An effective challenge to an administrative fine is possible not by merely saying "the fine is unjust" but by examining together the special law on which the decision is based, any additional administrative measures, the date of notification, the competent branch of the judiciary, the time limit for application and the evidence. Confusing the general rule with the provisions of a special law may cause a justified objection to be rejected on time-limit or jurisdiction grounds without being examined on the merits.
What is an administrative fine?
An administrative fine is a monetary sanction that may be imposed, without a court decision, by a competent administrative authority, a law enforcement unit, a municipal executive committee (encümen), the social security institution or a regulatory and supervisory board, in return for an act that the law defines as a misdemeanor or administrative violation. For the fine to be lawful, the act must be expressly subject to a sanction in the law, the decision must be issued by the competent authority, liability must be directed at the right person, and the sanction must be properly notified.
The difference between a judicial fine and an administrative fine
A judicial fine is part of a judgment given by a criminal court because of an offense. An administrative fine, by contrast, is an administrative sanction; it is not entered in the criminal record as a conviction, and non-payment is not directly converted into imprisonment. Nevertheless, an administrative fine may be pursued by compulsory enforcement by the tax office or the relevant institution, may be subject to attachment proceedings, and may be applied together with administrative acts that have separate consequences for a license, permit or activity.
Are "objection", "application" and "annulment action" the same thing?
Although in everyday language all routes are called an "objection", their legal natures differ. The general route under the Misdemeanors Law No. 5326 (Kabahatler Kanunu) is an application to the criminal judgeship of peace. In administrative justice, an annulment action is filed for the removal of the act. In certain areas such as SGK, an internal administrative objection to the institution is required first, followed by an annulment action before the administrative court. The second stage against the final decision of the criminal judgeship of peace is an objection as a legal remedy within the meaning of Misdemeanors Law Art. 29.
A five-step first examination when the decision reaches you
1. Identify the law and article on which the fine is based
The name of the institution in the heading of the decision does not by itself indicate the competent authority. The same municipality may impose different sanctions on the basis of the Misdemeanors Law, the Zoning Law, the Environmental Law, Law No. 1608 or a special sector law. The route of application is determined, before the institution issuing the decision, by the provision of law applied.
2. Check whether there is an additional decision other than the fine
If the same act includes workplace closure, license revocation, a ban on operation, demolition, sealing, confiscation of products, suspension of a license or another administrative measure, the competent court may change. Misdemeanors Law Art. 27/8 provides that, where a decision within the jurisdiction of administrative justice has also been issued within the same person and the same act, claims of unlawfulness concerning the fine are to be heard in administrative justice together with the request for annulment of that act.[1][23][24]
3. Establish the date and method of notification
The time limit runs, as a rule, not from the date on which the decision was drawn up but from the date of notification or oral announcement. Personal delivery, postal notification, leaving with the neighborhood head (muhtar), electronic notification and notification by announcement each require separate examination. Electronic notification is deemed made at the end of the fifth day following the date it reaches the electronic address; opening the document earlier does not by itself change this statutory date.[6][7]
4. Check whether the fine was directed at the right person
The person who committed the act, the license holder, the employer, the vehicle owner, the company and the company manager are not the same person in every case. Without an express basis in law, automatic liability cannot be placed on the manager for an act of the legal entity, on the employer for an act of the employee, or on the vehicle owner. The decision must be checked to see on what fact the link of liability is based.
5. Secure the evidence without delay
Camera and PTS records, location records, vehicle tracking data, shift schedules, invoices, licenses, workplace records, e-mail and KEP (registered electronic mail) messages, laboratory and measurement documents, photographs, witness details and correspondence with the institution may be lost within a short time. Evidence should be gathered within the application period; records that need to be requested from the institution or from third parties should be clearly identified in the petition.
How is the competent authority for an administrative fine determined?
General rule: the criminal judgeship of peace (Sulh Ceza Hâkimliği)
Unless a different legal remedy is specified in a special law, an application is made to the criminal judgeship of peace against an administrative fine and a decision for the transfer of property to the public, within at most 15 days of notification or oral announcement of the decision. If no application is made in time, the sanction decision becomes final.[1]
This route may apply not only to "misdemeanors written in the Misdemeanors Law" but also to sanctions for which a fine is provided in special laws but no special route of application is regulated. However, the current text of the special law must be checked first.
If a special law points directly to the administrative court
The administrative justice route applies under the Environmental Law, the Zoning Law, the Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698 (KVKK) and the legislation of many regulatory boards. In this case, applying to the criminal judgeship of peace carries the risk of the time limit being used up in the wrong branch of the judiciary. The general time limit for filing suit in administrative justice is, as a rule, 60 days, but a special law may set 30 days or another period.[5]
If a fine is combined with a closure, demolition or license act
If, in the same act and against the same person, a decision within the jurisdiction of administrative justice has been issued together with a fine, Misdemeanors Law Art. 27/8 comes into play. The Court of Jurisdictional Disputes and the Council of State may decide that administrative justice is competent when the fine and the suspension or closure of the workplace's operation are challenged together.[23][24][26]
However, it is not sufficient merely that different decisions were taken on the same day. If the acts, legal bases and acts are independent of each other, each sanction may be subject to a different judicial route. The Court of Jurisdictional Disputes has emphasized that acts based on different conduct and different laws do not merge into a single branch of the judiciary merely because they were issued against the same person.[27]
Four questions in the mixed-sanction test
- Are the fine and the other measure part of the same decision or the same process of action?
- Are both sanctions based on the same act and the same legal ground?
- Does the other decision clearly fall within the jurisdiction of administrative justice?
- Is annulment of both acts being requested in the same petition?
An internal objection may be mandatory first
In areas such as SGK and customs, it may be necessary to exhaust the administrative objection route provided by law before going to court. This preliminary application may affect the start of the time limit for filing suit and collection proceedings. It is important that the decision contains an "authority for objection" section; however, an incorrect or incomplete notice of legal remedy on the decision does not, by itself, change the correct route.
What happens if the wrong judicial route is used?
Applying to a court without jurisdiction is not, in every case, a method that safely preserves the time limit. Although there are protective provisions such as Article 9 of the Administrative Procedure Law, their application depends on conditions such as the first application being within the time limit, the decision of lack of jurisdiction becoming final, and the new action being filed within the prescribed period. The branch of the judiciary should therefore be determined correctly from the outset.
How are application time limits calculated?
The general application time limit is 15 days
The first application period under Misdemeanors Law Art. 27 is 15 days from notification or oral announcement. This period is not "15 business days"; it is 15 days as written in the law. In calculating the period, the day of notification is not counted; the following day is counted as the first day. If the last day falls on an official holiday, the period, as a rule, ends on the first business day following the holiday.
The second stage against a decision of the criminal judgeship of peace is two weeks
The initial 15-day application period and the time limit for objecting to a decision of the criminal judgeship of peace must not be confused. By Law No. 7499, the period in Misdemeanors Law Art. 29 was changed to two weeks for decisions issued on or after June 1, 2024.[2]
In addition, under Misdemeanors Law Art. 28/10, decisions given on an application against administrative fines up to and including TL 15,000 (Turkish lira) are final. If the amount exceeds this limit and the decision is not final on another ground, objection as a legal remedy may be considered within two weeks of notification.[1][2]
Time limits in special laws
Different periods apply: 30 days under the Environmental Law; for an SGK fine, 15 days to the institution and, after a rejection decision, 30 days to the administrative court; and in general administrative justice, 60 days unless otherwise specially regulated. An approach such as "all administrative fines are 15 days" or "all administrative actions are 60 days" is wrong.
If the 15-day period is missed because of force majeure
Under Misdemeanors Law Art. 27/2, if the 15-day period has been missed because of force majeure, an application may be made within seven days of the date on which the cause ceased. In the petition, both the unlawfulness of the sanction and the force majeure that prevented the time limit must be explained and documented. This application does not by itself prevent the decision from becoming final; the judgeship may stay execution.[1]
Defective notification and date of learning
If notification was never made, was made to the wrong address or did not comply with the statutory form, the start of the time limit is examined separately. However, merely saying "I learned late" is not sufficient; the notification receipt (mazbata), address records, the UETS record and the actual date of learning are assessed together. A claim of defective notification should, if possible, be framed at the beginning of the application as a separate procedural objection.
Does paying the fine extinguish the right to apply?
The general payment period and the 25 percent discount
Unless a different payment period is provided in a special law, an administrative fine is paid within one month of notification. If 75 percent of the total amount of the fine is paid within the payment period, a 25 percent discount applies. Discounted payment does not prevent applying to a legal remedy within the time limit against the sanction decision.[3][4]
An important distinction
The application time limit and the payment period are not the same. The general application time limit is 15 days; unless there is a special provision, the payment period is one month. The fact that the payment period is still running after the application time limit has passed does not mean that the right to apply still exists.
Is payment in installments possible?
A person whose economic situation is not suitable may request payment in installments from the unit that imposed the fine within the payment period. If accepted, the first installment is paid up front within the payment period and the remaining three installments within one year of the date of notification. If installments are not paid on time, the remaining amount becomes immediately due. For certain fines under traffic, road transport and motorway toll legislation, the request is made to the relevant tax office.[3]
Does an application stop collection?
There is no single answer. In the criminal judgeship of peace route, an application affects the finality of the decision; however, special laws may contain different provisions on enforcement and collection. Filing an annulment action before the administrative court, on the other hand, does not as a rule automatically stay execution of the act; a stay of execution must be requested separately and its statutory conditions shown. The Environmental Law expressly states that a filed action will not stop collection. An administrative objection made to SGK within the time limit stops enforcement; an action filed after a rejection decision does not stop it automatically.[8][9]
Is late-payment interest never applied?
A general rule that "no interest ever accrues on an administrative fine" cannot be stated. The general collection regime, additional financial obligations in special laws and enforcement proceedings under Law No. 6183 are assessed separately. Special late-payment provisions may exist for some fines; payment orders, compulsory enforcement and collection costs may also come into play.
How is the application petition prepared?
Basic elements that the petition must contain
- The clear name of the competent authority with jurisdiction,
- The applicant's identity or company details and address for notification,
- The institution that issued the decision, the date and number of the decision and the date of notification,
- A calculation showing that the application is within the time limit,
- A chronological and concrete account of the facts,
- The legal explanation of each ground for annulment under a separate heading,
- An indication of which claim each item of evidence proves,
- If necessary, a request for a stay of execution of the act or of its enforcement,
- In the conclusion, removal/annulment, refund of any amount collected and other requests.
Which documents should be attached?
The administrative sanction decision or record, the notification document, the payment receipt, licenses and permits, the inspection record, defense and correspondence with the institution, camera or location records, invoices, contracts, technical reports, photographs and the power of attorney are the main attachments. Instead of merely piling up documents in the petition, it should be explained which fact each document proves.
Can the application be made through UYAP?
Lawyers can apply through the UYAP Lawyer Portal, and citizens, in matters that are technically open, through the UYAP Citizen Portal or through court intake offices. Administrative action petitions may likewise be submitted through UYAP or to the clerk's office of the relevant court, to be forwarded through a court in another location. For applications on the last day, it should be checked in advance whether the electronic system is open.
Court fees and litigation costs
An application to a legal remedy under the Misdemeanors Law is not subject to court fees. However, the costs and attorney's fee arising from the legal remedy may be charged to the party whose application or defense is rejected. In administrative justice, by contrast, the action is subject to court fees and postage expenses.[1]
Does the criminal judgeship of peace hold a hearing?
The examination is mostly conducted on the file. However, if resolution of the dispute requires hearing witnesses, an expert examination, deciphering a camera recording or an on-site examination, these must be clearly requested. Although the judgeship has the power to investigate of its own motion, where the evidence is located and why it is necessary should be made concrete in the petition.
Main grounds for annulling an administrative fine
Lack of competence, form and procedure
The fine being imposed by an authority or official not authorized by law, being issued without a mandatory board/executive committee decision, a lack of signature or elements of the decision, the absence of a delegation of authority, or the failure to follow the defense and commission stages required by a special law may be grounds for annulment.
Violation of legality and certainty
An administrative sanction cannot be created by analogy or broad interpretation. It must be clear from the decision which law and article the act violates, from which provision the sanction arises, and how the material facts correspond to that provision. Referring to a general provision on obligations without explaining the sanctioned act impairs the defense and judicial review.
The decision record being contrary to Misdemeanors Law Art. 25
The decision must clearly contain the person's identity and address, the act requiring the sanction, the evidence proving the act, the date of the decision, the identity of the officials who issued the decision, and the place and time of the act. The Court of Cassation accepts that decisions that merely repeat the article of law and do not show which act was committed when and where, or by whom and on the basis of what evidence the finding was made, are not reviewable.[15][16][17]
Not every formal deficiency necessarily leads to automatic annulment. However, a deficiency is substantive if it prevents the act from being understood, a defense from being framed or judicial review from being carried out. A response petition later submitted by the administration does not, in every case, retroactively make lawful an act that was not explained at all in the sanction decision.
The act not being proved by sufficient and reliable evidence
Administrative records may have the nature of official documents and may be regarded as valid until the contrary is proved. For this reason, the claim "there is no camera recording" alone is not sufficient to cancel every fine. By contrast, if the applicant demonstrates with concrete records that the vehicle was in another city, that the license plate was cloned, that the measurement was faulty, that the workplace was closed or that the act was not committed, the judgeship cannot decide without investigating this evidence.[18][19][20]
Examples of effective counter-evidence
- PTS, HGS/OGS, car park, shuttle and vehicle tracking records,
- Security camera, MOBESE or workplace camera recordings,
- Telephone location data and time-stamped digital records,
- Shift, payroll, entry-exit and travel documents,
- Calibration, measuring device maintenance and usage records,
- Licences, permits, contracts, invoices and delivery records,
- Expert opinion, on-site examination and expert examination.
The fine being directed at the wrong person or company
The perpetrator of the violation and the license holder or business owner may be different. Unless a special law provides for strict liability, being merely the owner, employer, manager or company shareholder is not sufficient for liability for the fine. The bases of the liability of a legal entity and of a natural person must be shown separately.
Absence of fault or grounds of justification
In misdemeanor law, intent or negligence, grounds that remove culpability, mistake, necessity and grounds of justification matter according to the specific case. A claim of technical failure, force majeure, instruction from an official authority or unavoidable error should not be left abstract; it should be supported by records from the date of the incident.
A fine fixed at the upper limit without reasoning
Where the law provides lower and upper limits, the unlawfulness content of the act, the fault of the perpetrator and their economic situation must be assessed together in determining the amount. The Council of State finds an act unlawful where imposing a fine at the upper limit is not explained with concrete information, documents and reasoning. The criminal judgeship of peace may also grant an application by altering the amount in sanctions that have a lower and an upper limit.[21][22][28]
Proportionality and equality
The fine must be connected with a legitimate aim, necessary and proportionate. Applying an unjustifiably different fine in incidents of the same nature, choosing the most severe sanction for a minor violation, or departing without reasons from the administration's settled practice may be argued in terms of equality and proportionality.
Repeated sanctions for the same act
Where the same act constitutes more than one misdemeanor, extends over more than one inspection period or violates separate legal values, the rules on concurrence are examined. Misdemeanors Law Art. 15 provides that, if more than one administrative fine is provided for the same act, the most severe fine is, as a rule, applied; however, the provisions of special laws and different acts are reserved.
Limitation for investigation and for enforcement
The period between the date on which the act was committed and the date of the decision, the type and amount of the fine, cases of interruption or suspension and the provisions of the special law must be calculated together. After the limitation period for investigation has expired, a fine cannot be imposed; after the limitation period for enforcement has expired, a final fine cannot be pursued. Rough calculations made by looking only at the calendar year may give wrong results.
Law more favorable to the person and application over time
If the sanction provision was repealed or became more favorable after the act, the rules on application over time are examined. On the other hand, it is possible that changes to collection and procedural provisions apply immediately or that there is a transitional provision. Law No. 7499 separately regulated from which date the two-week objection period applies to decisions issued.[2]
Deficient reasoning and notice of legal remedy
The decision must state the payment period, place of payment, discount, installments, legal remedy, authority and time limit. An incorrect notice of legal remedy does not change the competent authority; however, it may matter in the assessment of freedom to seek legal redress, calculation of the time limit and restoration to the previous state. The concrete damage and the effect of the incorrect notice should be explained in the petition.[3]
Where is an application made against which administrative fine?
The table below provides general guidance. The specific article on which the decision is based, the other sanctions in the same act and the date of the decision must in any case be examined separately.
| Type of fine / act | First authority of application | General time limit | Important note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administrative fine alone, with no route specified in a special law | Criminal judgeship of peace | 15 days | The general rule of Misdemeanors Law Art. 27. |
| Traffic administrative fine | Criminal judgeship of peace | 15 days | The payment period is generally one month; 25% discount on payment within the period. |
| SGK - fine under Law No. 5510 Art. 102 | First objection to SGK; after rejection, administrative court | 15 days + 30 days from notification of the rejection | An objection to the institution stops enforcement; the action does not stop it automatically. |
| Fine under the Environmental Law | Administrative court | 30 days | The action does not stop collection automatically. |
| Fine under Zoning Law Art. 42 | Administrative court | 60 days as a rule | The link with a stop-work/demolition decision and notification are examined separately. |
| Administrative fine of the KVKK Board | Administrative court | 60 days as a rule | From June 1, 2024, the law expressly provides for the administrative court. |
| Fine by a municipality solely under the Misdemeanors Law/Law No. 1608 | Mostly criminal judgeship of peace | 15 days | The basis article and the absence of an additional measure must be verified. |
| Fine + closure/sealing/ban on operation | Mostly the administrative court, depending on the specific act | Special or general administrative action time limit | Misdemeanors Law Art. 27/8; the same-act and same-conduct test is applied. |
| Fine by a regulatory board or on a license/permit | The administrative court specified in the special law | Mostly 60 days; a special period may apply | Depending on the board's seat, a rule on special jurisdiction and venue may exist. |
Objecting to a traffic administrative fine
Time limit and payment for a traffic fine
The general time limit for challenging a traffic administrative fine is 15 days from the date on which the record is served in person or subsequently notified. The one-month payment period does not extend the 15-day application period. If payment is made within one month of notification, a 25 percent discount applies, and payment does not extinguish the right to apply.[13][14]
Will the fine necessarily be cancelled if there is no photograph or camera recording?
No. Because a traffic record has the nature of an official document, a photograph or camera recording is not additionally required in every case. On the other hand, where the driver or vehicle owner submits concrete counter-evidence, the judgeship must investigate these claims. Rejecting the application without investigating PTS and camera records showing that the vehicle was elsewhere, a mismatch in the plate or vehicle characteristics, the physical layout of the road or the impossibility of the incident having occurred may be regarded as incomplete examination.[18][19][20]
If the vehicle owner is not the driver
For fines issued to the license plate, it is examined whether the law provides for owner liability, whether the driver could be identified and the notification procedure. If the vehicle had been sold, rented, stolen, had its plate cloned or was elsewhere on the date of the incident, the official and technical records showing this should be attached to the application.
Drunk driving: distinguishing the fine, the driving license and the criminal investigation
An incident of drunk driving may produce separate consequences such as an administrative fine, withdrawal of the driving license, removal of the vehicle from traffic and, if the conditions are met, a criminal investigation for the offense of endangering traffic safety. All of these consequences may not be examined by the same authority. The calibration of the measuring device, the time of measurement, a request for a second measurement, the records of the health institution and the annotations placed on the record matter in the specific file. Because fine amounts change every year, the tariff in force on the date of the incident, rather than a fixed figure, should be used.
Objecting to an SGK administrative fine
Under Law No. 5510 Art. 102, an SGK administrative fine accrues upon notification. Within 15 days of the date of notification, payment may be made to the Institution or an objection may be filed with the Institution. An objection to the Institution stops enforcement. If the objection is rejected, an action may be filed before the competent administrative court within 30 days of notification of the rejection decision; an application to the court does not automatically stop enforcement and collection.[9]
Points frequently examined in SGK fines
- On what date the workplace and insured-person notifications were submitted,
- Whether there was an electronic system failure or force majeure,
- Whether the act arose once, or separately each month or for each insured person,
- The basis of the findings on minimum labor cost, unregistered employment and presentation of documents,
- The conditions for discount and the effect of declarations submitted voluntarily,
- Whether the commission decision was properly reasoned and properly notified.
Administrative fines under the Environmental Law
Against administrative sanction decisions issued under the Environmental Law No. 2872, an action is filed before the administrative court within 30 days of the date of notification. The Law expressly provides that the action will not stop collection of the fine; a stay of execution should therefore be requested separately if the conditions are met.[8]
Technical examination in environmental fines
Sampling, the measurement method, device calibration, laboratory competence, determination of the emission or discharge point, attribution of the waste, the time of measurement and a claim of chain liability must be examined technically. If the abstract observation in the record does not explain the technical standard on which the sanction is based and how the violation was calculated, judicial review becomes difficult.
Objecting to a zoning fine
Fines imposed under Zoning Law No. 3194 Art. 42 are heard in administrative justice. A zoning fine is often established in the same process as a stop-work record, sealing or demolition decision. The Court of Jurisdictional Disputes accepts that administrative justice is competent for fines that are a continuation of an administrative act aimed at establishing and remedying construction contrary to zoning legislation.[25]
Calculation and liability review in a zoning fine
- Are the class, group and area of the structure and the part affected by the violation correct?
- Have the basic fine and the grounds for increase been calculated separately?
- Have the owner of the structure, contractor, technical supervisor (fenni mesul) or the person who actually carried out the work been correctly identified?
- Were the legislation and unit values in force on the date of the violation applied?
- Have the provisions on repeated fines or repetition been wrongly applied for the same violation?
- Is the stop-work record concrete, measurable and reviewable?
Current judicial route for KVKK administrative fines
Under the provision added to Law No. 6698 Art. 18 by Law No. 7499 of March 2, 2024, an action is filed before the administrative court against administrative fines imposed by the Personal Data Protection Board. The amendment entered into force on June 1, 2024. Applications pending before criminal judgeships of peace as of that date are, under the transitional provision, concluded by the same judgeships.[2][11][12]
The information in older publications that "a KVKK fine is challenged before the criminal judgeship of peace" is therefore out of date. For new Board decisions, the administrative court route should be assessed on the basis of the general administrative time limit for filing suit and the date of notification of the decision.
Main areas of review on the merits in a KVKK fine
- Correctly identifying the capacity of data controller or data processor,
- On which obligation article the violation is based,
- The adequacy of technical and administrative measures in the specific case,
- The dates on which the violation was learned of and notified,
- The reasoning of the Board's decision and the individualization of the amount of the fine,
- The proportionality of more than one sanction for the same incident.
Municipal executive committee fines and workplace closure decisions
"A municipal fine" is not a single legal category. If a fine was imposed solely under the Misdemeanors Law or Law No. 1608, the general criminal judgeship of peace route may come into play. If the same act also includes a decision for closure until a license is obtained, sealing or a ban on operation, administrative justice may be competent. Not the heading of the decision but the act, the basis article, the additional measure and the requests must be assessed together.[23][24][26]
Elements to be examined in particular in an executive committee decision
- Whether the violation falls within the duties and powers of the municipality,
- Whether it was lawful for the decision to be issued by the executive committee, the mayor's office or the municipal police (zabıta),
- Whether the order was clear, lawful and previously announced,
- Whether the finding record contains the incident, place, time and evidence,
- Whether the closure and the fine are based on the same act.
Fines imposed on companies by regulatory and supervisory institutions
The decisions of the Competition Authority, EPDK, BDDK, SPK, the Ministry of Trade, RTÜK and other regulatory institutions are generally based on special laws. There may be special provisions on the competent court, the time limit for filing suit, the court with territorial jurisdiction and stay of execution. In fines on companies, turnover, revaluation, repetition, aggravating and mitigating grounds and how the fine was determined between the lower and upper limits must also be examined.
Where discretion is exercised between lower and upper limits, the Council of State requires that an amount approaching the upper limit be explained with concrete reasoning and that the unlawfulness content, fault and economic situation be assessed.[21][22]
What routes exist after an application is rejected?
Objection to a decision of the criminal judgeship of peace
For administrative fines up to and including TL 15,000, the decision given on the application is final. Against decisions that exceed this limit and are not final by law, objection may be made under Misdemeanors Law Art. 29 within two weeks of notification of the decision. The objection is submitted to the judgeship that issued the decision and is examined on the file by the competent authority.[1][2]
Appeal against an administrative court decision (istinaf)
An appeal (istinaf) to the regional administrative court may, as a rule, be filed within 30 days of notification of the decision against decisions of the administrative court. However, whether the decision is final, the monetary threshold of the dispute and the provisions of special laws must be checked separately.
Individual application to the Constitutional Court
After ordinary legal remedies have been exhausted, it may be claimed that a fundamental right has been violated in terms of the right to property, the right to a fair trial, the right to a reasoned decision, access to court or the principle of legality. An individual application is not a further appeal on the facts or law of the decision; the constitutional dimension of the violation must be made concrete.
Refund of a fine that was paid
If the fine is removed or annulled, a refund of the amount paid is requested. The refund method may vary according to the institution that issued the decision and the collection office. In the action petition, a refund of any amount collected and, if the conditions are met, interest should be expressly requested.
Sample time schedule for an application under the general Misdemeanors Law
| Stage | Sample date | Action to take |
|---|---|---|
| Notification of the decision | November 1 | The day of notification is not counted in the period. |
| Start of the application period | November 2 | The first day. |
| End of the 15-day application | November 16 | Extends to the first business day if it falls on an official holiday. |
| General last day for discounted payment | December 1 | One month unless a special law provides a different period; payment does not prevent an application. |
| Notification of the decision of the criminal judgeship of peace | January 10 | If the fine exceeds TL 15,000 and the decision is not final, the second stage may be considered. |
| End of the second-stage objection | January 24 | Two weeks from notification of the decision. |
This schedule illustrates only the general rule. In a specific case, a special law, electronic notification, the judicial recess, an official holiday or a transitional provision may change the result.
Checklist for an administrative fine file
- Obtain a legible copy of the decision and all its annexes.
- Document the date and method of notification.
- Check the law and article relied on against the current text.
- Determine whether there is an additional administrative measure.
- Identify the competent branch of the judiciary and the authority with jurisdiction.
- Calculate the general or special application time limit day by day.
- Assess the discounted payment and installment options separately.
- Compare the act, perpetrator, place, time and evidence elements with the text of the decision.
- Gather counter-evidence before it is lost and list the records to be requested.
- Frame procedural objections under separate headings from objections on the merits.
- State clearly in the conclusion the requests for removal/annulment, refund and stay.
- Keep the receipt for delivery of the application or UYAP submission.
Frequently asked questions
How many days is the time limit for objecting to an administrative fine?
Unless a special law provides otherwise, 15 days from notification or oral announcement. Special time limits or special routes exist in areas such as environment, SGK, KVKK and zoning.
Are the 15 days business days?
No. The general time limit in the Misdemeanors Law is 15 days. If the last day falls on an official holiday, the period extends to the first business day.
Is the time limit for objecting to a decision of the criminal judgeship of peace also 15 days?
No. For decisions issued on or after June 1, 2024, the second-stage objection period is two weeks. The first application period is 15 days.
Which criminal judgeship of peace has jurisdiction?
Jurisdiction is determined by the place where the act was committed, the place where the decision was drawn up, the special law and the HSK (Council of Judges and Prosecutors) regulations. The judgeship of the place of residence is not automatically competent in every case.
Can I object if I pay the fine?
Yes. Making a discounted payment within the payment period does not prevent applying to a legal remedy within the time limit.
If an administrative fine is not paid, is it converted into imprisonment?
No. An administrative fine is not converted into imprisonment like a judicial fine; however, it may be subject to compulsory collection and attachment proceedings.
Is an administrative fine entered in the criminal record?
Because it is not a conviction, it is not entered in the criminal record. However, it may have other consequences in the institution's records or in license or sector supervision.
Can an administrative fine be paid in installments?
Where the economic situation is not suitable, a request may be made within the payment period; if accepted, four equal installments and a one-year plan apply.
Does collection stop automatically when an application is made?
Not always. The special law is decisive. In an administrative action, a stay of execution must be requested separately. An environmental action does not stop collection; an internal objection to SGK, on the other hand, stops enforcement.
If there is no camera recording in the record, is the fine cancelled?
The absence of a camera recording alone is not an automatic ground for annulment. However, if concrete counter-evidence is submitted, the judgeship must carry out the necessary investigation.
What if the record does not state the act and the evidence?
Failing to show the act, place, time and evidence in a reviewable way may constitute a violation of Misdemeanors Law Art. 25 and may lead to the removal of the fine.
Can a company's fine be applied directly to the manager?
Only if a special law expressly provides for personal liability. The liability of the company and of the manager requires separate legal bases.
Is an action filed directly before the administrative court against an SGK fine?
For a fine under Law No. 5510 Art. 102, an objection is first filed with SGK within 15 days. After the rejection decision, an application is made to the administrative court within 30 days.
What is the time limit for an environmental fine?
An action is filed before the administrative court within 30 days of notification. The action does not stop collection automatically.
Is a KVKK fine still challenged before the criminal judgeship of peace?
No. From June 1, 2024, an action is filed before the administrative court against administrative fines imposed by the Board. Applications pending before the criminal judgeship of peace on that date are subject to the transitional provision.
Where is an application made against a zoning fine?
Fines under Zoning Law Art. 42 are heard in administrative justice. The link with stop-work and demolition acts should be assessed together.
Does an administrative fine pass to the heirs?
On the death of a natural person, an administrative fine is not pursued against the heirs, owing to the personal nature of penalties. The debt of a legal entity and the liability of the legal representative are different.
What can be done if the application is rejected?
In the case of a decision of the criminal judgeship of peace, the amount of the fine and the rule on finality are checked; if the legal remedy is open, objection is made within two weeks. In the case of an administrative court decision, an appeal (istinaf) within 30 days is, as a rule, considered.
Key principles from current case law
- The decision must be reviewable: It is not sufficient merely to write the article of law without explaining the act, place, time, evidence and the person who made the finding.[15][16][17]
- A record is not worthless by itself: An official record may be valid until the contrary is proved; but where there is concrete counter-evidence, an investigation must be carried out.[18][19][20]
- The upper limit cannot be applied without reasoning: Imposing a fine at the upper limit without assessing the unlawfulness content, fault and economic situation may be unlawful.[21][22][28]
- In mixed sanctions, jurisdiction is determined by the act and the process: If the closure or ban on operation is in the same act as the fine, administrative justice; if the acts and bases differ, separate routes may come into play.[23][24][26][27]
- A zoning fine belongs to administrative justice: A fine that is part of the process aimed at establishing and remedying a zoning violation is examined in administrative justice.[25]
Sources and legislation check
Date of source and legislation check: October 25, 2026.
1 — Misdemeanors Law No. 5326 (5326 sayılı Kabahatler Kanunu), current text. Source.
2 — Law No. 7499 Amending the Code of Criminal Procedure and Certain Laws (7499 sayılı Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu ile Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun). Source.
3 — Collection General Communiqué (Tahsilat Genel Tebliği) (Series: B No: 18), May 10, 2023. Source.
4 — Revenue Administration (Gelir İdaresi Başkanlığı), Payment Period for Administrative Fines. Source.
5 — Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (2577 sayılı İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), current text. Source.
6 — Notification Law No. 7201 (7201 sayılı Tebligat Kanunu), current text. Source.
7 — Electronic Notification Regulation (Elektronik Tebligat Yönetmeliği), current text. Source.
8 — Environmental Law No. 2872 (2872 sayılı Çevre Kanunu), current text. Source.
9 — Law No. 5510 on Social Insurance and General Health Insurance (5510 sayılı Sosyal Sigortalar ve Genel Sağlık Sigortası Kanunu), current text. Source.
10 — Zoning Law No. 3194 (3194 sayılı İmar Kanunu), current text. Source.
11 — Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698 (6698 sayılı Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu), current text. Source.
12 — KVKK, Amendments Made to the Personal Data Protection Law (Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanununda Yapılan Değişiklikler). Source.
13 — Highway Traffic Law No. 2918 (2918 sayılı Karayolları Trafik Kanunu), current text. Source.
14 — Revenue Administration (Gelir İdaresi Başkanlığı), Traffic Administrative Fines and Payment. Source.
15 — 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Ceza Dairesi), E. 2021/29246, K. 2022/8338, April 25, 2022. Source.
16 — 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2024/6741, K. 2024/10359, November 26, 2024. Source.
17 — 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2023/5482, K. 2025/1960, February 11, 2025. Source.
18 — 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2021/20496, K. 2021/13697, October 27, 2021. Source.
19 — 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2021/14857, K. 2021/16403, December 6, 2021. Source.
20 — 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2024/338, K. 2024/6970, September 16, 2024. Source.
21 — 13th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 13. Daire), E. 2018/2356, K. 2023/4321, October 26, 2023. Source.
22 — 13th Chamber of the Council of State, E. 2022/2507, K. 2025/2598, September 10, 2025. Source.
23 — Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi), E. 2024/108, K. 2024/126, April 1, 2024. Source.
24 — 2nd Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 2. Daire), E. 2021/18977, K. 2022/1060, March 7, 2022. Source.
25 — Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, E. 2022/284, K. 2022/384, June 20, 2022. Source.
26 — 4th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 4. Daire), E. 2023/13155, K. 2025/745, February 4, 2025. Source.
27 — Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, E. 2024/435, K. 2024/364, October 7, 2024. Source.
28 — 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2021/20720, K. 2021/18947, December 29, 2021. Source.