Usurpation of Real Estate Under Syrian Law
When Does Taking Possession Become a Criminal Offense?
Not every dispute concerning real estate is a crime, and not every person in possession of property is considered a usurper in the criminal-law sense.
Article /723/ of the Syrian Penal Code penalizes a person who does not hold an official title to ownership or disposal and seizes real estate, or part of real estate, held by another, with an aggravated penalty where the act is accompanied by threats or coercion, or is committed under the aggravating circumstances specified by the provision.
When Is the Crime of Real Estate Usurpation Established?
The offense essentially requires that the real estate be in the possession of another person and that the offender take possession of it without a legal title justifying such conduct.
The Syrian Court of Cassation has confirmed that usurpation does not require the use of force or coercion; taking possession without legal justification may be sufficient. It has also held that actual possession of real estate is protected, and that the possessor does not always have to be the registered owner for criminal protection to arise.
Cassation Decision No. /142/, Basis No. /6638/ of 1986, and Decision No. /564/, Basis No. /319/ of 1994.
In Decision No. /1560/, Basis No. /3110/ of 2005, the Court of Cassation confirmed that the offense requires the offender to lack a title to ownership and to seize real estate held by another while knowing that the real estate is the right of that other person.
Is It Sufficient for the Person in Possession to Claim Ownership?
Simply stating, “the property belongs to me” or “I have a share in it” is not sufficient to avoid liability.
The Court of Cassation has held that protection extends to real estate placed in another’s possession, and that the mere claim by the aggressor that they have a right or share is insufficient unless the claim is supported by evidence demonstrating its seriousness. The existence of an official title or a genuine legal basis for taking possession may, however, shift the dispute from the criminal sphere to a dispute concerning the underlying right or to another legal characterization.
Cassation Decision No. /264/ of 1960.
This is why it is important to distinguish between a genuine civil dispute over ownership and the mere material seizure of real estate held by another.
What If Possession Is Retaken After Enforcement of a Delivery Judgment?
Obtaining a judgment and receiving the real estate through the Enforcement Department does not prevent a new infringement from occurring.
The Court of Cassation has held that persons who retake possession of real estate after it has been delivered to its owner through enforcement may commit a new and independent act of تجاوز where the conditions of Article /723/ are satisfied.
Cassation Decision No. /926/ of 1968.
What About the Limitation Period?
Paragraph four of Article /723/ contains a specific rule concerning areas where cadastral delimitation and registration proceedings have not been carried out, under which a claim pursuant to this article lapses one year after the date possession was taken.
In Decision No. /818/ of 1968, the Court of Cassation considered the offense instantaneous in this context, relying on the legislature’s designation of the date possession was taken as the starting point for the one-year period.
Baghdadi Law Perspective:
The crime of real estate usurpation is not established merely because a real estate dispute exists. It is necessary to examine the prior possession, the manner in which possession was taken, the existence of a legal title, the offender’s intent, and the circumstances of the seizure.
Ownership is one matter, and possession is another. Criminal law does not allow a person to resolve a dispute independently by taking possession of real estate held by another without a legal basis.
Anyone claiming a right to real estate must pursue the courts and prove that right—not impose a fait accompli by taking possession.
Reference: Article /723/ of the Syrian Penal Code and the Syrian Court of Cassation precedents referred to above.