The correct application against a municipal fine is determined by the law applied, not by the name of the unit that issued the decision. Against many fines under the Misdemeanors Law (Kabahatler Kanunu), an application is made to the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) within fifteen days of service or pronouncement (tefhim). For actions based on environmental, zoning or other special laws, the competent court and the time limit may differ. Submitting a petition to the municipality does not replace an application to the court and does not stop the time limit in every case.
This article addresses misdemeanor sanctions based on municipal police (zabıta) findings and municipal executive committee (encümen) decisions. The technical calculation of zoning fines, tax penalties and ecrimisil (compensation for unauthorized use of public property) require separate review. The aim is not to gather all municipal receivables into a single litigation route, but to help the reader correctly identify the legal nature of the document in hand. The research date is 14 October 2026.
A finding record and an administrative sanction decision are not the same thing
A municipal police officer may record an alleged sidewalk occupation, noise, pollution of the environment or violation of municipal orders in a report. However, not every finding record is, by itself, a decision imposing a fine. The relevant law may give the decision-making authority directly to the municipal police officer, or it may require the sanction to be imposed by the executive committee.
Article 22 of the Misdemeanors Law makes the authority to decide depend on the provision of the relevant law. For example, in the occupation misdemeanor in Article 38, the authority of municipal police officers is regulated, whereas under Article 1 of Law No. 1608 an executive committee decision is significant. For that reason, both generalizations, "the municipal police can never impose a fine" and "the municipal police can directly impose all fines", are wrong. [1][2]
Obtaining only the payment notice is not enough for review. The sanction decision, the initial report, any additional photographs, the municipality’s decision on orders and prohibitions, if any, and the service record should be requested. However, the process of requesting documents should not turn into a reason for missing the time limit to apply to the court. It may be requested that the court obtain the case file that is not in hand.
What reviews does the statutory basis of the fine require?
A municipal decision cannot exceed the sanction framework set by law
Under Article 4 of the Misdemeanors Law, the type, duration and amount of a sanction must rest on a statutory basis. Within the framework the law permits, the details of an obligation may be set by a municipal regulatory act. By contrast, a warning notice (tembihname) does not create an unlimited power to sanction that is not found in the law. [1]
Article 1 of Law No. 1608 is significant for violations of municipal decisions taken within the authority granted by law and for acts that municipal regulations command or prohibit. The last provision of the same article requires that situations separately regulated in the relevant law be set apart. If the act is regulated as a special misdemeanor, it should be questioned why the general provision on violation of an order has been applied. [2]
Lawfulness of the order and its applicability to the person
Under Article 32 of the Misdemeanors Law, the mere existence of an order is not enough. The competent authority, the statutory basis, the subject of the order and the public interest sought to be protected are evaluated. The addressee’s conduct contrary to the order must be shown with date and place information about the incident. Not every violation of a municipal letter can be automatically punished under this article. [1]
An effective defense for the operator is not merely saying "I did not know." How the order was announced, how it was notified to the operator, whether its scope was understandable and whether actual compliance was possible should be explained with documents. The administration, too, can show the basis of the action with its records of orders, announcements, notifications and findings.
Which deficiencies in the record matter?
Article 25 of the Misdemeanors Law regulates information such as the identity and address of the addressee, the act giving rise to the sanction, the evidence showing the act was committed, the date of the decision and the identity of the officials. The place and time of the act must also be clearly specified. These elements show to which incident the defense will be directed. [1]
The statement "occupied the sidewalk" may be insufficient in a specific case. The part occupied, the manner of use, the date, the limit of the permit and the connection of the act to the business are all important. The absence of a photograph does not, by itself, invalidate every fine; nor does the presence of a photograph make the content of the record beyond dispute. The date of the image, the direction of the shot and the place it shows should be compared with the account in the record.
The absence of a signature is not an automatic ground for cancellation
If the addressee avoids signing, this does not remove the sanction where the relevant procedure has been applied. On the other hand, it matters which document the signature was placed on: reading out an on-site finding, pronouncement of the sanction decision and delivery of service are not the same act. The conclusion "I signed the report, so I can no longer object" is also incorrect.
In the defense, instead of formal objections unrelated to the incident, it should be explained how the deficiency affected the identification of the act, the person’s responsibility or the right to apply. Showing different addresses for the same hour, treating a closed business as operating, or attributing an act of the previous operator to the new operator requires concrete review.
How are the competent court and time limit determined?
| Basis of the decision | General route of application | Point to note on the time limit |
|---|---|---|
| Fine under Law No. 5326 | Criminal judgeship of peace | 15 days from service or pronouncement. |
| Sanction under Environmental Law No. 2872 | Administrative court | 30 days under Article 25 of the Law. |
| Zoning fine under Law No. 3194 | Administrative jurisdiction | Where there is no special circumstance, the general 60-day period is examined. |
| Fine and a decision belonging to administrative jurisdiction within the same action | Assessment under Article 27/8 of Law No. 5326 | The conditions of the connection and the regime of the principal action are investigated. |
The table is a starting classification. Special laws, the date of the action and the form of service must also be checked separately. The fact that the fine document names the wrong authority does not mean that the application may be made without a time limit. A deficiency in the notice of the route of appeal must be raised in the specific case within the framework of the right of access to a court. [1][3][4]
The initial application and the objection to a judgeship decision have different time limits
The initial application period in Article 27 of the Misdemeanors Law is fifteen days. Under Article 29, the subsequent objection period against a judgeship decision for which a legal remedy is open is, under the current regulation, two weeks. The two periods do not apply to the same stage. The transitional provision of Law No. 7499 is also important for decisions given on and after 1 June 2024. [1]
The finality threshold in Article 28/10 of the Law also affects the possibility of a second application. In the consolidated text reviewed, the finality of decisions on applications concerning fines up to and including TL 15,000 is regulated. Where there are multiple fines, different sanctions or a transitional period, the nature of the decision must be examined separately; it cannot be said that every dismissal decision may necessarily be followed by a second objection.
An objection to the municipality does not automatically stop the court time limit
Where an application to the criminal judgeship of peace is required, a petition for withdrawal submitted to the municipality does not by itself stop the period in Article 27. The mechanism of Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK) in administrative jurisdiction cannot be applied automatically to a misdemeanor application. Even where administrative jurisdiction is competent, the special provision and the content of the application must be checked. An application to CİMER or a complaint made by telephone should not be regarded as a judicial application that preserves the time limit.
What happens if there is a suspension of operations alongside the fine?
Article 27/8 of Law No. 5326 regulates the situation where decisions within the jurisdiction of administrative courts are also given about the same person within the same action. However, saying "there is a closure alongside" does not make this exception apply automatically; the legal nature of the closure itself must be determined. [1]
In its decision of 16 February 2026, E.2026/25, K.2026/47, the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık Mahkemesi) found the ordinary (judicial) courts competent in respect of a fine given under Law No. 1608 and a one-day suspension of operations. The practical significance of this decision is the separation of a time-limited misdemeanor sanction from an indefinite closure for lack of a license. The court did not decide on the merits whether the act occurred or whether the fine was proportionate. [2]
This distinction requires that all consequences of the same decision be shown in the file. Focusing only on the monetary amount in the application petition and not mentioning the additional sanction may leave the assessment of jurisdiction incomplete.
The right addressee, fault and repeated fines
The name on a business’s sign, the owner of the real estate and the license holder are not always the same person. The provisions on liability for the conduct of organs and representatives in Article 8 of the Misdemeanors Law and the special provision on the specific act should be examined together. Imposing a fine on the owner because of a tenant’s act, or on an unrelated person because of a company’s activity, may be contested in terms of standing to be a party and liability. [1]
The assessment of intent and negligence under Article 9 is also important. However, the defense "the company manager was not at the scene" does not by itself remove the company’s liability. The business organization, assignment of duties and the relationship of the act to commercial activity are investigated.
Where more than one sanction is applied for the same act, Article 15 and special provisions are examined. A single act violating different provisions, acts repeated at different times and uninterrupted continuing conduct are not the same. The dates of the records, the scope of the earlier decision, whether the activity was ended and resumed, and the conditions of recidivism (tekerrür) should be shown in a separate schedule. The mere fact that two records were drawn up at the same address does not make two fines duplicative; nor can it be ignored that the same incident is punished a second time under different names.
How are the amount of the fine and discounted payment reviewed?
For fixed fines, the revaluation applicable to the year of the act is reviewed; for fines with lower and upper limits, the reasoned determination of the amount is reviewed. The nominal amount in the original text of the Law should not be used as the current fine amount. For proportional fines, the economic value and rate on which the calculation is based are determined separately.
Where discretion is exercised between the lower and upper limits, it is examined whether the criteria of Article 17, such as the wrongfulness of the act, fault and economic situation, were evaluated. If the statutory conditions are met, the court may also accept the application by changing the amount. [1]
The discounted payment under Article 17/6 of the Law does not mean waiving the right to apply. The payment period and the objection period may differ. The fifteen-day judicial application period cannot be extended on the ground that there is a one-month discounted payment opportunity. If payment is to be made, the receipt and the decision number should be matched; if the fine is cancelled, the refund process should be monitored separately.
Preparing the application and the process after the decision
The application should state the competent authority, the clear identity of the sanction, the date of service or pronouncement, the account of the incident, the unlawful aspects and the evidence. In the criminal judgeship of peace, requests to obtain the case file, hear witnesses, or conduct an on-site examination or expert review should be linked to the specific issue that requires them. Instead of a request that "all evidence be collected," it should be explained which document will resolve which dispute. [1]
- If it is claimed that the act did not occur, dated footage, business records and witness information.
- If it is claimed that the permit limit was complied with, the permit document, sketch and measurement.
- If it is claimed that the fine was imposed on the wrong person, transfer, lease, registry and activity records.
- If repetition is claimed, earlier records and decisions.
- If there is a time-limit problem, service records and force majeure (mücbir sebep) documents.
The fact that an application is exempt from fees does not mean that all expenses will be zero in every case. Under Article 31 of the Misdemeanors Law, the outcome on trial costs and attorney fees is assessed separately. The fee and expense regime in administrative jurisdiction is different. After a fine is cancelled, the administration’s records, the amount collected and the effects on any related action should be followed up.
Conclusion
The center of a defense against a municipal fine is the correct judicial route and time limit, and proof of the specific act. The record, the decision, service, the addressee and the calculation should be reviewed together. It is especially important to keep apart the fifteen days for the initial application and the two weeks for the subsequent objection, and not to miss the court time limit because of a petition to the administration or a payment.
Related articles: Sealing and closure of a business; Music broadcast permit and noise fines; Objection to a zoning fine and annulment action
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the time limit for objecting to a municipal police fine two weeks or fifteen days?
The initial application under Article 27 of Law No. 5326 is fifteen days. A subsequent objection to a judgeship decision for which a legal remedy is open is two weeks under Article 29.
Does paying the fine at a discount prevent an objection?
No. Discounted payment does not remove the right to apply. However, the payment period does not extend the judicial application period.
If there is no photograph, will the fine definitely be cancelled?
No. The evidence by which the act was established is assessed. Besides the absence of a photograph, the specificity of the existing record and other records are also important.
I filed a petition with the municipality; can I wait for the reply before applying to the court?
On the route of the criminal judgeship of peace, an application to the municipality does not by itself stop the fifteen-day period. One should not wait for a reply before the competent jurisdiction and the special provision to be applied have been determined.
If the executive committee ordered a closure together with the fine, is administrative jurisdiction definitely competent?
No. The legal basis and duration of the closure must be examined. The 2026 jurisdiction decision shows that the ordinary (judicial) courts may be competent in the case of a time-limited misdemeanor sanction.
Sources
- [1] Misdemeanors Law No. 5326, especially Arts. 3–4, 8–9, 15–17, 20, 22, 25–32, 36 and 38. Consolidated text.
- [2] Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, 16.02.2026, E.2026/25, K.2026/47; Article 1 of Law No. 1608 within the decision. Official full text.
- [3] Environmental Law No. 2872, Art. 25. Consolidated text.
- [4] Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, Arts. 7–11. Consolidated text.
- [5] Union of Turkish Bar Associations, comparison of Law No. 7499, Arts. 28–29 of Law No. 5326 and transitional provisions. Comparison document.