Enab Baladi – Nouran al-Samman

After the fall of the Syrian regime, the issue of seized properties resurfaced, raising questions about how to recover them after years of unlawful control by individuals and entities linked to the former regime, as well as the legal proceedings necessary to ensure the return of rights to their owners.

The Ministry of Local Administration in Syria stated on January 5 that the previous regime’s rule witnessed widespread theft of public and private properties and systematic forgery of sale and purchase contracts, threatening the rights and properties of citizens.

Figures close to the previous regime exploited chaos and the displacement of residents to take over their properties illegally, either through threats or forgery, later selling them to citizens with forged contracts without the knowledge or consent of the original owners.

After the regime’s fall, property owners tried to return to their estates. Among those who successfully reclaimed their properties were the heirs of Burhan al-Azem, lawyer Osama al-Muayyad al-Azem, and his siblings, who managed to retrieve their building in the al-Jubba area of the Syrian capital, Damascus, which had been seized under a forced and unjust rental contract since 1963.

Ahmad Omar al-Azem, one of the family’s descendants, told Enab Baladi that the reclaimed building belonged to his uncle, Badi’ Muayyad al-Azem, who was the first Minister of Justice in modern Syria.

He noted that it had been taken over after the Arab Socialist Baath Party came to power following the “fateful” coup of March 8, 1963, as part of a campaign to acquire private properties through “oppressive” rental contracts imposed by the regime at the time.

The palace, dating back to the early 20th century, was turned into a military unit named “Unit 205” under the Ministry of Defense, and its owners were compensated only with nominal amounts that did not match its material or historical value.

Ahmad added that the regime issued laws that provided full protection to tenants and prohibited owners from reclaiming their properties, describing those measures as “systematic” to seize private assets.

With the fall of the regime on December 8, 2024, and the disintegration of its security and political system, the properties that were under its control became independent, and the illegal contracts were annulled, according to Ahmad.

He confirmed that the family successfully reclaimed the building after presenting legal documents proving ownership to the al-Salihiya police station, where it was secured and returned to the family.

Ahmad mentioned that family members rushed to the palace immediately after the regime’s fall, confident that regime militias had abandoned it after Bashar al-Assad’s escape. Upon arrival, the palace was found empty with its doors open.

The family took all necessary legal actions to protect the palace, especially given the prevalence of theft incidents in Damascus during that period.

Ahmad noted that recovering the palace represents an important milestone for the family, which has suffered from displacement and forced removal, expressing hope that the palace will become a symbol of reclaiming the family’s history and identity, as well as a gathering place for its members once again.

Recurring cases

The return of the al-Azem palace to its owners falls within a broader wave of reclaiming seized properties. Videos have surfaced on social media documenting citizens recovering their homes, including one located in the al-Malki neighborhood of Damascus, which had been taken over by a member of the former regime.

Another video shows a person reclaiming their home in the Baghdad Street neighborhood of Damascus after it had been seized by an officer, along with another video of a family recovering their house in Homs after 42 years of forced confiscation.

Reham, a member of a family from the Rukn al-Din neighborhood in the Syrian capital, told Enab Baladi that one of the family’s houses was returned after 50 years of control over it. She mentioned that in 2009, a contract was established for evacuating tenants, but individuals connected to the regime resorted to threats to prevent the eviction.

She added that after the fall of the Assad regime, the family managed to reclaim the house with the help of the relevant authority, after providing legal documents proving the family’s ownership of the property, allowing them to retrieve it after many long years of deprivation.

What does the law say?

Professor Hassan al-Bahri, from the Faculty of Law at the University of Damascus, told Enab Baladi that the return of confiscated properties depends in certain cases on the confiscation decisions themselves, as they can be used to prove the ownership of those whose properties were seized under the pretext of terrorism.

He emphasized the necessity of canceling all confiscation decisions issued after 2011, in addition to many of the expropriation decisions and decrees made during that period.

Since the beginning of 2011, the former Syrian regime has issued a series of laws and legislative decrees concerning property rights, which have impacted Syrians both inside and outside the country. These measures included the seizure of movable and immovable assets from political opponents or sympathizers with the Syrian revolution, including artists, intellectuals, and merchants who were accused of supporting what is called “terrorism.”

The Counter-Terrorism Law No. 19 of 2012 states in Article 12 that “in all crimes stipulated in this law, the court shall rule by a conviction verdict for the confiscation of movable and immovable assets and their proceeds, as well as any items used or intended for use in committing the crime, and shall rule for the dissolution of the terrorist organization if it exists.”

Al-Bahri added that the return of properties depends on the nature of the occupation of the property. If the occupation was made in good faith, through administrative laws or agricultural reform laws, it may not be possible to reclaim the property.

If, however, the occupation was made without good faith, and the occupants were from “shabiha” or “criminals,” they can be pursued legally.

Syria has seen the issuance of a series of laws that have directly affected property rights, starting with the Agricultural Reform Law No. 161 of 1958, which set a ceiling for agricultural ownership and granted the government the right to confiscate areas exceeding the permissible limit.

This confiscation took place in exchange for a symbolic compensation calculated based on ten times the average rent of the land for an agricultural cycle not exceeding three years.

The Law on City Zoning and Urbanization No. 9 of 1974 allowed administrative authorities to cut up to one-third of the area subject to regulation, and in some cases half, under the pretext of public interest without providing compensation.

Law No. 26 of 2000 also granted the administration the right to consider certain areas as urban expansion, with the possibility of confiscating them under conditions that often serve the interests of administrative authorities. Many other real estate laws were issued with the objective of stripping citizens of their properties, including the Real Estate Development and Investment Law No. 15 of 2008, and the Urban Planning and City Development Law No. 23 of 2015.

The professor at the University of Damascus pointed out that private property rights are constitutionally, internationally, and religiously guaranteed. He emphasized the importance of addressing property restitution issues within a clear legal framework, warning against the chaos and lack of rule of law that currently dominates these operations.

For his part, Khaled Zain, a lawyer in Damascus, told Enab Baladi that the matter of property restitution is still in its early stages, and there is an urgent need to create clear laws to regulate the process.

He added, “We heard about the return of some properties to their owners, but in my opinion, this is illegal. It should be done through precise legal procedures and in coordination with multiple authorities.”

The lawyer noted that there is a problem related to the properties that have been confiscated for a long time, as many of their owners have passed away, necessitating the verification of all heirs before returning the properties to avoid disputes among family members.

He pointed out that resolving this issue is still premature, as it requires the stability of the state and the issuance of a new constitution that can serve as a legal reference for these matters.

In 2021, the Syrian Legal Professionals Authority issued a legal memorandum highlighting the previous Syrian regime’s seizure of the properties and assets of Syrians, through security decisions issued by the Baath Party, in the absence of law and judicial authority.

The memorandum explained that these operations fall within a “systematic plan” initiated by the former regime during the Syrian revolution through anti-terrorism laws, culminating in Law No. 10 of 2018, which targeted the properties of registered Syrians in the land registers.

The plan also included depriving Syrians of their rights to benefit, lease, and cultivate, in addition to confiscating their agricultural yields.

The authority indicated that the regime exploited these assets as “rewards” for “shabiha” and allied militias, in appreciation of what it called “their crimes against the Syrian people.”

It added that these measures are part of a policy of “collective punishment” against Syrians, while also serving as a means for the regime to replenish its treasury with funds in an attempt to overcome the international sanctions imposed on it.

The Syrian Legal Professionals Authority described these practices as a “flagrant violation” of property rights guaranteed constitutionally and legally, citing Article 768 of the Civil Code, which states that “the owner of the thing alone, within legal limits, has the right to use, exploit, and dispose of it.”