The success of an objection to a zoning fine depends not only on the permit status of the structure; it depends on the right person being penalized, the violation being determined technically and the fine being calculated in accordance with the law. In an annulment action to be filed before the administrative court against a decision of the municipal executive committee (encümen), the general time limit is 60 days starting from the day following written notification. An application to the municipality does not have the same effect on the time limit for filing an action and on collection. Remedying the violation likewise does not mean that the whole fine is automatically erased. [1, Art. 42; 2, Arts. 7, 11, 27]
This review primarily addresses the fines for construction without a permit or in violation of the permit and its annexes under the second paragraph of Article 42 of Zoning Law No. 3194. Liability has been assessed with respect to the building owner, investor, operator, tenant and contractor, distinguishing between the base fine, increases and the additional fine. The research date is October 12, 2026. The outcomes of the decisions are explained without confusing them with the reasoning of the first-instance courts.
What is a zoning fine, and how does it differ from a demolition decision?
A zoning fine is an administrative sanction imposed, under the zoning legislation, on the person responsible for an act made subject to a sanction. Sealing and demolition of the structure, on the other hand, are aimed at halting or eliminating non-compliant construction. The fact that these measures are taken together with respect to the same structure does not mean that their legal conditions are identical. With respect to the fine, personal liability and calculation are examined; with respect to demolition, the legal status of the structure and the relevant procedure are examined separately. [1, Arts. 32, 42]
Paying the fine does not make the structure permitted. Annulment of the fine decision likewise does not automatically give the structure a permit or an occupancy permit. For example, even if a fine imposed on the wrong person is annulled, a demolition measure taken regarding unpermitted work may continue to exist as a separate legal issue. The petition must clearly specify which acts are sought to be annulled.
- The article does not consist only of a fine calculated per square meter. Failure to perform certain obligations, failure to remedy deficiencies in a dangerous structure and other special acts are regulated in different paragraphs. Applying the same calculation or time-limit approach to all zoning fines without seeing the basis of the decision is erroneous.
Which points does the 2026 amendment affect?
Article 14 of Law No. 7579, published in the Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) of May 22, 2026, amended Article 42. It provides that, if the Ministry adds a new group to the building classes, the current highest group in the relevant class will be taken as the basis. In addition, the energy performance certificate expert and the fire safety expert were added among those responsible under the third paragraph; provisions on fire safety and on the supply of ready-mixed concrete were introduced. [3]
This amendment does not eliminate the distinction among the building owner, contractor and technical supervisor (fenni mesul) in the second paragraph. It is not possible to transfer a new category of responsible persons directly to another fine item not indicated in the law. The date of the act, the date of entry into force and the applicable provision must be examined together. Therefore the calculation model below should not be read as a common tariff for all sanctions of Article 42.
To whom is a zoning fine imposed?
Must the registered owner and the person responsible for the non-compliant work be the same person?
The title deed record is an important starting document; it is not the whole of the examination of liability for the fine. The administration must investigate who built or had built the non-compliant structure and the person’s connection with the act. Subsequent purchase of the structure should not be regarded as sufficient to automatically impose construction carried out in the previous owner’s period on the new owner. Conversely, merely saying “I did not do it” does not make discussion of the concrete findings in the file unnecessary. [1, Art. 42; 4, Arts. 8–9]
The date of purchase, old photographs, previous permits and projects, construction invoices, the municipal archive and handover records are assessed together. For example, a balcony enclosed before delivery of the independent unit and a balcony expanded by the owner after the purchase are not the same fact. The petition should show separately the period of construction and the person responsible for each violation.
The position of the tenant, the operator and the contractor
A tenant’s use of the immovable property does not show that every violation belongs to the tenant. However, a discussion of liability may arise because of an additional structure requiring a permit that the tenant had built. The lease agreement, renovation permission, contractor agreement and payment documents clarify who carried out the act. The owner’s permission for renovation under private law does not replace the permit that must be obtained from the municipality.
With respect to the contractor, besides the title in the contract, the scope of the non-compliant work and the work undertaken are examined. The assessments regarding the owner and the contractor must not be copies of each other. The fact that the law provides a separate sanction for each liability does not permit repeated penalties without reasoning to be imposed on the same person for the same status and the same act. [1, Art. 42]
Technical supervisors and building inspection organizations
The second paragraph separately regulates the relevant technical supervisors who do not notify the administration of the violation within six business days. The term of duty, field of expertise, date on which the violation occurred and notification records are important. It cannot be assumed that everyone who has signed is liable to the same extent for all violations. [1, Art. 42]
With respect to building inspection organizations, the special sanction regime in Law No. 4708 must be examined separately. The concepts of organization, inspector and technical supervisor must not be confused with each other; the special-law provisions on the same act and the prohibition on repeated sanctions must be reviewed. [5, Art. 8]
For details on this subject, see the section on permits, environmental impact assessment (ÇED) and the operating process in establishing a marina and yacht harbor.
How are the construction stoppage record and the municipal executive committee decision scrutinized?
The construction stoppage record (yapı tatil tutanağı) must set out the location, type, measurements and current state of the violation in a verifiable manner. In a permitted structure, it must be explained which project element has been changed and how. If there are photographs, a sketch and an additional measurement table, these are also part of the file. Evaluating the page of the record separately from its annexes can be misleading.
During the review, the following documents should be obtained together:
• The whole of the municipal executive committee decision and the fine calculation schedule.
• The construction stoppage record, all its annexes, sketches and dated photographs.
• The permit, renovation permit, approved architectural and relevant engineering projects.
• Notification documents, electronic notification records and, if any, collection documents.
• Records showing the relationship of ownership, lease, contracting and technical supervisor responsibility.
In the municipal executive committee decision, the competent administration, the person fined, the act, the paragraph applied and the calculation elements must be identifiable. Municipal boundaries, special areas of authority and the relationship between the metropolitan municipality and the district municipality are checked in the specific case. That an institution can carry out inspection of a structure does not mean that it can apply every sanction through the same procedure.
Is a record prepared by a survey engineer necessarily invalid?
The decision of the 6th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay) dated October 14, 2025, E.2023/8173, K.2025/4958, shows that no automatic conclusion can be drawn on this point. The record prepared by a survey engineer and a landscape architect contained detailed additional measurements. The Chamber, assessing the fact that the survey engineer is technical personnel and the content of the annexes, did not regard the record as contrary to procedure in this respect. [6]
However, it did not regard the administration’s measurements as indisputably correct. Stating that, because of the claimant’s technical objections, an on-site examination and expert examination should be carried out, it reversed the appellate decision that had maintained the outcome of annulment and refund. This decision does not mean that the fine was definitively found lawful; it is a reversal decision rendered because of an incomplete examination. Its practical implication is that an objection directed at the signatory’s title should be raised together with evidence on the technical merits.
How is a zoning fine calculated?
The calculation schedule should be read in three separate layers: the base fine, statutory increases and the additional fine linked to land value. How unlawfulness in one item affects the others depends on where that item is located in the calculation. [1, Art. 42/2]
| Calculation item | Data used as the basis | Principal question for scrutiny |
|---|---|---|
| Base fine: area method | The area affected by the violation and the applicable unit amount belonging to the class/group | Are the area and the building class correct? |
| Base fine: cost method | 20% of the cost, according to the relevant unit prices, of non-compliant work that cannot be calculated by area | Was the square-meter method used by mistake? |
| Increases | The base fine and the statutory rate of each concrete increase | Does each increase rest on separate evidence? |
| Additional fine | Area subject to the violation × the minimum per-square-meter land/parcel value used as the basis for real estate tax | Have the correct area, value and addressee been chosen? |
The area affected by the violation and the building class
The total area of a permitted structure is not in every case the area of the fine. It must be explained whether only a particular part of the structure is affected by the violation or, because of its technical nature, a wider area. Both taking the whole building into account and taking only the added part as the basis require a concrete technical assessment. In the calculation of area, counting the same section twice, confusing floor measurements, or the record and the calculation schedule containing different square meters should be investigated.
The building class and group affect the applicable unit amount. The intended use and technical nature of the structure are compared with the relevant classification regulation. The statutory provision on the new groups added in 2026 is also taken into account at this stage. Historical nominal figures in the text of the law cannot be presented as the current tariff without applying revaluation. An exact amount should not be calculated without seeing the year of the fine and the applicable tariff. [1, Art. 42/2(a); 3]
Works that cannot be calculated by square meter
There is a different method for violations of facades, structural elements or materials that cannot be calculated on the basis of the building’s construction area. The relevant administration determines the cost of the non-compliant work according to the Ministry unit prices in force on the date of determination; 20 percent of this is treated as the base fine. Without assuming that every staircase or wall is of the same physical nature, it is examined whether the work in fact creates area. [1, Art. 42/2(b)]
Can increases be applied on a compound basis?
The law provides that applicable increases are calculated separately on the base fine. Each of the claims of absence of a permit, state of use, location within an implementation zoning plan, special zoning regime or danger is assessed under its own conditions. Merely finding the absence of a permit does not mean that a threat to life and property safety, or environmental and visual pollution, has been concretely proven. [1, Art. 42/2(c)]
Purely hypothetical calculation example: Assume that the base fine is 10,000 Turkish lira (TL) and that increases of 180 percent, 20 percent and 20 percent can be lawfully applied. The total of the increases is 18,000 + 2,000 + 2,000 = 22,000 TL; together with the base fine, the total is 32,000 TL. Multiplying an amount to which an increase has been applied again by the next increase is not this model. If the conditions for the additional fine exist, that item is added separately. This example is not the actual tariff of any year or a calculation for a concrete file.
Additional zoning fine and the one-month opportunity to remedy
The additional fine in subparagraph (ç) of Article 42/2 is calculated on the basis of the minimum per-square-meter unit value used as the basis for real estate tax of the parcel or land on which the area subject to the violation is located. The sale price of the immovable property, its appraisal value or the total land value is not the same as this data. The area, street/zone and valuation period must be checked in the calculation record. The addressee provision in the subparagraph concerns the building owner and the building contractor; it cannot be automatically extended to other statuses. [1, Art. 42/2(ç)]
If the violation is remedied and the structure is brought into compliance with the legislation within one month from the notification of the fine to the person concerned, the additional fine in this subparagraph is not collected. This result does not mean that all of the base fine and increases are erased. Moreover, the one-month period does not have the same purpose and starting regime as the 60-day time limit for filing an action.
Merely applying for a permit cannot be assumed to mean that the violation has been remedied. The content of the application, the work actually carried out, the conformity review and the administration’s acts must be documented. If it is to be asserted that remedy was carried out within the period, a registered application, dated photographs, a technical report and a request for administrative determination may be used together. In a sealed structure, the necessary written permission must be obtained to work; the special opportunity to remedy that is granted does not confer authority to remove the seal automatically. [1, Art. 42]
If the one-month opportunity is not stated in the municipal executive committee decision, is the fine annulled?
The decision of the Plenary Session of the Administrative Chambers of the Council of State (İDDK) dated October 1, 2025, E.2024/68, K.2025/61, resolving the inconsistency (aykırılığın giderilmesi), is to the effect that the absence of the explanation from the municipal executive committee decision does not by itself make the additional fine unlawful. The majority of the Plenary Session distinguished between imposing the fine and not collecting it under certain conditions. The dissenting opinion, on the other hand, emphasized that the person concerned needs to be informed about the opportunity to remedy. [7]
In contrast, in the decision of the 6th Chamber of the Council of State dated October 15, 2025, E.2022/8817, K.2025/5011, the Chamber reversed as to the additional fine part, because of the absence of a warning about the one-month opportunity, and affirmed as to the other parts. [8]
Accordingly, there is a difference among the accessible decisions; presenting the second decision merely as the “old approach” by concealing its date would not be correct. In the file, the Plenary Session’s inconsistency-resolution decision in particular must be assessed. An expectation of definite annulment should not be created solely on the basis of the missing warning; the calculation, liability and the facts of remedy within the period must be examined separately.
Does a calculation error affect the entire fine?
The decision of the 6th Chamber of the Council of State dated December 23, 2025, E.2023/4147, K.2025/7203, distinguishes an error in the base fine from an error in the increases. In a dispute concerning violations at a hotel, a fire escape staircase that does not create area was included in the square-meter calculation. The regional administrative court assessed this part on the view that it had no material effect on the total amount. The Chamber, however, stated that the wrong method affected the base fine and required annulment of the whole of the total fine, and reversed the decision. [9]
The distinction in the decision is this: If the base calculation is unlawful, the increases dependent on it are also affected by this error. If the base calculation is correct and only a particular increase is unlawful, annulment arises with respect to the relevant part. Therefore a general conclusion such as “every calculation error brings a reduction only by the difference” or “every wrong increase eliminates the whole fine” cannot be drawn.
The court’s annulment of the act also does not mean that the administration can in no case take a new act. The possibility of a new decision is determined by considering together the ground of annulment, the statute of limitations, the material facts and the obligation to comply with the court decision. [2, Arts. 2, 28]
In which court is an action against a zoning fine filed?
For fines under Article 42 related to the determination and remedying of construction in violation of the zoning legislation, the annulment action is filed in the administrative court. In a zoning-related dispute, the court of the place where the immovable property is located is taken as the basis with respect to territorial jurisdiction. The act of the municipal executive committee is made the subject of the action; the respondent administration is also determined on the basis of the act and the legal entity. [2, Art. 34]
In the decision of the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi) dated April 4, 2011, E.2010/324, K.2011/66, the fine following the construction stoppage record and the administrative sanction record were assessed together; the administrative judiciary was held to have jurisdiction. The accessible full text of the decision is shown in the references from a secondary publication. [10]
Not every fine imposed by a municipality is a zoning fine. If the act rests on a different law, jurisdiction and the time limit for application must be determined separately. The fact that the fine decision was issued on a separate paper also does not automatically detach it from the construction stoppage process. The assessment of jurisdiction must rest not merely on the title of the document but on the legal basis and the act as a whole.
How are the objection and the time limit for filing an action calculated?
The general time limit for filing an action and notification
The general time limit for filing an action in the administrative court is 60 days. As a rule, it begins to run on the day following written notification. If electronic notification, defective notification or a claim of learning of the act is involved, their own rules are examined separately. Regarding the last day of the period falling in a holiday or a recess, the time-limit provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) apply. [2, Arts. 7–8]
The special rule on posting the construction stoppage record on the structure does not mean that all subsequent municipal executive committee decisions are also notified on the same date. For the fine, the demolition and, if any, the payment order, the dates of the act and notification should be kept in a separate schedule.
How does an objection to the municipality affect the time limit for filing an action?
Within the scope of Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law, before an action is filed and before the time limit for filing an action expires, removal, withdrawal or amendment of the act may be requested. The application suspends the time limit for filing an action that has begun to run. If no reply is given within thirty days, the request is deemed rejected. After the rejection or implied rejection, the remaining period continues to run; it is not assumed that a new 60-day period arises. [2, Art. 11]
For example, if 20 days of the period were consumed until the application was made, a remainder of 40 days is essentially calculated after the rejection. In a real file, the dates of the application, notification and holidays are also taken into account separately. Repeated petitions made after the period has passed do not automatically revive a right of action that has already been lost.
Merely requesting documents or sending a general complaint may not necessarily count as an Article 11 application. It must be clear in the application from which aspect the removal or amendment of which act is requested. An application to the municipality is not, in general, a mandatory precondition; filing an action directly is possible.
| Time limit or act | Starting point / scope | Legal effect |
|---|---|---|
| Annulment action: generally 60 days | The day following written notification | Exercising the right of action within the time limit |
| Article 11 application | Within the time limit for filing an action, before an action is filed | The elapsed period is preserved; the time limit is suspended |
| Implied rejection: 30 days | No reply to a suitable administrative application | The remaining time limit for filing an action starts running again |
| One month for the additional fine | Notification of the fine to the person concerned | If the conditions are met, the amount under subparagraph (ç) is not collected |
| 10 business days for the municipal executive committee | Date of determination under the law | The administration’s decision period; not a time limit for filing an action |
The ten-business-day period of the municipal executive committee in the law and the statute of limitations for imposing a fine are different matters. For the statute of limitations, the nature of the act, the time it occurred, the type of fine and whether the same act constitutes a criminal offense are assessed. Applying a single number of years to every file is not correct. [1, Art. 42; 4, Arts. 20–21]
Does filing an action stop collection?
Filing an annulment action does not automatically stay the execution of the act. An objection to the municipality is also not in itself a decision that stops collection. Therefore protecting the time limit for filing an action and interim legal protection must be planned separately. [2, Art. 27]
How is a stay of execution substantiated?
For a stay of execution, the conditions of manifest unlawfulness and of damage that is difficult or impossible to remedy if the act is implemented need to be shown together. A wrong addressee, an unverifiable measurement or a manifest calculation error can be explained with respect to unlawfulness; the concrete effects of collection on operations, wage payments and mandatory financial obligations can be explained with respect to damage.
Merely saying “the fine is very high” is not sufficient. Documents such as collection notices, cash flow, operating expenses and the threat of imminent enforcement make the request concrete. That the fine is payable or refundable is a counter-argument the administration may raise in the discussion of damage; the petition should address this point with facts specific to the file.
A request for stay of execution concerning the fine does not automatically cover the demolition act. If both acts are made the subject of the action, the request and the reasoning on damage must be set out clearly for each. If there are subsequent collection acts such as a payment order, their own time limits and application regimes must also be examined separately.
Payment, remedying the violation and the criminal case
Can an action be filed after the fine is paid?
Payment alone does not remove the right to resort to a legal remedy. However, making payment does not extend the time limit for filing an action. The possibility of a reduction within the payment period under Misdemeanors Law No. 5326 should be assessed on the basis of notification and the applicable collection provisions. The amount collected, the reduction and the date of payment must be documented. [4, Art. 17/6]
Together with the request for annulment, a request for refund of the amount paid and, if the conditions exist, for interest may be clearly made. The starting point of interest and its legal basis should be discussed separately; it should not be assumed that interest accrues from the same date in every dispute. Articles 12 and 28 of the Administrative Procedure Law are taken into account regarding the implementation of the annulment decision and, if necessary, the full remedy action route. [2]
Does obtaining a permit or removing the structure erase the entire fine?
Obtaining a permit afterward or removing the violation does not automatically eliminate all the fines imposed for the act that has taken place. Non-collection of the additional fine in the case of remedy within one month is a special provision. If a building registration certificate is invoked, the validity of the certificate, the work it covers and the relevant special provision should be examined separately; explaining a new unpermitted addition with an old certificate is not sufficient. [1, Art. 42 and provisional Art. 16]
The effect of a conviction under Article 184 of the Turkish Penal Code
Article 42 of the Zoning Law regulates the interest-free refund of an administrative fine collected in the event of a conviction under Article 184 of the Turkish Penal Code for the same act. The connection of the same person and the same act, the nature of the criminal judgment and the collection document must be examined. The mere opening of a criminal investigation, or any decision being given in the file, is not the same as this condition. [1, Art. 42]
This special refund route should not be confused with requesting annulment and interest on the ground of the unlawfulness of the administrative act. In the application, the legal ground relied on should be explained; the consequences of conviction, acquittal, lapse of the case (düşme) and other types of decision should be assessed separately.
For details on this subject, see the section on objecting to a marine pollution fine imposed on ships and yachts.
How should the case file be prepared?
The petition should not reduce independent objections to the single sentence “the fine is unjust.” First the chronology of the act and notification, then liability, technical determination and scrutiny of the calculation should be built. Obtaining the administration’s act file and, where necessary, an on-site examination and expert examination may be requested.
| Area of review | Documents that may be submitted | Matter to be clarified |
|---|---|---|
| Addressee and date of construction | Title deed, lease, contract, old photographs | Who carried out the violation, and when? |
| Permit and project | Approved project, renovation permit, technical report | Which work violates which rule? |
| Calculation | Measurement sketch, calculation schedule, tariff | Are the area, method, class and increases correct? |
| Time limit and remedy | Notification, registered application, conformity finding | Were the application and remedy made on time? |
| Collection and damage | Bank receipt (dekont), collection notice, financial records | What is the basis of the refund and interim protection request? |
Questions to be put to the expert should be technical: How much area does which section create, what is the difference from the project annexed to the permit, are the class and measurement used in the calculation appropriate? Determining legal liability and whether the act will be annulled is the task of the court. Objections to deficient or contradictory findings in the technical report should be made within the time limit and on the basis of documents.
For related topics, you may also consult our articles on annulment of a construction permit and objection to an expert report, and our pages on municipal law, permits and administrative sanction acts and zoning law and zoning cases.
For details on this subject, see the section on environmental obligations at shipyards and slipways.
Conclusion
In scrutinizing a zoning fine, the right addressee, the right technical determination and the right calculation are required together. Protection of the time limit for filing an action, assessment of the one-month opportunity to remedy and interim protection against collection should be pursued separately from one another. That the fine is high is not in itself a ground for annulment, just as the existence of non-compliant work does not make every fine calculation lawful.
The accessible decisions show that an error in the base calculation and an error in an increase may produce different results, and that there are different assessments on the lack of notification. The strongest application is therefore not one that merely cites a sentence from a decision, but one that explains the facts of the decision, its outcome and its connection with the specific structure. General information does not replace a specific examination of the structure and the act file.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many days is the time limit for objecting to a zoning fine?
The general time limit for an annulment action in the administrative court is 60 days starting from the day following written notification. A timely and properly made Article 11 application under the Administrative Procedure Law may suspend the remaining period. For details, see the time limit for objection and filing an action section.
Is it mandatory to object to the municipality?
Generally it is not mandatory. An annulment action can be filed directly. If an administrative application is preferred, the request and the calculation of the period must be set out clearly. Application process.
If I remedy the violation within one month, is the entire fine erased?
No. When the conditions in the law are met, the additional amount under subparagraph 42/2 (ç) is not collected. The same result does not arise automatically with respect to the base fine and increases. Additional fine.
What happens if the municipal executive committee decision does not state the one-month opportunity?
A definite annulment result cannot be stated for this deficiency. The 2025 Plenary Session decision and the Chamber decision examined in the article contain different assessments. Comparison of decisions.
Is the registered owner liable for the fine in every case?
No. The person who carried out or had the act carried out, and the relationship of ownership and role, must be investigated. In particular, subsequent purchase and the tenant’s renovation must be explained with documents. Liability.
Does a wrong square-meter calculation affect the entire fine?
An error affecting the base fine calculation may lead to annulment of the total fine dependent on it. An error in only one increase, on the other hand, may bring partial annulment into question. Result of a calculation error.
Does the municipality stop collection when an action is filed?
Filing an action does not by itself stay execution. If the conditions exist, a stay of execution must be requested. Interim legal protection.
Can a paid zoning fine be recovered?
It can be recovered if the conditions of annulment and refund arise. Payment does not extend the time limit for filing an action. The special interest-free refund route linked to a conviction under Article 184 of the Turkish Penal Code is assessed separately. Payment and refund.
Does annulment of the fine prevent demolition?
It does not prevent it automatically. Since the demolition decision is a separate act, the requests for an action and for interim protection must be assessed separately. Distinction between fine and demolition.
Can the exact amount of the fine be found only by square meter?
No. The building class, the applicable unit amount, the area or cost method, statutory increases and the additional fine are assessed together. Calculation method.
Sources and legal bases
[1] Zoning Law No. 3194, in particular Arts. 21, 32, 42 and provisional Art. 16. Accessible consolidated text. Access to the official consolidated PDF could not be obtained during the research; the 2026 amendment was additionally verified through [3].
[2] Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, in particular Arts. 2, 7–12, 27, 28 and 34. Consolidated text.
[3] Law No. 7579, Arts. 14 and 31; Official Gazette, May 22, 2026, issue 33261. Official text. Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM) law record.
[4] Misdemeanors Law No. 5326, in particular Arts. 8–9, 17, 20–21 and 27. Consolidated text.
[5] Law No. 4708 on Building Inspection, Art. 8. Consolidated text.
[6] Council of State 6th Chamber, October 14, 2025, E.2023/8173, K.2025/4958. Official full text.
[7] Council of State Plenary Session of the Administrative Chambers, October 1, 2025, E.2024/68, K.2025/61; resolution of the inconsistency between regional administrative court decisions. Official full text, in particular pp. 12–16.
[8] Council of State 6th Chamber, October 15, 2025, E.2022/8817, K.2025/5011. Official full text.
[9] Council of State 6th Chamber, December 23, 2025, E.2023/4147, K.2025/7203. Official full text.
[10] Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, April 4, 2011, E.2010/324, K.2011/66. Accessible full text — secondary publication. The official copy should be obtained separately.