 and Ataturk’s bequest are violated as it allows the area to be used by private companies for different purposes (see here and here).

Yes. The Atatürk Farm and Zoo Land Case.