As a rule, the municipality must carry out annulment and stay-of-execution decisions of the administrative courts without delay and, at the latest, within thirty days from the date the decision is served on it. An appeal (istinaf) or further appeal (temyiz) does not by itself halt compliance. However, re-evaluating a permit, removing a seal and collecting an amount awarded are different acts. The operative part and reasoning of the decision, the record of service and any stay order from a higher court should be examined together.
Is complying with a court decision at the municipality's discretion?
Article 138 of the Constitution requires the administration to comply with court decisions and neither to alter them nor to delay their execution. Article 28 of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK) regulates the application of this obligation in administrative justice. A decision is not a recommendation that the municipality may carry out whenever it sees fit. Correspondence within the administrative organization cannot be turned into a justification for a wait that renders the decision ineffective.
However, the obligation to be applied must be correctly identified. If the court has found only that the application was rejected without sufficient examination, the administration may be required to conduct a new, reasoned review. The decision does not in every case mean that the permit the applicant wanted must be issued directly. By contrast, the consequence of a decision finding a substantive unlawfulness cannot be avoided by repeating the same reasoning in different words.
The difference between annulment and a stay of execution
An annulment decision concerns the legal existence of the contested act. A stay of execution, on the other hand, is interim protection that suspends the application of the act until the case is concluded. Its being temporary does not show that the administration has the power to disregard it. For both decisions, the scope of the ruling, which act or part of an act it affects and whether there is a current applicable decision are investigated.
For example, if the execution of an act closing a business has been stayed, continuing the same closure in a way that renders the decision ineffective causes a problem. At the same time, a new act based on an independent and lawful safety ground that arises later is examined separately from the scope of the earlier decision. It must be determined whether the new act is one that, though apparently different, in reality continues the same unlawfulness.
From what date does the thirty-day period run?
Under Article 28/1 of the İYUK, the relevant date is the date the decision is served on the administration. The date the claimant learns of the decision and the date of service on the municipality may not be the same. The service record in the court file should therefore be obtained. Where electronic service is involved, the statutory date of service should not be calculated by taking only the day the notification was sent.
Thirty days is not an ordinary period that in every case grants the municipality a right to wait; the law orders application without delay and sets thirty days as the upper limit. Even though removing a seal and a comprehensive technical assessment do not require the same practical preparation, the administration must be able to show concretely the act it has to perform and its progress.
Is it necessary to submit the decision to the municipality separately?
Proper service of the court's decision creates the obligation to apply it. A separate application by the interested party is not in every case a constitutive condition of that obligation. Even so, making a registered application with a copy of the decision, the service information and a specific request for implementation is useful for documenting the administration's reply or silence.
For decisions requiring payment of money, written notification of a bank account number is additionally important. One should therefore not act on the footing that "the decision has been served on the municipality, all conditions for collection are complete." Implementation aimed at carrying out an act and the payment and enforcement stages of a monetary judgment should be kept separate.
If the municipality has appealed, is finality awaited?
Under Article 52 of the İYUK, filing an appeal does not by itself stay the execution of the court's decision. If the competent judicial authority has separately issued a stay order, its scope is assessed. A statement such as "the file is at the Council of State" or "we objected to the decision" is not alone a ground for non-compliance. The statutory effect of a reversal of the decision on execution is also taken into account.
In municipal permit, sealing and zoning disputes, which are the subject of this article, the general rule is taken as the basis. That the law contains special finality rules for certain other disputes does not justify carrying them over to all municipal cases. The type of the specific decision and the special statutory provision are checked in each file.
Does the administration provide security for a stay of execution?
In the Article 52 process of the İYUK in administrative justice, there is a provision providing that no security is taken from the administration. This does not mean that the administration can halt a decision merely by filing a petition; a decision of the competent court is required. A stay of execution of an administrative act under Article 27 of the İYUK is also subject to its own conditions.
A stay of enforcement under Article 36 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK) is a separate institution. Without determining the type of court decision, the branch of the judiciary and the applicable procedure, the two regimes should not be confused. In particular, the special rule on judgments concerning de facto expropriation is not a general provision on the application of all administrative court decisions.
What did the 2026 Constitutional Court decision change on finality and security?
In its decision of May 13, 2026, E.2026/24, K.2026/106, the Constitutional Court (AYM) annulled the special exemption from security in additional Article 4/2 of Law No. 2942 with respect to compensation actions brought because of de facto expropriation. The decision was published in the Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) No. 33333 of August 7, 2026; its entry into force was not postponed. The review and annulment are limited to this scope.
The finality requirement is a separate development: in its decision of June 30, 2022, E.2021/127, K.2022/85, the Constitutional Court annulled the finality bar in transitional Article 16 and the rule suspending enforcement proceedings. It would therefore not be correct to describe the 2026 decision as if it introduced, for the first time, the possibility of enforcement before finality.
Must municipalities deposit cash security in every case?
No such general conclusion follows. The State exemption in Article 36 of the İİK, special statutory provisions and acceptable types of security are examined separately. A municipality does not automatically benefit from the State exemption merely because it is a public legal entity. Relying on the repealed additional Article 4/2 exemption is different from asserting another valid exemption. The decision did not annul the provision in Article 52 of the İYUK.
What should be written in the application to the municipality for implementation?
The application should be prepared in a way that allows monitoring whether the ruling is actually applied. Relying only on the word "annulment" on the last page without reading the whole decision is not sufficient. The decision number, date, contested act and the specific result sought to be carried out should be consistent with one another.
- The name of the court, the file (esas) and decision numbers; the information on service of the decision on the municipality.
- The municipal act covered by the annulment or stay and its effects.
- The specific act to be performed; for example, a new assessment, an act concerning a seal or the correction of a record.
- Minutes, photographs, correspondence and calculation documents showing the continuing damage.
- If there is a monetary claim, a written bank account notification by an authorized person and the items of the claim.
The registration and delivery record of the application should be kept. Whether the municipality's reply actually applies the reasoning of the ruling is examined. A letter merely stating "the necessary has been done" should not be regarded as proof of implementation if the factual situation has not changed. On the other hand, not granting an additional right that the decision does not provide for does not in every case amount to a violation of the decision.
What are the compensation and other routes if the decision is not applied?
Article 28/3 of the İYUK provides for an action for material and non-material compensation against the administration if no act or action is taken pursuant to the decision. Under Article 28/4, this compensation action is directed against the relevant administration. An action against the administration should not be treated as the same as a compensation claim directed personally against the mayor or an official.
For compensation, the decision not applied, the administration's obligation, the damage that occurred and the causal link must be explained. Net loss of income from the business remaining closed, expenses incurred in vain or other concrete loss are documented. Non-material compensation is likewise not an automatic and punitive payment; its concrete effects and legal conditions are assessed.
A new act and the possibility of an individual application
If the municipality has issued a new act under the appearance of applying the decision, the time limit for applying and suing against that act must be protected separately. Submitting the request for implementation repeatedly does not in every case restart past periods. Where the ruling is unclear, the conditions of the route of clarification under Article 29 of the İYUK may also be examined; this route is not a means of altering the ruling.
In an individual application to the Constitutional Court, the right to have a decision executed may come into play. However, the exhaustion of remedies, the time limit and the victim status requirements are assessed according to the file. One should not assume that one may wait indefinitely on the allegation that the violation continues. Criminal or disciplinary complaints are likewise addressed only on their own specific conditions; they do not replace the compensation route and the route for applying the decision.
How is enforcement assessed if the municipality does not pay the amount awarded?
Under Article 28/2 of the İYUK, a written bank account notification is made for the money awarded, the attorney's fee and the litigation costs. If payment is not made within the statutory period, enforcement comes into play within the framework of the general provisions. Adding items to the account notification that are not within the scope of the decision, or requesting the same payment twice, should be avoided.
The type and starting point of interest are determined by the ruling and the applicable law. The interest rule in Article 28/6 of the İYUK for the period from service to payment, and the effect of a delay in the account notification, must also be taken into account. It should not be assumed that the same interest rates will be applied cumulatively for every period in addition to the interest in the judgment. That there are attachment limitations regarding some of the municipality's property and revenues does not eliminate the claim or the payment obligation.
Conclusion
Winning a court decision and having it actually applied require separate follow-up. First, the act required by the ruling, the date of service and the current status of the appeal should be determined. Then the request for implementation, the payment application for any monetary claim and the damages arising from non-application should be documented separately. Finality, a stay of execution and a stay of enforcement should not be used in place of one another.
Related articles: Compensation Action for Unlawful Demolition: Building Value, Property Loss and Loss of Income; Compensation for Unlawful Sealing and Business Closure: Loss of Activity and the Administration's Liability; Compensation for Annulment of a Building Permit: Construction Costs, the Principle of Legitimate Expectation and the Municipality's Liability.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the municipality wait thirty days to apply the decision?
The law provides for application without delay; thirty days is the upper limit. The period is determined by the date the decision is served on the administration.
Does an istinaf appeal automatically stop the court's decision?
As a rule, it does not. A stay order separately issued by the competent authority and the special provisions concerning the specific dispute are checked.
Did the 2026 Constitutional Court decision remove the security exemption of all administrations?
No. The decision concerns additional Article 4/2 of Law No. 2942 with respect to compensation for de facto expropriation. Other regimes and exemptions are examined separately.
Can a compensation action be brought directly against the mayor?
A compensation action based on non-application of a decision under Article 28 of the İYUK is directed against the relevant administration. Other routes of liability are subject to their own conditions.
Is it important to notify a bank account for a monetary claim?
Yes. The written notification under Article 28/2 of the İYUK carries separate importance in the payment process and the enforcement that follows.
Sources and legal bases
- Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), Arts. 12, 13, 27–29; full text of Art. 52.
- Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflâs Kanunu), Art. 36.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), May 13, 2026, E.2026/24, K.2026/106, reasoning and operative part; Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) of August 7, 2026, No. 33333.
- Official statement on the Constitutional Court (AYM) decision of June 30, 2022, E.2021/127, K.2022/85.
Research check: October 15, 2026. This is general legal information; the implementation of the specific decision and the calculation of time limits must be assessed separately.