Not every amount a municipality requests at the building permit or occupancy stage has the same legal nature. The fee (harç), the service charge (hizmet ücreti), the contribution to costs (harcamalara katılma payı) and a contractual claim must be examined separately. This distinction determines the legal basis of the amount, the method of calculation, the competent court, the time limit for bringing an action and the route for a refund. It should not be assumed that a single lawsuit covers all payments collected under one receipt titled “building permit fee.”
When an overpayment or an unfounded payment is alleged, the first step is to obtain from the municipality an itemised statement of the assessment, together with the tariff and the council resolution on which it is based. The date of payment, the area or unit amount applied, whether the service was actually provided, and the manner in which payment was made mandatory should all be documented. When choosing the route of objection, the time limits for bringing an action must be protected; no refund petition filed later restarts an expired period.
How are fees in permit and occupancy procedures classified?
Law No. 2464 on Municipal Revenues (Belediye Gelirleri Kanunu) regulates municipal revenues under different legal headings. The construction fee for buildings, certain zoning-related fees, cost contributions and optional service charges under Article 97 cannot be used interchangeably. In addition, the statutory rules of water and sewerage authorities and their subscription relationships may produce different legal consequences.
| Nature of the charge | Main legal review | First approach to jurisdiction |
|---|---|---|
| Fee provided for by law | Legal subject, taxpayer, base, rate, exemptions and assessment | As a rule, the Tax Court |
| Contribution to costs | Statutory conditions, service provided, expenditure and distribution calculation | The nature of the payment as a tax-like financial obligation and the special regulation are examined. |
| Service charge under Article 97 of Law No. 2464 | Optional service, tariff, competent decision and performance of the service | Where the dispute concerns an administrative act, as a rule the Administrative Court |
| Subscription or claim under a private-law contract | Contract, party status, service and special law | Depending on the specific relationship, the civil courts may come into play. |
The name on the receipt is decisive, but it is not sufficient on its own. An amount described as “inspection fee,” “technical service charge,” “infrastructure contribution” or “donation” must be examined to establish what legal obligation it actually represents. The fact that the administration calls a charge a fee does not by itself make a compulsory financial obligation that is not provided for by law lawful.
What are the limits of a municipality’s power to set tariffs?
The principle of legality in Article 73 of the Constitution is the basic safeguard for taxes, fees, levies and similar financial obligations. A municipal council cannot create, by means of a tariff resolution alone, a power of taxation that the law does not grant. Nor can the scope and calculation of a fee provided for by law be arbitrarily extended.
Article 97 of Law No. 2464 allows a tariff-based charge to be levied for services that are not subject to a fee or cost contribution under that Law and that are provided at the request of the person concerned. It must therefore be examined what the service actually is, whether it was genuinely requested, and whether it is the subject of another financial obligation. The special provisions on services reserved to the municipality as a monopoly remain in force.
The fact that a tariff has been adopted by the municipal council does not end the review. Not only the authority but also the subject matter of the service and the manner of its application are subject to scrutiny. However, the opposite generalisation, that “a municipality may not charge any amount other than a fee,” is also incorrect. A charge may be levied on the basis of a lawful and valid tariff for a service that is genuinely optional.
For example, where an amount that must be paid for the permit procedure to proceed is shown on the receipt as a “voluntary contribution,” the payment demands and the link with the permit carry weight. A genuine donation and a compulsory payment linked to the provision of a public service are not the same. It must also be established whether the collection was made by the municipality, by a company or by another legal entity, since this determines against whom a refund claim should be directed.
How are the building construction fee and occupancy-related fees reviewed?
Area, type of use and duplicate collection
For the building construction fee, the scope, exemption and base provisions in the supplementary articles of Law No. 2464 are reviewed. The residential or commercial character of the unit, the calculated construction area, additional area and any payments made earlier are important. Whether a new permit, alteration or renewal creates the same obligation again for the same area must be examined under the specific provision. The route to follow where an occupancy permit is refused or delayed is described in the article Refusal of Occupancy Permit (Certificate of Use): Objection, Annulment Action and Stay of Execution.
Reviewing the calculation is not merely a comparison of total amounts. It must be shown which area was placed in which tariff band, whether an exemption applies and to which permit the payment relates. Where there are several blocks, stages or independent units, it must be determined whether they are tracked in separate files or in a single assessment.
The everyday expression “occupancy fee” (iskân harcı) may not refer to a single legal charge. Fees relating to the certificate of use (yapı kullanma izin belgesi), project or inspection procedures, infrastructure requests and other administrative claims may be levied at the same stage. Each item has its own basis and calculation rule. For this reason, the assessment slip and the bank receipt must be read together.
Can the fee paid be refunded if construction is not carried out?
Supplementary Article 5 of Law No. 2464 regulates the corrections and refunds required for the building construction fee already paid where a building permit is cancelled in whole or in part because construction was partly carried out or not carried out at all. This special provision may provide the concrete legal basis for a refund claim.
However, an oral statement that the project has been abandoned does not automatically mean a refund of all municipal payments. The level of construction, the status of the permit, the cancellation decision, whether the item collected is the building construction fee and the calculation of a partial refund must all be examined. The conditions for refunding the fee for a separate service and those for the building construction fee are not the same.
Cost contributions for roads, sewerage and water
Articles 86 et seq. of Law No. 2464 regulate different cost contributions for roads, sewerage and water installations. It must be established which service the contribution claimed arises from, to which property the service relates and how the statutory distribution of expenditure was carried out. An abstract explanation of an “infrastructure charge” does not allow the calculation to be verified.
For the construction or statutory improvement of a road, the properties benefiting, their frontage and value information, and the expenditure calculation may be important. Statutory limitations and contributions previously collected must also be checked separately. It cannot be said that every public infrastructure work justifies the same contribution from all neighbouring properties.
For water and sewerage services, the special legislation, tariff and subscription relationship of the metropolitan water authority may apply. The fact that a payment was requested at the permit stage does not necessarily turn a subscription charge into a municipal fee. Who demands the payment, and whether the dispute arises from a contract or from an administrative act, is particularly important in determining the competent judicial body.
How are objection and action time limits determined?
The general time limit for bringing an action in the Tax Court is 30 days, and in the Administrative Court it is 60 days. However, the start of the period is determined by the nature of the act: service, assessment, collection and rejection of a refund application are not the same event. Documents subject to a special time limit, such as a payment order, must be assessed separately. The fact that a document is merely a “municipal letter” does not mean that the 60-day period applies.
An application under İYUK Article 11 may also arise in tax disputes
The general statement that Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK) can never apply to tax disputes is not consistent with current law. The former exception for tax disputes in that article was repealed in 1994. However, not every petition suspends the time limit: within the action period, an application must be made to the authority designated by law in order to have the relevant act removed or amended.
A proper application suspends the time limit. After an express rejection, or after thirty days without a reply, the remaining period resumes and continues to run, taking into account the days that elapsed before the application. It should not be assumed that the 30-day period for bringing an action before the Tax Court starts again automatically, in full, after the application. An application to the wrong authority, repeated applications and a petition filed after the time limit has expired carry additional risks.
Correction of tax errors and the complaint route must be examined separately
A tax error under Articles 116 et seq. of the Tax Procedure Law No. 213 (Vergi Usul Kanunu, VUK) is a special route for correction in respect of errors of calculation or assessment. Not every legal dispute over interpretation falls within it. An arithmetical miscalculation of the base is not the same matter as a dispute over the legal basis of a charge. For details of correction and complaint applications, see the article Correcting Tax Errors and Filing a Complaint: Time Limits and the Lawsuit Route.
On the correction and complaint route after the period for bringing an action has expired, the conditions of the VUK and the rules on limitation are examined. For municipal taxes, Article 124 provides for a complaint to be made to the mayor’s office; it cannot be assumed that the central tax administration is the complaint authority for all municipal claims. A five-year correction limitation period is also not a common refund period for every type of service fee or private-law claim.
The distinction between a new act or refund request under İYUK Article 10, an objection to an existing act under İYUK Article 11, and a tax error correction under VUK must be drawn by reference to the legal nature of the request, not the heading of the petition. Without making this distinction, the approach “let us first apply to the municipality and then look at the deadline” may result in a loss of rights.
Does payment eliminate the right to bring an action?
Payment does not, in every case, mean that the right to sue has been waived. However, the form of payment, the method of assessment, whether there is a transaction based on the person’s own declaration, and the rules on reservation of rights (ihtirazî kayıt) may be important. In particular, for tax transactions based on the person’s own declaration, Article 378 of VUK and the related procedural provisions must be assessed separately. A general statement added later that “all rights are reserved” does not cure all procedural deficiencies.
Where payment is made to prevent a delay in the permit, the legal basis of the demand, the item objected to and the amount should be set out in writing as far as possible. Receipts, assessment slips and correspondence with the administration should be kept. The calculation of time limits should not be postponed until after payment.
The effect of bringing an action in the Tax Court on collection depends on the type of act. Article 27 of İYUK must be read together with the provision on the part of a tax, levy, fee or similar financial obligation assessed that is the subject of the action, and with the exceptions in the law. It cannot be concluded automatically that the proceedings are suspended in all cases, whether a refund action, a payment order or a declaration made under reservation. Where necessary, a stay of execution must be requested separately.
Actual court decisions
Fees and charges under a single receipt may fall within the jurisdiction of different courts
In its decision of 11 October 2022, E.2020/3594, K.2022/4664, the 9th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 9. Daire) examined the refund of amounts collected under different names at the building permit stage. The Chamber held that the part concerning fees should be examined by the Tax Court, and the part concerning charges under Article 97 of Law No. 2464 by the Administrative Court, and quashed the decision given without making this distinction. This decision is not a definitive ruling that the entire amount must be refunded; first, it requires the division of jurisdiction to be correctly established. [1]
Refund of the building construction fee for construction that was not carried out
In its decision of 17 May 2022, E.2020/4639, K.2022/1896, the 9th Chamber of the Council of State considered a request for a refund of the fee paid after the project was abandoned. The refund under Supplementary Article 5, and the acceptance of statutory interest from the date of application, were upheld on appeal, and the dismissal of the appeal was affirmed. The decision shows the importance of the special refund provision for the building construction fee; it does not mean that every fee and contribution is refundable on the same conditions upon the cancellation of any project. [2]
The nature of the application route and access to court
The decision of the Tax Litigation Chambers Board of the Council of State (Danıştay Vergi Dava Daireleri Kurulu) dated 13 November 2024, E.2024/676, K.2024/1073 concerns a refund of corporation tax, not a municipal fee. It is nonetheless important for distinguishing applications under İYUK Articles 10 and 11. Where the administration did not indicate the correct authority to which an application should be made, the Board assessed the effect on the time limit of an application made to the authority the person believed to be the superior authority, together with the right of access to court, and quashed the decision insisting on the expiry of the time limit. The decision cannot be generalised to mean that an application to any wrong authority preserves the time limit; nor does it resolve the basis for refunding a municipal claim. [3]
Which documents should be in the refund file?
A schedule with a separate line for each fee or charge requested or paid should be prepared. Each line should state the name of the charge, its legal basis, the amount, the period, the calculated quantity, the assessment date and the payment date. In this way it can be seen that items subject to different judicial routes are included within the same total.
The file should contain the permit and occupancy applications, approved project areas, the municipal tariff and council resolution, assessment slips, receipts, bank receipts and refund petitions. Where the claim is that construction was abandoned, the cancellation of the permit and the actual stage of construction are important; where the claim is that no service was provided, records showing that the service was not requested or not carried out are important. Where the permit has been cancelled, for how expenses such as the cost of the project and the permit fee may be assessed in a claim for compensation, see the article Annulment of a Construction Permit: Acquired Rights, Annulment Action and Compensation.
The refund and interest claim must be stated expressly. The type and starting date of interest are determined by the legal nature of the claim and the special provision applicable. Rather than accepting in advance that the same type of interest will apply to all items from the date of payment, the legal basis of each item should be shown. Following a court order for a refund, the implementation of the judgment and the payment process must also be carried out in accordance with its scope.
Conclusion
Whether the amount a municipality requests at the permit or occupancy stage is lawful cannot be understood from the general heading on the receipt. Classification item by item is a precondition for correctly identifying the legal basis, the calculation, the competent court and the time limit. Keeping the İYUK applications separate from the VUK correction and complaint route ensures that the refund claim is correctly framed. The preparation of the file should proceed together with the payment and litigation timetable.
Related articles: Objecting to an Ecrimisil Notice: Fee Calculation, Annulment Action and Stay of Execution; Eviction from Municipal Property: Expiry of the Lease Term, Law No. 2886 and Annulment Action; Refusal of a Workplace Opening and Operating Licence: Rejection of the Application, Delay and Legal Remedies.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an action be brought before the Tax Court for all the amounts a municipality requests?
No. The fee, the service charge under Article 97 and the contractual claim require different judicial assessments. Items under the same receipt may even be separated.
If there is a municipal council resolution, is the charge necessarily lawful?
No. The resolution must rest on a valid statutory authority, the nature of the service must be lawful, and the tariff must be correctly applied to the specific case.
If I abandon construction, can I recover the building construction fee?
Where the conditions in Supplementary Article 5 are met, in particular whether construction was carried out and whether the permit has been cancelled in whole or in part, a correction and refund may be claimed. This result does not apply automatically to all other payments.
Does the time limit for bringing an action stop when I object to the municipality?
An application made in time, to the relevant authority and in accordance with the conditions of Article 11 of İYUK may suspend the time limit. Not every request for information or refund petition has that effect; the special application routes under the VUK are examined separately.
Can an action for an overpayment always be brought within five years?
No. The time limit for bringing an action and the correction limitation period are different. The five-year rule is not a common period for bringing an action for all municipal charges and every legal objection.
Sources and legal bases
- Council of State, 9th Chamber, 11 October 2022, E.2020/3594, K.2022/4664 — accessible full text of the decision. The evaluation is based on the text of the decision itself rather than the automatic heading of the page.
- Council of State, 9th Chamber, 17 May 2022, E.2020/4639, K.2022/1896 — accessible full text of the decision. The holding in the text of the decision is an affirmance; the summary heading of the page has not been used in place of the holding.
- Tax Litigation Chambers Board of the Council of State, 13 November 2024, E.2024/676, K.2024/1073 — official text of the decision.
- Law No. 2464 on Municipal Revenues (Belediye Gelirleri Kanunu) — official text; text of Article 97; text of Supplementary Article 5.
- Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), Articles 7–8, 10–11, 27–28 — consolidated text; Law No. 2576, Articles 5–6.
- Law No. 213 on Tax Procedure (Vergi Usul Kanunu), Articles 116–126 and 378; Law No. 5393 on Municipalities (Belediye Kanunu), Article 18(f); Law No. 2560.
Legal research date: 14 October 2026. These explanations are for general information only; no definitive time limit or outcome can be determined without examining the specific assessment, payment and application file.