Abdullah Bozkurt/Stockholm
Turkey’s Supreme Court of Appeals (Yargıtay), dominated by far right nationalists and Islamists, has overturned a regional appellate court ruling that would have restored ownership of two valuable properties worth millions of dollars in Istanbul’s Şişli district to the heirs of a Greek Orthodox pharmacist who lived in the city during the late Ottoman era.
In a ruling dated April 21, 2025, the court annulled the decision of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals, siding with the Turkish state’s argument that the properties had rightfully passed into public ownership under early republican laws governing abandoned assets.
The case centered around Perikli (also spelled Periklis or Perikles) Klonaridis, an ethnic Greek pharmacist who resided in Istanbul in the early 20th century. Klonaridis, born in 1874, was last recorded as living in the city in 1922. He later died in Athens in 1934.
His descendants, now Greek citizens, filed a lawsuit in 2022 with the Istanbul 36th Civil Court, demanding the annulment of current title deeds and registration of the two properties in their names. They argued that the properties were wrongly confiscated by Turkish authorities based on a misinterpretation of his status as a fugitive or absentee during a population exchange between Turkey and Greece following the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
The properties in question are a 1,735-square-meter piece of land located on parcel 1240/28 in Şişli, recorded in 1952 under Klonaridis’ name, and a 839-square-meter parcel with a 13-story building, previously registered to the Sultan Beyazıt Foundation and later attributed to Klonaridis in Ottoman-era title documents. Combined, both properties could be worth $11–$16 million in today’s Istanbul real estate market.
The Supreme Court of Appeals dismissed a property claim filed by Greek nationals over their grandfather’s estate in Istanbul:
The Turkish Treasury and Directorate General of Foundations (Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü) had seized one parcel in the 1950s and the other in the 1980s under laws regulating abandoned and unclaimed properties, including those of Greeks who left Turkey without formal approval.
The Istanbul 36th Civil Court initially rejected the heirs’ claim in 2023, citing a lack of proof that Klonaridis was present in Istanbul in August 1929, which was a key requirement under the 1930 Ankara Agreement between Turkey and Greece. That agreement had specified that only Greek Orthodox residents who remained in Istanbul past that date would be granted “etabli” (established) status, which means they were out of the scope of the population exchange between Turkey and Greece and as a result they could retain their property rights.
However, the regional appellate court overturned that verdict in 2024, asserting that Klonaridis was not a fugitive or absentee but rather part of the established local population. The properties were located outside the original Istanbul municipal limits and thus not subject to confiscation under population exchange treaties.
The family’s inheritance claims were validly documented via a contested probate certificate from 2018.
However, the win for the Greek plaintiffs was short lived. The Supreme Court of Appeals disagreed with the regional appellate court’s reasoning. In its detailed ruling, the top court emphasized that Klonaridis was not present in Istanbul in 1929 and had no Turkish citizenship record.
His departure from Turkey was undocumented by official authorization, meaning he could not benefit from the protections offered to non-exchangeable Orthodox Greeks.
Under laws enacted during the early republic, including the 1927 Abandoned Properties Law, such assets automatically reverted to the state if the owner was deemed to have left the country without authorization.
The court reaffirmed that Ankara Agreement provisions clearly state that non-returning Greeks who were not physically present in Istanbul in August 1929 forfeited their property rights, regardless of Ottoman citizenship.
This ruling is significant amid the broader context of unresolved claims filed by the descendants of non-Muslim citizens who left Turkey under duress or legal ambiguity during the early republican period.
The high court’s decision reasserts the primacy of historical Turkish laws governing abandoned properties and sets a precedent likely to affect similar cases brought by the heirs of Ottoman-era minorities, particularly those involving valuable real estate in Istanbul.
The file will be sent back to the appellate court for further proceedings in line with the Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision. The heirs are now left with limited legal avenues in Turkey, although international legal options may still be pursued.
Even if the heirs take their cases to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and win a judgment against Turkey, the government of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is more likely to refuse to implement the ruling, as it has done in many other cases where the rights court ruled against Turkey and demanded restitution for victims.
