Fire Safety at Tourism Facilities: Fire Brigade Report, Cancellation of Licence and Certificate, and Legal Remedies

A fire safety deficiency at a tourism facility may lead to the cancellation of the workplace opening and operating license, the loss of the tourism certificate and the closure of the business. These outcomes, however, are not a single action; their powers, conditions and the actions that may be challenged are examined separately. Filing an annulment action in the administrative court does not in itself give the right to reopen the business. For that purpose, the scope of a stay of execution or annulment decision, the status of other actions and the safety conditions that must be met must be assessed together. [2] [5] [7]

Whether a hotel has five stars, whether a bungalow is built of timber or whether a tiny house unit is on wheels does not by itself determine the legal outcome. The first questions are: what the actual use is; which technical provisions the building is subject to; in whose name the certificate was issued; and on which concrete deficiency the sanction is based. This guide addresses these questions together, from the pre-investment review through inspection and the cancellation of licences and certificates, to reopening after litigation.

Are a fire brigade report, a workplace license and a tourism certificate the same thing?

A fire brigade report (itfaiye raporu) shows the result of an examination of fire safety for specific building and use conditions. A workplace opening and operating license is the competent authority's decision allowing the business to operate. A tourism operating certificate is a document issued by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism under tourism legislation. One cannot be submitted in place of another to end all permit obligations. The building permit and the occupancy permit are a separate legal layer. [1] [2] [5]

A "simple accommodation certificate" is not a "simple licence". Its name in the law is simple accommodation tourism operating certificate. It does not replace the workplace license, and it does not mean that every new small business may choose this certificate. The basis of the certificate in the transitional Article 11 and the obligation to comply with fire legislation are different questions. [5]

For example, a municipality may have cancelled the licence on the basis of the fire brigade report, and the Ministry may then have removed the tourism certificate on the basis of the cancelled licence. An action brought against the municipality does not automatically preserve the time limit for the Ministry's later-notified action. The date and number of each document, together with the record of notification, should be entered in a separate action schedule. [7]

What changes did the 2025 and 2026 regulations introduce?

What did the date of 31 May 2026 mean?

Regulation No. 10026, published in the Official Gazette of 1 July 2025, No. 32943, added Provisional Article 4 to the Regulation on Fire Protection of Buildings. A deadline of 31 December 2025 was set for completing deficiencies in existing buildings that required a procurement process for materials. This provision cannot be read as a general exemption removing all safety obligations. [4]

The amendment in the Official Gazette of 11 December 2025, No. 33104, re-regulated the provisions on the building occupancy permit and the fire brigade report for accommodation premises in the Regulation on Workplace Opening and Operating Licenses. This was followed by Regulation No. 10852, published in the Official Gazette of 10 January 2026, No. 33133, which added Provisional Article 9 to the same Regulation. [2] [3]

Provisional Article 9 covers accommodation premises for which a fire brigade report must be obtained and to which a period has been given under Provisional Article 4 of the fire regulation for the completion of deficiencies. Where a report showing conformity cannot be presented at inspection, these premises must be barred from operating immediately; the period granted until 31 May 2026 may be used only for the necessary manufacturing and alteration work; and premises that cannot present a report by the end of the period must have their licences cancelled and be closed. No accommodation activity is permitted during this period. [3]

As of 12 October 2026, the date of 31 May has passed. The current question for the operator is therefore not whether it can accept customers by using the former period, but whether it falls within the scope, which report it submitted on time, and whether the conditions of the action taken have been met. Where there has been administrative delay in concluding the inspection or the report application, the application dates, the complete submission of the file and the reminders made become especially important. However, having applied is not the same as having received a favourable report.

Can the transitional provision be applied in the same way to all facilities?

A new hotel that is about to open cannot use this temporary arrangement as a right to begin operating without a fire report. Relying on Provisional Article 9 for a facility that does not meet its conditions of scope, merely because a report is missing, itself requires an assessment of lawfulness. Nevertheless, reliance on a wrong transitional provision does not mean that the facility is safe under other legislation or that no other action can be taken. [1] [2] [3]

The examination cannot be completed by looking at a single current text. The date of the licence, any change of use, the finding of deficiencies, the period given, the submission of the report and the date of the cancellation action are assessed together. A subsequently enacted provision cannot automatically be carried back to an earlier action date; nor can an expired transitional period be presented as a new permission to operate.

Which fire safety conditions apply to which facility?

Old licensed hotels and buildings later converted into hotels

The Regulation on Fire Protection of Buildings governs not only the design and construction stages but also operation, maintenance and use. It does, however, contain special provisions for existing structures. For this reason, the two generalizations "an old licence exempts from all new conditions" and "all old hotels are treated as new buildings" are both inaccurate. [1]

Article 138 of the Regulation governs the regime for existing structures and the criterion connected with building projects approved by the competent authority before 19 December 2007. The principle that no additional measures are requested for existing structures in which measures compliant with the previous regulation have been taken applies subject to the scope and exceptions of the provision. By contrast, buildings whose use is changed to accommodation after the Regulation came into force are assessed differently under Articles 138 and 139. Converting an old house into a guesthouse today cannot bring it within the existing hotel regime merely by reference to the building's age. [1]

Title deed records alone may not be sufficient to prove this distinction. The first project approval, the building permit, the occupancy permit, alteration projects, decisions on change of use and the actual start of use are examined together. In the case of historic or registered buildings, the permits of the conservation board are also important; conservation status does not remove the need for safety. The solution must be developed within the relevant conservation and technical legislation.

Bungalow, mobile home, camping and retreat businesses

The scope of the Fire Regulation includes both open and enclosed businesses. However, the licence and tourism certificate regime is not the same for every model in the table. Whether a mobile unit counts as a building, the lawfulness of the land use and the fire measures of the facility are separate questions. A registration plate does not replace a zoning permit or a workplace license; nor does a fire brigade report automatically cure unlawful use of the land. [1] [2]

A permit for the short-term leasing of residences for tourism purposes is also not identical to a hotel licence. Describing a place that is in fact operated as an accommodation facility merely as "villa rental" does not prevent the correct regime from applying. The type of certificate, the actual service provided and the relevant special regulation must be used as the basis of assessment.

Why can technical measures not be reduced to a single checklist?

Escape routes and staircases, the strength of doors, smoke control, detection and alarm, emergency lighting, extinguishing systems, the kitchen, electricity, fuel and fire brigade access are examined together. Which system must be mandatory, and to what specification, varies with the class of use, the building height, area, number of beds, number of storeys and the existing building regime. A sales company's standard equipment list does not replace an approved fire project. [1]

For example, where the hotel provisions in Article 50 of the Regulation apply, a minimum fire resistance of 30 minutes and a self-closing arrangement are required for room doors opening onto an internal corridor. The same article contains exit requirements linked to the number of beds and storeys, and circumstances in which a single staircase may be sufficient under certain conditions. This example is intended not to transfer measurements to all facilities, but to show that a threshold and its exception must be read within the same provision. Without first determining the existing building regime, no deficiency or exemption can be established on the basis of Article 50 alone. [1]

How is a fire brigade report obtained and how should an unfavourable report be approached?

Preparing the application file

First, the authority competent to grant the licence and the competent fire brigade unit that will issue the report must be identified. The role of the municipality, the metropolitan municipality, the provincial special administration or a specially authorized administration may vary depending on the location and legal status of the facility. The application channel and the unit carrying out the inspection need not be the same. A special permission obtained from another institution does not automatically remove the obligation to hold a workplace license. [2]

In preparation, the following documents should be matched by address, operator and capacity:

• Building permit, occupancy permit and approved architectural, electrical, mechanical and fire projects.
• Workplace license, tourism certificate, capacity and activity information; previous reports and inspection records.
• Conformity documents for fire doors and systems, installation, commissioning, test and maintenance records.
• Emergency plan, staff duty and training records, evacuation layout and drill documents.
• Changes concerning rooms, attic space, enclosed terraces, kitchen, storage or meeting areas added later.

This list is not a closed list of documents that every administration will require under the same name. The application form and the local service process should be checked separately. The legal and technical basis of any document the administration requests can also be questioned. A receipt of the application and a record of which annexes were submitted should be kept. [1] [2] [12]

How do a transfer of the business, an increase in capacity and alterations affect an old report?

In a transfer file, what matters as much as the date of the old report is which building, use, capacity and project it covers. Article 8 of the Regulation on Workplace Opening and Operating Licenses provides that, where the activity, its area and the address do not change in a transfer, a licence is issued in the name of the new operator on the basis of the existing file. However, a new licence cannot be issued unless the physical condition or file irregularities attributable to the operator, as stated in the provision, have been cured. Taking on a new partner or a partner leaving is not, on its own, the same transaction. [2]

The acquirer should compare the report with the current situation and the floor plans. Added bungalows, a new accommodation block, an increase in rooms or beds, a closed terrace, a relocated kitchen and a changed escape route may go beyond the scope of the earlier inspection. For changes that affect fire measures, the need for a fresh fire brigade inspection is determined together with the project, building and operating permits. A transfer does not remove an earlier technical deficiency; nor does every transfer mean that the existing report is automatically invalid. [1] [2]

Where renewal or conformity of a licence is required, the general application period under Article 8 of the Regulation is three months, and six months for heirs; indefinite waiting is not possible. If it is established that no application was made in time, a fifteen-day period is given; if the licence is not renewed or conformity is not achieved within that period, the licence is cancelled. These periods do not confer a right to begin operating with new capacity without permission. Before a purchase or lease contract, the administration should be asked in writing about the scope of the existing report and the changes to be made; the report, licence, tourism certificate and alteration permits should be matched to the same facility. It should not be assumed that there is a single annual renewal period for all fire brigade reports. [2]

Is a report merely a finding, or a final rejection decision?

An unfavourable report should explain the location, measurement and applicable provision of each deficiency, and the method of finding it. An abstract statement that the facility "is not suitable from the fire safety point of view" makes technical and legal review of the file difficult. Where it is claimed that a measurement is wrong, a concrete response is prepared with the approved project, on-site measurement, photographs and expert evaluation. Where it is claimed that the real deficiency has been remedied, an installation and function test is submitted alongside the purchase invoice.

Not every report is a final and immediately enforceable decision that can by itself be the subject of an annulment action. Some reports are evidence in the preparatory stage of a licence decision. By contrast, a final refusal to issue a conformity certificate, or an action ending the legal effect of an existing report, may be separately challengeable depending on its concrete content. For the purposes of Articles 14 and 15 of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK), what matters is the legal consequence the report produces, not its heading. Where the report is used as the basis for a later licence cancellation, the technical errors in the report may also be disputed in that action. [7]

Requesting a re-examination is useful; but this application does not in every case stop the lawsuit period for a separately notified licence cancellation. What matters is against which action, to which authority and within what period an application was made. Holding off a notice of licence cancellation on the basis of the thought "we are talking to the fire brigade" may cause serious loss of rights.

What happens if a fire brigade report or a permit application is left unanswered?

A request for a new action that may be the subject of an administrative lawsuit is assessed, according to its nature, under Article 10 of the İYUK. Under the general rule, failure to reply within thirty days is treated as a rejection; the action may be brought in court within the lawsuit period running from the end of that period. In administrative court disputes with no special time limit, that period is sixty days. Silence is not treated as a favourable report or as permission to operate. Where the technical report has the character of a preparatory action, it is separately determined which final rejection or permit decision is to be the subject of the action. [7]

If the reply given within the first thirty days is not final, the applicant may either sue treating it as a rejection or wait for the final reply. In the second case the lawsuit period does not run; however, the waiting period may not exceed four months from the application. Where no action is brought or the action is dismissed as out of time, the provision of Article 10/2 of the İYUK, under which the competent authority must reply after the thirty-day period, is also assessed; under that provision, with the conditions set by law, a route of sixty days from notification of that reply is provided for. [7]

These two routes are not chosen according to the heading of the application petition. Presenting the same objection as a "new report request" after the lawsuit period for an existing licence cancellation has expired does not revive the time limit for the earlier action. The requested action, the competent addressee, the record of receipt, the completeness of the annexes, any interim reply and any separate licence cancellation notice should be kept together on the file. [7]

The route from inspection to cancellation of a licence and certificate

Is a fifteen-day period always required first for every deficiency?

Article 13 of the Regulation on Workplace Opening and Operating Licenses provides that, for deficiencies and violations identified in a post-licence inspection, a one-time period of fifteen days is given; if they are not remedied, the licence is cancelled and the premises closed. However, the special provisions applicable to the particular activity, the legal ground for the action and any special closure powers that may apply must be examined separately. This provision does not create an unlimited "fifteen days first" right applicable to all sanctions. [2]

In its decision of 12 February 2025, E.2024/2076, K.2025/984, the 4th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 4. Daire) upheld the decision finding unlawful the cancellation of a hotel licence without a fifteen-day period, where the licence had been issued without the police opinion and fire brigade report, as stated. The dissenting opinion treated the initial lack of documentation as the withdrawal of a licence based on an obvious error. The decision is important for procedural safeguards; it is not a technical finding that the hotel complied with fire safety. Nor can it be generalized directly to the different actions based on the provisional Article 9 of 2026. [8]

Making a licence "passive" and signing authority

The fact that the administration calls the action "suspension", "passive record" or "temporary stoppage" does not place it outside judicial review. Where the business is rendered unable to operate in fact, the legal basis of that result and the authority of the body that took the action are examined.

In its decision of 9 March 2026, E.2026/1175, K.2026/1161, the 4th Chamber of the Council of State assessed the making of a licence passive until fire deficiencies were remedied as being, in its effect, of the same nature as a cancellation of the licence. The authorization of the deputy mayor's action required the mayor's delegation; a municipal council decision and an internal memorandum allocating duties between departments were not considered sufficient. The cancellation was upheld on grounds of competence. The dissenting opinion argued for parallelism of competence and procedure, on the basis that the deputy mayor had also issued the original licence. [9]

The practical consequence of this decision is that the file must be supplemented not only with the licence and the report but also with the delegation of authority and the appointment document in force on the date of the action. However, a cancellation for want of competence does not mean that the deficiencies have disappeared. The competent authority may make a new action in accordance with the reasoning of the court, if the conditions are met.

The sanction scale for the tourism certificate is different

Articles 32, 33 and 34 of Law No. 2634 must be read together. Operator fault or irregularity and a significant loss of the qualities on which certification is based are not in the same category. Article 34/1-e of the Law provides for the expiry or cancellation of the certificate on which the operating permit is based as a ground for cancellation; Article 34/1-f provides for a significant loss of qualities as a ground for cancellation of the certificate. [5]

The decision of the 4th Chamber of the Council of State dated 23 May 2024, E.2024/1339, K.2024/3352, illustrates this distinction. In a facility converted into a disco-bar in breach of its special facility certificate, the judgment finding that a period should first have been given was quashed. The majority of the Chamber accepted that, where the grounds for cancellation in Article 34 exist, there is no mandatory order of sanctions in every case. The dissenting opinion favoured affirmance. This case is not a direct dispute over a hotel's fire report; however, it explains why the argument that "the Ministry must always give a warning before any certificate cancellation" is not sufficient on its own. [10]

In a fire file, therefore, the seriousness of the deficiency, its effect on the certified nature of the facility and the sub-paragraph applied must be made concrete. An answer to a serious risk assessment that merely says the deficiency can be remedied may be insufficient. Conversely, treating a minor operational irregularity as a significant loss of qualities without reasons may also be subject to review.

Special exception for facilities with a simple accommodation certificate: Under Article 33/1-n of the Law, for breaches within Articles 34/1-d, f and k, a fine is provided for instead of cancellation of the certificate. This exception cannot be spread collectively to other sub-paragraphs such as 34/1-e, or to independent workplace licence and fire safety sanctions. The current amount of the fine is also determined by the regulations valid for the relevant year, not by the figure in the law as first enacted. [5]

In which court is a stoppage of work on occupational health and safety grounds challenged?

Where fire risk creates a life-threatening danger for employees, the stoppage of work under Article 25 of Law No. 6331 may also arise. In this procedure, the finding of the labour inspector, the board decision provided for in the law, the situation of emergency intervention and the enforcement by the civil administrative chief are distinguished from one another. Even if the decision has been enforced at the facility by the law enforcement authorities, where the legal basis is Article 25 of Law No. 6331, the route of challenge is determined by that special provision. [12]

The employer may challenge the decision before the competent labour court within six working days from the date on which it was carried out. The challenge does not in itself lift the stoppage. The law provides that the court decides first and within six working days, and that the decision is final. Applying the general sixty-day administrative lawsuit period against a licence cancellation to this action may therefore cause loss of rights. The enforcement record is especially important for determining the start of the period. [12]

These actions may coexist in relation to the same facility; applying to one does not preserve the time limit for another. When the grounds for stoppage have been removed, the law provides that, on the employer's written notice to the Ministry, an on-site inspection must be carried out and the request concluded within seven days at the latest. This remedial route is separate from the judicial challenge within the time limit and from the reassessment of the municipal licence or tourism certificate. [7] [12]

Which power of the Ministry did the Constitutional Court annul?

The Constitutional Court's decision of 17 October 2024, E.2021/100, K.2024/174, was published in the Official Gazette of 24 March 2025, No. 32851. The annulment provisions that matter here took effect after a nine-month postponement, on 24 December 2025. [6]

By the decision, the provisions linked to Article 5, paragraph 7, of Law No. 2634 were annulled, namely the ban on activity for failure to obtain a tourism operating certificate within the period, the cancellation of the workplace license, and the requirement of the Ministry's opinion for re-licensing. The relevant third and fourth paragraphs of the transitional Article 11, and the relevant sentences of Article 6, paragraph 4, concerning luxury tent facilities, also fall within the decision. The reasoning focuses on the fact that the conditions for the certificate, which interfere with freedom of enterprise, were not sufficiently determined at the level of statute. [6]

The result of this decision is not that "the Ministry can no longer issue tourism certificates, carry out inspections or cancel any certificate". In particular, the powers and sanctions in Articles 30 and 34 have not been wholly removed. Nor has the simple accommodation certification system been disregarded in its entirety. Moreover, the last paragraph of Article 34 contains a separate provision that, upon cancellation of a certificate under sub-paragraphs j and l of paragraph 1 of the same article, the workplace license is to be cancelled within one month. [5] [6]

Another important consequence is this: a closure action taken on the basis of a valid statutory provision because of a fire safety deficiency cannot be treated as void automatically merely by citing this Constitutional Court decision. The certificate sanction for lack of documentation and the sanction for a concrete deficiency affecting life safety are not the same legal ground. The real basis, date and reasoning of the action should be compared. [6]

The decisions of the Constitutional Court are binding; but the entry into force of an annulment of a norm does not mean that all old licences are returned automatically. Its effect in a pending case is raised with reference to the rule to be applied and the state of the proceedings. Final decisions, individual actions that are time-barred and new applications are not subject to the same procedural regime. Without making this distinction, it is not legally safe to conclude that "the Constitutional Court annulled it, so the facility may open". [6] [7]

Lawsuit in the administrative court against cancellation of a licence or certificate

How are the subject of the action, the claimant and the defendant determined?

The route commonly called "annulment of the annulment" is an action seeking the annulment of the administrative action that cancelled the licence or certificate. The petition should clearly state the date and number of the action, the date of notification, and the details of the facility and certificate. A general statement such as "return my licence" does not take the place of identifying the actions under challenge. [7]

The licence holder company, the certificate holder, the tenant operator and the owner of the land may not be the same person. The claimant's personal, legitimate and current interest must be explained. The defendant is identified according to the authority that made the action. It is incorrect to present a municipal action and a Ministry action as the decision of the same administration merely because they concern the same facility. Although a wrong opponent may be corrected by the court, it is not appropriate to bring an incomplete action in reliance on that. [7]

Whether several actions may be challenged in a single petition depends on the conditions of connection in Article 5 of the İYUK and on the rules of jurisdiction and competence. Where separate actions must be brought, the connection and the basic relationship between the files are notified to the court. In particular, for a Ministry action based on the cancellation of a licence, the YD or annulment decision in the earlier action must be submitted immediately.

Which administrative court has jurisdiction?

Article 32 of the İYUK governs general jurisdiction, and Article 34 the special jurisdiction for disputes concerning licences and similar matters relating to real property. Accordingly, the fact that the Ministry is located in Ankara does not mean that all tourism certificate actions must be brought in Ankara. The jurisdiction of the administrative court where the facility is located must be specially assessed. [7]

In its decision of 18 October 2011, E.2011/13018, K.2011/1728, the 14th Chamber of the Council of State accepted, in a dispute arising from the cancellation of the tourism operating certificate of a hotel in Istanbul, that under Article 34 of the İYUK the court of the place where the property is located had jurisdiction. The decision concerns a question of jurisdiction; the statement on the legal remedy from that earlier period should not be carried into the current litigation process. In the current file, the nature of the action and the special rules of jurisdiction must be determined afresh. [11]

The sixty-day period and the effect of an administrative application

Unless a special period is provided, the time limit for bringing an annulment action in the administrative court is sixty days. As a rule, the period runs from the day after written notice. Discussions about physical notification, electronic notification and knowledge through the implementation of the action should be examined separately. The annulment action must be placed on file together with the notification document. This general period cannot be used in place of the six-working-day objection period under Article 25 of Law No. 6331 described above. [7] [12]

Under Article 11 of the İYUK, an application made within the lawsuit period to remove, withdraw or change the action, addressed to a higher authority or, where there is none, to the authority that took the action, suspends the running lawsuit period. If no reply is given within thirty days, the application is deemed rejected. After an express or implied rejection, the remaining period runs; a new sixty-day period does not start automatically. Days elapsed before the application are taken into account. Ordinary requests for information, or an application to a different technical unit, do not produce this effect. [7]

The administrative litigation periods in the table apply together with the İYUK's rules on calculating time and the special procedural provisions; the six-working-day objection in Law No. 6331 is subject to its own regime. Holidays, periods of suspension of work, the validity of notification and the nature of the application may change the concrete timetable. By way of simple example: in a sixty-day period of which twenty days have already elapsed before the application, if the conditions of Article 11 of the İYUK are met, the remaining portion is forty days; it is not a new sixty days. [7] [12]

How is the fifth day of electronic notification and the lawsuit period calculated?

Under Article 7/a of Law No. 7201 on Notification, an electronic notification is deemed made at the end of the fifth day following the day on which it reached the recipient's electronic notification address. Access to the UETS, reading of the document and the date on which it is legally deemed notified are separate records. The calculation is made not from an SMS or email alert but from the relevant UETS records and the applicable procedural provision. The administrative lawsuit period, as a rule, also starts on the day after the legal date of notification. [7] [17]

Hypothetical example of calculation: If a licence cancellation action reaches the UETS address on Thursday, 1 October 2026, a regular notification is deemed made at the end of Tuesday, 6 October 2026. Assuming there is no special period and no application that suspends the period, the sixty-day lawsuit period begins on 7 October; the sixtieth day falls on Saturday, 5 December 2026, so the last day is extended to Monday, 7 December 2026. This example is not the calculation of the time limit for any particular file: if an application under Article 11 of the İYUK, an irregular notification or a different special provision exists, the calculation must be redone. [7] [17]

The five-day waiting period in electronic notification is not automatically added to the six-working-day objection period that Article 25 of Law No. 6331 ties to the enforcement of the decision. Two actions notified on the same day do not merge their starting events or their judicial routes. [12] [17]

How is a stay of execution justified?

Filing an action does not stay the implementation of a licence cancellation or closure action. Under Article 27 of the İYUK, the conditions of a clear breach of law and of damage difficult or impossible to remedy if the action is implemented must be shown together. A request for a stay of execution may be submitted with the lawsuit petition; it is important that the reasoning is supported by concrete documents. [7]

The allegation of unlawfulness may consist of unauthorized signature, the wrong building regime, a faulty measurement, falling outside the scope of a transitional provision, disregard of the fact that the report was submitted on time, or omission of a required procedural safeguard. As regards damage, the concrete consequences may be presented: reservation contracts, the duration of the season, staff and financing burdens, customers who have been evacuated and the loss of activity. A bare statement "I invested heavily" does not refute a finding of fire risk.

In fire files, the assessment of the risk to life is decisive. Where findings such as a closed escape door, a non-functioning alarm or a serious obstruction to evacuation exist, a request based solely on economic loss is weakened. The legal objection and the actual remedy of the risk must be pursued together. Technical work should document that the alleged non-compliance is absent or has been remedied; customer safety and litigation strategy must not be substituted for one another.

Where the action is one whose effect is exhausted once implemented, the court may, under the conditions in the law, make a stay of execution decision in advance, with a fresh decision to be made after the defence has been received. This exception is not automatically applied in every hotel closure case. Against a stay of execution decision there is a seven-day objection route; since a stay may not be requested again on the same grounds, the difference between a new technical report or new fact and the earlier request must be clearly shown. [7]

Can the closure of only the risky part, rather than the whole facility, be requested?

The scope of the action must be examined together with the risk identified. Article 25 of Law No. 6331 allows work to be stopped in part or in whole of the workplace, taking into account the nature of the danger, the area that will be affected and the employees. For the workplace licence or the tourism certificate, the same result cannot be transferred automatically; the specific sanction provision, the legal integrity of the facility and the reason for the decision are decisive. [2] [5] [12]

A request for partial interim relief should not be limited to the statement that "the deficiency is on one floor only". Independent entrances and escapes of the sections, fire-resistant separation, shared alarm and extinguishing systems, smoke spread, kitchen and energy infrastructure should be shown technically. Where a deficiency in one block affects the shared escape route or the central system, the risk may spread to the whole facility. The claim that the same safety can be achieved through partial interim relief is made concrete within the framework of a proportionality assessment and the provision to be applied. [1] [7] [12]

When requesting partial lifting from the court or the administration, the section requested and the conditions under which it can be operated safely must be stated clearly. The operator reopening one floor on its own assessment does not change the scope of the existing closure decision. In a stay of execution, both the unlawfulness and the damage difficult or impossible to remedy must be explained for this limited request as well. [7]

How should the evidence file be built?

An application for an inspection and expert examination should not be left at the bare request that "the suitability of the facility be examined". It should ask which building was subject to which regime on which date, which measurement is disputed, whether the deficiency is located where the report describes it, and what the later change remedied. The choice of legal authority and sanction is for the court; a technical expert report does not replace it. Articles 20, 31 and Article 58 of the İYUK on the preservation of evidence are considered together as needed. [7]

Repair work carried out after an inspection may make the situation on the date in dispute invisible. Where the necessary safety intervention cannot be delayed, photographs before and after, project revisions, serial numbers and service records should be preserved. Subsequent achievement of conformity does not in itself prove that the earlier action was unlawful on the day it was taken; however, it may be important for a fresh application and the assessment of continuing measures.

Where repair or inspection is required in a sealed area, a written permission and supervision procedure should be set up with the competent administration. The operator should not remove the seal on its own decision. Breaking a seal may give rise to a criminal law issue separate from the administrative dispute. [14]

How is a facility reopened after a court decision?

Enforcement of an annulment or YD decision

Under Article 28 of the İYUK, the administration must carry out the decisions on the merits and the YD decisions without delay; the period may not exceed thirty days from notification of the decision to the administration. Thirty days is not a free waiting period that the administration may use in every case. The action must be taken in accordance with the reasoning and the operative part of the decision. [7]

An application for enforcement should attach the decision, the notification information and the licence and certificate numbers. Concrete results may be requested, such as correction of the licence record, removal of the seal or re-examination. It should be explained which closure action has been neutralised by which decision. Where, on the removal of a municipal licence cancellation, a separate Ministry certificate cancellation remains in force, it cannot be accepted that all problems have been solved by winning the first action alone.

The results differ between a court decision annulling an action for want of competence or procedure, and one finding that there was no technical breach. In the first case, the administration may, within the court's reasoning and, where the conditions are met, make a fresh action through the correct authority and procedure. Repetition without reasons of the same result contradicting the reasoning of an annulment on the merits is itself subject to judicial review. Failure or incorrect implementation of the decision may raise new application and compensation routes. [7]

Do an appeal and an appeal on points of law give the right to continue operating?

As a rule, resort to a remedy does not automatically stop the enforcement of the court's decision; an application for enforcement under Article 52 of the İYUK is assessed separately. Where the claim has been dismissed, a mere appeal does not remove the closure decision. [7]

The current provisions of Articles 45 and 46 of the İYUK must be read together. Actions against decisions that prevent a particular commercial activity indefinitely or for thirty days or longer are significant under Article 46/1-e. In addition, Law No. 7589, accepted on 16 July 2026, published in the Official Gazette of 31 July 2026, No. 33326, changed the legal remedy regime in Articles 45 and 46 of the İYUK. The relevant amendments took effect on 31 July 2026. For decisions in cases outside Article 46/1 in which the regional administrative court quashes the first-instance decision and gives a new one, an additional right of appeal is assessed together with the exceptions in Article 46/2. Transitional provision 1/3 of the Law takes as its basis decisions given by the regional administrative courts after the amendment entered into force; earlier decisions are governed by the former provisions. The date of acceptance should not be confused with the dates of publication and entry into force; the effect of the decision, the type of provision, the exceptions and the date of the decision should be examined rather than the name of the law. [7] [18]

Liability, contracts and investment cost in fire safety

Liability of the owner, operator and technical service provider

Article 6 of the Fire Regulation distinguishes the duties and liabilities of building owners, employers, project authors, contractors, building inspection and operating officials. A design error, faulty construction, a system failing to work because of how it is operated, and a failure to install the required system are not the same facts. The fact that the rental agreement allocates the cost to a particular party does not, by itself, remove all responsibility towards third parties and the administration. [1]

Before investment, in addition to the review of transfers and alterations described above, the financial and contractual consequences of changes such as a storeroom converted into a room, new bedrooms in the roof space, a closed passage and an enlarged kitchen should be determined. Taking over a business that holds a licence and a tourism certificate is not a guarantee that there are no hidden technical deficiencies. The gap between the scope of the old report and the actual situation is also important for proving claims against the seller or lessor.

In leases, business transfers and construction contracts, the following should be clearly drafted: disclosure of past deficiencies, delivery of approved projects, permission for structural changes, cost sharing, acceptance tests, maintenance duties, correction in case of non-conformity, and recourse provisions. Instead of a contractor's "fire approval guarantee", it should be determined which project, standard, product and acceptance test is undertaken. The administration's discretion and power of review cannot be bound by a private contract.

Private law and criminal liability if a fire breaks out

The duty of protection arising from the accommodation contract, liability in tort, and the liability of the employer and of the building owner may arise together, depending on the concrete event. Under Articles 49, 66, 69 and 112 and related provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), the damage, adequate causation and the applicable liability regime are determined separately. No manager may be treated as automatically liable merely because of the title, nor may it be assumed that all liability has been transferred by an external service contract. [13]

Criminal liability is personal. The provisions on negligent killing, negligent injury and endangering general safety are assessed by reference to how the event occurred and the actual duties of individuals. The distinction between conscious negligence and possible intent depends on facts such as awareness of the danger and the will as to the result; it is not determined automatically by the occurrence of the serious consequence alone. Board decisions, maintenance warnings, budget requests and risk notifications may be important in this examination. [14]

The responsibility of the public administration is also distinct from that of the private operator. The link between a failure of inspection, licensing or intervention against danger and the damage is investigated. Academic commentary points to problems arising from the coexistence of general police powers and tourism police powers. That debate may not be used to declare a single institution responsible or not responsible in advance in every event. The concrete chain of duty, information, action and omission must be established. [16]

Insurance and losses from closure

Fire insurance, third-party liability, employer's liability and business-interruption cover are not of the same scope. The fact that an administrative authority closed the facility does not mean that the policy pays all business losses. Some business-interruption cover may require a condition that the insured suffered physical damage. By contrast, it also cannot be said that every breach of legislation automatically removes all insurance rights. The policy, special conditions, the duty of disclosure, aggravation of risk and the connection with the event are examined together. Article 6/6 of the Fire Regulation also governs the insurer's function of checking conformity. [1] [15]

For losses arising from an unlawful licence cancellation, full remedy action options are assessed under Article 12 of the İYUK. The annulment decision does not in itself establish compensation. The gross reservation price and the real loss of profit are not the same; cancellations, refunds, expenses saved, the possibility of mitigating the loss and causation are made concrete. For losses arising from administrative action or from negligent inspection, the preliminary application and time regime of Article 13 of the İYUK are different: as a rule, application to the administration within one year from learning of the loss and in any event within five years from the action; after rejection or thirty days' silence, the lawsuit period becomes relevant. [7]

How are reservations and agency contracts managed at a closed facility?

Where accommodation cannot be provided because of a prohibition on activity, existing and upcoming reservations should be identified, and guests and the agency or organiser that is a party to the contract should be informed in good time. The evacuation and safe passage arrangement, advance payments, cancellation notices, alternative accommodation proposed and refunds made should be recorded in writing. Offering another hotel does not remove all refund and compensation claims without the parties' agreement or an applicable special provision.

For accommodation of a consumer nature, the provisions of Articles 13 to 15 of Law No. 6502 apply to defective performance of the service; for non-provision of the service and other breaches of contract, the Turkish Code of Obligations is assessed according to the nature of the event. Depending on the remedy chosen, refund, price reduction and, where the conditions are met, damages may arise. A package tour, a direct hotel booking and a purely intermediary service are not the same contract; the addressee of the claim is determined by the role in the contract and the special regime. [13] [19]

An administrative closure is not automatically a force majeure event under every contract. A fire deficiency that the operator could have remedied and that led to closure affects the defence of absence of fault. In respect of Articles 112 and 136–138 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, fault, impossibility of performance, partial impossibility and excessive difficulty of performance are examined separately. In assessing the notice, cancellation, penalty and risk-sharing provisions of the contract with the agency, supplier or lessor, the mandatory rights of the consumer are also taken into account. [13] [19]

How does a stoppage of work affect employees' pay and employment contracts?

Under a stoppage under Article 25 of Law No. 6331, there is a duty to pay the employees who cannot work, or to give them other work suited to their profession or position without reducing their pay. Because of this special provision, a stoppage decision cannot by itself be used as the basis for unpaid leave or for a deduction from pay. Staff lists, working arrangements, assignments made and pay records should be documented separately. [12]

Where closure occurs for another reason, the employment contract, the employer's liability and the applicable employment law provisions are determined. The grounds of force majeure and the half-pay rules in Articles 24/III, 25/III and 40 of Labour Law No. 4857 (İş Kanunu) cannot be applied automatically to every licence cancellation. Unpaid leave, changes to working conditions and termination are subject to separate conditions; in particular, under Article 22 of the Labour Law, the nature of the change and the conditions of acceptance should be examined. The obligations towards employees continue while the lawsuit against the administration is pending. [20]

An investment budget is not only the cost of equipment

The cost of fire compliance includes project review, the necessary structural changes, electrical and mechanical systems, testing and commissioning, maintenance, training and the interruption of activity. Giving a single price per room without seeing the building is misleading. In a preliminary review, for each deficiency the legal basis, technical solution, need for permits, responsible party, expected period and effect on operations should be written separately.

Record-keeping continues after the report is obtained, to ensure the business continues to operate. The staff duties and the emergency plan are updated; system maintenance, training and drills are carried out in accordance with the relevant legislation. The closure of a seasonal facility does not remove the need to check that systems are working before reopening. A favourable report cannot be treated as a certificate of perfection of unlimited duration. [1] [12]

What to do first on receiving a licence cancellation or closure notice

The first review should set up the safety measures and the application timetable together. The list below is for practical preparation; it does not create a statutory extension or permission to continue operating.

• Separate the actions: Open separate records for the fire brigade report, the licence cancellation, the tourism certificate cancellation, the sealing and any Article 25 decision under Law No. 6331, if there is one. Note the date and number of the decision, its legal basis and the authority that made it.
• Document the start dates: Obtain the physical notification papers, the UETS delivery and notification records and the enforcement record. Establish which of the notification date and the actual enforcement date is the operative one for each action.
• Calculate the authority and the time limit: For each action, write separately the competent court, jurisdiction, the special or general time limit and the effect of any application under Article 10 or 11 of the İYUK. Do not assume that a meeting with another institution preserves the time limit.
• Protect the technical file: Gather the projects, previous reports, deficiency findings, photographs, maintenance and test records. Keep separate the condition before remedy and the later work, with dates.
• Take safety and contract measures: Ensure the safety of guests and employees; review reservations, notices and payment obligations. Follow the written permission procedure for any work in a sealed area.
• Plan temporary protection and reopening: In the administrative court, assess the conditions for a YD; assess the special objection under Law No. 6331 and the notice of remedy. If partial reopening is sought, specify the section and the safety conditions. Monitor separately the effect of the decision on other independent actions.

The action schedule should contain at least the type of action, legal basis, authority, notification and enforcement dates, competent forum, time limit, application made, decision and status of enforcement. This prevents the initial closure action from being the only focus while a later-notified certificate cancellation or a special objection route is overlooked. [7] [12] [17]

Conclusion

Building a sound file on fire safety at a tourism facility depends on giving clear answers to three questions: which technical obligation has been breached, which authority has made which action, and by what route and within what period that action may be challenged? Keeping the fire brigade report, the workplace licence, the tourism certificate and the stoppage of work on occupational health and safety grounds separate, and pursuing the related actions and applications at the same time but within their own competence and time rules, makes this possible.

The 2026 transitional arrangement did not create a period of renovation that allows customers to be accepted; nor has the Constitutional Court's annulment of a norm removed fire safety inspection in its entirety. The old building provisions, the exceptions specific to simple accommodation certificates and the procedural safeguards are important; none of them is a substitute for investigating the concrete risk.

For the operator, the right approach is to pursue the legal objection together with achieving technical conformity. Where a court decision is obtained, the scope of the decision, the separate actions and the conditions for reopening should be checked. In that way, the unnecessary loss of activity can be avoided and the safety of guests and employees protected consistently within the same file.

Frequently Asked Questions

If I have a fire brigade report, do I still need a tourism operating certificate?

The report concerns the fire safety review. It does not remove the tourism certificate and workplace licence obligations that apply to the facility. The business model and the type of certificate are determined separately.

Does the simple accommodation certificate exempt the facility from the fire report?

No. The existence of a fine exception for certain grounds of certificate cancellation in the law is not an exemption from fire measures or from independent licence conditions.

Could a facility remain open until 31 May 2026?

Not for facilities barred from operating under Provisional Article 9. The period was for the necessary manufacturing and alteration work. As of 12 October 2026, this date has passed, so the report submission and the conditions of the action in the concrete file must be examined.

Is an old licensed hotel subject to all the new technical conditions?

It cannot be answered in one sentence. The provisions on existing structures, the first project approval, earlier measures and change of use are assessed together. Conversion of an old house into a hotel later may produce a different result in particular.

Is a tiny house outside fire inspection because it is on wheels?

No. Wheels and a registration plate do not remove all the safety obligations of a commercial facility. The legal character of the unit, the actual use of the facility and the common areas are examined together.

Must a fifteen-day period always be given before a licence is cancelled?

Where the relevant licensing provision applies, the guarantee of a period is important. However, the special sanction provisions and the reason for the action are determined separately. The same period rule does not apply to all grounds for cancelling a tourism certificate.

Did the Constitutional Court decision remove all of the Ministry's cancellation powers?

No. Decision E.2021/100, K.2024/174 annulled certain provisions. The grounds for certificate cancellation in Article 34 of the Law and the fire safety powers under other legislation have not been removed.

If I object to the municipality, will my lawsuit period become sixty days again?

No. An application meeting the conditions of Article 11 of the İYUK suspends the remaining part of the period. After an express or implied rejection the remaining part runs. Because not every application has this effect, the subject and addressee of the petition are important.

Is the seal removed when I file an annulment action?

No. Filing an action does not automatically stay implementation. A YD or annulment decision and its enforcement are required; any other independent closure actions are also assessed.

Must a lawsuit against a Ministry action always be brought in Ankara?

No. For disputes connected with real property and licences, the jurisdiction of the court of the place where the facility is located may arise under Article 34 of the İYUK. The special and general rules of jurisdiction are examined together according to the nature of the action.

Does winning a case on the basis of an unauthorized signature prove that the facility is safe?

No. That decision concerns a defect of authority. If technical deficiencies continue, the competent authority may make a new action consistent with the reasoning of the decision.

If the licence cancellation is removed, does the tourism certificate automatically return?

Not always. Where a separate certificate cancellation action exists, its status, its time limit and the consequence of the removal of its basis are dealt with separately. The court decision must be submitted to both administrations to the extent required.

Does a fire policy pay the whole revenue loss of a closed hotel?

No. The scope of cover, the physical damage condition, the exceptions and the obligations under the policy are examined. An administrative closure and insured fire damage are not the same event.

Is it compulsory to wait thirty days for a court decision to be implemented?

No. The administration's duty is to implement without delay; thirty days is the upper limit. The starting point is notification of the decision to the administration. If the decision is not carried out, the remedies and judicial routes specific to that are assessed.

Against a labour inspector's stoppage decision, is one also taken to the administrative court within sixty days?

For a stoppage of work under Article 25 of Law No. 6331 there is a special route: an objection is made to the competent labour court within six working days from the date on which the decision is carried out. The route and time limit for a separate licence cancellation at the same facility are also followed separately.

If my application for a fire brigade report is not answered, may I start operating?

No. Silence is not treated as a favourable report. Under an application under Article 10 of the İYUK, the general position is rejection after thirty days without reply and the judicial route; the legal nature of the report and of the requested action is important.

If I read an electronic notification late, does my lawsuit period also start late?

For a properly made electronic notification, the legal date is the end of the fifth day after the notification reached the UETS address. Reading the document late does not postpone that date. The special starting rules that apply to the action are also examined separately.

Does an old fire brigade report cover bungalows added later?

It cannot be said that it automatically covers them. The site plan, capacity, structures and use on which the report was based should be compared with the effect of the new units on the shared safety systems. The necessary project, permits and re-examination process are then determined.

If there is a deficiency in only one block, can the other blocks reopen?

That result is not automatic. The legal basis of the action, the scope of the closure and the technical independence of the blocks are examined. A risk in the shared escape route or the fire system may affect the whole facility; without changing the existing decision, the operator cannot reopen on its own initiative.

Does a stoppage of work give a right not to pay employees?

Not under a stoppage under Article 25 of Law No. 6331. The employer must pay the affected employees or give them other suitable work without reducing their pay. The labour law consequences of other closure grounds are assessed separately.

Sources and legal bases

• [1] Regulation on Fire Protection of Buildings (Binaların Yangından Korunması Hakkında Yönetmelik), 2007/12937; Official Gazette of 19 December 2007, No. 26735. In particular Arts. 1–7, 10, 18, 30–50, 138–139. Consolidated text; full re-publication of the text.
• [2] Regulation on Workplace Opening and Operating Licenses (İşyeri Açma ve Çalışma Ruhsatlarına İlişkin Yönetmelik), 2005/9207; Official Gazette of 10 August 2005, No. 25902. In particular Arts. 4–6, 8, 13, 32 and 11. Amendment of 11 December 2025, No. 33104. Consolidated text.
• [3] Regulation No. 10852 amending the Regulation on Workplace Opening and Operating Licenses, Official Gazette of 10 January 2026, No. 33133, Provisional Art. 9. Text of the regulation as published by TÜRSAB.
• [4] Regulation No. 10026 amending the Regulation on Fire Protection of Buildings, Official Gazette of 1 July 2025, No. 32943, Provisional Art. 4. Text of the regulation.
• [5] Law No. 2634 on the Encouragement of Tourism (Turizmi Teşvik Kanunu), in particular Arts. 3, 5, 30–34 and Provisional Art. 11. Ministry copy; consolidated text. The annulled provisions are assessed together with [6].
• [6] Constitutional Court, 17 October 2024, E.2021/100, K.2024/174; Official Gazette of 24 March 2025, No. 32851. Official decision record; accessible full text of the decision.
• [7] Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu, İYUK), in particular Arts. 2–15, 20, 27–28, 31–34, 45–46 and 52, and 58; with the amendments of 2026. Consolidated text.
• [8] Council of State 4th Chamber, 12 February 2025, E.2024/2076, K.2025/984. Cancellation of a hotel licence without a fifteen-day period, where the police opinion and fire brigade report were not obtained; with dissenting opinion. Full text republished.
• [9] Council of State 4th Chamber, 9 March 2026, E.2026/1175, K.2026/1161. Making a licence passive, and competence; with dissenting opinion. Full text republished.
• [10] Council of State 4th Chamber, 23 May 2024, E.2024/1339, K.2024/3352. Substantial loss of the special facility character and direct cancellation of the certificate; with dissenting opinion. Full text republished.
• [11] Council of State 14th Chamber, 18 October 2011, E.2011/13018, K.2011/1728. Jurisdiction by location in the cancellation of a tourism operating certificate. Danıştay Dergisi, 2012, issue 129, pp. 420–422. Official journal issue.
• [12] Law No. 6331 on Occupational Health and Safety (İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Kanunu), in particular Arts. 4, 10–12, 17 and 25. Law text published by the Ministry; consolidated text.
• [13] Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), in particular Arts. 49, 66, 69, 112 and 136–138. Consolidated text.
• [14] Law No. 5237, Turkish Penal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu), in particular Arts. 20–22, 85, 89, 170–171 and 203. Consolidated text.
• [15] Law No. 6102, Turkish Commercial Code (Türk Ticaret Kanunu), insurance law provisions; in particular the duties concerning disclosure, aggravation of risk and the occurrence of the risk. Consolidated text.
• [16] Koç University Faculty of Law, "Tourism Facilities and Fire Risk: Obligations and Liabilities", notes of the webinar of 18 March 2025; sessions on administrative, private, criminal and human rights law. Not a peer-reviewed article; it is an output of an academic event. Notes published by the university.
• [17] Law No. 7201 on Notification (Tebligat Kanunu), Art. 7/a; the date on which electronic notification is deemed made. Consolidated text; PTT explanations on electronic notification.
• [18] Law No. 7589 on Amendments to Certain Laws for the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary, accepted 16 July 2026; Official Gazette of 31 July 2026, No. 33326; Arts. 5–6, Provisional Art. 1/3 and Art. 26. Text of the law.
• [19] Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection (Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun), in particular Arts. 3, 5 and 13–15; consumer transactions, defective service and elective rights. Consolidated text; Ministry of Trade legislation page.
• [20] Law No. 4857, Labour Law (İş Kanunu), in particular Arts. 22, 24/III, 25/III and 40; changes in working conditions and grounds of force majeure. Consolidated text.