Court of Jurisdictional Disputes Decisions Published in the Official Gazette of November 8, 2026

Core Holding (Rule)

Processing the biometric hand geometry data of gym members without explicit consent and for all members is a serious breach of the data security obligation under Law No. 6698 on the Protection of Personal Data. Accordingly, the ordinary court decision that reduced the 100,000 TL administrative fine to 27,037 TL was set aside, and the administrative court decision finding the fine lawful was upheld.

Concrete Outcome

The reduction to 27,037 TL was set aside. The 100,000 TL fine imposed by the Board in its decision no. 2022/662 of 07.07.2022 remained fully in force.

Facts and Claim

The hand geometry data of gym members were processed without explicit consent. A criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) reduced the 100,000 TL administrative fine to the statutory minimum, while the administrative court found the fine lawful.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Ankara 20th Administrative Court (25.11.2022, E.2022/711, K.2022/1897) dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Ankara Regional Administrative Court, 10th Administrative Chamber (08.03.2023, E.2023/13, K.2023/1277) set the decision aside and remanded the file.
2. Ankara 20th Administrative Court (16.11.2023, E.2023/495, K.2023/1523) dismissed the request to annul the fine on the merits. Ankara Regional Administrative Court, 10th Administrative Chamber (16.04.2024, E.2024/1466, K.2024/2095) rejected the appeal.
3. Sakarya 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace (08.03.2023, D.İş 2022/6842) reduced the same fine to 27,037 TL. Sakarya 2nd Criminal Judgeship of Peace (07.04.2023, D.İş 2023/1821) rejected the Authority’s objection.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“[…] the gravity of the fault of the plaintiff is evident, as it committed the misdemeanor of failing to fulfill its data security obligations against more than one person by processing the personal data of all gym subscribers, in addition to the complainant, without their consent. Therefore, it is seen that the administration’s ground for departing from the lower limit exists in the concrete case.”

Reasoning, § 34 · Official Gazette p. 21

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. The decision of Sakarya 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace dated 08/03/2023, D.İş.2022/6842, is SET ASIDE,

B. The decision of Ankara 20th Administrative Court dated 16/11/2023, E.2023/495, K.2023/1523, is ACCEPTED,

C. The CONFLICT OF JUDGMENTS is thereby RESOLVED,

It was decided on 13/04/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 21

Core Holding (Rule)

For breach of the obligation to register with the Data Controllers’ Registry, the 850,000 TL administrative fine, set according to the company’s balance sheet size, was found proportionate and amenable to judicial review. Accordingly, the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) decision that reduced the fine was set aside and the administrative court’s dismissal decision was adopted.

Concrete Outcome

Under the Board’s decision no. 2022/1101 of 14.10.2022, the 850,000 TL fine remained in force. The criminal judgeship of peace decision that reduced the fine to 53,572 TL was set aside.

Facts and Claim

In the relevant period, the company, whose annual financial balance sheet exceeded 200 million TL, did not register with the Registry. The Board imposed an 850,000 TL fine. The same sanction led to different outcomes in the ordinary and administrative courts.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Ankara 3rd Criminal Judgeship of Peace (15.05.2023, D.İş 2023/105) set aside 796,428 TL of the 850,000 TL fine. Ankara 4th Criminal Judgeship of Peace (22.06.2023, D.İş 2023/5093) rejected the objection.
2. Ankara 9th Administrative Court (06.09.2023, E.2023/212, K.2023/1635) rejected the request to annul the same Board decision. The decision became final.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In this case, it is seen that there is no unlawfulness in the administration’s use of an equity criterion when determining fines, that this criterion is not required to be announced to those concerned, and moreover that, when an action is brought by those concerned, the courts can review whether the fine imposed is lawful, proportionate and measured.”

Reasoning, § 35 · Official Gazette p. 32

Full Operative Part

A. The decision of Ankara 9th Administrative Court dated 06/09/2023, E.2023/212, K.2023/1635, is ADOPTED,

B. The DECISION of Ankara 3rd Criminal Judgeship of Peace dated 15/05/2023, D.İş.2023/105, is SET ASIDE,

The CONFLICT OF JUDGMENTS is thereby RESOLVED,

It was decided on 16/02/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 32

Core Holding (Rule)

The annulment action against the administrative demolition and eviction order and the damages claim against the contractor who built the pool beyond the boundary do not concern the same subject matter (Law No. 2247 on the Establishment and Functioning of the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, Art. 24). Accordingly, since the conditions required by Law No. 2247 were not met, the application was dismissed.

Concrete Outcome

The application was dismissed. The İzmir 3rd Administrative Court’s ruling on the administrative acts and the Çeşme Civil Court of First Instance’s ruling on damages each remained in force within their own subject matter.

Facts and Claim

The complex management challenged in the administrative courts the demolition and eviction orders concerning a pool built on land under public ownership and disposition. In the ordinary courts, it claimed damages from the contractor that built the pool outside the property boundary.

How the Dispute Arose

1. İzmir 3rd Administrative Court (04.04.2007, E.2006/1196, K.2007/432) dismissed the case against the demolition and eviction orders. Council of State 6th Chamber (13.10.2009, E.2007/9393, K.2009/9748) upheld the decision. Council of State 14th Chamber (26.03.2012, E.2011/4721, K.2012/2009) rejected the request for rectification of the decision.
2. Çeşme Civil Court of First Instance (30.03.2016, E.2008/166, K.2016/254) rejected the claim for compensation including useful and necessary expenses. Since İzmir 8th Civil Court of First Instance (E.2008/26, K.2009/526) had already ruled on the demolition cost, it found no ground for a new ruling. Court of Cassation 15th Civil Chamber (14.05.2018, E.2018/389, K.2018/1926) upheld the decision as corrected and subsequently rejected the request for rectification of the decision (20.06.2019, E.2018/4291, K.2019/2904).
3. İzmir 3rd Administrative Court (18.01.2024, E.2023/1812, K.2024/73) rejected the request for retrial. İzmir Regional Administrative Court, 4th Administrative Chamber (12.06.2024, E.2024/2799, K.2024/2169) rejected the appeal.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In this case, since it cannot be said that there is a conflict of judgments between decisions rendered by the ordinary and administrative courts on different subject matters, it has been concluded that the requirement of ‘relating to the same subject matter’, which is necessary to accept that there is a conflict of judgments between the decision of Çeşme Civil Court of First Instance dated 30/03/2016, E.2008/166, K.2016/254, and the decision of İzmir 3rd Administrative Court dated 04/04/2007, E.2006/1196, K.2007/432, has not been met.”

Reasoning, § 22 · Official Gazette p. 37

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

The APPLICATION, which does not meet the requirement of ‘relating to the same subject matter’ laid down in Article 24 of Law No. 2247, is DISMISSED,

It was decided on 12/01/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 37

Core Holding (Rule)

The ordinary-court determination of foundation adopted-child (vakıf evladı) status and the annulment of the act rejecting the claim for payment of the 2012-2013 revenue surplus do not involve the same subject matter or cause (Art. 24).

Concrete Outcome

The General Directorate of Foundations’ allegation that there is a conflict between two final judgments was rejected. Neither the ordinary-court determination nor the Council of State ruling annulling the individual act was set aside. The Court of Jurisdictional Disputes also did not calculate any amount of foundation revenue (galle).

Facts and Claim

In the ordinary courts, it had been determined that certain persons were foundation adopted children (vakıf evladı) entitled to a share of the foundation’s revenue. In the administrative courts, the act rejecting the claim for payment of the 2012 and 2013 revenue surplus had been challenged.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Diyarbakır 4th Civil Court of First Instance, 13/01/2014, E.2013/211, K.2014/81. Determined that the plaintiffs were foundation adopted children entitled to foundation revenue (galle). Court of Cassation 18th Civil Chamber, 12/02/2015, E.2014/11792, K.2015/1859. Upheld the determination. 23/02/2016, E.2015/6514, K.2016/2941. Rejected the request for rectification of the decision.
2. Council of State 10th Chamber, 08/02/2021, E.2016/4618, K.2021/304. Rejected the annulment requests directed at the regulation and the individual act. Council of State Plenary Assembly of Administrative Litigation Chambers, 03/03/2022, E.2021/2501, K.2022/731. Upheld the part concerning the regulation and reversed the part concerning the individual act.
3. Council of State 10th Chamber, 21/11/2023, E.2023/722, K.2023/7197. Annulled the act no. 975 of 20/07/2016 that rejected the claim for payment. Council of State Plenary Assembly of Administrative Litigation Chambers, 03/03/2025, E.2024/1285, K.2025/497. Upheld this ruling. The General Directorate of Foundations argued that there was a conflict between the ordinary and administrative judgments.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In this case, since it is understood that the result sought through the actions brought in the ordinary and administrative courts is not the same, in other words that their subject matters differ, it has been concluded that, among the conditions necessary to accept that there is a conflict of judgments between court decisions, the condition that the subject matter of the actions be the same has not been met.”

Reasoning, § 22 · Official Gazette p. 254

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out,

The APPLICATION, which does not meet the requirement of ‘sameness of subject matter and cause of action’ laid down in Article 24 of Law No. 2247, is DISMISSED,

It was decided on 15/06/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 254

Core Holding (Rule)

Although severance pay was claimed in both actions, the periods of employment sued upon do not overlap, so the unity of subject matter required by Articles 14 and 19 of Law No. 2247 on the Establishment and Functioning of the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes did not arise. Accordingly, the application was dismissed on procedural grounds and no branch of the judiciary was designated as competent.

Concrete Outcome

The application of the Zonguldak Administrative Court was dismissed on procedural grounds under Article 27 of Law No. 2247; no competent branch of the judiciary was designated.

Facts and Claim

The ordinary-court action concerned severance pay and annual leave claims for the period 2012–2024, while the administrative action concerned severance pay for the period 1986–2012.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Amasra Civil Court of First Instance (E.2023/184). The plaintiff stated that the severance pay claim for the earlier period had been accepted and paid in this file. The Court of Jurisdictional Disputes did not state the decision date or number for this earlier file.
2. Amasra Civil Court of First Instance (sitting as labor court) (08.01.2026, E.2025/226, K.2026/4). Dismissed the action on procedural grounds for the 2012–2024 period because of the judicial route.
3. Zonguldak Administrative Court (14.04.2026, E.2026/258). In the action brought for the 1986–2012 period, it considered the ordinary courts competent and applied under Art. 19.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In this case, since it is seen that the subject matters of the actions brought in the ordinary and administrative courts are not the same, the condition laid down in Article 14 and therefore Article 19 of Law No. 2247 has not been met.”

Reasoning, § 14 · Official Gazette p. 492

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

The APPLICATION of Zonguldak Administrative Court dated 14/04/2026, E.2026/258, which does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 19 of Law No. 2247, is DISMISSED pursuant to Article 27 of the same Law,

It was decided on 15/06/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 492

Core Holding (Rule)

Because both the removal of the sign (an administrative act) and the fine were challenged together in the same municipal executive committee (encümen) decision, the connection rule (Law No. 5326 on Misdemeanors, Art. 27/8) applies. Accordingly, it was decided that the dispute is to be examined in the administrative judiciary, by the Administrative Court.

Concrete Outcome

The application of Ankara Batı 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) was accepted. The lack-of-jurisdiction ruling of Ankara 27th Administrative Court was set aside. The lawfulness of both sanctions of the municipal executive committee will be decided in the administrative courts.

Facts and Claim

A company was given a 2,052 TL administrative fine because of an unauthorized advertising sign. The fine was challenged together with the decision to remove the sign.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Ankara 27th Administrative Court (12.03.2025, E.2025/112, K.2025/373) ruled that it lacked jurisdiction. Ankara 11th Criminal Judgeship of Peace (26.06.2025, D.İş 2025/2172) declined competence and sent the file to Ankara Batı.
2. Ankara Batı 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace (31.07.2025, D.İş 2025/8552) in turn ruled that it lacked jurisdiction and decided to send the file to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes. Ankara Batı 2nd Criminal Judgeship of Peace (30.09.2025, D.İş 2025/9034) rejected the objection.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“However, since annulment is also requested, in respect of the same person and within the scope of the act underlying the administrative fine, of the administrative sanction of removing the sign indefinitely, there is no doubt that the claim that the decision on the administrative fine is unlawful will also be heard in the administrative courts.”

Reasoning, § 28 · Official Gazette p. 114

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. The APPLICATION of Ankara Batı 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace is ACCEPTED and the DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION of Ankara 27th Administrative Court dated 12/03/2023, E.2025/112, K.2025/373, is SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 12/01/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 114

Core Holding (Rule)

For the connection rule in Article 27/8 of Law No. 5326 on Misdemeanors to apply, the sanctions must be imposed on the same person. Since the market-hall duty was issued in the company’s name and the fine in another person’s name, the Criminal Judgeship of Peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) will examine the objection to the fine.

Concrete Outcome

The criminal judgeship of peace’s decision declining jurisdiction over the fine was set aside. The company’s administrative action against the duty assessment remains separate.

Facts and Claim

A person was given an administrative fine on the allegation of transporting goods without notifying the market-hall registry system. For the same incident, a market-hall duty with a penalty was assessed in the company’s name.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Eskişehir 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace, 09/10/2025, D.İş 2025/5035. Considering the fine connected to the duty, it rejected the objection for lack of jurisdiction.
2. Eskişehir 1st Tax Court, 10/11/2025, E.2025/943, K.2025/690. Considering the administrative court competent, it sent the file there.
3. Eskişehir 2nd Administrative Court, 05/12/2025, E.2025/1624. On the view that the objection to the fine belongs to the ordinary courts, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.
4. The duty was separately challenged in file E.2025/670 of Eskişehir 1st Tax Court. That file was pending on the date of the application.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“an administrative fine was imposed in the name of a third person, A.C., because of the same material incident, and a market-hall duty with a penalty was also assessed against the plaintiff company; the market-hall duty was again challenged by the plaintiff company in the administrative courts; and the administrative fine sanction does not concern the plaintiff company and was not issued against it”

Reasoning, § 19 · Official Gazette p. 192

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. The APPLICATION of Eskişehir 2nd Administrative Court is ACCEPTED and the DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION of Eskişehir 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace dated 09/10/2025, D.İş. 2025/5035, is SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 13/04/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 192

Core Holding (Rule)

Since the special law does not designate a competent court for the administrative fine imposed under Article 20(f) of Law No. 5188 on Private Security Services, Article 27/1 of Law No. 5326 on Misdemeanors applies. Accordingly, it was decided that the dispute is to be examined in the ordinary judiciary, by the Criminal Judgeship of Peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği).

Concrete Outcome

The ordinary courts will examine the company’s objection to the 27,339 TL fine. The criminal judgeship of peace’s decision of lack of jurisdiction was set aside.

Facts and Claim

A 27,339 TL administrative fine was imposed on a security company after it was found that a guard used shoes outside the approved uniform and a uniform without an emblem.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Beykoz Criminal Judgeship of Peace, 14/05/2025, D.İş 2024/3899. Considering the administrative judiciary competent, it rejected the objection. İstanbul Anadolu 3rd Criminal Judgeship of Peace, 31/07/2025, D.İş 2025/6396. Rejected the objection to that decision.
2. İstanbul 6th Administrative Court, 31/10/2025, E.2025/2060, K.2025/2176. Dismissed the case on the ground that the ordinary judiciary is competent. Once the two dismissal decisions became final, the files were sent to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes at the company’s request.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In the dispute examined, it is understood that the administrative fine imposed is one of the types of administrative sanction specified in Article 16 of Law No. 5326, and that Law No. 5188 does not designate the court competent for objections to administrative fines.”

Reasoning, § 18 · Official Gazette p. 206

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. The DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION of Beykoz Criminal Judgeship of Peace dated 14/05/2025, D.İş. No: 2024/3899, is SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 09/03/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 206

Core Holding (Rule)

Under Article 8/C of Law No. 2559 on Police Duties and Powers, a temporary closure for a fixed period (15 days) is an administrative sanction within the scope of Articles 16 and 19 of Law No. 5326 on Misdemeanors, and there is no special competence rule. Accordingly, it was decided that the dispute is to be examined in the ordinary judiciary, by the Criminal Judgeship of Peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği).

Concrete Outcome

The criminal judgeship of peace’s application in favor of the administrative judiciary was rejected. The objection to the 15-day suspension order concerning the business will be heard in the ordinary courts.

Facts and Claim

A 15-day closure was imposed on an accommodation business under Article 8/C of Law No. 2559, following a judicial proceeding connected with prostitution.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Muğla 3rd Administrative Court, 14/03/2025, E.2024/1643, K.2025/383. Rejected the action brought against the closure order. İzmir Regional Administrative Court, 7th Administrative Chamber, 30/06/2025, E.2025/1048, K.2025/1383. Set the decision aside on the ground that the ordinary judiciary is competent.
2. Muğla 3rd Administrative Court, 23/07/2025, E.2025/940, K.2025/1123. This time it dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Bodrum 2nd Criminal Judgeship of Peace, 09/01/2026, D.İş 2025/3333. Considering the administrative judiciary competent, it stayed the examination and applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“it was decided to suspend the activity for a fixed period (15 days); in this form, the decision is one of the types of administrative sanction specified in Article 16 of Law No. 5326, and Law No. 2559 does not designate the court competent for objections to administrative sanctions.”

Reasoning, § 17 · Official Gazette p. 222

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. The APPLICATION of Bodrum 2nd Criminal Judgeship of Peace dated 09/01/2026, D.İş. No: 2025/3333, is DISMISSED,

It was decided on 09/03/2026, with the DISSENTING OPINIONS of Members Ahmet ARSLAN and Bilal ÇALIŞKAN, by MAJORITY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 222

Core Holding (Rule)

Because the restoration of the road (an administrative act) was challenged together with the fine in the same municipal executive committee (encümen) decision, Article 27/8 of Law No. 5326 on Misdemeanors applies. Accordingly, it was decided that the dispute is to be examined in the administrative judiciary, by the Administrative Court.

Concrete Outcome

The administrative court’s application was rejected. The administrative judiciary will hear the action brought against the municipal executive committee’s fine and restoration decisions.

Facts and Claim

The fine imposed by the municipal executive committee under Law No. 1608 and its decision on restoring the damaged basalt road were challenged together.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Kayseri 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği), 24/11/2025, D.İş 2025/7426. Rejected the application on the ground that the administrative judiciary is competent.
2. Kayseri 1st Administrative Court, 23/01/2026, E.2026/61. On the view that the objection to the fine should be examined by the ordinary judiciary, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“However, since it is understood that the decision on restoring the basalt road to its former condition was also challenged in respect of the same person and within the scope of the act underlying the administrative fine, it has been understood that the claim that the decision on the administrative fine is unlawful will also be heard in the administrative courts.”

Reasoning, § 18 · Official Gazette p. 248

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. The APPLICATION of Kayseri 1st Administrative Court dated 23/01/2026, E.2026/61, is DISMISSED,

It was decided on 09/03/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 248

Core Holding (Rule)

In the same municipal executive committee act, the fine and the indefinite ban on activity were challenged together. Since the indefinite ban on activity falls within the jurisdiction of the administrative judiciary, under Article 27/8 of Law No. 5326 on Misdemeanors the fine is also examined in the same action in the administrative courts.

Concrete Outcome

The administrative court’s lack-of-jurisdiction ruling was set aside. The lawfulness of the livestock ban and of the municipal executive committee’s fine will be examined together.

Facts and Claim

The municipal executive committee fined a person engaged in livestock farming and, within the same act, banned the activity indefinitely. The plaintiff sought annulment of both.

How the Dispute Arose

1. İstanbul 12th Administrative Court (21.04.2025, E.2025/635, K.2025/768). Rejected the petition so that the act whose annulment was sought would be stated without doubt.
2. İstanbul 12th Administrative Court (17.10.2025, E.2025/932, K.2025/1878). Considering the ordinary judiciary competent, it dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
3. Gaziosmanpaşa 4th Criminal Judgeship of Peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) (05.02.2026, D.İş 2025/6431). It ruled that it lacked jurisdiction and asked for the competent judicial route to be determined.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“However, since annulment is also requested, in respect of the same person and within the scope of the act underlying the administrative fine, of the administrative sanction on banning the livestock activity, there is no doubt that the claim that the decision on the administrative fine is unlawful will also be heard in the administrative courts.”

Reasoning, § 31 · Official Gazette p. 432

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. The APPLICATION of Gaziosmanpaşa 4th Criminal Judgeship of Peace is ACCEPTED and the DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION of İstanbul 12th Administrative Court dated 17/10/2025, E.2025/932, K.2025/1878, is SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 04/05/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 433

Core Holding (Rule)

The decision to confiscate from the market food products lacking Ministry approval is not an independent administrative act; it is part of the sanction of transferring property to the public under Article 16 of Law No. 5326 on Misdemeanors. Since Law No. 5996 on Veterinary Services, Plant Health, Food and Feed does not designate a special court, the Criminal Judgeship of Peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) hears objections to the fine and the confiscation decision.

Concrete Outcome

The lack-of-jurisdiction decision of Manavgat 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace was set aside. Manavgat 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace will examine on the merits and decide the business’s objection to both the administrative fine and the decision to confiscate the products.

Facts and Claim

A food business objected to the fine and to the confiscation of its products imposed on the ground that it placed products on the market without Ministry approval.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Manavgat 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace (07.01.2026, D.İş 2025/4126). Considering the administrative judiciary competent, it dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
2. Antalya 3rd Administrative Court (05.03.2026, E.2026/247). Considering the ordinary judiciary competent, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes under Article 19 of Law No. 2247.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In the dispute examined, it is understood that the administrative fine and the confiscation sanction decisions that were imposed and challenged are among the types of administrative sanction specified in Article 16 of Law No. 5326, and that Law No. 5996 does not designate the court competent for objections to these administrative sanctions.”

Reasoning, § 18 · Official Gazette p. 443

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. The APPLICATION made by Antalya 3rd Administrative Court is ACCEPTED and the DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION dated 07/01/2026, D.İş. 2025/4126, given by Manavgat 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace is SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 15/06/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 443

Core Holding (Rule)

Under Art. 8/A of Police Duties and Powers Law No. 2559, a suspension of operations for a fixed period (10 days) rather than an indefinite one is subject to review by the ordinary courts under Arts. 16 and 19 of Misdemeanors Law No. 5326.

Concrete Outcome

The criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) rejected the application, and its own decision declining jurisdiction was set aside. The judgeship may review the objection to the ten-day suspension measure. No decision was made to annul the measure.

Facts and Claim

The operator sought annulment of the ten-day suspension of operations imposed under Art. 8/A of Law No. 2559 on the ground that gambling took place in his coffeehouse.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Samsun 1st Administrative Court (15.01.2026, E.2026/34, K.2026/55). Finding the ordinary courts competent, it dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
2. Samsun 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace (06.04.2026, D.İş 2026/523, K.2026/523). It dismissed the objection for lack of jurisdiction and, under Art. 19, sent the file to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In the dispute under review, it was found that, pursuant to Article 8/A of Law No. 2559, the workplace of the claimant company was suspended from operation not indefinitely but for a fixed period (10 days), in line with the periods provided in that article, as stated in Article 19 of Misdemeanors Law No. 5326; that the decision, as such, is one of the types of administrative sanctions listed in Article 16 of Law No. 5326; and that Law No. 2559 does not designate a competent court for objections to administrative sanctions.”

Reasoning, § 22 · Official Gazette p. 476

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. In resolving the dispute, THE ORDINARY COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION,

B. TO SET ASIDE the rejection of the application by the Samsun 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace and the DECISION DECLINING JURISDICTION issued by the Judgeship on 06/04/2026, D.İş.No:2026/523, K.2026/523,

Decided on 15/06/2026, with the DISSENTING OPINIONS of Members Ahmet ARSLAN and Bilal ÇALIŞKAN, BY MAJORITY AND WITH FINAL EFFECT.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 476

Core Holding (Rule)

Because Soil Conservation and Land Use Law No. 5403 designates no authority for objections to an administrative fine imposed under its Art. 21, Art. 27/1 of Misdemeanors Law No. 5326 applies. It was therefore decided that the dispute will be reviewed in the ordinary courts by the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği).

Concrete Outcome

The application of the İstanbul 12th Administrative Court was granted. The decision of the Beykoz Criminal Judgeship of Peace declining jurisdiction was set aside. The lawfulness of the fines concerning the land will be reviewed in the ordinary courts.

Facts and Claim

The persons concerned were fined under Law No. 5403 on the grounds that the land was used as a sales area, the soil structure was damaged and crop production was obstructed.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Beykoz Criminal Judgeship of Peace (14.05.2025, D.İş 2025/840) rejected the application for lack of jurisdiction. İstanbul Anadolu 4th Criminal Judgeship of Peace (27.07.2025, D.İş 2025/6702) rejected the objection. İstanbul 12th Administrative Court (04.12.2025, E.2025/2031) applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In the dispute under review, it was found that the administrative fine imposed under Article 21 of Law No. 5403 is one of the types of administrative sanctions listed in Article 16 of Law No. 5326, and that Law No. 5403 does not designate a competent court for objections to an administrative fine.”

Reasoning, § 17 · Official Gazette p. 163

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. In resolving the dispute, THE ORDINARY COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION,

B. BY GRANTING THE APPLICATION of the İstanbul 12th Administrative Court, TO SET ASIDE the DECISION DECLINING JURISDICTION of the Beykoz Criminal Judgeship of Peace dated 14/05/2025, D.iş 2025/840,

Decided on 12/01/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND WITH FINAL EFFECT.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 163

Core Holding (Rule)

Because Basic Law on Health Services No. 3359 contains no special jurisdiction rule on administrative fines, and the case is directed only at the fine, Art. 27/1 of Misdemeanors Law No. 5326 applies. The objection will therefore be reviewed in the ordinary courts by the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği).

Concrete Outcome

The decision of the Beykoz Criminal Judgeship of Peace declining jurisdiction was set aside. The lawfulness of the administrative fine imposed on the hospital for staff shortages will be reviewed in the ordinary courts.

Facts and Claim

A private hospital was fined for the absence of a laboratory technician and for a nurse working without a work certificate. Only this fine was disputed in the case.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Beykoz Criminal Judgeship of Peace (16.05.2025, D.İş 2024/2619) declined jurisdiction. İstanbul Anadolu 9th Criminal Judgeship of Peace (15.09.2025, D.İş 2025/7854) rejected the objection. İstanbul 13th Administrative Court (12.11.2025, E.2025/1967) applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“[…] Considering that Health Services Law No. 3359 does not specify the judicial authority competent for objections to the fine and to administrative measures, and that in this case only the act concerning the fine was brought before the court, it was concluded, under Article 3 of the Misdemeanors Law as amended by Law No. 5560 and the provision in paragraph (1) of Article 27, that the ordinary judicial authority is competent to hear and resolve the case brought against the fine at issue.”

Reasoning, § 23 · Official Gazette p. 172

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. In resolving the dispute, THE ORDINARY COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION,

B. BY GRANTING THE APPLICATION made by the İstanbul 13th Administrative Court, TO SET ASIDE the DECISION DECLINING JURISDICTION of the Beykoz Criminal Judgeship of Peace dated 16/05/2025, D.İş No.2024/2619,

Decided on 12/01/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND WITH FINAL EFFECT.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 172

Core Holding (Rule)

The hunting compensation, which is subject to the administrative courts under Land Hunting Law No. 4915, and the sanction of transfer of ownership to the public were raised together in the same case. Therefore, under Art. 27/8 of Misdemeanors Law No. 5326, the entire dispute will be reviewed by the administrative courts.

Concrete Outcome

The request of the Sivas Administrative Court to refer the file to the ordinary courts was rejected. The objection to the transfer of ownership of nine quail and to the hunting compensation of 32,400 TL will be reviewed by the administrative courts.

Facts and Claim

Nine quail were alleged to have been hunted without permission; their transfer to public ownership was ordered and compensation of 32,400 TL was demanded. The claimant objected to both measures together.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Sivas 2nd Criminal Judgeship of Peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği), 02/10/2025, D.İş 2025/3814. It declined jurisdiction on the ground that the administrative courts are competent. Sivas 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace, 20/10/2025, D.İş 2025/4362. It rejected the objection to that decision with final effect.
2. Sivas Administrative Court, 07/11/2025, E.2025/1268. Taking the view that the ordinary courts should review the decision on transfer of ownership to the public, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“since it is understood that, in respect of the same person, a decision was also made on ‘compensation’ calculated on the basis of the amount determined according to the species of game and wild animal, and that this was brought before the administrative court, there is no doubt that the claim that this decision is unlawful will also be heard by the administrative court.”

Reasoning, § 26 · Official Gazette p. 203

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. In resolving the dispute, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION,

B. TO REJECT THE APPLICATION made by the Sivas Administrative Court on 07/11/2025, E.2025/1268,

Decided on 16/02/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND WITH FINAL EFFECT.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 203

Core Holding (Rule)

Because the administrative case on the forest damage amount was dismissed without examination and became final, the remaining pure fine falls to the ordinary courts under Art. 27/1 of Misdemeanors Law No. 5326.

Concrete Outcome

The decision of the Erbaa Criminal Judgeship of Peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) declining jurisdiction was set aside. The ordinary courts will review the fine for grazing animals.

Facts and Claim

A fine was imposed on the allegation that animals were grazed in a forest. The administrative case brought against the separate compensation claim of 27,190 TL for damage to saplings and wire fencing was dismissed without examination and became final.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Erbaa Criminal Judgeship of Peace, 02/12/2025, D.İş 2025/1954. Taking into account the connection between the two measures, it declined jurisdiction. Tokat Administrative Court, 31/12/2025, E.2025/1305, K.2025/1526. It rejected the petition so that separate cases would be filed against the measures.
2. Tokat Administrative Court, 28/01/2026, E.2026/74, K.2026/80. It dismissed the case without examination as regards the amount relating to forest damage. This decision became final on 12/03/2026. The same court, 29/01/2026, E.2026/73. On the ground that the ordinary courts are competent as regards the fine, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In this case, Article 27/8 of the Misdemeanors Law has no field of application in an objection against a pure administrative fine […] it was concluded that, under the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Law, the ordinary judicial authority is competent to hear and resolve this case brought against the administrative fine.”

Reasoning, § 28 · Official Gazette p. 244

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. In resolving the dispute, THE ORDINARY COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION,

B. BY GRANTING THE APPLICATION of the Tokat Administrative Court, TO SET ASIDE the DECISION DECLINING JURISDICTION of the Erbaa Criminal Judgeship of Peace dated 02/12/2025, Değ.İş.No:2025/1954,

Decided on 04/05/2026, with the DISSENTING OPINION of Member Eyüp SARICALAR as to the reasoning and BY MAJORITY as to the reasoning, and UNANIMOUSLY AND WITH FINAL EFFECT as to the merits.

Operative part · Official Gazette pp. 244–245

Core Holding (Rule)

The administrative fine under Insurance Law No. 5684 was challenged together with the license cancellation and operating measures that form part of the same set of acts. Therefore, under Art. 27/8 of Misdemeanors Law No. 5326, the entire dispute will be reviewed by the administrative courts.

Concrete Outcome

The application of the İstanbul 2nd Administrative Court was rejected. The administrative courts will review the fines totaling 21,081,766 TL concerning 175 policies in the renewed case E.2025/2308.

Facts and Claim

An insurance company brought a case against the fines imposed following an inspection, together with measures including cancellation of its license in the suretyship line and withdrawal of its authority to conclude contracts in other lines.

How the Dispute Arose

1. İstanbul 9th Criminal Judgeship of Peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği), 18/08/2025, D.İş 2025/3586. It partially granted the objection. İstanbul 10th Criminal Judgeship of Peace, 22/09/2025, D.İş 2025/8123. Because the license and the other measures had been made the subject of an administrative case, it set aside the earlier decision and rejected the application for lack of jurisdiction.
2. İstanbul 2nd Administrative Court, 13/11/2025, E.2025/2011, K.2025/2138. It rejected the petition so that separate petitions would be filed for three separate groups of acts. The same court, 21/01/2026, E.2025/2308. In the renewed case, finding the ordinary courts competent, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.
3. Of the related files, file E.2025/2307 of the İstanbul 2nd Administrative Court concerns the other fine, and file E.2025/692 of the İstanbul 10th Administrative Court concerns the measures other than fines. The second file was pending on the date of the application.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“within the scope of the disputed measure, an action was brought before the administrative court seeking annulment of the administrative fine together with administrative penalties falling within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts, in respect of the same person […] it was concluded that the administrative judicial authority is competent to resolve the case.”

Reasoning, § 31 · Official Gazette p. 259

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. In resolving the dispute, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION,

B. TO REJECT THE APPLICATION made by the İstanbul 2nd Administrative Court dated 21/01/2026, E.2025/2308,

Decided on 04/05/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND WITH FINAL EFFECT.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 259

Core Holding (Rule)

Art. 13/7 of Law No. 5549 on Prevention of Laundering of Proceeds of Crime expressly provides that recourse to the administrative courts is available against administrative fines imposed under that Law. Therefore, the administrative courts have jurisdiction over the case concerning the MASAK fine.

Concrete Outcome

The decision of the Ankara 23rd Administrative Court declining jurisdiction was set aside. The administrative courts will review the MASAK sanction of 1,922,684 TL. The ruling did not decide on the lawfulness of the sanction.

Facts and Claim

A company brought a case against an administrative fine of 1,922,684 TL based on Articles 3 and 13 of Law No. 5549.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Eskişehir 2nd Administrative Court, 03/07/2024, E.2024/638, K.2024/626. Considering Ankara, where the authority that issued the measure is located, to be competent, it sent the file there. Ankara 23rd Administrative Court, 18/07/2024, E.2024/1092, K.2024/1018. Finding the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) competent, it dismissed the case.
2. Ankara 11th Criminal Judgeship of Peace, 11/07/2025, D.İş 2025/1720. Because of the place where the act occurred, it considered Eskişehir competent. Eskişehir 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace, 07/11/2025, D.İş 2025/5857. It rejected the application on the ground that the special law assigns jurisdiction to the administrative courts. Eskişehir 2nd Criminal Judgeship of Peace, 02/12/2025, D.İş 2025/6411. It rejected the objection.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“It is understood that paragraph 7 of Article 13 of Law No. 5549 provides that recourse may be had to the administrative courts against administrative fine decisions issued under this law.”

Reasoning, § 19 · Official Gazette p. 289

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. In resolving the dispute, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION,

B. TO SET ASIDE the DECISION DECLINING JURISDICTION of the Ankara 23rd Administrative Court dated 18/07/2024, E.2024/1092, K.2024/1018,

Decided on 13/04/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND WITH FINAL EFFECT.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 289

Core Holding (Rule)

Because there is no special jurisdiction rule for a pure administrative fine under Art. 21/2-a of Soil Conservation and Land Use Law No. 5403, Art. 27/1 of Misdemeanors Law No. 5326 applies. The objection will therefore be reviewed in the ordinary courts by the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği).

Concrete Outcome

Both decisions of the Nazilli Criminal Judgeship of Peace declining jurisdiction were set aside. The ordinary courts will be able to examine on the merits the co-owner's objections to the fines of 74,051 TL dated 21/03/2025 and 222,152 TL dated 05/06/2025.

Facts and Claim

The co-owner objected to the fine of 74,051 TL imposed under Art. 21/2-a of Law No. 5403, stating that the facilities and structures on the land did not belong to the co-owner. In the second file, the same co-owner also objected to an administrative fine of 222,152 TL.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Nazilli Criminal Judgeship of Peace, 16/10/2025, D.İş 2025/1720 and 22/10/2025, D.İş 2025/2858. It rejected both separate applications on the ground that the competent forum is the administrative courts. The decisions became final.
2. Aydın 2nd Administrative Court, 19/02/2026, E.2025/1328. Taking the view that the ordinary courts are competent, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In the dispute under review, it was found that the administrative fine imposed under Article 21 of Law No. 5403 is one of the types of administrative sanctions listed in Article 16 of Law No. 5326, and that Law No. 5403 does not designate a competent court for objections to an administrative fine.”

Reasoning, § 19 · Official Gazette p. 308

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. In resolving the dispute, THE ORDINARY COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION,

B. BY GRANTING THE APPLICATION of the Aydın 2nd Administrative Court, TO SET ASIDE the DECISION DECLINING JURISDICTION of the Nazilli Criminal Judgeship of Peace dated 16/10/2025, D.İş.No: 2025/1720, and the DECISION DECLINING JURISDICTION of the Nazilli Criminal Judgeship of Peace dated 22/10/2025, D.İş.No: 2025/2858,

Decided on 13/04/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND WITH FINAL EFFECT.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 308

Core Holding (Rule)

Because Laws No. 1219 and No. 3359 provide no special legal remedy and the application is directed only at the administrative fine, Art. 27/1 of Misdemeanors Law No. 5326 applies. It was therefore decided that the dispute will be reviewed in the ordinary courts by the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği).

Concrete Outcome

The decision of the Karşıyaka 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace was set aside. Whether health legislation was violated and whether the fine is lawful were left to the merits of the objection.

Facts and Claim

Annulment was sought of an administrative fine of 359,825 TL imposed on the ground that unlicensed and unauthorized health services were provided at the business.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Karşıyaka 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace (05.01.2026, D.İş 2025/6888). It rejected the case for lack of jurisdiction.
2. Karşıyaka 2nd Criminal Judgeship of Peace (23.01.2026, D.İş 2026/550). It rejected the objection to the decision declining jurisdiction.
3. İzmir 5th Administrative Court (24.02.2026, E.2026/209). Finding the ordinary courts competent, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes under Art. 19 of Law No. 2247.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“According to the provisions set out above, the provisions of the Misdemeanors Law on legal remedies against administrative sanction decisions apply where other laws contain no contrary provision and do not apply where other laws designate a competent court; it is understood that Laws No. 1219 and No. 3359, under which the disputed administrative fine was imposed, contain no provision on legal remedies against administrative sanction decisions.”

Reasoning, § 26 · Official Gazette p. 381

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. In resolving the dispute, THE ORDINARY COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION,

B. BY GRANTING THE APPLICATION of the İzmir 5th Administrative Court, TO SET ASIDE the DECISION DECLINING JURISDICTION of the Karşıyaka 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace dated 05/01/2026, D.İş No:2025/6888,

Decided on 04/05/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND WITH FINAL EFFECT.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 382

Core Holding (Rule)

A warning sanction (without suspension of operations) imposed under Road Transport Law No. 4925 and Art. 30/4 of the Regulation falls within Art. 16 of Misdemeanors Law No. 5326, and there is no special jurisdiction rule. It was therefore decided that the dispute will be reviewed in the ordinary courts by the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği).

Concrete Outcome

The decision of the criminal judgeship of peace declining jurisdiction was set aside. The company will be able to have its objection to the violation report concerning 50 warnings and the corresponding 29,550 TL reviewed in the ordinary courts.

Facts and Claim

A transport company objected to a violation report drawn up under Art. 30/4 of the Road Transport Regulation concerning 50 warnings and the corresponding 29,550 TL.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Gaziosmanpaşa 3rd Criminal Judgeship of Peace, 23/12/2025, D.İş 2025/5478. It rejected the application, stating that the violation report should be reviewed by the administrative courts.
2. İstanbul 8th Administrative Court, 27/01/2026, E.2026/101. Taking the view that the warning and the monetary sanction should be reviewed by the ordinary courts, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“there is no administrative sanction decision on a temporary or indefinite suspension of activity, and the 50-warning penalty is one of the types of administrative sanctions listed in Article 16 of Law No. 5326”

Reasoning, § 28 · Official Gazette p. 275

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. In resolving the dispute, THE ORDINARY COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION,

B. BY GRANTING THE APPLICATION made by the İstanbul 8th Administrative Court, TO SET ASIDE the DECISION DECLINING JURISDICTION issued by the Gaziosmanpaşa 3rd Criminal Judgeship of Peace on 23/12/2025, D.İş No.2025/5478,

Decided on 09/03/2026, with the DISSENTING OPINIONS of Members Ahmet ARSLAN and Bilal ÇALIŞKAN, BY MAJORITY AND WITH FINAL EFFECT.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 275

Core Holding (Rule)

Following the amendment to Art. 112 of Highway Traffic Law No. 2918, the temporary withdrawal of a driver's license, like a fine, is a misdemeanor sanction within Art. 16 of Misdemeanors Law No. 5326 and is heard together with it in the ordinary courts.

Concrete Outcome

The decision of the Birecik Criminal Judgeship of Peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) declining jurisdiction was set aside. The driver will be able to object to the fine and the six-month withdrawal measure together in the ordinary courts.

Facts and Claim

The driver brought a case together against the administrative fine imposed after being found to have 0.52 per mille alcohol and the six-month withdrawal of the driver's license.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Birecik Criminal Judgeship of Peace, 08/07/2025, D.İş 2025/1238. Finding the administrative courts competent, it rejected the application. Nizip Criminal Judgeship of Peace, 21/07/2025, D.İş 2025/2284. It rejected the objection with final effect.
2. Şanlıurfa 3rd Administrative Court, 05/08/2025, E.2025/1094, K.2025/1203. It dismissed the case on the ground that the ordinary courts are competent.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In the dispute under review, it was found that, like the administrative fine, the driver's license withdrawal report is also one of the types of administrative sanctions listed in Article 16 of Law No. 5326; that the article was reorganized by the amendment made to Article 112 of Law No. 2918 through Article 20 of Law No. 6495 dated 12/07/2013; and that no provision on legal remedies against this decision was included.”

Reasoning, § 18 · Official Gazette p. 285

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. In resolving the dispute, THE ORDINARY COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION,

B. TO SET ASIDE the DECISION DECLINING JURISDICTION of the Birecik Criminal Judgeship of Peace dated 08/07/2025, D.İş No. 2025/1238,

Decided on 04/05/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND WITH FINAL EFFECT.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 285

Core Holding (Rule)

Because the 60-day removal from traffic was applied to the vehicle of a third-party company while the fine was imposed on the driver, the addressees differ; the ordinary courts review the driver's fine.

Concrete Outcome

The driver's objection to the fine of 92,784 TL can be reviewed in the ordinary courts. The 60-day removal from traffic concerning the company that owns the vehicle falls outside the scope of this ruling.

Facts and Claim

The driver brought a case against the fine of 92,784 TL imposed for unlicensed passenger transport. The 60-day removal from traffic had been applied to a vehicle belonging to another company.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Ankara 12th Criminal Judgeship of Peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) (03.11.2025, D.İş 2025/7881, K.2025/7881). Also taking into account the removal from traffic relating to the same incident, it declined jurisdiction.
2. Ankara 13th Administrative Court (23.02.2026, E.2025/2028). Finding the ordinary courts competent, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes under Art. 19 of Law No. 2247.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In the dispute under review, it was found that the removal from traffic applied to the vehicle registered in the name of the third-party company on account of the same factual incident does not concern the claimant driver and is not regulated in respect of the driver; that the administrative fine applied to the claimant is also one of the types of administrative sanctions listed in Article 16 of Law No. 5326; and that Law No. 2918 likewise does not designate a competent court for objections to this fine.”

Reasoning, § 18 · Official Gazette p. 346

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. In resolving the dispute, THE ORDINARY COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION,

B. BY GRANTING THE APPLICATION made by the Ankara 13th Administrative Court, TO SET ASIDE the DECISION DECLINING JURISDICTION of the Ankara 12th Criminal Judgeship of Peace dated 03/11/2025, D.İş No:2025/7881, K.2025/7881,

Decided on 04/05/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND WITH FINAL EFFECT.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 347

Core Holding (Rule)

Because there is no special jurisdictional rule for a purely administrative fine imposed under Road Transport Law No. 4925 and Article 23/1-b of the relevant Regulation, Article 27/1 of Misdemeanors Law No. 5326 applies. The Court therefore decided that the dispute is to be examined by the ordinary courts, before the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği).

Concrete Outcome

The 10,167 TL fine will be reviewed in the ordinary courts. Whether the certificate requirement arose in the specific carriage was not resolved by this decision.

Facts and Claim

A transport company objected to a fine of 10,167 TL imposed on the ground that it carried perishable food in a vehicle without the required conformity certificate.

How the Dispute Arose

1. İstanbul Anadolu 9th Criminal Judgeship of Peace (27.11.2025, D.İş 2025/8489). Finding the administrative courts competent, it dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
2. İstanbul Anadolu 10th Criminal Judgeship of Peace (16.12.2025, D.İş 2025/11363). It rejected the objection to the decision of lack of jurisdiction.
3. İstanbul 14th Administrative Court (28.01.2026, E.2025/2433). Finding the ordinary courts competent, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes under Article 19 of Law No. 2247.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In the dispute under review, it has been understood that the administrative fine imposed under Article 23/1-b of the Regulation on Special Equipment to Be Used in the Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs, which was prepared on the basis of Law No. 4925, is one of the types of administrative sanction specified in Article 16 of Law No. 5326, that Law No. 4925 was reorganized through amendments, and that, as it now stands, neither Law No. 4925 nor the Regulation prepared on the basis of that Law contains any provision on the competent judicial authority or on the legal remedy.”

Reasoning, § 20 · Official Gazette p. 386

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. In the resolution of the case, THE ORDINARY COURTS ARE COMPETENT,

B. By ACCEPTING THE APPLICATION of the İstanbul 14th Administrative Court, the DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION of the İstanbul Anadolu 9th Criminal Judgeship of Peace dated 27/11/2025, No. D.İş 2025/8489, IS SET ASIDE,

The decision was rendered on 04/05/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 386

Core Holding (Rule)

The population directorate's (nüfus müdürlüğü) permanent revocation of a driver's license for failing the education requirement is a separate administrative act and is challenged before the administrative court. The traffic administrative fine imposed five years after that revocation, for driving without a license at a roadside check, is the act of a different authority; the linkage rule in Article 27/8 of Misdemeanors Law No. 5326 therefore does not apply, and the fine falls to the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği).

Concrete Outcome

The two claims joined in a single petition were separated: Batman Administrative Court will examine the claim concerning the permanent revocation of the driver's license, and Batman 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace will examine the claim concerning the traffic administrative fine on the merits.

Facts and Claim

A population directorate revoked a driver's license because of the education requirement. During a traffic check, the driver, found driving, was additionally fined. Both acts were challenged in court.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Batman Administrative Court (18.09.2025, E.2025/1010, K.2025/1513). Finding the ordinary courts competent, it dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
2. Batman 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace (02.04.2026, D.İş 2026/2012). Holding that the two acts had to be heard together in the administrative courts, it dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction and forwarded the file ex officio.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“Furthermore, it has been understood that, following a check carried out by traffic units more than five years after this act was made, the plaintiff was found to be driving a motor vehicle, and that an administrative sanction was imposed on the plaintiff under Article 36/3-c of Law No. 2918, by Traffic Administrative Fine Decision Record No. MB 72671241 dated 08/07/2025 of the Batman Regional Traffic Inspection Branch Directorate in the amount of 18,677 TL, on the ground of having committed the misdemeanor of driving a motor vehicle without a driver's license; that this falls within the scope of the Misdemeanors Law; that, however, no other decision was taken and no other act was made concerning the plaintiff within the act (administrative fine) in which the administrative sanction decision was given; that the earlier act of the Population Directorate is a separate act and is not within the scope of the administrative sanction decision, but constitutes the ground element of that decision; that in this case Article 27, paragraph 8 of Law No. 5326 has no field of application; and that separate actions must be brought against the separate administrative act and against the administrative sanction decision.”

Reasoning, § 21 · Official Gazette p. 489

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. In the resolution of the case, THE ORDINARY COURTS ARE PARTLY COMPETENT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS ARE PARTLY COMPETENT,

B. The DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION of Batman 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace dated 02/04/2026, No. D.İş.2025/2012, IS SET ASIDE in the part concerning the administrative fine imposed by the Traffic Inspection Branch Directorate, and, as regards the part seeking annulment of the administrative act of permanent revocation of the driver's license, THE APPLICATION IS ACCEPTED; the DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION of Batman Administrative Court dated 18/09/2025, No. E.2025/1010, K.2025/1513, IS SET ASIDE in the part concerning the annulment of the act of permanent revocation of the driver's license made by the Population Directorate,

The decision was rendered on 15/06/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 489–490

Core Holding (Rule)

Establishing a new forest cadastre commission under Additional Article 18 of Forest Law No. 6831 and rejecting an application for a change of status are unilateral administrative acts (Article 2/1-a of Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577). The Court therefore decided that the dispute is to be examined by the administrative courts, before the administrative court.

Concrete Outcome

The application of İstanbul 7th Administrative Court was rejected. The administrative courts will review the administration's acts of not establishing a commission and not removing the land from forest status. The decision did not determine any forest boundary.

Facts and Claim

The owner sought a redetermination of the boundaries between private forest and state forest, and the removal from forest status of an area which, the owner said, had fallen below three hectares after land was relinquished to the public.

How the Dispute Arose

1. İstanbul Cadastral Court, by decision E.2024/272, K.2024/298, joined the case with file E.2023/278. The same court (26.09.2024, E.2023/278, K.2024/334) issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction.
2. İstanbul 7th Administrative Court (24.12.2024, E.2024/2140, K.2024/2289) dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. İstanbul Regional Administrative Court 9th Administrative Chamber (14.07.2025, E.2025/657, K.2025/3635) set the decision aside because the procedure in Article 19 of Law No. 2247 had not been followed. İstanbul 7th Administrative Court (19.09.2025, E.2025/1753) applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“[…] the request that forest cadastral work be able to begin and that a new forest cadastre commission, as required, be established is an administrative act, being a rejection by the İstanbul Forest Directorate through a unilateral declaration of intent made by exercising public power, and must be examined according to the principles of administrative law […]”

Reasoning, § 21 · Official Gazette p. 67

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. In the resolution of the case, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS ARE COMPETENT,

B. THE APPLICATION of the İstanbul 7th Administrative Court dated 19/09/2025, No. E.2025/1753, IS REJECTED,

The decision was rendered on 13/04/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 67

Core Holding (Rule)

A request to delete a zabıt record (zabıt kaydı) concerns determining the status of a real right in immovable property and is heard by the ordinary courts under the provisions of Turkish Civil Code No. 4721.

Concrete Outcome

The decision of lack of jurisdiction of Adıyaman 1st Civil Court of First Instance was set aside. Whether the 96 m² record shown in the plaintiff's name should be deleted will be decided in the ordinary courts.

Facts and Claim

The plaintiff sought deletion of a 96 m² property record that appears in the plaintiff's name despite the earlier population exchange.

How the Dispute Arose

1. The decision of Adıyaman Administrative Court, E.2017/33, K.2018/125, concerned the annulment of a zoning implementation. Adıyaman 1st Civil Court of First Instance (17.06.2025, E.2025/87, K.2025/94) found the administrative courts competent in the action to delete the record.
2. Adıyaman 3rd Administrative Court (17.09.2025, E.2025/775, K.2025/1401) rejected the petition because no separate administrative action petition had been filed. In the renewed action (19.11.2025, E.2025/869), the same court applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In other words, the existence or deletion of such records does not fall within the scope of the annulment of an administrative act or the review of the lawfulness of an administrative measure; it is a dispute that must be assessed within the framework of the rules on determining the status of real rights in immovable property.”

Reasoning, § 26 · Official Gazette p. 137

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. In the resolution of the case, THE ORDINARY COURTS ARE COMPETENT,

B. By ACCEPTING THE APPLICATION of Adıyaman 3rd Administrative Court, the DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION of Adıyaman 1st Civil Court of First Instance dated 17/06/2025, No. E.2025/87, K.2025/94, IS SET ASIDE,

The decision was rendered on 16/02/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 137

Core Holding (Rule)

Consent letters (muvafakatname) signed under Law No. 6306 on the Transformation of Areas Under Disaster Risk are not private-law contracts for work but administrative acts based on public power (Article 6/9). The Court therefore decided that the dispute is to be examined by the administrative courts, before the administrative court.

Concrete Outcome

The decision of lack of jurisdiction of Mardin 3rd Administrative Court was set aside. The administrative courts will examine the rights holders' claims for independent units and compensation. The transfer of any specific number of housing or business units was not decided.

Facts and Claim

Rights holders whose properties had been damaged by terrorist incidents sought the transfer and registration of the housing and business units specified in the transformation project, and compensation for the loss caused by the reduction in their number.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Mardin 3rd Administrative Court (20.04.2021, E.2021/154, K.2021/363) dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Nusaybin Civil Court of First Instance (19.02.2024, E.2023/414, K.2024/364) dismissed the case on procedural grounds because of the judicial route.
2. Diyarbakır Regional Court of Appeal 2nd Civil Chamber (26.09.2025, E.2025/931, K.2025/1176) returned the file, which had been sent by mistake, to the court of first instance to be forwarded to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“[…] the contents of the contracts titled ‘Muvafakatname’ (Consent Letter) signed between the plaintiffs and the administration are not in the nature of a contract for work or another private-law contract, and these contracts were likewise not signed with the consent and free will of the parties within the framework of freedom of contract […]”

Reasoning, § 16 · Official Gazette p. 142

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. In the resolution of the case, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS ARE COMPETENT,

B. The DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION of Mardin 3rd Administrative Court dated 20/04/2021, No. E.2021/154 K.2021/363, IS SET ASIDE,

The decision was rendered on 16/02/2026 BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 143

Core Holding (Rule)

A land registry directorate's refusal, because it concerns the enforcement of a final judgment of the ordinary courts, is not treated as an independent administrative act within the meaning of Article 2 of Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577.

Concrete Outcome

The ordinary courts may examine how the registration judgment is to be enforced at the land registry.

Facts and Claim

The plaintiffs objected to the rejection of their application to have a final court decision enforced in the land registry.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Kadirli 1st Civil Court of First Instance, 03/11/2011, E.2005/117, K.2011/524. It issued the registration judgment whose enforcement at the land registry was sought. By its decision dated 14/06/2024, the same court rejected the request for clarification (tavzih) of the judgment. No separate file or decision number is given for this rejection.
2. Kadirli 5th Civil Court of First Instance, 12/09/2025, E.2025/205, K.2025/207. Accepting that the administrative courts would examine the land registry authority's refusal, it dismissed the case on procedural grounds. The decision became final.
3. Ankara 12th Administrative Court, 17/11/2025, E.2025/1584. Regarding the claim as relating to the enforcement of a final judgment, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes in favor of the ordinary courts.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“it has been concluded that, since this act too relates to the enforcement of a court judgment, it cannot be regarded as an administrative act within the meaning of Law No. 2577, that there is no dispute within the administrative judicial authority, and that, as such, the dispute must be resolved by the ordinary courts.”

Reasoning, § 25 · Official Gazette p. 188

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. In the resolution of the case, THE ORDINARY COURTS ARE COMPETENT,

B. By ACCEPTING THE APPLICATION of Ankara 12th Administrative Court, the DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION of Kadirli 5th Civil Court of First Instance dated 12/09/2025, No. E.2025/205, K.2025/207, IS SET ASIDE,

The decision was rendered on 16/02/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 189

Core Holding (Rule)

The restriction imposed by a site designation under Law No. 2863 on the Protection of Cultural and Natural Property, and the administration's inaction in the form of failing to expropriate, are the subject of a full remedy action (Article 2/1-b of Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577).

Concrete Outcome

Bursa 2nd Administrative Court, whose application was rejected, may examine the owner's claim. There is as yet no ruling on payment of the property's value.

Facts and Claim

The owner sought payment of the value of a property placed within an archaeological site, on the ground that it had not been expropriated for a long time.

How the Dispute Arose

1. İznik 2nd Civil Court of First Instance (11.09.2025, E.2025/33, K.2025/193). Finding the administrative courts competent, it dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
2. Bursa 2nd Administrative Court (27.02.2026, E.2026/77). Finding the ordinary courts competent, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes under Article 19 of Law No. 2247.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“It has been assessed that the plaintiff alleges that the property of which he is the owner has not been expropriated despite the passage of a long time, and that its value should therefore be compensated because the property was seized without expropriation; and that the action arises from the failure to carry out, in due time, the expropriation programs or acts provided for in Law No. 2863 as a result of the restriction imposed on the property under a decision which is an administrative act, in other words, from administrative acts and from administrative actions in the form of the defendant administrations' inaction with regard to the expropriations they were required to carry out.”

Reasoning, § 19 · Official Gazette p. 390

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. In the resolution of the case, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS ARE COMPETENT,

B. THE APPLICATION of Bursa 2nd Administrative Court dated 27/02/2026, No. E.2026/77, IS REJECTED,

The decision was rendered on 04/05/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 390

Core Holding (Rule)

A claim for the loss caused by the demolition, by public authority, of a structure holding a building registration certificate under Article 18 of Squatter Housing Law No. 775 is a full remedy action.

Concrete Outcome

The administrative court's lack of jurisdiction was lifted. Whether the demolition requires compensation will be decided in the administrative courts. The earlier partial acceptance ruling had been set aside on appeal (istinaf).

Facts and Claim

The plaintiff stated that he had obtained a registration certificate for a structure on Treasury property of which he was the possessor, and claimed that the demolition carried out by the municipality caused pecuniary loss.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Gaziantep 1st Administrative Court (30.12.2019, E.2018/1445, K.2019/1296). Finding the ordinary courts competent, it dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
2. Gaziantep 5th Civil Court of First Instance (26.04.2022, E.2020/111, K.2022/191). After examining the merits, it partly upheld the compensation claim.
3. Gaziantep Regional Court of Appeal 4th Civil Chamber (16.12.2024, E.2022/2165, K.2024/2819). On the ground that the service fault must be examined in the administrative courts, it set aside the partial acceptance decision and sent the file back.
4. Gaziantep 5th Civil Court of First Instance (20.12.2024, E.2024/547, K.2024/595). Finding the administrative courts competent, it dismissed the case on procedural grounds.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In the present case, the action was brought seeking compensation for the loss suffered because the plaintiff's structure, which holds a building registration certificate, was demolished under Law No. 775; accordingly, the action does not arise from seizure without expropriation; in this situation, the action, which concerns whether a price will be paid for the demolition of the plaintiff's squatter structure as a result of implementing acts carried out by unilateral will, by exercising public power, within the framework of public legislation, and whether the alleged pecuniary losses will be made good, has been concluded to be one that must be heard by an administrative court under Article 2/1-b of Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, within the scope of ‘Full remedy actions brought by persons whose personal rights are directly injured by administrative actions and acts’.”

Reasoning, § 20 · Official Gazette p. 396

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. In the resolution of the case, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS ARE COMPETENT,

B. The DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION of Gaziantep 1st Administrative Court dated 30/12/2019, No. E.2018/1445, K.2019/1296, IS SET ASIDE,

The decision was rendered on 15/06/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 396

Core Holding (Rule)

Because what is sought is not annulment of the pasture commission's decision but correction of the land registry record created after the subdivision and its restoration to the status of public common property, Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 applies. The Court therefore decided that the dispute is to be examined by the ordinary courts, before the civil court of first instance.

Concrete Outcome

The civil court of first instance's lack of jurisdiction was lifted. The village legal entity's claim for cancellation of the title deed and restoration of the former status will be heard in the ordinary courts.

Facts and Claim

A village legal entity sought cancellation of the title deed records following the subdivision and registration of pasture land in its use, and restoration of the properties to pasture status.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Batman Administrative Court (05.08.2025, E.2025/808, K.2025/1353). In a separate case, it dismissed the claim against the Pasture Commission's change of the allocation purpose as time-barred, and dismissed the claim against the letter of the Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Forestry without examination. The decision passed appellate review (istinaf) and became final.
2. Batman Administrative Court (12.02.2026, E.2025/1416, K.2026/123). Finding the ordinary courts competent, it dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
3. Batman 8th Civil Court of First Instance (31.03.2026, E.2026/40, K.2026/185). Finding the administrative courts competent, it dismissed the case on procedural grounds.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“When the relevant legislation and the specific case are examined together, it has been concluded that the plaintiff did not request annulment of the decision changing the pasture allocation purpose of the properties in question; that, moreover, the action brought before the administrative court for annulment of that decision was dismissed as time-barred; that the dispute essentially concerns the request, on the basis of Decision No. 2024/06 dated 29/03/2024 of the Batman Governorship Provincial Pasture Commission, for cancellation of the subdivision, registration and deregistration entries made in the land registry record, and for the return of these properties, which have lost their pasture status, to their former legal status as pasture and public common property; that, since the subject of this request cannot be regarded as an act of an administrative nature, there is no dispute within the administrative jurisdiction; and that the dispute concerning correction of the land registry record must therefore be resolved by the ordinary courts under the provisions of the Turkish Civil Code.”

Reasoning, § 25 · Official Gazette p. 498

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. In the resolution of the case, THE ORDINARY COURTS ARE COMPETENT,

B. The DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION of Batman 8th Civil Court of First Instance dated 31/03/2026, No. E.2026/40, K.2026/185, IS SET ASIDE,

The decision was rendered on 15/06/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 498

Core Holding (Rule)

When the ordinary-courts rule in Additional Article 1 of Expropriation Law No. 2942 and the reasoning of the Constitutional Court's annulment decision E. 2024/135, K. 2025/20 are considered together, the competent judicial route has not changed. The claim for loss of earnings and ecrimisil is therefore heard in the ordinary courts.

Concrete Outcome

The decision of lack of jurisdiction of Kocaeli 2nd Civil Court of First Instance was set aside. The owners' claim for loss of earnings, which they have for now put at 100,000 TL, and for past-period ecrimisil (compensation for unjust occupation) will be examined in the ordinary courts.

Facts and Claim

The owners claimed loss of earnings and retrospective ecrimisil, alleging that for ten years the requirements of the plan were not carried out on a property designated as a market area in the implementation zoning plan.

How the Dispute Arose

1. In the earlier plan dispute, Sakarya 2nd Administrative Court, E.1997/1393, K.1998/1128, annulled the neighborhood market allocation. Council of State 6th Chamber, E.1999/1753, K.2000/2640, upheld the annulment. The day and month of these two decisions are not stated. In 2005 the municipality made a new plan amendment.
2. Kocaeli 2nd Administrative Court, 23/10/2015, E.2014/1365, K.2015/1118. It dismissed the case. Council of State 6th Chamber, 16/12/2020, E.2016/2846, K.2020/12906. It upheld the ruling. 29/09/2021, E.2021/3118, K.2021/10330. Granting the request for rectification of decision, it quashed the first-instance decision.
3. Kocaeli 2nd Administrative Court, 31/01/2023, E.2021/1658, K.2023/117. It dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Council of State 6th Chamber, 29/11/2023, E.2023/4267, K.2023/8731. It upheld the decision.
4. Kocaeli 2nd Civil Court of First Instance, 07/11/2024, E.2024/146, K.2024/391. Finding Gebze competent, it issued a decision of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Sakarya Regional Court of Appeal 3rd Civil Chamber, 19/12/2025, E.2025/463, K.2025/2323. It set aside the decision of lack of territorial jurisdiction and sent the file for dismissal on procedural grounds regarding the judicial route. Kocaeli 2nd Civil Court of First Instance, 23/01/2026, E.2026/5, K.2026/20. It dismissed the case on procedural grounds because of the judicial route.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“considering that no determination was made that the part of the rule providing that property owners may bring an action in the ordinary courts is unconstitutional, it has been concluded that the decision does not create a situation requiring a change of the judicial route.”

Reasoning, § 22 · Official Gazette p. 330

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. In the resolution of the case, THE ORDINARY COURTS ARE COMPETENT,

B. The DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION of Kocaeli 2nd Civil Court of First Instance dated 23/01/2026, No. E.2026/5, K.2026/20, IS SET ASIDE,

The decision was rendered on 13/04/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 330

Core Holding (Rule)

A claim for the value of a structure or trees on land set aside for public services as a result of the application of Article 18 of Zoning Law No. 3194 (parcellation, parselasyon) is a full remedy action arising from the implementation of an administrative act.

Concrete Outcome

The owner's claim for the value of the building and trees may be examined in the administrative courts. Whether the zoning act, the loss and the causal link give rise to compensation is left to the examination of the merits.

Facts and Claim

The owner claimed compensation, alleging that after a plan revision he lost title to his house and that his trees were cut down.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Malatya 3rd Administrative Court (05.04.2024, E.2024/269, K.2024/1035). Finding the ordinary courts competent, it dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
2. Gaziantep Regional Administrative Court 2nd Administrative Chamber (31.10.2024, E.2024/1311, K.2024/2625). It finally rejected the appeal (istinaf) application.
3. Malatya 3rd Civil Court of First Instance (08.10.2025, E.2024/426, K.2025/361). Finding the administrative courts competent, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes under Article 19 of Law No. 2247.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In the specific dispute, it has been concluded that the trees on the part, allocated to public services, of the cadastral parcel in which the plaintiff is a shareholder, as a result of the parcellation plan made under Article 18 of Law No. 3194 for the implementation of the zoning plan revision in the area where the plaintiff's property is located, were cut down on the basis of the provision in Article 18 of Law No. 3194 that ‘trees/structures in the areas falling on the places allocated to the public services specified in this article shall be removed and demolished by the municipality or governorship upon payment of their value/debris value’; that the plaintiff's compensation claim concerns compensation for the loss arising from the implementation of an administrative act; and that it must be resolved according to the provisions of the zoning legislation.”

Reasoning, § 23 · Official Gazette p. 362–363

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. In the resolution of the case, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS ARE COMPETENT,

B. By ACCEPTING THE APPLICATION of Malatya 3rd Civil Court of First Instance, the DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION of Malatya 3rd Administrative Court dated 05/04/2024, No. E.2024/269, K.2024/1035, IS SET ASIDE,

The decision was rendered on 13/04/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 363

Core Holding (Rule)

Even if the plaintiff frames the claim as cancellation of the title deed and registration, the administrative court hears the case where resolving the dispute necessarily requires reviewing the lawfulness of the municipality's zoning and parcellation act, in particular the deduction of the development readjustment share (düzenleme ortaklık payı, DOP).

Concrete Outcome

The application made by Rize Administrative Court in favor of the ordinary courts was rejected. Rize Administrative Court will examine on the merits the owner's action, which is based on the claim that the statutory deduction limit was exceeded.

Facts and Claim

The owner claimed that in the zoning implementation more than the development readjustment share was relinquished to green space, and that building permission was later granted for part of it, and sought registration of a portion of the property in his name.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Artvin 2nd Civil Court of First Instance (07.05.2025, E.2024/278, K.2025/70). Finding the administrative courts competent, it dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
2. Trabzon Administrative Court (19.06.2025, E.2025/907, K.2025/1002). It issued a decision of lack of territorial jurisdiction and sent the file to Rize Administrative Court.
3. Rize Administrative Court (16.07.2025, E.2025/583, K.2025/661). It rejected the petition for lack of clarification of the contested act and the date of notification.
4. Rize Administrative Court (10.09.2025, E.2025/728, K.2025/830). It rejected the renewed petition on the same ground.
5. Rize Administrative Court (24.10.2025, E.2025/809, K.2025/1010). It rejected the petition again.
6. Rize Administrative Court (11.12.2025, E.2025/1012, K.2025/1152). It dismissed the case as time-barred.
7. Samsun Regional Administrative Court 2nd Administrative Chamber (26.02.2026, E.2026/181, K.2026/206). Finding the ordinary courts competent, it set aside the time-bar decision.
8. Rize Administrative Court (18.03.2026, E.2026/201). Finding the ordinary courts competent, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes under Article 19 of Law No. 2247.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“The basis of the plaintiff's claim is not the application of private-law provisions on ownership of immovable property, but the allegation that a deduction exceeding the statutory limit was made from his property during the zoning implementation carried out by the municipality. The resolution of the dispute therefore necessarily requires judicial review of the zoning implementation, which is an administrative act.”

Reasoning, § 25 · Official Gazette p. 412

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. In the resolution of the case, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS ARE COMPETENT,

B. THE APPLICATION of Rize Administrative Court dated 18/03/2026, No. E.2026/201, IS REJECTED,

The decision was rendered on 15/06/2026 UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 412

Core Holding (Rule)

A claim for compensation for loss caused by real property surrendered to the municipality free of charge through zoning implementation and parcelation is a full remedy action under art. 2/1-b of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu).

Concrete Outcome

The civil court of first instance’s ruling declining jurisdiction was set aside. The company’s claim for the market value of 4,838 m² may be pursued before the administrative courts.

Facts and Claim

The company sought the market value of 4,838 m² that it had surrendered to the municipality free of charge for permit purposes, after its request to have the property designated as a fuel station site in the plan was rejected.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Kayseri 6th Civil Court of First Instance (10.02.2026, E.2025/447). It rejected the municipality’s objection to jurisdiction and held that it was competent to hear the case.
2. The Chief Prosecutor of the Council of State raised a positive jurisdictional dispute in favor of the administrative judiciary. The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation expressed the view that the ruling on jurisdiction should be set aside.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In this case, the action, which was brought to seek compensation for the loss allegedly suffered on account of the real property surrendered to the municipality free of charge as a result of the parcelation act performed by the administration, and which concerns compensation for loss arising from zoning implementation acts performed unilaterally and ex officio by the administration in the exercise of public power, falls within the scope of ‘full remedy actions brought by persons whose personal rights are directly harmed by administrative acts and actions’ as set out in art. 2/1-b of Law No. 2577, and must be resolved by the administrative court within the framework of the zoning legislation.”

Reasoning, § 19 · Official Gazette p. 418

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THAT THE APPLICATION of the Chief Prosecutor of the Council of State BE GRANTED and that the RULING ON JURISDICTION of the Kayseri 6th Civil Court of First Instance dated 10/02/2026, E.2025/447, BE SET ASIDE,

was decided on 15/06/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 418

Core Holding (Rule)

The allegation that canals opened in the course of carrying out a public service damaged wheat and cotton crops is a full remedy action based on service fault.

Concrete Outcome

The Şanlıurfa 1st Administrative Court’s ruling declining jurisdiction was set aside. The crop loss, ancillary losses, and the causal link between them and the project will be examined by the administrative courts.

Facts and Claim

The plaintiff alleged that his wheat and cotton crops were damaged because drainage canals were opened on his land shortly before harvest.

How the Dispute Arose

1. The Şanlıurfa 1st Administrative Court (29.09.2023, E.2023/20, K.2023/1529) dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Suruç 1st Civil Court of First Instance (13.05.2025, E.2024/390, K.2025/166) held that the ordinary courts lacked jurisdiction because the loss arose from a public service.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“Accordingly, since the action seeking compensation for losses suffered while the defendant administration was carrying out a public service within the scope of the land consolidation project is accepted to be a full remedy action in the present case, it has been concluded that the administrative court is competent to hear and resolve the action pursuant to subparagraph (b) of the first paragraph of art. 2 of Law No. 2577.”

Reasoning, § 18 · Official Gazette p. 72

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THAT the RULING ON LACK OF JURISDICTION of the Şanlıurfa 1st Administrative Court dated 29/09/2023, E.2023/20, K.2023/1529, BE SET ASIDE,

was decided on 04/05/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 72

Core Holding (Rule)

A claim for damage to real property and loss of use caused by the administration in exercising its public authority under the state of emergency legislation is the subject of a full remedy action.

Concrete Outcome

The administrative court’s application in favor of the ordinary courts was rejected. Because the earlier payment ruling was set aside on appeal, the administrative courts will reconsider the claim for damage and loss of use.

Facts and Claim

The owner of the property on which a closed private educational institution had operated sought compensation for the damage to the property and buildings and for the loss of use during the period of the administration’s control.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Ankara 27th Civil Court of First Instance, 16/03/2023, E.2022/386, K.2023/106. It dismissed the case on procedural grounds for lack of a proper judicial avenue. Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, 25th Civil Chamber, 23/06/2023, E.2023/1742, K.2023/1611. It dismissed the appeal on the merits.
2. Ankara 19th Administrative Court, 27/03/2025, E.2023/695, K.2025/486. It ordered payment of the compensation sought. Ankara Regional Administrative Court, 10th Administrative Chamber, 19/11/2025, E.2025/7459, K.2025/11565. It set the decision aside because it had been issued without resolving the question of the proper judicial avenue.
3. Ankara 19th Administrative Court, 23/12/2025, E.2025/1855. Taking the view that the ordinary judiciary was competent, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“To resolve the dispute, the powers held by the administration under the state of emergency legislation and the manner in which those powers were exercised must be assessed.”

Reasoning, § 22 · Official Gazette p. 271

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THAT the APPLICATION of the Ankara 19th Administrative Court dated 23/12/2025, E.2025/1855, BE REJECTED,

was decided on 15/06/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 271

Core Holding (Rule)

Because the General Directorate of Highways’ de facto seizure of the property was independent of the other administration’s land consolidation process, it constitutes de facto expropriation without formal expropriation. It was therefore decided that the dispute is to be examined by the ordinary courts, by the civil court of first instance.

Concrete Outcome

The Suruç 1st Civil Court of First Instance’s ruling declining jurisdiction was set aside. The consequences of the de facto interference, and of the damage to items on the property, will be examined by the ordinary courts. The land consolidation act was not annulled.

Facts and Claim

After land consolidation, the property ended up within a road corridor, and interference with the structure, trees, and wells on it was alleged. The owner brought a case over the de facto seizure.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Şanlıurfa 3rd Administrative Court, 23/01/2024, E.2023/108, K.2024/94. It dismissed the case because the ordinary judiciary was competent. Suruç Civil Court of Peace, 14/03/2024, E.2024/68, K.2024/120. It held the civil court of first instance competent and dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
2. Suruç 1st Civil Court of First Instance, 27/11/2025, E.2024/989, K.2025/452. It dismissed the case on procedural grounds on the basis that the administrative judiciary was competent. The plaintiff requested resolution of the jurisdictional dispute.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“it has been concluded that the said administration’s acts of seizure were independent of the land consolidation process carried out by the other administration, and that, in this case, the ordinary court is competent to hear and resolve the action brought on the allegation that the property under the plaintiff’s private ownership was de facto seized without expropriation.”

Reasoning, § 18 · Official Gazette p. 281

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THAT THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THAT the RULING ON LACK OF JURISDICTION issued by the Suruç 1st Civil Court of First Instance dated 27/11/2025, E.2024/989, K.2025/452, BE SET ASIDE,

was decided on 04/05/2026, over the DISSENTING OPINIONS of Members Ahmet ARSLAN, Mahmut BALLI, and Bilal ÇALIŞKAN, BY MAJORITY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 281

Core Holding (Rule)

The allegation that the municipality and the Ministry, separately from the private construction owner, neglected their permit and supervision duties is a full remedy action based on service fault.

Concrete Outcome

The file E.2022/1529 concerning independent unit no. 5 remains with the administrative courts. The administrative court will examine whether the municipality and the Ministry can be held liable for the damage and evacuation costs.

Facts and Claim

The owner of an independent unit stated that his building was damaged during excavation at a neighboring construction site, that the administrations had failed to perform their supervisory duty, and that he suffered loss because of the evacuation.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Bakırköy 9th Consumer Court (26.10.2021, E.2021/72). It severed the case against the public administrations by interim decision no. 2.
2. Bakırköy 9th Consumer Court (27.10.2021, E.2021/1385, K.2021/555). It held the administrative judiciary competent and dismissed the case against the public administrations on procedural grounds.
3. Istanbul 13th Administrative Court (19.04.2022, E.2022/266, K.2022/715). It dismissed the petition on the ground that the owners of the independent units had to bring separate cases.
4. Istanbul 13th Administrative Court (19.07.2022, E.2022/1529). It corrected the defendants to the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change and the Esenyurt Municipality.
5. Istanbul 13th Administrative Court (13.02.2026, E.2022/1529). Taking the view that the ordinary judiciary was competent, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes under art. 19 of Law No. 2247.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In an action brought to seek compensation for loss caused by defendants carrying out a public service in the course of carrying it out, situations such as the service not functioning at all, functioning late, or functioning poorly while the public service is being provided are called the administration’s service fault. In this context, losses sustained by individuals must also be compensated by virtue of the administration’s fault-based liability.”

Reasoning, § 24 · Official Gazette p. 368

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THAT the APPLICATION of the Istanbul 13th Administrative Court dated 13/02/2026, E.2022/1529, BE REJECTED,

was decided on 15/06/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 369

Core Holding (Rule)

The allegation that the administrations failed to perform their building supervision and precautionary duties during a neighboring construction excavation is examined by the administrative courts under art. 2/1-b of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu).

Concrete Outcome

The Istanbul 13th Administrative Court will hear this owner’s file E.2022/1576. The ruling is independent of file E.2022/1529 concerning the other owner.

Facts and Claim

The plaintiff, who owned an independent unit in the building damaged by construction on the neighboring parcel, claimed from the administrations the cost of the damage and evacuation as well as non-pecuniary damages. This application belonged to a separate file from K.2026/305, although it concerned the same incident.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Bakırköy 9th Consumer Court (26.10.2021, E.2021/72). It severed the case against the public administrations by interim decision no. 2.
2. Bakırköy 9th Consumer Court (27.10.2021, E.2021/1385, K.2021/555). It held the administrative judiciary competent and dismissed the case against the public administrations on procedural grounds.
3. Istanbul 13th Administrative Court (19.04.2022, E.2022/266, K.2022/715). It dismissed the petition on the ground that the owners of the independent units had to bring separate cases.
4. Istanbul 13th Administrative Court (04.08.2022, E.2022/1576). It corrected the defendants to the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change and the Esenyurt Municipality.
5. Istanbul 13th Administrative Court (27.02.2026, E.2022/1576). Taking the view that the ordinary judiciary was competent, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes under art. 19 of Law No. 2247.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In determining whether the administration bears liability to compensate, it must first be determined whether there was service fault on the part of the administration in the incident, and whether the public service was carried out properly and in accordance with the law; and, if there was no service fault, whether the principle of no-fault liability can be applied to the incident.”

Reasoning, § 26 · Official Gazette p. 378

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THAT the APPLICATION of the Istanbul 13th Administrative Court dated 27/02/2026, E.2022/1576, BE REJECTED,

was decided on 15/06/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 378

Core Holding (Rule)

The administration’s act of going beyond the plan and project and physically dumping soil on a field is not an administrative action but a “tort”; it is examined under private law provisions. It was therefore decided that the dispute is to be examined by the ordinary courts, by the civil court of first instance.

Concrete Outcome

The loss allegedly caused by the inability to sow on an area of approximately 9,000 m² may be examined by the ordinary courts. The ruling on jurisdiction did not determine the amount of the loss.

Facts and Claim

The owner stated that he could not sow on a portion of his field of approximately 9,000 m² because soil had been dumped on it, and asked for payment of his loss.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Şanlıurfa 1st Civil Court of First Instance (21.12.2023, E.2023/841, K.2023/3709). It held the administrative judiciary competent and dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
2. Şanlıurfa 2nd Administrative Court (17.02.2025, E.2024/510). It rejected the objection to jurisdiction raised before the administrative courts.
3. Şanlıurfa 2nd Administrative Court (20.01.2026, E.2024/510). Taking the view that the ordinary judiciary was competent, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes under art. 19 of Law No. 2247.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In light of the circumstances stated and the nature of the action, judicial review of the lawfulness of the administration’s interference with a right in rem constitutes the merits of the matter; since the action brought contains no request for annulment of an administrative act or for compensation for loss suffered because of such an act, the dispute as it stands arises not from an administrative action but from an allegation of tort, and it has therefore been concluded that an action for compensation for loss arising from a tort must be resolved by the ordinary court in accordance with private law provisions.”

Reasoning, § 18 · Official Gazette p. 428

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THAT THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THAT the APPLICATION of the Şanlıurfa 2nd Administrative Court BE GRANTED and that the RULING ON LACK OF JURISDICTION of the Şanlıurfa 1st Civil Court of First Instance dated 21/12/2023, E.2023/841, K.2023/3709, BE SET ASIDE,

was decided on 04/05/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 428

Core Holding (Rule)

A claim of loss of access and water and of reduced value due to the carrying out of the dam public service, without any de facto seizure of the properties, is a full remedy action.

Concrete Outcome

The Rize Administrative Court’s ruling declining jurisdiction was set aside. The administrative courts may investigate the link between the loss of value of the properties and the dam activity. No decision was made to expropriate the parcels or to pay for them.

Facts and Claim

The owners claimed compensation, arguing that their parcels outside the expropriated area became unusable and lost value because of the dam construction.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Rize Administrative Court (20.05.2019, E.2018/609, K.2019/325). It upheld the compensation claim.
2. Samsun Regional Administrative Court, 3rd Administrative Chamber (07.02.2020, E.2019/1754, K.2020/135). It set aside the first instance decision as to jurisdiction.
3. Rize Administrative Court (12.03.2020, E.2020/171, K.2020/169). It held the ordinary judiciary competent and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
4. Samsun Regional Administrative Court, 3rd Administrative Chamber (09.09.2020, E.2020/744, K.2020/684). It finally rejected the appeal.
5. Yusufeli Civil Court of First Instance (08.04.2021, E.2020/256, K.2021/124). It dismissed the case on the ground that DSİ (State Hydraulic Works) could not be named as a defendant.
6. Trabzon Regional Court of Appeal, 2nd Civil Chamber (14.12.2022, E.2022/3327, K.2022/1886). It sent the file to the 4th Civil Chamber in accordance with the division of work.
7. Trabzon Regional Court of Appeal, 4th Civil Chamber (10.01.2023, E.2022/2484, K.2023/53). It issued a counter-ruling declining jurisdiction and sent the file to the Council of Presidents of the Civil Chambers.
8. Trabzon Regional Court of Appeal, Council of Presidents of the Civil Chambers (24.02.2023, E.2023/5). It determined that the review belonged to the 2nd Civil Chamber.
9. Trabzon Regional Court of Appeal, 2nd Civil Chamber (26.12.2024, E.2023/808, K.2024/2440). It set aside the ruling on standing to be sued because the judicial avenue had to be examined before passive standing.
10. Yusufeli Civil Court of First Instance (11.09.2025, E.2025/39, K.2025/244). It held the administrative judiciary competent and dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
11. Trabzon Regional Court of Appeal, 2nd Civil Chamber (26.03.2026, E.2026/280, K.2026/518). It returned the file on the ground that the conditions for determining the competent court were not met, since the file had been sent to it by mistake.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In this case, when the claims put forward by the plaintiffs’ counsel and the information and documents in the file are assessed together, it is alleged that the loss subject to the dispute arose from the dam construction activities carried out within the scope of the public service performed by the defendant administration; since it is understood that the action arises from the administration’s actions and acts while carrying out the public service, it has been concluded that the dispute is a full remedy action and that the assessment of the administration’s liability must be made by the administrative court within the scope of art. 2/1-b of Law No. 2577.”

Reasoning, § 27 · Official Gazette p. 486

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THAT the RULING ON LACK OF JURISDICTION of the Rize Administrative Court dated 12/03/2020, E.2020/171, K.2020/169, BE SET ASIDE,

was decided on 15/06/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 486

Core Holding (Rule)

A claim for compensation for the period during which the plaintiff could not work because of a rejection record annulled by an administrative court is a full remedy action following annulment, under art. 12 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu).

Concrete Outcome

The Ankara 17th Administrative Court’s ruling declining jurisdiction was set aside. The existence and amount of the plaintiff’s 25 months of lost work will be examined by the administrative courts.

Facts and Claim

A rejection record entered into the Private Security Information System following a security investigation and archive search was annulled by the administrative courts. The plaintiff claimed compensation, stating that he could not work in the sector for 25 months because of that act.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Ankara 14th Administrative Court (19.01.2023, E.2022/1655, K.2023/131) annulled the rejection act in the private security system.
2. Ankara 17th Administrative Court (26.11.2024, E.2024/1876, K.2024/1827) dismissed the compensation case for lack of jurisdiction. Ankara Regional Administrative Court, 9th Administrative Chamber (19.02.2025, E.2025/90, K.2025/250) rejected the appeal without examining it because the decision was final owing to the monetary threshold.
3. Ankara 28th Labor Court (18.06.2025, E.2025/164, K.2025/270) dismissed the case on procedural grounds on the ground that the loss arose from an administrative act.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“[…] given that this is an action in the nature of a full remedy action brought to give effect to the annulment decision issued by the administrative court, it has been concluded that hearing and resolving the dispute belongs to the administrative court.”

Reasoning, § 21 · Official Gazette p. 48

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THAT the RULING ON LACK OF JURISDICTION of the Ankara 17th Administrative Court dated 26/11/2024, E.2024/1876, K.2024/1827, BE SET ASIDE,

was decided on 12/01/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 49

Core Holding (Rule)

Teaching staff of foundation universities are public personnel and their contracts are administrative service contracts (arts. 5 and 8 of the supplementary provisions of Higher Education Law No. 2547); the administrative courts hear claims arising from their personal rights.

Concrete Outcome

The Mersin 2nd Administrative Court’s ruling declining jurisdiction was set aside. The administrative courts will examine the pay difference. The earlier ruling ordering payment of 96,954.74 TL had been set aside on appeal.

Facts and Claim

A lecturer whose contract was not renewed claimed a pay difference, and interest on it, which he alleged was owed because he had been underpaid compared with the salary at a comparable state university.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Mersin 2nd Administrative Court (28.11.2023, E.2022/1487, K.2023/1685) ordered payment of the 96,954.74 TL pay difference with interest. Adana Regional Administrative Court, 1st Administrative Chamber (21.03.2024, E.2024/135, K.2024/626) set the decision aside.
2. Mersin 2nd Administrative Court (24.04.2024, E.2024/559, K.2024/564) issued a ruling declining jurisdiction. Tarsus 2nd Labor Court (19.06.2025, E.2024/443, K.2025/116) held the administrative judiciary competent and dismissed the case on procedural grounds.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“When the concrete incident and the legislative provisions are assessed together, and given the plaintiff’s status, appointment, rights, and powers, it is clear that the plaintiff, whom the defendant University employed in a public service of a permanent and regular nature, is public personnel within the scope of administrative law, and that the contract between them is also an administrative contract.”

Reasoning, § 20 · Official Gazette p. 85

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THAT the RULING ON LACK OF JURISDICTION of the Mersin 2nd Administrative Court dated 24/04/2024, E.2024/559, K.2024/564, BE SET ASIDE,

was decided on 13/04/2026, over the DISSENTING OPINIONS of Members Eyüp SARICALAR, Bayram ŞEN, and Döndü Deniz BİLİR, BY MAJORITY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 86

Core Holding (Rule)

Because the dispute arises not from the employment contract but from whether the Commission’s reinstatement decision was applied in accordance with art. 10 of Law No. 7075 on the Establishment of the State of Emergency Procedures Review Commission, the administrative courts are competent.

Concrete Outcome

The Ankara 6th Administrative Court’s application was rejected. The administrative courts will examine the financial and social rights at issue in the dispute following reinstatement.

Facts and Claim

The plaintiff, who worked under an employment contract for a private law legal entity and was dismissed by decree-law, claimed his financial and social rights after returning to work under a decision of the State of Emergency Commission.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Ankara 24th Labor Court (23.02.2023, E.2022/576, K.2023/55) partially upheld the case. Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, 8th Civil Chamber (04.04.2024, E.2023/1380, K.2024/1065) rejected the appeal. Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber (21.11.2024, E.2024/9152, K.2024/15026) set aside the appeal decision and reversed the first instance decision.
2. Ankara 24th Labor Court (04.02.2025, E.2025/15, K.2025/16) severed the claims for determination of premiums and annual leave and issued a ruling declining jurisdiction as to the other financial rights. Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber (21.04.2025, E.2025/3349, K.2025/3650) affirmed. Ankara 6th Administrative Court (06.11.2025, E.2025/913) applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“[…] it is understood that the substance of the dispute does not arise from the employment contract, but from determining whether action was taken in accordance with art. 10 of Law No. 7075 and the other legislation regarding the financial and social rights that must be paid to the plaintiff during the reinstatement process following the State of Emergency Commission decision.”

Reasoning, § 18 · Official Gazette p. 104

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THAT the APPLICATION of the Ankara 6th Administrative Court dated 06/11/2025, E.2025/913, BE REJECTED,

was decided on 12/01/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 104

Core Holding (Rule)

The plaintiff’s dispute over combining periods of service falls to the ordinary courts under art. 101 of Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law No. 5510, because before Law No. 5510 he had no service under Turkish Republic Retirement Fund Law No. 5434.

Concrete Outcome

The Eskişehir 2nd Labor Court’s ruling declining jurisdiction was set aside. The ordinary courts will consider the request to count the earlier period of service. The earlier partially upheld ruling had been set aside on appeal.

Facts and Claim

A person who worked as an insured radiology technician at a university hospital between 2006 and 2014 entered the civil service in 2014. He asked for the earlier period to be combined and taken into account in step and promotion calculations.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Eskişehir 1st Administrative Court (03.12.2019, E.2019/357, K.2019/701) issued a ruling declining jurisdiction as to the administrative act, and rejected without examination the request that the periods of service be combined and that step and promotion actions be carried out.
2. Eskişehir 2nd Labor Court (04.05.2023, E.2020/110, K.2023/572) partially upheld the case. Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, 10th Civil Chamber (31.10.2024, E.2023/1506, K.2024/2789) set the decision aside and remanded the file.
3. Eskişehir 2nd Labor Court (26.12.2024, E.2024/863, K.2024/1007) issued a ruling declining jurisdiction. Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, 10th Civil Chamber (11.09.2025, E.2025/456, K.2025/2365) dismissed the appeal on the merits.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“[…] in this context, given that the defendant’s act rejecting the plaintiff’s request to combine his period of service between 21/01/2006 and 14/07/2014 with his period of service under the retirement fund falls within the scope of art. 101 of Law No. 5510, it has been concluded that the ordinary court is competent to hear and resolve the case.”

Reasoning, § 21 · Official Gazette p. 147

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THAT THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THAT the RULING ON LACK OF JURISDICTION of the Eskişehir 2nd Labor Court dated 26/12/2024, E.2024/863, K.2024/1007, BE SET ASIDE,

was decided on 16/02/2026, over the DISSENTING OPINIONS of Members Ahmet ARSLAN and Bilal ÇALIŞKAN, BY MAJORITY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 147

Core Holding (Rule)

The dispute concerns the determination of the status of public personnel under Article 4/B of the Civil Servants Law No. 657 and additional Article 26 of Decree-Law No. 375, before the application of the Law No. 5510 on Social Insurance and General Health Insurance. It was therefore decided that the dispute is to be examined by the administrative judiciary, before the Administrative Court.

Concrete Outcome

The Chief Public Prosecutor’s application was rejected. The jurisdiction ruling of the İstanbul 2nd Administrative Court stands. The claims for inclusion under 4/1-c and for payment of retroactive rights will be examined by the administrative courts.

Facts and Claim

A contract employee of the Presidency of State Archives brought an action for annulment and for payment of the rights lost, after the request to bring his insured status under 4/1-c went unanswered.

How the Dispute Arose

1. The İstanbul 2nd Administrative Court (17.10.2025, E.2025/1529) rejected the Presidency of State Archives’ jurisdictional objection. The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation raised a positive jurisdictional dispute in favor of the ordinary judiciary.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“It has been concluded that the concrete dispute does not arise from the application of Law No. 5510 but concerns the determination, under the legislative provisions cited above, of the status to which the plaintiff will be subject in terms of social security, and that the action brought for the annulment of the act of implied rejection, by leaving the application unanswered, must therefore be resolved before the administrative courts.”

Reasoning, § 18 · Official Gazette p. 159

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY HAS JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. The APPLICATION of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation IS REJECTED,

It was decided on 09/03/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 159

Core Holding (Rule)

The failure to assign an official vehicle for travel to the place of duty, and the failure to take precautions, give rise to a full remedy action concerning the organization of the public service (service fault).

Concrete Outcome

The application of the Erzurum 3rd Administrative Court was rejected. The technician’s claim against the administration for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages will be examined by the administrative courts, as regards the conduct of the service and the link between it and the harm.

Facts and Claim

A cadastral technician assigned to another district claimed from the administration the damages he suffered in an accident while traveling in a privately owned vehicle.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Erzurum 5th Civil Court of First Instance, 19/03/2025, E.2022/312, K.2025/88. Dismissed the case on procedural grounds, holding that the administrative courts have jurisdiction.
2. Erzurum 3rd Administrative Court, 26/12/2025, E.2025/1823. Accepting that the damage arose from a traffic accident in a private vehicle, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes in favor of the ordinary judiciary.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In this context, it must be determined whether an official vehicle needed to be assigned for the plaintiff to travel to his place of duty, what precautions had to be taken for that purpose, and whether those precautions were complied with.”

Reasoning, § 30 · Official Gazette p. 213

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY HAS JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. The APPLICATION of the Erzurum 3rd Administrative Court dated 26/12/2025 and numbered E.2025/1823 IS REJECTED,

It was decided on 15/06/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 213

Core Holding (Rule)

Under the Law No. 1416 on Students to Be Sent to Foreign Countries, a claim demanded on the basis of an undertaking and a surety bond following a breach of the compulsory service obligation arises from a private law contract. It was therefore decided that the dispute is to be heard by the ordinary judiciary.

Concrete Outcome

The Chief Public Prosecutor’s application was granted. The ordinary judiciary will examine the repayment claim of 89,980.26 euros and 61,749.23 TL.

Facts and Claim

The Ministry demanded 89,980.26 euros and 61,749.23 TL from a scholarship holder, on the ground that the undertaking to study abroad had been breached.

How the Dispute Arose

1. 8th Chamber of the Council of State, 23/05/2023, E.2023/2607, K.2023/2787. Since there was no act within the Council of State’s jurisdiction as a court of first instance, it sent the file to the Ankara Administrative Court. Plenary Assembly of the Administrative Litigation Chambers of the Council of State, 18/12/2023, E.2023/2906, K.2023/3146. Rejected the appeal without examination.
2. Ankara 15th Administrative Court, 23/08/2023, E.2023/1233, K.2023/1629. Rejected the petition. 29/11/2023, E.2023/2226, K.2023/2363. Rejected the renewed case as time-barred. 3rd Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Ankara Regional Administrative Court, 27/06/2024, E.2024/543, K.2024/1501. Set aside the time-bar rejection.
3. Ankara 15th Administrative Court, 13/09/2024, E.2024/1642, K.2024/1424. Rejected the petition because separate petitions were required for the student status and for the compulsory service claim. 31/10/2024, E.2024/1898, K.2024/1940. Rejected the renewed case as time-barred. 3rd Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Ankara Regional Administrative Court, 30/06/2025, E.2024/3068, K.2025/980. Set aside the time-bar rejection.
4. Ankara 15th Administrative Court, 30/10/2025, E.2025/1347. Rejected the Ministry’s objection regarding the judicial forum. The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation raised a positive jurisdictional dispute in favor of the ordinary judiciary with respect to the debt arising from the bond.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“[…] since it is understood that these bonds established a contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant Ministry, containing the mutual rights and obligations of the parties, it has been concluded that the ordinary judiciary has jurisdiction to resolve the case brought by the plaintiff for the annulment of the act concerning payment of the stated amount.”

Reasoning, § 22 · Official Gazette p. 231

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY HAS JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. By GRANTING the APPLICATION of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation, the JURISDICTION RULING of the Ankara 15th Administrative Court dated 30/10/2025 and numbered E.2025/1347 IS SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 15/06/2026, with the DISSENTING OPINION of Member Ahmet ARSLAN, BY MAJORITY VOTE AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 231

Core Holding (Rule)

Unlike academic staff at foundation universities, personnel working in a university’s administrative units under an employment contract subject to Labor Law No. 4857 do not have public official status. The Labor Court hears reinstatement and personal rights cases arising from the termination of these employees’ employment contracts.

Concrete Outcome

The lack-of-jurisdiction ruling of the 27th Civil Chamber of the İstanbul Regional Court of Appeal was set aside. The Labor Court in the ordinary judiciary will decide the plaintiff’s claims for reinstatement and the related monetary rights.

Facts and Claim

A manager employed under an employment contract in the communications unit of Haliç Üniversitesi sought a declaration that the termination, made on grounds of insufficient performance, was invalid, together with the monetary rights tied to reinstatement.

How the Dispute Arose

1. İstanbul 16th Labor Court (20.11.2019, E.2019/335, K.2019/671). Held the termination invalid and ordered reinstatement and, if the plaintiff is not reinstated, compensation equal to four months’ gross wages.
2. 27th Civil Chamber of the İstanbul Regional Court of Appeal (24.09.2020, E.2020/833, K.2020/1764). Set aside the Labor Court’s judgment and dismissed the case on procedural grounds because of the judicial forum.
3. İstanbul 12th Administrative Court (01.06.2021, E.2020/1650, K.2021/971). Annulled the termination act and ordered payment of the personal rights.
4. 1st Administrative Litigation Chamber of the İstanbul Regional Administrative Court (30.03.2023, E.2022/1546, K.2023/494). Rejected the defendant’s appeal on the merits.
5. Twelfth Chamber of the Council of State (26.06.2025, E.2023/2249, K.2025/3440). Reversed the appeal ruling on the ground that the labor courts have jurisdiction.
6. 1st Administrative Litigation Chamber of the İstanbul Regional Administrative Court (27.11.2025, E.2025/2278, K.2025/2286). Following the reversal, it set aside the first-instance decision and sent the file back.
7. İstanbul 12th Administrative Court (05.03.2026, E.2026/217). Holding that the ordinary judiciary has jurisdiction, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes under Article 19 of Law No. 2247.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“Accordingly, the reinstatement and personal rights claimed by the plaintiff on account of the termination of his contract fall within the scope of the employment contract, and the claim for compensation of the reinstatement and personal rights arising from this contract must be heard before the ordinary judiciary in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 4857.”

Reasoning, § 31 · Official Gazette p. 343

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY HAS JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. By GRANTING the APPLICATION of the İstanbul 12th Administrative Court, the LACK-OF-JURISDICTION RULING of the 27th Civil Chamber of the İstanbul Regional Court of Appeal dated 24/09/2020 and numbered E.2020/833, K.2020/1764 IS SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 04/05/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 343

Core Holding (Rule)

Claims directed at Türk Telekom A.Ş., a private law legal entity that was not a public institution on the date the case was filed, are heard by the ordinary judiciary under the provisions of private law.

Concrete Outcome

The administrative court’s ruling accepting jurisdiction was set aside as regards Türk Telekom.

Facts and Claim

A retired director asked that the additional indicator of 4800, which he claimed corresponded to his post, and other rights be reflected in his pension. The jurisdictional review was limited to the claim directed at Türk Telekom.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Ankara 13th Administrative Court (12.03.2025, E.2025/39). Corrected the defendants to the Social Security Institution Presidency and Türk Telekomünikasyon A.Ş.
2. Ankara 13th Administrative Court (10.12.2025, E.2025/39). Rejected the jurisdictional objection of Türk Telekomünikasyon A.Ş.
3. The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation raised a positive jurisdictional dispute in favor of the ordinary judiciary. The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Council of State gave an opinion in favor of rejecting the application.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“Accordingly, since the party in the position of defendant on the date the case was filed is Türk Telekomünikasyon A.Ş., which is not a public institution, it is impossible to speak of an administrative case brought within the scope of administrative jurisdiction, and it has therefore been concluded that the ordinary judiciary has jurisdiction to hear and resolve the dispute under the provisions of private law.”

Reasoning, § 16 · Official Gazette p. 372

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY HAS JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. By GRANTING the APPLICATION of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation, the JURISDICTION RULING of the Ankara 13th Administrative Court dated 10/12/2025 and numbered E.2025/39, which rejected the jurisdictional objection of the counsel of the defendant Türk Telekomünikasyon A.Ş., IS SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 15/06/2025, with the DISSENTING OPINION of Member Ahmet ARSLAN, BY MAJORITY VOTE AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 372

Core Holding (Rule)

In the settlement of claims of a university closed under Article 16/4 of Decree-Law No. 675, the administration exercises public authority arising from law, so the rejection act is reviewed by the administrative courts.

Concrete Outcome

The liquidation act concerning labor claims allegedly underpaid will be reviewed by the administrative courts.

Facts and Claim

After Melikşah Üniversitesi closed, an employee applied to the administration for his labor claims and found the payment made to be insufficient. He sued over the implied rejection of his new application and for the remaining balance of his claim.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Kayseri 1st Administrative Court (11.04.2025, E.2024/1179, K.2025/844). Holding that the ordinary judiciary has jurisdiction, it dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
2. 7th Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Ankara Regional Administrative Court (23.09.2025, E.2025/4408, K.2025/4404). Finding the decision final because of the monetary threshold, it rejected the appeal without examination.
3. Kayseri 12th Labor Court (12.02.2026, E.2026/376, K.2026/31). Holding that the administrative judiciary has jurisdiction, it dismissed the case on procedural grounds.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In this respect, it must be accepted that the administration’s acts concerning liquidation, within the duties and powers granted by the Decree-Law, are administrative in nature, and that the administrative courts have jurisdiction and competence to review the lawfulness of these acts.”

Reasoning, § 12 · Official Gazette p. 408

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY HAS JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. The LACK-OF-JURISDICTION RULING of the Kayseri 1st Administrative Court dated 11/04/2025 and numbered E.2024/1179, K.2025/844 IS SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 15/06/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 408

Core Holding (Rule)

The relationship between the Police Care and Assistance Fund, established under Article 90 of the Police Organization Law No. 3201, and its member, as well as a rejection decision based on public power, fall within administrative law. It was therefore decided that the dispute is to be examined by the administrative judiciary, before the Administrative Court.

Concrete Outcome

The application of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Council of State was granted, and the ruling of the civil court of first instance rejecting the jurisdictional objection was set aside. Whether the disability benefit will be paid will be resolved by the administrative courts.

Facts and Claim

A police officer retired on grounds of disability requested a disability benefit from the Police Care and Assistance Fund. The Fund rejected the request.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Ankara 1st Civil Court of First Instance (21.09.2020, E.2019/1079) rejected the Fund’s jurisdictional objection. The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Council of State raised a positive jurisdictional dispute in favor of the administrative judiciary.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“[…] given that the ‘Member-Institution’ relationship is determined according to the rules of administrative law, and that the acts established ex officio and unilaterally by relying on public power, while performing the services set as the Fund’s purpose of establishment, are administrative in nature […]”

Reasoning, § 26 · Official Gazette p. 81

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY HAS JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. By GRANTING the APPLICATION of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Council of State, the RULING of the Ankara 1st Civil Court of First Instance dated 21/09/2020 and numbered E.2019/1079, which REJECTED the jurisdictional objection raised by the counsel of the defendant administration, IS SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 15/06/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 81

Core Holding (Rule)

The rejection of a request for allowances tied to public office and title held under the Retirement Fund Law No. 5434, before the Law No. 5510 on Social Insurance and General Health Insurance, is an administrative act. It was therefore decided that the dispute is to be examined by the administrative judiciary, before the Administrative Court.

Concrete Outcome

The application of the Ankara 9th Administrative Court was rejected. The former public official’s request to have the allowances added to his pension will be heard by the administrative courts.

Facts and Claim

A former inspector who was granted an old-age pension under 4/1-b through the combination of service periods asked that the position and duty allowances he received for his post under Law No. 5434 also be reflected in his pension.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Ankara 16th Labor Court (19.03.2024, E.2024/95, K.2024/99) held that the administrative judiciary has jurisdiction and dismissed the case on procedural grounds. Ankara 9th Administrative Court (11.09.2024, E.2024/650, K.2024/1382) found the act lawful and rejected the case.
2. 11th Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Ankara Regional Administrative Court (24.09.2025, E.2024/3257, K.2025/3926) set the decision aside and sent the file back. Ankara 9th Administrative Court (22.10.2025, E.2025/1459) held that the ordinary judiciary has jurisdiction and applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“[…] given that the defendant’s act rejecting this request falls within the administrative acts specified in Article 2/1-a of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, it has been concluded that the administrative courts have jurisdiction to hear and resolve the case.”

Reasoning, § 25 · Official Gazette p. 98

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY HAS JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. The APPLICATION of the Ankara 9th Administrative Court dated 22/10/2025 and numbered E.2025/1459 IS REJECTED,

It was decided on 12/01/2026, with the DISSENTING OPINION of Member Ahmet ARSLAN, BY MAJORITY VOTE AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 99

Core Holding (Rule)

The implied rejection by the Social Security Institution (SGK) of a request to count substitute teaching service performed under the Retirement Fund Law No. 5434, before the Law No. 5510 on Social Insurance and General Health Insurance, is an administrative act. It was therefore decided that the dispute is to be heard by the administrative judiciary.

Concrete Outcome

The jurisdiction of the Ankara 6th Administrative Court continued. That court will examine the request to take into account the service between 12/11/1998 and 18/06/1999.

Facts and Claim

The plaintiff asked that the period during which he worked as a substitute teacher be counted as insured service. His application to the SGK went unanswered.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Ankara 6th Administrative Court, 09/10/2025, E.2025/526. Against the SGK’s jurisdictional objection, it held itself competent. At the Institution’s request, the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation raised a positive jurisdictional dispute, taking the view that the case should be heard by the ordinary judiciary.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“since the defendant Institution’s act of implied rejection of the request to count substitute teaching service as service time was carried out within the scope of Law No. 5434 […] it has been concluded that hearing and resolving the case also belongs to the administrative courts.”

Reasoning, § 24 · Official Gazette p. 219

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY HAS JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. The APPLICATION of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation IS REJECTED,

It was decided on 13/04/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 219

Core Holding (Rule)

A case over the medication costs of a decedent who received health benefits through a spouse who was a participant under the Retirement Fund Law No. 5434, before Provisional Article 4 of the Law No. 5510 on Social Insurance and General Health Insurance entered into force, belongs to the administrative judiciary.

Concrete Outcome

In the dispute over the medication costs, the lack-of-jurisdiction ruling of the Antalya 3rd Administrative Court was set aside. The labor court’s earlier payment judgment had been set aside on appeal.

Facts and Claim

The case was brought over the SGK’s failure to pay for a medication used in treatment and the claim that its cost be covered throughout the treatment.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Antalya 3rd Administrative Court, 02/12/2022, E.2022/1539, K.2022/1407. Rejected the case on the ground that the ordinary judiciary has jurisdiction.
2. Antalya 2nd Labor Court, 27/06/2024, E.2022/453, K.2024/258. Ordered the costs of Keytruda to be covered without interruption throughout the treatment. 10th Civil Chamber of the Antalya Regional Court of Appeal, 30/12/2024, E.2024/3042, K.2024/3532. Set aside this judgment and sent the file back.
3. Antalya 2nd Labor Court, 25/09/2025, E.2025/33, K.2025/251. Dismissed the case on procedural grounds, holding that the administrative judiciary has jurisdiction. After the patient’s death, his heirs asked for the negative jurisdictional dispute to be resolved.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“it is therefore understood that, before the entry into force of Provisional Article 4, added to Law No. 5510 by Law No. 5754, a decedent who benefited from health services through his spouse who was a participant under Law No. 5434 is also deemed a participant.”

Reasoning, § 17 · Official Gazette p. 239

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY HAS JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. The LACK-OF-JURISDICTION RULING of the Antalya 3rd Administrative Court dated 02/12/2022 and numbered E.2022/1539, K.2022/1407 IS SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 09/03/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 239

Core Holding (Rule)

Activating a physician’s MEDULA registration is governed by the provisions of the private law contract signed between the SGK and the private hospital under Article 73 of the Law No. 5510 on Social Insurance and General Health Insurance (Article 101). It was therefore decided that the dispute is to be heard by the ordinary judiciary.

Concrete Outcome

The administrative court’s ruling accepting jurisdiction was set aside. The hospital may raise its claim against the SGK letter before the ordinary judiciary.

Facts and Claim

A hospital operator sought the annulment of an SGK letter stating that the MEDULA registration of a physician employed on a permanent post at another center could not be activated for the hospital’s own emergency room shifts.

How the Dispute Arose

1. İzmir 7th Administrative Court (23.12.2025, E.2025/1800). Rejected the jurisdictional objection raised before the administrative courts.
2. The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation raised a positive jurisdictional dispute in favor of the ordinary judiciary. The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Council of State gave an opinion in favor of granting the application.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In view of this, the contract is not predominantly one of public law but is formed by the free will of the parties. The fact that the administration’s powers of termination and other powers under the contract exceed those of the other party does not affect the private nature of this contract, nor, even if it relates to a public service, does it mean that the administration is endowed with superior powers. In the present case, the plaintiff’s claim is aimed at having the MEDULA registration of a physician who works shifts without a personnel employment document activated, and it is clear that this claim can be assessed only according to the provisions of the contract prepared under Article 73 of Law No. 5510 and the Regulation issued pursuant to that Article and signed between the parties.”

Reasoning, § 24 · Official Gazette p. 357

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY HAS JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. By GRANTING the APPLICATION of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation, the JURISDICTION RULING of the İzmir 7th Administrative Court dated 23/12/2025 and numbered E.2025/1800 IS SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 04/05/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 357

Core Holding (Rule)

Under Article 8 of the Law No. 2829 on the Combination of Service Periods Spent Under Social Security Institutions, the start of insured status and the conditions for the old-age pension of a person whose premiums over the last seven years were paid under the Social Insurance Law No. 506 are examined by the ordinary judiciary.

Concrete Outcome

The labor court’s lack-of-jurisdiction ruling was set aside. The ordinary judiciary will assess how service before age eighteen affects the start of insured status and whether the pension conditions are met.

Facts and Claim

The plaintiff asked that his substitute teaching in 1995–1996 be taken as the basis for the start of his insured status and his old-age pension.

How the Dispute Arose

1. İstanbul 22nd Labor Court (17.07.2024, E.2024/13, K.2024/369). Holding that the administrative judiciary has jurisdiction, it dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
2. İstanbul 19th Administrative Court (28.04.2025, E.2025/87, K.2025/951). Holding that the ordinary judiciary has jurisdiction, it dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
3. 8th Administrative Litigation Chamber of the İstanbul Regional Administrative Court (08.10.2025, E.2025/2725, K.2025/2619). Set aside the administrative court’s decision on the ground that an application to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes was required.
4. İstanbul 19th Administrative Court (27.10.2025, E.2025/2005). Holding that the ordinary judiciary has jurisdiction, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes under Article 19 of Law No. 2247.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In this case, Article 8 of Law No. 2829 provides that, in the combination of service periods, the institution in which the actual service period within the last seven years is longer will grant and pay the pension according to its own legislation. In this context, after 1995-1996, when the plaintiff worked as a substitute teacher, his premiums were paid entirely under the Social Insurance Institution; accordingly, his claim concerning the start of the insurance period and the grant of an old-age pension will also be examined within the framework of the provisions of Law No. 506, to which Law No. 5510 refers, that set out the basis and conditions for benefiting from the old-age pension, and given that the contested act was also established in line with the provisions of Law No. 506, it has been concluded that hearing and resolving the dispute belongs to the ordinary judiciary, since the dispute must be resolved by assessing the provisions of Law No. 506, which are not related to the transitional provisions of Law No. 5510 concerning the Retirement Fund Law No. 5434, a matter within the field of competence of the administrative judiciary.”

Reasoning, § 28 · Official Gazette p. 425

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY HAS JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. By GRANTING the APPLICATION of the İstanbul 19th Administrative Court, the LACK-OF-JURISDICTION RULING of the İstanbul 22nd Labor Court dated 17/07/2024 and numbered E.2024/13, K.2024/369 IS SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 15/06/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 425

Core Holding (Rule)

Because the dispute arises not exclusively from a right tied to civil servant status but from the date insurance coverage began and the conditions for an old-age pension, Article 101 of Law No. 5510 on Social Insurance and General Health Insurance applies. The Court therefore decided that the dispute is to be examined by the ordinary courts, by the Labor Court.

Concrete Outcome

The application of the Kütahya 2nd Labor Court was rejected. Whether the physician is exempt from the age requirement and whether the physician is owed a pension from 1 September 2024 were left to the ordinary courts’ examination on the merits.

Facts and Claim

After a pension request was rejected on the ground that the 60-year age requirement had not been met, the physician sought a determination that, taking the start of insurance coverage as the basis, the physician had become entitled to an old-age pension, together with the accrued pension payments.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Kütahya Administrative Court (05.12.2024, E.2024/1053, K.2024/1208). It named the Social Security Institution (SGK) Presidency as the opposing party and dismissed the case, holding that the labor court had jurisdiction.
2. Bursa Regional Administrative Court, 4th Administrative Chamber (27.02.2025, E.2025/474, K.2025/389). It rejected the appeal as final.
3. Kütahya 2nd Labor Court (07.04.2026, E.2025/41). Holding that the administrative judiciary had jurisdiction, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes under Article 19 of Law No. 2247.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In the present case, it was understood that the dispute does not concern the plaintiff’s status as a participant under Law No. 5434, the pension basis of the retirement contribution, the retirement bonus, or a retirement right tied exclusively to civil servant status; rather, it concerns the plaintiff’s date of commencement of insurance coverage and, accordingly, whether the conditions for entitlement to an old-age pension have been met.”

Reasoning, § 21 · Official Gazette p. 464

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THE APPLICATION of the Kütahya 2nd Labor Court dated 07/04/2026, file no. E.2025/41, IS REJECTED,

Decided on 07/09/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 464

Core Holding (Rule)

Outside the university’s education and research functions, medical intervention at a private hospital, which is a separate private-law legal entity, is governed by private-law (consumer) rules. The Court therefore decided that the dispute is to be examined by the ordinary courts, by the Consumer Court.

Concrete Outcome

The pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage alleged to have arisen from the surgery at the private hospital will be examined by the ordinary courts. The ruling contains no finding on medical fault or on compensation.

Facts and Claim

A patient sought pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for surgery performed at a private hospital that has a cooperation protocol with a foundation university.

How the Dispute Arose

1. İstanbul 11th Consumer Court (25.09.2025, E.2025/54, K.2025/308). Holding that the administrative judiciary had jurisdiction, it dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
2. İstanbul 9th Administrative Court (01.04.2026, E.2026/431). Holding that the ordinary judiciary had jurisdiction, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes under Article 19 of Law No. 2247.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“Taking into account that the private hospital affiliated with the defendant foundation university, where the surgery giving rise to the medical malpractice claimed in the case was performed, is not attached to the defendant foundation university, does not have the status of a public legal entity, and is a private-law legal entity; that the cooperation protocol between it and the said foundation university does not, on its own, turn the health service at the private hospital into a ‘public service’; and that, under the legislation cited above, medical practices of the cooperation protocol’s signatory university other than its education and research functions must be assessed under private-law (consumer) rules, it has been concluded that the ordinary courts have jurisdiction to hear and resolve the dispute under private-law provisions.”

Reasoning, § 20 · Official Gazette pp. 467–468

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THE APPLICATION of the İstanbul 9th Administrative Court IS GRANTED, and the DECISION DECLINING JURISDICTION of the İstanbul 11th Consumer Court dated 25/09/2025, E.2025/54, K.2025/308, IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 15/06/2026, with the DISSENTING OPINION of Members Ahmet ARSLAN and Bilal ÇALIŞKAN, BY MAJORITY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 468

Core Holding (Rule)

The duration and registration of the intellectual property rights in the licenses is a preliminary issue and, under Article 76 of Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works and Article 156 of Law No. 6769 on Industrial Property, falls within the specialized courts of the ordinary judiciary.

Concrete Outcome

The second application of the Ankara 10th Civil Court of First Instance was rejected. The ordinary courts will examine the company’s claim of 150,000 TL.

Facts and Claim

A company that acquired music work operating licenses at a bankruptcy tender claimed 150,000 TL in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, alleging that the information given by the authority about the contract terms led to the partial termination of the tender.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Ankara 2nd Administrative Court (29.03.2013, E.2011/1005, K.2013/609) dismissed the case. The 10th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay) (16.07.2014, E.2014/2199) issued a reversal on jurisdiction. Ankara 2nd Administrative Court (27.11.2014, E.2014/1955, K.2014/1348) followed the reversal and declined jurisdiction.
2. Ankara 10th Civil Court of First Instance (18.09.2018, E.2015/167, K.2018/463) dismissed the case. Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, 25th Civil Chamber (28.02.2024, E.2022/2403, K.2024/518) set the decision aside and returned the file.
3. The Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (03.02.2025, E.2024/513, K.2025/127) rejected the first application of the Ankara 10th Civil Court of First Instance, dated 19.07.2024, E.2024/334, because no reasoned decision existed. The same civil court of first instance applied again on 17.07.2025 under E.2024/334.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“[…] it has been concluded that the courts within the ordinary judicial system are competent to resolve a case based on disputes arising from intellectual property rights and the registration processes relating to those rights.”

Reasoning, § 23 · Official Gazette p. 55

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THE APPLICATION of the Ankara 10th Civil Court of First Instance dated 17/07/2025, file no. E.2024/334, IS REJECTED,

Decided on 15/06/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 55

Core Holding (Rule)

A disciplinary decision issued by the managing joint-stock company under Law No. 4691 on Technology Development Zones, on the basis of its own internal directive, is a private-law act not based on public power. The Court therefore decided that the dispute is to be heard by the ordinary courts.

Concrete Outcome

The decision of the Kocaeli 1st Administrative Court finding jurisdiction over the company was set aside. The student’s claim against the company’s expulsion decision will be heard by the ordinary courts.

Facts and Claim

An intern student sued against permanent expulsion from an education community on the ground of plagiarism in a coding project. The decision was made by the disciplinary board of the joint-stock company that operates the community.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Kocaeli 1st Administrative Court (25.06.2025, E.2025/546) rejected the defendant company’s objection to jurisdiction. The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation raised a positive conflict of jurisdiction with respect to the company.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“[…] and the company’s disciplinary acts within its own structure and their consequences do not amount to the exercise of public power, and it has been concluded that the ordinary courts have jurisdiction to hear and resolve the dispute under private-law provisions.”

Reasoning, § 15 · Official Gazette p. 61

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THE APPLICATION of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation IS GRANTED, and the DECISION FINDING JURISDICTION of the Kocaeli 1st Administrative Court dated 25/06/2025, E.2025/546, rejecting the objection to jurisdiction raised by the counsel of the defendant

B. V. T. Y.

A., IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 09/03/2026, with the DISSENTING OPINIONS of Members Ahmet ARSLAN and Bilal ÇALIŞKAN, BY MAJORITY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 62

Core Holding (Rule)

Because the loss arises not from performance of a contract but from administrative service fault that led to the judicial annulment of the tender and the license, the matter is the subject of a full remedy action.

Concrete Outcome

The decision of the Ankara 16th Administrative Court declining jurisdiction was set aside. The administrative judiciary will assess the losses incurred because of the investment.

Facts and Claim

After the tender for a lake salt site was annulled by a court decision, the company’s license was canceled. The company claimed from the authority its investment expenses, lost profit, and non-pecuniary damage.

How the Dispute Arose

1. The 13th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay) (18.05.2015, E.2013/3058, K.2015/1894), reversing the dismissal decision of the Ankara 5th Administrative Court (10.04.2015, E.2015/597, K.2015/655), annulled the tender procedures. Ankara 10th Administrative Court annulled the positive EIA decision (28.11.2013, E.2012/1147, K.2013/1702) and the operating license based on it (E.2011/2652, K.2015/200). Ankara 16th Administrative Court (20.11.2017, E.2016/404, K.2017/3088) dismissed the compensation case on jurisdictional grounds.
2. Ankara 7th Civil Court of First Instance (11.04.2019, E.2018/183, K.2019/195) found the civil court of peace competent. Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, 4th Civil Chamber (27.12.2019, E.2019/2493, K.2019/2328) rejected the appeal.
3. Ankara 5th Civil Court of Peace (10.12.2021, E.2020/327, K.2021/3551) partly upheld the case. Ankara Regional Court of Appeal, 15th Civil Chamber (05.04.2023, E.2022/569, K.2023/1067) rejected the appeal. The Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber (15.05.2024, E.2023/3422, K.2024/1692) reversed on jurisdictional grounds. Ankara 21st Civil Court of Peace (01.11.2024, E.2024/1050, K.2024/310) found the ordinary judiciary not competent.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“[…] taking into account also the fact that the dispute does not arise from a disagreement concerning the tender and the contract signed after it, it has been concluded that it must be resolved by an administrative court as part of the full remedy actions listed in Article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b) of Law No. 2577.”

Reasoning, § 23 · Official Gazette p. 77

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THE DECISION DECLINING JURISDICTION issued by the Ankara 16th Administrative Court, dated 20/11/2017, E.2016/404, K.2017/3088, IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 09/03/2026, UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 77

Core Holding (Rule)

A dispute over termination and return of the bond that arises after the tender is completed and the contract is signed under Law No. 4735 on Public Procurement Contracts is governed by private law. The Court therefore decided that the dispute is to be examined by the ordinary courts, by the Commercial Court of First Instance.

Concrete Outcome

The decision of the Kahramanmaraş Commercial Court of First Instance declining jurisdiction was set aside. The ordinary courts will examine the contractor’s claim for a 586,800 TL performance bond plus interest.

Facts and Claim

A contractor that signed a contract for building the Ekinözü Indoor Sports Hall cited the earthquakes that occurred after site delivery as force majeure. After the contract was terminated, it sought return of the performance bond, which had been forfeited to the treasury, together with interest.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Kahramanmaraş Commercial Court of First Instance (08.04.2025, E.2025/72, K.2025/108) dismissed the case on the ground of inadmissibility of the legal route. Kahramanmaraş 4th Administrative Court (26.06.2025, E.2025/618, K.2025/2082) issued a counter decision declining jurisdiction. Gaziantep Regional Administrative Court, 2nd Administrative Chamber (17.10.2025, E.2025/1631, K.2025/2903) rejected the appeal as final.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“[…] it has been concluded that the claim in the case concerns the termination of the contract signed as a result of the tender, and that the ordinary judiciary is competent to hear and resolve a dispute that arose after the tender stage was completed and the contract was signed between the parties, and that is not based on facts and events preceding the signing of the contract.”

Reasoning, § 24 · Official Gazette p. 133

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THE DECISION DECLINING JURISDICTION of the Kahramanmaraş Commercial Court of First Instance dated 08/04/2025, E.2025/72, K.2025/108, IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 12/01/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 133

Core Holding (Rule)

Under Law No. 7147 on the Development and Investment Bank of Türkiye Joint-Stock Company, the sale of its own real estate by a bank subject to private-law provisions is a normal banking activity and is governed by private law. The Court therefore decided that the dispute is to be heard by the ordinary courts.

Concrete Outcome

The interim decision rejecting the bank’s objection was set aside. The ordinary courts will examine the bidder’s allegation that the tender conditions were violated.

Facts and Claim

A bidder alleged that the auction order and the specification were not followed in the sale tender the bank held for its real estate in Ferizli.

How the Dispute Arose

1. İstanbul 8th Administrative Court, 23/10/2025, E.2025/1876. It rejected the bank’s objection to jurisdiction and continued to hear the case. At the bank’s request, the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation raised a positive conflict of jurisdiction in favor of the ordinary judiciary.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“taking into account that an act of this kind is a normal banking activity, it is understood that the action was brought seeking annulment of a real estate sale tender carried out by a bank subject to private-law provisions on the basis of private-law provisions.”

Reasoning, § 19 · Official Gazette p. 180

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THE APPLICATION of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation IS GRANTED, and the DECISION of the İstanbul 8th Administrative Court dated 23/10/2025, E.2025/1876, rejecting the defendant’s objection to jurisdiction, IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 09/03/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 180

Core Holding (Rule)

Under the special procedure in Article 16, paragraphs 3-4 of Decree Law No. 675, rejection of an application to the governorate within the liquidation of the closed institution is examined by the administrative judiciary.

Concrete Outcome

The decision of the Gaziantep 4th Administrative Court declining jurisdiction was set aside. The administrative judiciary will examine the rejection of the request for payment of the share price with statutory interest.

Facts and Claim

A shareholder of the medical center sought the value of the shareholder’s stake with interest after the center was closed. The governorate rejected the request.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Gaziantep 4th Administrative Court, 28/09/2023, E.2023/328, K.2023/143. Holding that the ordinary judiciary had jurisdiction, it dismissed the case. Gaziantep Regional Administrative Court, 4th Administrative Chamber, 30/01/2024, E.2024/20, K.2024/34. It rejected the appeal.
2. Gaziantep 2nd Commercial Court of First Instance, 01/04/2024, E.2024/242, K.2024/295. It sent the file to the civil court of first instance. Gaziantep 14th Civil Court of First Instance, 27/11/2024, E.2024/199, K.2024/483. It dismissed the case for lack of a procedural prerequisite.
3. Gaziantep Regional Court of Appeal, 13th Civil Chamber, 15/05/2025, K.2025/1724 (the file number is not given in the published text). It granted the appeal and set the decision aside. Gaziantep 14th Civil Court of First Instance, 08/10/2025, E.2025/247, K.2025/448. Holding that the administrative judiciary was competent, it dismissed the case on procedural grounds and sent the files on its own motion.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“Assessed within the scope of paragraphs (3) and (4) of Article 16 of Decree Law No. 675, it has been concluded that the duty to hear the case lies with the administrative court.”

Reasoning, § 22 · Official Gazette p. 236

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THE APPLICATION made by the Gaziantep 14th Civil Court of First Instance IS GRANTED, and the DECISION DECLINING JURISDICTION of the Gaziantep 4th Administrative Court dated 28/09/2023, E.2023/328, K.2023/143, IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 13/04/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 236

Core Holding (Rule)

Auction tender acts carried out by the public legal entity TMSF through unilateral declaration of intent, exercising public power under Articles 19-20 of Law No. 6758, are administrative in nature. The Court therefore decided that the dispute is to be examined by the administrative judiciary, by the Administrative Court.

Concrete Outcome

The İstanbul 8th Administrative Court’s lack of jurisdiction was lifted. The lawfulness of the Fund Board’s auction acts can be examined by the administrative judiciary. No ruling was made on annulment of the sale.

Facts and Claim

The company’s partners challenged TMSF’s auction acts for assets allocated to a commercial and economic unit.

How the Dispute Arose

1. İstanbul 8th Administrative Court (27.04.2022, E.2021/2504, K.2022/839). It decided to dismiss the case.
2. 13th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay) (14.02.2023, E.2022/2747, K.2023/554). Holding that the ordinary judiciary had jurisdiction, it reversed the first-instance judgment.
3. İstanbul 8th Administrative Court (17.05.2023, E.2023/1156, K.2023/1177). Holding that the ordinary judiciary had jurisdiction, it dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds.
4. İstanbul Regional Administrative Court, 10th Administrative Chamber (26.10.2023, E.2023/1703, K.2023/1684). It rejected the appeal on the merits.
5. 13th Chamber of the Council of State (28.12.2023, E.2023/3734, K.2023/6408). On appeal review, it upheld the decision.
6. İzmir 2nd Commercial Court of First Instance (17.07.2024, E.2024/358, K.2024/704). Holding that the administrative judiciary had jurisdiction, it dismissed the case on procedural grounds.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“Accordingly, since the sale of the assets allocated to the Economic Entity was decided by the TMSF Board, which has public legal personality under Article 111 of Law No. 5411 and administrative and financial autonomy, by unilateral declaration of intent, exercising public power in performance of the duties given to it by Articles 19 and 20 of Law No. 6758, there is no doubt that the contested decision, which concerns the annulment of the tender acts relating to the auction procedure held on 15/12/2021, is administrative in nature.”

Reasoning, § 18 · Official Gazette p. 403

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THE DECISION DECLINING JURISDICTION of the İstanbul 8th Administrative Court dated 17/05/2023, E.2023/1156, K.2023/1177, IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 04/05/2026, UNANIMOUSLY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 403

Core Holding (Rule)

Because there is no concession or administrative contract between the private-law legal entity AKEDAŞ and the plaintiff, the ordinary courts hear the part directed against the company.

Concrete Outcome

The decision set aside is only the Ankara 4th Administrative Court’s decision rejecting AKEDAŞ’s objection to jurisdiction. The claim against the company belongs to the ordinary courts.

Facts and Claim

A company sued for cancellation of connection agreement call letters relating to solar energy projects and against the regulatory board decision underlying them. AKEDAŞ raised the objection to jurisdiction.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Ankara 4th Administrative Court, 18/06/2025, E.2024/1227, K.2025/1090. Finding the acts lawful, it dismissed the case. Ankara Regional Administrative Court, 8th Administrative Chamber, 30/10/2025, E.2025/1375, K.2025/1389. Because the first-instance court addressed the merits without ruling on the objection to jurisdiction, it set the first-instance decision aside.
2. Ankara 4th Administrative Court, 28/11/2025, E.2025/1737. It rejected the distribution company’s objection to jurisdiction. The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation raised a positive conflict of jurisdiction with respect to the company.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“since a concession or an administrative contract cannot be concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant company, it has been concluded that, with respect to this defendant, the ordinary courts have jurisdiction to hear and resolve the dispute under private-law provisions.”

Reasoning, § 29 · Official Gazette p. 296

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THE APPLICATION of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation IS GRANTED, and the DECISION FINDING JURISDICTION of the Ankara 4th Administrative Court dated 28/11/2025, E.2025/1737, rejecting the objection to jurisdiction raised by the counsel of AKEDAŞ Elektrik Dağıtım A.Ş, IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 04/05/2026, with the DISSENTING OPINION of Member Ahmet ARSLAN, BY MAJORITY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 297

Core Holding (Rule)

A request to remove an installation directed at Yeşilırmak Elektrik Dağıtım A.Ş., which was a private-law legal entity on the date of the action, is heard by the ordinary courts under private-law provisions.

Concrete Outcome

The decision of the Çorum Administrative Court dated 17/12/2025 finding jurisdiction was set aside only as to YEDAŞ. No ruling was made on dismantling the electrical installations or on annulling the municipality’s act.

Facts and Claim

Shop owners sued against the rejection of their request to remove the electrical installations placed in front of their shop, and against the relevant part of the project.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Çorum Administrative Court, 14/07/2023, E.2023/398, K.2023/589 and 28/08/2023, E.2023/680, K.2023/638. It rejected the petitions for clarification of the acts sought to be annulled and of the part of the plan.
2. Çorum Administrative Court, 30/04/2024, E.2023/799. It rejected the first objection to jurisdiction. Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation, 11/09/2024, UY-2024/78436. Finding that the objection was not raised in time, it did not raise a conflict.
3. Çorum Administrative Court, 13/02/2025, E.2023/799, K.2025/120. It rejected the petition for clarification of whether the municipality’s acts were also the subject of the action. On 23/05/2025 and 17/12/2025, E.2025/294, it rejected the objections to jurisdiction in the renewed action. This time the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation raised a positive conflict of jurisdiction with respect to YEDAŞ.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“since it is impossible to speak of an administrative action brought within the scope of administrative jurisdiction as to this defendant, the part of the dispute concerning the defendant Yeşilırmak Elektrik Dağıtım A.Ş. must be heard and resolved by the ordinary courts under private-law provisions”

Reasoning, § 28 · Official Gazette p. 323

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THE APPLICATION of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation IS GRANTED, and the DECISION FINDING JURISDICTION issued by the Çorum Administrative Court, dated 17/12/2025, E.2025/294, with respect to the defendant Yeşilırmak Elektrik Dağıtım Anonim Şirketi, IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 04/05/2026, with the DISSENTING OPINION of Member Ahmet ARSLAN, BY MAJORITY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 324

Core Holding (Rule)

VAT on a contribution fee collected by EPİAŞ under a private-law contract signed after a competitive tender is a contractual dispute and belongs to the ordinary courts.

Concrete Outcome

The contractual claim for refund, with interest, from EPİAŞ of VAT paid under reservation of rights will be examined by the ordinary courts. The ruling does not order a VAT refund.

Facts and Claim

A company sought a refund, with interest, of the VAT it paid to EPİAŞ under reservation of rights on the contribution fee in the YEKA RES-2024 contract.

How the Dispute Arose

1. İstanbul 13th Commercial Court of First Instance (23.10.2025, E.2025/286, K.2025/710). It dismissed the case on procedural grounds, finding the legal route inadmissible.
2. İstanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 13th Civil Chamber (18.09.2025, E.2025/1498, K.2025/1442). It rejected the appeal on the merits.
3. İstanbul 6th Administrative Court (12.02.2026, E.2026/253, K.2026/280). Holding that the tax court had jurisdiction, it sent the file on.
4. İstanbul 7th Tax Court (05.03.2026, E.2026/333, K.2026/1340). It found the generally competent administrative court to have jurisdiction and requested designation of the competent authority.
5. İstanbul Regional Administrative Court, 1st Administrative Chamber (11.03.2026, E.2026/713, K.2026/689). Making the tax court competent, it set aside that court’s decision declining jurisdiction.
6. İstanbul 7th Tax Court (07.04.2026, E.2026/533). Holding that the ordinary judiciary had jurisdiction, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes under Article 19 of Law No. 2247.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“It is seen that the dispute does not relate to the competitive tender process preceding the agreement, but arises from the application of VAT, after the agreement was made between the parties to the contract, by the defendant authorized to collect it, to the RES contribution fee, which is of the nature of a private-law contract and was accrued within the framework of the contract provisions.”

Reasoning, § 31 · Official Gazette p. 439

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. THE APPLICATION of the İstanbul 7th Tax Court IS GRANTED, and the DECISION DECLINING JURISDICTION of the İstanbul 13th Commercial Court of First Instance dated 23/10/2025, E.2025/286, K.2025/710, IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 04/05/2026, with the DISSENTING OPINIONS of Members Ahmet ARSLAN and Bilal ÇALIŞKAN, BY MAJORITY AND FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 439

Core Holding (Rule)

Water charges collected under the general provisions after a subscription was established ex officio pursuant to Article 44 of the Regulation rest on a private-law subscription relationship, even where the parties are public bodies. The Court therefore decided that the dispute is to be examined by the ordinary courts, before the Consumer Court.

Concrete Outcome

The decision of lack of jurisdiction issued by the Nazilli 4th Civil Court of First Instance, sitting as a consumer court, was set aside. The claims concerning the basis and amount of the water charges underlying the six assessments will be examined by the ordinary courts.

Facts and Claim

The unauthorized water charges that the Aydın Water and Sewerage Administration issued against another municipality were challenged in court. Some of the assessments related to use without a subscription.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Aydın 1st Administrative Court, 09/12/2025, E.2025/1038, K.2025/1195. Treating the assessment no. 146982 of 26,380.87 TL as falling within a subscription relationship, it dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
2. The Aydın 2nd Administrative Court issued dismissals for lack of jurisdiction on the same grounds in five files. 21/10/2025, E.2025/1117, K.2025/1023 (no. 146985, 699,179.27 TL). 28/10/2025, E.2025/1118, K.2025/1073 (no. 146987, 1,702,774.20 TL). 28/10/2025, E.2025/1119, K.2025/1075 (no. 146980, 362,799.29 TL). 23/10/2025, E.2025/1120, K.2025/1038 (no. 146986, 1,144,814.49 TL). 23/10/2025, E.2025/1121, K.2025/1032 (no. 146984, 933,540.82 TL).
3. Nazilli 4th Civil Court of First Instance (sitting as a Consumer Court), 06/02/2026, E.2026/24, K.2026/17. It dismissed the case on procedural grounds, holding that the administrative courts have jurisdiction.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“it has been concluded that, after the subscription was established ex officio pursuant to Article 44 of the relevant Regulation, the assessment was made and a subscription relationship was also established between the parties; that, accordingly, the exercise of unilateral public authority cannot be spoken of in this assessment and collection; and that the dispute relating to all of this must be resolved before an ordinary court under the provisions of private law.”

Reasoning, § 30 · Official Gazette p. 337

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ORDINARY COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. THE DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION issued by the Nazilli 4th Civil (Consumer) Court of First Instance, dated 06/02/2026, E.2026/24, K.2026/17, IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 15/06/2026, over the DISSENTING OPINIONS of Members Ahmet ARSLAN and Bilal ÇALIŞKAN, by MAJORITY VOTE and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 337

Core Holding (Rule)

The household solid waste charge is not a tax, duty or fee but a private-law debtor-creditor relationship based on a cost-plus-profit tariff paid in return for a service. The Court therefore decided that the dispute is to be examined by the ordinary courts, before the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği).

Concrete Outcome

The decision of lack of jurisdiction was set aside only with respect to the household solid waste charge of 434,561.04 TL. The existence of the debt and the claim of double collection may be examined by the ordinary courts.

Facts and Claim

A company operating seven cinema screens objected to the household solid waste fee notified by the municipality. The Court’s ruling concerned the 434,561.04 TL portion of the decision of lack of jurisdiction.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Eskişehir 2nd criminal judgeship of peace (15.09.2025, D.İş 2025/3437). Treating the assessment as an administrative act, it dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.
2. Eskişehir 1st Tax Court (20.11.2025, E.2025/909, K.2025/702). It rejected the petition because separate cases had to be filed for the household waste charge and the VAT.
3. Eskişehir 1st Administrative Court (08.01.2026, E.2025/1645, K.2026/11). It referred the renewed petition to the tax court that had issued the first dismissal.
4. Eskişehir 1st Tax Court (29.01.2026, E.2026/42, K.2026/26). It did not regard the charge as a tax or similar financial obligation and held the administrative court competent.
5. Eskişehir 1st Administrative Court (25.02.2026, E.2026/143). Finding the ordinary courts competent, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes under Article 19 of Law no. 2247.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“Taking into account the statutory provisions set out above and the relevant court decisions, and considering together that the act concerning payment of the household solid waste charge was established by the respondent municipality and that, as also explained in the decisions of the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes dated 16/06/2003, E.2002/57, K.2003/34 and dated 02/04/2007, E.2004/127, K.2007/31 resolving conflicts of judgment, this act does not have the nature of a tax, duty, fee or similar financial obligation, it is understood that the charge in question is a fee collected within a private-law relationship, in return for a service, on the basis of a tariff set by the administration on a cost-plus-profit basis; therefore the case concerning collection of the household solid waste charge, which falls within a debtor-creditor relationship, must be heard and resolved before an ordinary court.”

Reasoning, § 27 · Official Gazette p. 351

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ORDINARY COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. THE APPLICATION of the Eskişehir 1st Administrative Court IS ACCEPTED, and THE DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION issued by the Eskişehir 2nd criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği), dated 15/09/2025, D.İş.No:2025/3437, IS SET ASIDE “with respect to the portion concerning the household solid waste charge of 434,561.04 TL”,

Decided on 15/06/2026, UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 351–352

Core Holding (Rule)

The non-performance of an interim order to place money deposited at the court cashier in a pre-emption case on an interest-bearing term account is not an administrative service fault but an act tied to the conduct of judicial proceedings. Cases on State liability arising from judicial acts are heard in the ordinary judiciary to which the court that performed the act belongs.

Concrete Outcome

The application of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation concerning a positive conflict of jurisdiction was accepted, and the jurisdiction decision of the Antalya 5th Administrative Court was set aside. The compensation case for lost interest will be heard by the ordinary courts.

Facts and Claim

In a pre-emption case, it was decided that 425,726 TL deposited at the court cashier would be placed in an interest-bearing account. Alleging that the money earned no interest because no letter to this effect was sent to the bank, the claimant sought compensation.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Antalya 7th Civil Court of First Instance (29.05.2014, E.2013/205) ordered the pre-emption price to be placed on a term account. After the reversals by the 14th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (E.2014/14242, K.2015/9866 and E.2016/11825, K.2017/2698), the final judgment in the case (Antalya 7th Civil Court of First Instance, E.2018/290, K.2018/319) became final on 21.03.2019.
2. Ankara 15th Administrative Court (06.07.2020, E.2020/815, K.2020/859) dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the case filed over the failure to earn interest. The 10th Administrative Chamber of the Ankara Regional Administrative Court (16.11.2020, E.2020/2445, K.2020/2391) rejected the appeal. The 10th Chamber of the Council of State (20.11.2024, E.2021/1623, K.2024/5126) reversed the decision.
3. The 10th Administrative Chamber of the Ankara Regional Administrative Court (11.03.2025, E.2025/3322, K.2025/2799) complied with the reversal and returned the file. Ankara 15th Administrative Court (30.04.2025, E.2025/646, K.2025/632) issued a decision of lack of competence. When the Antalya 5th Administrative Court (30.09.2025, E.2025/658) rejected the objection to jurisdiction, the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation raised a positive conflict of jurisdiction.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“[…] in holding the State liable for acts or activities contributing to the judicial process as well, the review of this liability must be carried out within the same judicial order, and an act of a judicial nature must not be left outside the scope of review by the ordinary courts.”

Reasoning, § 26 · Official Gazette p. 92

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ORDINARY COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. THE APPLICATION of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation IS ACCEPTED, and THE JURISDICTION DECISION of the Antalya 5th Administrative Court dated 30/09/2025, E.2025/658, IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 12/01/2026, over the DISSENTING OPINIONS of Members Ahmet ARSLAN, Mahmut BALLI and Bilal ÇALIŞKAN, by MAJORITY VOTE and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 93

Core Holding (Rule)

A claim for non-pecuniary damages for ill-treatment by law enforcement personnel and incomplete recording of a complaint is a full remedy action based on service fault.

Concrete Outcome

The application of the Mersin 2nd Administrative Court was rejected. The administrative courts will assess the link between the non-pecuniary harm and the law enforcement service, as well as the conditions for compensation.

Facts and Claim

The claimant alleged that his complaint was not recorded correctly, that no action was taken on his requests, and that he was ill-treated in police custody, and sought non-pecuniary damages from the administration.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Mersin 9th Civil Court of First Instance (09.04.2025, E.2025/15, K.2025/96) dismissed the case on the ground of the avenue of recourse. Mersin 2nd Administrative Court (12.11.2025, E.2025/1326), relying on the judicial function of law enforcement, held the ordinary courts competent and applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“Accordingly, the case filed by the claimant seeking compensation for the non-pecuniary harm he alleges he suffered because he was subjected to ill-treatment during a criminal investigation must be resolved by an administrative judicial authority on the basis of service fault.”

Reasoning, § 26 · Official Gazette p. 123

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. THE APPLICATION of the Mersin 2nd Administrative Court dated 12/11/2025, E.2025/1326, IS REJECTED,

Decided on 12/01/2026, UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 123

Core Holding (Rule)

Because the investigative activities of the prosecutor and the judicial police are judicial in nature, the ordinary courts hear claims for compensation arising from the conduct of those activities.

Concrete Outcome

The administrative court’s jurisdiction decision was set aside with respect to the claim for non-pecuniary damages. The Court of Jurisdictional Disputes expressly stated that the authority to designate the court within the ordinary judiciary belongs to the relevant judicial order.

Facts and Claim

The claimant alleged that his reports on fuel and tax smuggling were not properly investigated and that his freedom to seek legal remedies was restricted, and sought non-pecuniary damages.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Ankara 20th Administrative Court (15.10.2024, E.2024/1528, K.2024/1557). It rejected the petition because the basis of the compensation claim was unclear.
2. Ankara 20th Administrative Court (26.12.2024, E.2024/1870, K.2024/2051). It rejected the renewed petition because the basis of the compensation claim was not explained.
3. Ankara 20th Administrative Court (25.11.2025, E.2025/254). It rejected the objection to jurisdiction raised before the administrative courts.
4. The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation raised a positive conflict of jurisdiction in favor of the ordinary courts. The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Council of State expressed the opinion that the application should be accepted.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“When the file and the relevant legislation are examined and assessed as a whole, it has been concluded that the hearing and resolution of the case filed in respect of the concrete incident belong to the ordinary courts, but that the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes has no authority to decide which judicial authority within the ordinary judiciary is competent to hear these cases, and that this determination must be made within the relevant branch of the judiciary itself.”

Reasoning, § 24 · Official Gazette p. 460

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above:

A. THE ORDINARY COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. THE APPLICATION of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation IS ACCEPTED, and THE JURISDICTION DECISION of the Ankara 20th Administrative Court dated 25/11/2025, E.2025/254, IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 15/06/2026 UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 460

Core Holding (Rule)

Criminal investigation, prosecution and electronic records are judicial activities, and claims for damage arising from them fall within the ordinary courts under Articles 141-142 of the Criminal Procedure Code no. 5271.

Concrete Outcome

The administrative court’s jurisdiction decision was set aside. Compensation for damage caused by proceedings that ended in acquittal may be sought before the ordinary courts.

Facts and Claim

A retired officer stated that he could not obtain a seafarer’s certificate because of a record relating to a criminal file that ended in acquittal, and sought redress of the damage.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Ankara 20th High Criminal Court (09.05.2023, E.2022/119, K.2023/73). In the criminal case underlying the compensation claim, it acquitted the defendant.
2. Ankara 24th Administrative Court (10.02.2026, E.2025/1343). It rejected the objection to jurisdiction raised before the administrative courts.
3. The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation raised a positive conflict of jurisdiction in favor of the ordinary courts. The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Council of State expressed the opinion that the application should be accepted.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In holding the State liable for acts or activities contributing to the judicial process as well, the review of this liability must be carried out within the same judicial order, and an act of a judicial nature must not be left outside the scope of review by the ordinary courts.”

Reasoning, § 23 · Official Gazette p. 472

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ORDINARY COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. THE APPLICATION of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation IS ACCEPTED, and THE JURISDICTION DECISION of the Ankara 24th Administrative Court dated 10/02/2026, E.2025/1343, IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 15/06/2026, UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 472

Core Holding (Rule)

Compensation sought by a convict acquitted of the offense of escape, for a disciplinary penalty and a prolonged sentence enforcement, arises from a judicial activity (Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code no. 5271). The Court therefore decided that the dispute is to be heard by the ordinary courts.

Concrete Outcome

The decision of lack of jurisdiction of the Bolu 2nd High Criminal Court was set aside. The claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, each of 200,000 TL, will be examined by the ordinary courts. The allocation of jurisdiction within this branch of the judiciary and the merits of the compensation were left to the judgment to be rendered.

Facts and Claim

A convict who did not return from Covid-19 leave sought pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for solitary confinement and additional time served in prison after being acquitted of the offense of escape.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Bolu 1st High Criminal Court (E.2019/255, K.2020/40) sentenced him to 19 years’ imprisonment. Ankara West 6th Criminal Court of First Instance (05.12.2023, E.2023/982, K.2023/945) acquitted the convict in the escape case brought over his failure to return from leave.
2. Bolu Administrative Court (20.03.2025, E.2025/448, K.2025/416) found Ankara competent. Ankara 10th Administrative Court (30.04.2025, E.2025/640, K.2025/860) issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction. Bolu 2nd High Criminal Court (10.06.2025, E.2025/398, K.2025/293), holding the administrative courts competent, issued a counter decision of lack of jurisdiction.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“Treating this act, and the consequence said to have arisen from it, as an administrative act would mean the review of an act belonging to one branch of the judiciary by another branch, and the source of the damage lies not in a service fault of the administration but in the conduct of a judicial activity.”

Reasoning, § 23 · Official Gazette p. 109

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ORDINARY COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. THE DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION issued by the Bolu 2nd High Criminal Court dated 10/06/2025, E.2025/398, K.2025/293, IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 12/01/2026, UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 109

Core Holding (Rule)

The allegation that a convict’s care, supervision and treatment were not provided is a full remedy action based on service fault within the scope of Article 2/1-b of the Administrative Procedure Law no. 2577.

Concrete Outcome

The application of the Ordu 2nd Civil Court of First Instance was accepted and the decision of lack of jurisdiction of the Ordu Administrative Court was set aside. The administrative courts will decide whether there is a link between the death and the service fault, and on compensation.

Facts and Claim

The claimant, whose relative died in prison, alleged that the convict who fell ill was not given care and treatment, and sought compensation from the administration.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Ordu 2nd Administrative Court (02.06.2022, E.2020/133, K.2022/508) partially accepted the case. The 3rd Administrative Chamber of the Samsun Regional Administrative Court (13.03.2024, E.2022/1379, K.2024/386) set the decision aside for re-examination as to jurisdiction.
2. Ordu Administrative Court (03.10.2024, E.2024/469, K.2024/1371) issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction. The 3rd Administrative Chamber of the Samsun Regional Administrative Court (02.01.2025, E.2024/1638, K.2025/2) rejected the claimant’s appeal after correcting it and accepted the administration’s appeal concerning the attorney fee.
3. Ordu 2nd Civil Court of First Instance (04.09.2025, E.2025/36, K.2025/255) dismissed the case on procedural grounds because of the avenue of recourse and decided to send the file to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“[…] if culpable conduct has occurred, whether this fault is a service fault or a personal fault separable from the service must be resolved by an administrative judicial authority under the principles of administrative law.”

Reasoning, § 35 · Official Gazette p. 128

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. THE APPLICATION of the Ordu 2nd Civil Court of First Instance IS ACCEPTED, and THE DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION issued by the Ordu Administrative Court dated 03/10/2024, E.2024/469, K.2024/1371, IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 12/01/2026, UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 129

Core Holding (Rule)

The special leave granted under Article 95 of the Law on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures no. 5275 is an administrative act separable from the prosecutor’s judicial activity; fault in the leave and in protection is examined by the administrative courts.

Concrete Outcome

The application of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation was rejected. The jurisdiction decision of the Izmir 5th Administrative Court stands. The administrative courts will assess the link between the death and any service fault in the leave and supervision on the part of the Ministry of Justice.

Facts and Claim

After a convict on leave killed two people, their relatives alleged that protective measures were not taken and that the prison leave was granted irregularly, and sought compensation from the administrations.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Izmir 5th Administrative Court (13.11.2020, E.2020/1397, K.2020/1186) dismissed the case as time-barred. The 6th Administrative Chamber of the Izmir Regional Administrative Court (08.07.2021, E.2021/480, K.2021/1164) rejected the appeal. The 10th Chamber of the Council of State (05.12.2024, E.2021/5619, K.2024/5891) reversed the decision.
2. The 6th Administrative Chamber of the Izmir Regional Administrative Court (06.05.2025, E.2025/1005, K.2025/1145) complied with the reversal and set aside the first-instance decision. Izmir 5th Administrative Court (23.10.2025, E.2025/874) rejected the Ministry of Justice’s objection to jurisdiction. The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation raised a positive conflict of jurisdiction.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“It has been concluded that the present case, filed to obtain compensation for damage alleged to have arisen from the leave-granting act, which is an administrative act separable from the judicial activities of the Public Prosecutor, and from other facts based on service fault, must be examined by an administrative judicial authority under the principles of administrative law.”

Reasoning, § 29 · Official Gazette p. 154

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. THE APPLICATION of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation IS REJECTED,

Decided on 16/02/2026, UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 155

Core Holding (Rule)

Unlike the enforcement judgeship’s power to hear complaints, compensation sought from the administration for a lost parcel is a full remedy action based on service fault.

Concrete Outcome

The decision of lack of jurisdiction of the Kayseri 1st Administrative Court was set aside. Whether the parcel was lost, to whom it was delivered, and the conditions for compensating the damage claimed by the convict will be examined by the administrative courts.

Facts and Claim

The convict stated that a parcel sent by his family was lost through the fault of institution staff and was not delivered to him, and sought pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages from the administration.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Kayseri 1st Administrative Court, 21/11/2025, E.2025/309, K.2025/2287. It dismissed the case, holding that the enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği) has jurisdiction.
2. Kayseri 2nd enforcement judgeship, 26/01/2026, E.2026/395, K.2026/1029. It issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the compensation claim must be assessed by the administrative courts.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“it has been concluded that whether this fault is a service fault or a personal fault separable from the service must be resolved by an administrative judicial authority under the principles of administrative law.”

Reasoning, § 29 · Official Gazette p. 265

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. THE DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION issued by the Kayseri 1st Administrative Court dated 21/11/2025, E.2025/309, K.2025/2287, IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 09/03/2026, UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 265

Core Holding (Rule)

The allegation that the duty of care for a convict’s health and safety was breached is heard by the administrative courts under Article 125 of the Constitution and Article 2/1-b of the Administrative Procedure Law no. 2577.

Concrete Outcome

The dismissal for lack of jurisdiction by the Antalya 1st Administrative Court was set aside. The compensation claim of the mother and siblings may be re-examined by the administrative courts. The earlier partial acceptance decisions were set aside on appeal.

Facts and Claim

After the death of a convict who suffered a heart attack while in a closed penal institution, his mother and siblings sought pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages from the administration.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Antalya 1st Administrative Court, 31/03/2021, E.2020/116, K.2021/318. It rejected the annulment claim without examination and partially accepted the compensation claim. 4th Administrative Chamber of the Konya Regional Administrative Court, 17/05/2022, E.2021/1336, K.2022/899. It set the decision aside.
2. Antalya 1st Administrative Court, 06/07/2022, E.2022/864, K.2022/937. This time it issued a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 4th Administrative Chamber of the Konya Regional Administrative Court, 08/09/2022, E.2022/1587, K.2022/1348. It rejected the appeal.
3. Alanya 6th Civil Court of First Instance, 20/06/2025, E.2022/390, K.2025/181. It partially accepted the case. 13th Civil Chamber of the Antalya Regional Court of Appeal, 23/12/2025, E.2025/713, K.2015/1195. It set the decision aside without examining the merits and required an application on the jurisdictional dispute. Alanya 6th Civil Court of First Instance, 29/01/2026, E.2026/1. It applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“Under Article 125 of the Constitution, which provides that the administration is obliged to pay for damage arising from its own acts and actions, the administration must compensate, on the basis of service fault, damage caused by the conduct of its personnel while performing the administrative function.”

Reasoning, § 28 · Official Gazette p. 314

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. THE APPLICATION of the Alanya 6th Civil Court of First Instance IS ACCEPTED, and THE DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION issued by the Antalya 1st Administrative Court dated 06/07/2022, E.2022/864, K.2022/937, IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 04/05/2026 UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 314

Core Holding (Rule)

Whether the injury of a convict working in a penal institution bakery qualifies as a work accident, the occupational health and safety obligations, and the fault of the parties are assessed under the Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law no. 5510 and the Labor Law no. 4857. The dispute is therefore heard by the ordinary courts, before the Labor Court.

Concrete Outcome

The labor court’s lack of jurisdiction was set aside. Whether the injury qualifies as a work accident, fault, and the damage to be compensated were left to the merits review in the ordinary courts.

Facts and Claim

A convict working in the bakery of an open prison sought pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages after three fingers of his right hand were caught in a machine.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Bolu Labor Court (01.09.2025, E.2025/408, K.2025/381). Holding the administrative courts competent, it dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
2. Ankara 15th Administrative Court (11.11.2025, E.2025/1687, K.2025/1746). Holding the ordinary courts competent, it dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“Accordingly, since in the dispute at issue the claimant seeks compensation for bodily harm he alleges he suffered in a work accident while working as a convict in the bakery of an open prison institution under the respondent administration, the court must first determine, taken together, whether the incident was a work accident, the fault of the employer and the worker, and the effect of the rights and obligations that the legislation places on the parties on the occurrence of the incident, and since these matters are to be determined within the scope of Laws no. 5510 and 4857, it has been concluded that the ordinary courts have jurisdiction to hear and resolve the dispute under the provisions of private law.”

Reasoning, § 21 · Official Gazette p. 481

Full Operative Part

For the reasons set out above;

A. THE ORDINARY COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION to resolve the case,

B. THE DECISION OF LACK OF JURISDICTION issued by the Bolu Labor Court dated 01/09/2025, E.2025/408, K.2025/381, IS SET ASIDE,

Decided on 15/06/2026, UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 481

Core Holding (Rule)

Because the claim concerns not liability for a traffic accident (Law No. 2918 on Highway Traffic, Art. 110) but the administration’s authority to keep and register entries in the Motor Vehicles Registry, it falls within Article 2 of Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure. The dispute was therefore assigned to the administrative judiciary, to be examined by the Administrative Court.

Concrete Outcome

The application of the Ankara 9th Administrative Court was rejected. The administrative courts will examine whether the traffic record should be deleted. The ruling did not itself delete the record.

Facts and Claim

The plaintiff stated that a vehicle brought in under a customs permit and later confiscated had not been in his possession for years, yet taxes and penalties were still being assessed in his name, and asked for the entry in the traffic registry to be deleted.

How the Dispute Arose

1. In file E.2003/179, K.2007/35 of the Ankara 1st High Criminal Court, a confiscation order was issued for the vehicle.
2. The Ankara 9th Civil Court of First Instance (10.12.2024, E.2024/315, K.2024/600) dismissed the deletion action on procedural grounds for lack of jurisdiction. The Ankara 9th Administrative Court (28.05.2025, E.2025/752) held the ordinary courts competent and applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes under Article 19 of Law No. 2247.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“The subject of the dispute is the correction of the registration entry of the vehicle registered in the plaintiff’s name; since that act falls within the administration’s remit under its registration authority concerning the Motor Vehicles Registry, it has been concluded that the administrative courts are competent to hear and resolve the dispute.”

Reasoning, § 24 · Official Gazette p. 44

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. The APPLICATION of the Ankara 9th Administrative Court dated 28/05/2025, E.2025/752, is REJECTED,

It was decided on 13/04/2026, UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 44

Core Holding (Rule)

A request to correct or delete a traffic registration entry falls within the administration’s authority to keep the registry and, under Article 2 of Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure, is examined by the administrative courts.

Concrete Outcome

The application of the Konya 3rd Administrative Court was rejected. The deletion of the record appearing in the plaintiff’s name will be examined by the administrative courts. The ruling did not transfer ownership of the vehicle.

Facts and Claim

The plaintiff stated that he had learned that a vehicle actually used by his former spouse had been transferred to a third party without his consent, and asked for the traffic record appearing in his name to be deleted.

How the Dispute Arose

1. The Karaman 3rd Civil Court of First Instance (11.09.2025, E.2025/367, K.2025/341) dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Konya 3rd Administrative Court (05.12.2025, E.2025/1774) held the ordinary courts competent and applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“The subject of the dispute is the correction of the registration entry of the vehicle registered in the plaintiff’s name; since that act falls within the administration’s remit under its registration authority concerning the Motor Vehicles Registry, it has been concluded that the administrative courts are competent to hear and resolve the dispute.”

Reasoning, § 21 · Official Gazette p. 167

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. The APPLICATION of the Konya 3rd Administrative Court dated 05/12/2025, E.2025/1774, is REJECTED,

It was decided on 16/02/2026, UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 168

Core Holding (Rule)

That the vehicle is publicly owned and the injured person is a police officer does not change the fact that a liability action against the operator under Articles 85, 106 and 110 of Law No. 2918 on Highway Traffic is heard by the ordinary courts.

Concrete Outcome

The application of the Malatya 3rd Administrative Court was granted. The lack-of-jurisdiction decision of the Ankara 41st Civil Court of First Instance was set aside. The officer’s claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages will be examined by the ordinary courts.

Facts and Claim

A police officer on duty for rally security was injured when a Police Directorate vehicle carrying other officers struck him. He sought pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages from the administration.

How the Dispute Arose

1. The Ankara 41st Civil Court of First Instance (30.09.2022, E.2021/649, K.2022/333) dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Ankara Regional Court of Appeal 26th Civil Chamber (05.05.2023, E.2023/462, K.2023/319) rejected the appeal. The 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (06.01.2025, E.2024/11322, K.2025/64) upheld the lack-of-jurisdiction decision.
2. The Malatya 3rd Administrative Court (13.10.2025, E.2025/704) held the ordinary courts competent for the damages claim and applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“[…] it has therefore been concluded that the ordinary courts are competent to hear and resolve this action, brought on account of the defendant administration’s legal liability as operator for the accident that occurred.”

Reasoning, § 18 · Official Gazette p. 175

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. By GRANTING THE APPLICATION of the Malatya 3rd Administrative Court, the LACK-OF-JURISDICTION DECISION of the Ankara 41st Civil Court of First Instance dated 30/09/2022, E.2021/649, K.2022/333, is SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 12/01/2026, UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 175

Core Holding (Rule)

For the ordinary-court rule in Article 110 of Law No. 2918 on Highway Traffic to apply, the damage must have occurred on the highway and arisen from traffic. A retaining wall that collapsed because of rainfall and fell on a vehicle parked in an empty area off the highway is not a traffic accident; the Administrative Court hears a damages action based on the administration’s service fault in rainwater and infrastructure services.

Concrete Outcome

The application of the Samsun 1st Administrative Court, made in favor of the ordinary courts, was rejected. The Samsun 1st Administrative Court will examine the claim for compensation of the vehicle damage on the merits as a full remedy action.

Facts and Claim

After heavy rain, accumulated water brought down the retaining wall of the neighboring housing complex. The wall damaged a vehicle parked in an empty area off the road.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Samsun 4th Civil Court of Peace, D.İş 2023/1. Before the main action, a damage assessment was requested and an expert report was obtained.
2. Samsun 8th Civil Court of First Instance, 29/01/2025, E.2024/629, K.2025/36. It dismissed the case on procedural grounds for lack of jurisdiction.
3. Samsun 1st Administrative Court, 23/12/2025, E.2025/1386. Taking the view that the claim should be resolved in the ordinary courts, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“Since it is clear that this damage, which did not occur on the highway, did not arise from traffic either, the defendant administration’s liability cannot be assessed under Law No. 2918.”

Reasoning, § 20 · Official Gazette p. 226

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. The APPLICATION of the Samsun 1st Administrative Court dated 23/12/2025, E.2025/1386, is REJECTED,

It was decided on 09/03/2026, with the DISSENTING OPINION of Member Döndü Deniz BİLİR, by MAJORITY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 226

Core Holding (Rule)

Because a moving vehicle falling into a pothole on a highway is regarded as an accident arising from traffic under Articles 3 and 110 of Law No. 2918 on Highway Traffic, the ordinary courts hear the municipality’s liability.

Concrete Outcome

The application of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Council of State was rejected. The Ankara 43rd Civil Court of First Instance remained competent. The ordinary courts will determine liability and the amount for the items of damage, loss of value and loss of use of the vehicle.

Facts and Claim

The plaintiff sought compensation for pecuniary damage to his motorcycle, which fell into a collapsed section of the road while he was riding on an avenue.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Ankara 43rd Civil Court of First Instance, 15/04/2025, E.2024/445. At the first hearing, stating that the ordinary judiciary and the court were competent, it rejected the defendant’s objection to jurisdiction. The Chief Public Prosecutor of the Council of State, taking the view that the road maintenance service should be examined by the administrative courts, raised a positive jurisdictional conflict.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“Since it is clear that in this accident on the highway, the motorcycle’s riding on the highway falls within ‘acts and movements on the highway’ as stated in Article 3 of the Law, that is, that it arose from traffic, the defendant administration’s liability must be assessed under Law No. 2918.”

Reasoning, § 24 · Official Gazette p. 304

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. The APPLICATION of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Council of State is REJECTED,

It was decided on 15/06/2026, with the DISSENTING OPINIONS of Members Ahmet ARSLAN and Bilal ÇALIŞKAN, by MAJORITY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 305

Core Holding (Rule)

A vehicle in a car park damaged by a flood is not a traffic accident; a recourse action based on an alleged service fault in flood prevention is heard by the administrative courts.

Concrete Outcome

The route for a comprehensive (casco) insurer to recover from the administrations the amount it paid is the administrative judiciary.

Facts and Claim

A comprehensive (casco) insurer sought to recover from the administrations a payment it made after a vehicle in a hotel car park was written off in heavy rain.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Çanakkale 2nd Administrative Court (10.10.2024, E.2024/922, K.2024/863). Holding the ordinary courts competent, it dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
2. Çanakkale 2nd Civil Court of First Instance (acting as Commercial Court) (13.11.2025, E.2025/62, K.2025/325). Holding the administrative courts competent, it dismissed the case on procedural grounds.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“Accordingly, since the alleged damage requires determining whether there is a service fault arising from the defendants’ poor, non-existent or deficient performance of the public service they provided under the legislation set out above, or whether there is an adequate causal link between the act and the alleged damage, and since these matters can be determined only under the principles of administrative law, the administrative courts are competent, under subparagraph (1-b) of Article 2 of Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure, to hear and resolve this action brought for compensation of damage arising from an administrative act.”

Reasoning, § 21 · Official Gazette p. 452

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. The LACK-OF-JURISDICTION DECISION of the Çanakkale 2nd Administrative Court dated 10/10/2024, E.2024/922, K.2024/863, is SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 15/06/2026, UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 452

Core Holding (Rule)

Although the accident occurred in 2008, the action was filed after Article 110 of Law No. 2918 on Highway Traffic entered into force, so the ordinary courts hear the liability action based on traffic safety and road fault.

Concrete Outcome

The claim for compensation for a death, brought against the Çankırı Special Provincial Administration, will be examined by the ordinary courts.

Facts and Claim

The heirs sought compensation for loss of support for a death that occurred when a vehicle rolled over on a road alleged to be narrow and without guardrails.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Istanbul Anadolu 13th Commercial Court of First Instance (29.12.2022, E.2022/655). It severed the action brought against the Çankırı Special Provincial Administration.
2. Istanbul Anadolu 13th Commercial Court of First Instance (09.02.2023, E.2023/1, K.2023/110). Holding the administrative courts competent, it dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
3. Kastamonu Administrative Court (17.06.2025, E.2025/412, K.2025/884). Holding the ordinary courts competent, it dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
4. Ankara Regional Administrative Court 10th Administrative Chamber (13.10.2025, E.2025/10936, K.2025/11017). It rejected the appeal finally.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“Taking into account Article 110 of Law No. 2918, which entered into force on 19/01/2011, the cited decision of the Constitutional Court, and the fact that the action for compensation was filed after the date on which that article entered into force, it has been concluded that the said article of the Law covers the measures to be taken on all matters concerning traffic safety by ensuring traffic order on highways with regard to the safety of life and property; that the Law covers the rules, conditions, rights and obligations relating to traffic, their application and supervision, the relevant bodies and their duties, powers, responsibilities and working procedures; that the ordinary courts are therefore competent to hear and resolve liability actions brought on account of a resulting traffic accident; and that this action, brought for compensation of the damage that occurred, must likewise be resolved in the ordinary courts.”

Reasoning, § 20 · Official Gazette p. 456

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. The LACK-OF-JURISDICTION DECISION of the Istanbul Anadolu 13th Commercial Court of First Instance dated 09/02/2023, E.2023/1, K.2023/110, is SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 04/05/2026, with the DISSENTING OPINIONS of Members Ahmet ARSLAN and Bilal ÇALIŞKAN, by MAJORITY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 456

Core Holding (Rule)

An allegation that a marriage entry in the population register was erroneous from the outset is a record-correction action under Articles 35-36 of Law No. 5490 on Population Services, heard by the ordinary courts.

Concrete Outcome

The lack-of-jurisdiction decision of the Küçükçekmece 10th Civil Court of First Instance was set aside. Whether the first-name and surname entries should be corrected will be examined by the ordinary courts.

Facts and Claim

The plaintiff, a Syrian national, alleged that his population details were entered incorrectly in the family booklet when he married his spouse, a Turkish citizen. He asked for the marriage record to be brought into line with the details on his temporary protection identity document.

How the Dispute Arose

1. The Küçükçekmece 10th Civil Court of First Instance (24.04.2025, E.2025/140, K.2025/189) dismissed the case on procedural grounds for lack of jurisdiction. The Istanbul 16th Administrative Court (05.08.2025, E.2025/3090, K.2025/4252) rejected the petition because of missing information on the administrative act and its notification.
2. On the renewed action, the Istanbul 14th Administrative Court (31.10.2025, E.2025/1758) held the ordinary courts competent and sent the file to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“[…] it is stated that actions based on the allegation that an entry in the population register was erroneous from the outset are to be accepted as ‘record-correction’ actions and that such errors must be corrected by judgment of the ordinary courts; it is clear that the dispute at hand can also be considered within the scope of the correction of a record as explained in the Population Services Law.”

Reasoning, § 20 · Official Gazette p. 117

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. By GRANTING THE APPLICATION of the Istanbul 14th Administrative Court, the LACK-OF-JURISDICTION DECISION of the Küçükçekmece 10th Civil Court of First Instance dated 24/04/2025, E.2025/140, K.2025/189, is SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 12/01/2026, UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 117

Core Holding (Rule)

Even though the aim is to acquire citizenship, the request is for establishing descent and correcting the population record, so under Article 36 of Law No. 5490 on Population Services the ordinary courts are competent.

Concrete Outcome

The jurisdictional obstacle before the civil court of first instance was lifted. The matter to be examined is the descent relationship in the population register.

Facts and Claim

For the purpose of being admitted to citizenship, the plaintiff asked for the identity of his grandmother, a Turkish citizen, and her descent relationship with his mother to be established.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Ankara 45th Civil Court of First Instance, 22/09/2025, E.2025/236, K.2025/371. Regarding the establishment of descent as within the jurisdiction of the administrative judiciary, it dismissed the case. The decision became final.
2. Ankara 24th Administrative Court, 02/12/2025, E.2025/1756. Taking the view that the claim should be examined by the ordinary courts, it stayed its examination and applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes under Article 19 of Law No. 2247.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In this situation, it has been concluded that the plaintiff’s request in this action is in the nature of establishing the identity of his grandmother, a Turkish citizen, and thus the descent relationship between his mother and grandmother, and thereby correcting the population record, and that, under Article 36 of Law No. 5490 cited above, the ordinary courts are competent to hear and resolve the dispute that is the subject of the action.”

Reasoning, § 29 · Official Gazette p. 184

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. By GRANTING THE APPLICATION of the Ankara 24th Administrative Court, the LACK-OF-JURISDICTION DECISION of the Ankara 45th Civil Court of First Instance dated 22/09/2025, E.2025/236, K.2025/371, is SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 16/02/2026, UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 184

Core Holding (Rule)

That the request comes from the foreign spouse does not change the nature of a request to correct the marital status field as a “correction of the population record” under Article 36 of Law No. 5490 on Population Services. The dispute was therefore assigned to the ordinary judiciary, to be examined by the Civil Court of First Instance.

Concrete Outcome

The lack-of-jurisdiction decision of the Gaziantep 1st Civil Court of First Instance was set aside. The correction of the marriage record will be addressed in the ordinary courts. The Court of Jurisdictional Disputes neither registered the marriage nor established a new descent relationship with the child.

Facts and Claim

The plaintiff, a Syrian national, asked for the registration of his marriage to a Turkish citizen and for his marital status to be corrected in the records as married.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Gaziantep 1st Civil Court of First Instance, 16/11/2022, E.2022/316, K.2022/399. It held that there was no need to rule on the request to link the child’s population records, and dismissed the request to correct marital status on procedural grounds for lack of jurisdiction. Gaziantep Regional Court of Appeal 1st Civil Chamber, 07/12/2023, E.2023/1754, K.2023/1311. It rejected the appeal on the merits.
2. Gaziantep 2nd Administrative Court, 25/12/2025, E.2025/932. Taking the view that the ordinary courts are competent for a request to correct a population record, it applied to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“In this situation, it has been concluded that the plaintiff’s request in this action is in the nature of a correction relating to population records and that, under Article 36 of Law No. 5490 cited above, the ordinary courts are competent to hear and resolve the dispute that is the subject of the action.”

Reasoning, § 19 · Official Gazette p. 318

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. By GRANTING THE APPLICATION of the Gaziantep 2nd Administrative Court, the LACK-OF-JURISDICTION DECISION of the Gaziantep 1st Civil Court of First Instance dated 16/11/2022, E.2022/316, K.2022/399, is SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 13/04/2026, UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 318

Core Holding (Rule)

Because under Article 57/6 of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection the authority for objecting to an administrative detention decision is the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği), the ordinary courts also hear the compensation action arising from the same act.

Concrete Outcome

The lack-of-jurisdiction decision of the civil court of first instance was set aside as to the claims for 82,000 TL in pecuniary damages and 100,000 TL in non-pecuniary damages. Which ordinary court is competent will be determined within the ordinary judiciary.

Facts and Claim

The plaintiff, an Iraqi national, alleged that he had been held unlawfully for 7 months and 23 days in a removal centre and sought pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

How the Dispute Arose

1. An application against the detention decision before the Şanlıurfa 2nd Criminal Court of Peace was rejected. The date and number of that decision are not given. The Edirne Administrative Court, E.2023/2150, K.2023/3193, annulled the deportation decision. The date of that decision is not stated.
2. Edirne Administrative Court, 27/02/2024, E.2024/392, K.2024/718. It dismissed the case on the ground that the ordinary courts were competent. Istanbul Regional Administrative Court 9th Administrative Chamber, 21/05/2024, E.2024/1533, K.2024/1276. Stating that the Şanlıurfa Administrative Court had jurisdiction, it set aside the first decision.
3. Edirne Administrative Court, 14/06/2024, E.2024/1532, K.2024/1930. By a decision of lack of territorial jurisdiction it sent the file to Şanlıurfa. Şanlıurfa 3rd Administrative Court, 16/07/2024, E.2024/1024, K.2024/1067. Because of an erroneous allocation, it closed the record and sent the file to the Şanlıurfa 1st Administrative Court for allocation.
4. Şanlıurfa 1st Administrative Court, 29/07/2024, E.2024/1024, K.2024/1439. It dismissed the case on the ground that the ordinary courts were competent. Gaziantep Regional Administrative Court 4th Administrative Chamber, 13/02/2025, E.2024/1969, K.2025/194. Explaining that the Şanlıurfa Governorship should be the defendant, it rejected the appeal.
5. Şanlıurfa 5th Civil Court of First Instance, 10/09/2025, E.2025/714, K.2025/2550. It dismissed the case on the ground that the administrative courts were competent. Gaziantep Regional Court of Appeal 4th Civil Chamber, 25/11/2025, E.2025/3001, K.2025/2826. It rejected the appeal on the merits.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“Law No. 6458 also provides that an application is to be made to the criminal judge of peace against an administrative detention decision, and that actions for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages arising from the same act are likewise to be heard in the ordinary courts […] it has been concluded that this determination must be made within the relevant branch of the judiciary itself.”

Reasoning, § 22 · Official Gazette p. 197

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. THE ORDINARY JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. The LACK-OF-JURISDICTION DECISION of the Şanlıurfa 5th Civil Court of First Instance dated 10/09/2025, E.2025/714, K.2025/2550, is SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 16/02/2026, UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 197

Core Holding (Rule)

A care measure ordered by a family court does not confer foster family status; the Provincial Directorate’s rejection of a foster family suitability application is an administrative act within Article 2/1-a of Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure. The dispute was therefore assigned to the administrative judiciary, to be examined by the Administrative Court.

Concrete Outcome

The administrative court’s lack of jurisdiction was lifted. The rejection act can be reviewed by the administrative courts.

Facts and Claim

The applicants, to whom an infant had been given on a residential leave arrangement, brought an action against the rejection of their objection to being found unsuitable as a foster family and for the handover of the child to them.

How the Dispute Arose

1. Adana 2nd Administrative Court (11.05.2023, E.2023/612, K.2023/344). Holding the ordinary courts competent, it dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
2. Adana 7th Family Court (23.10.2025, E.2023/502, K.2025/783). It held the administrative courts competent. It ordered the file to be sent for resolution of the jurisdictional dispute.
3. Adana Regional Court of Appeal 14th Civil Chamber (27.02.2026, E.2026/140, K.2026/489). Because the file had to be sent to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, it held that there was no need to rule on the merits.

Key Excerpt from the Reasoning

“Under the legislation set out above, it is beyond dispute that family courts may order protective and supportive measures for the protection and safeguarding of the rights of children in need of protection or driven into crime; however, in the present case the court ordered a care measure for the child, in other words, no foster family status was given to the plaintiff; the body that granted the plaintiffs foster family status within the care measure was the Adana Provincial Directorate of the Ministry of Family and Social Policies, and the body that annulled it was the same administration; the act carried out is administrative in nature; and it is understood that an action against an administrative act falls within the annulment actions brought by persons whose interests have been violated, on the ground that administrative acts are unlawful in one of the respects of authority, form, cause, subject matter and purpose, under Article 2/1-a of Law No. 2577; it has therefore been concluded that this action brought by the plaintiff must also be heard in the administrative courts.”

Reasoning, § 27 · Official Gazette p. 447–448

Full Operative Part

For the reasons stated;

A. THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY IS COMPETENT to resolve the case,

B. By granting the application of the Adana 7th Family Court, the LACK-OF-JURISDICTION DECISION of the Adana 2nd Administrative Court dated 11/05/2023, E.2023/612, K.2023/344, is SET ASIDE,

It was decided on 15/06/2026, UNANIMOUSLY and FINALLY.

Operative part · Official Gazette p. 448