While expropriation is a legitimate constitutional restriction on the right to property, confiscating private property without expropriation has no legal basis. In Turkish law, the Act numbered 221 and the 38th article of the Expropriation Law numbered 2942, which restricted the right to sue for confiscation without expropriation, also eliminated the possibility of judicial solution of the disputes. Even The Constitutional Court revoked the Article 38 of the Expropriation Law, the General Assembly of the Supreme Court s practices resulted in the Constitutional Court s annulment decision to become dysfunctional. The General Assembly of the Supreme Court s case law gave rise to recourses to the European Court of Human Rights. Resulting in violation and compensation given by the ECHR s decisions in favor of violation and compensation, have obliged Turkish administration and legislator to make positive legislations with regards to confiscation without expropriation. The temporary article 6, adopted with Act numbered no 5999, of the Expropriation Law is a result of ECHR s this kind decisions against Turkey.The Act numbered 6111, the amendments made with the article 21 of the Act numbered 6487 and temporary Article 6 are the sole legislation. The Constitutional Court 's decisions are the result as well as the cause of the legislative steps taken regarding confiscation without expropriation. In this study, we have find out that the insertion of an intervention which has no legal basis into legislation has resulted in violation of the constitutional property right of the owners. We conclude that the Constitution Court has not scrutinized the legalization process effectively and been unable to develop a consistent approach in favor of constitutional freedoms apart putting aside its decision regarding the Article 38.