Refusal of an Occupancy Permit (İskân): Objection, Annulment Action and Stay of Execution

If an application for an occupancy permit (iskân) is unlawfully refused, an action for annulment of the refusal may be brought before the administrative court; a stay of execution may also be requested if its conditions are met. An administrative objection against the refusal is, as a rule, not mandatory. However, the correct route cannot be determined by looking only at the refusal letter. The content of the application, the conformity of the building with its permit and project, the date of completion, the state of the common areas and the grounds on which the administration relies must be examined together. ([1, art. 30] [2, arts. 54, 64–65] [3, arts. 7, 11, 27])

The failure to answer an application is also important. The Development Law contains a special provision under which, where an application for an occupancy permit is not decided within thirty days, use is deemed permitted. Accordingly, not every silence is automatically treated as an implied refusal. However, this provision does not make a building that does not conform to the project, or whose use is technically objectionable, lawful by itself. ([1, art. 30])

This article deals with the problem of failing to obtain an occupancy permit in Türkiye, from the application to the implementation of a court decision. The general explanations concern in particular buildings in areas covered by an implementation zoning plan. Unplanned areas, protected areas, organised industrial zones and projects subject to special laws require separate determination of the competent administration and the special rules that apply. In a concrete file, the legislation in force on the date of the act and the transitional provisions are also important. ([1, art. 4] [2, art. 2])

What legal consequence does an occupancy permit have?

An occupancy permit (yapı kullanma izin belgesi) is an administrative authorisation for the use of a building completed in accordance with its permit and its annexes. A building that looks finished from the outside, a property that has been sold, or the fact that someone actually lives in it, does not produce the same result. The administration checks whether the building conforms to the approved project and whether there is any technical objection to its use. An application that meets the conditions and is held up or refused on a ground without legal basis is subject to judicial review. ([1, art. 30] [2, art. 64] For businesses and operating licences, see also Refusal of a Workplace Opening and Operating Licence.)

The related documents perform different functions:

The distinctions in the table arise from the different permit and registration systems of the Development Law and the Condominium Law. In certain buildings with a building registration document, the fact that condominium ownership may be established without an occupancy permit, subject to the special conditions set by law, shows that a registry entry cannot in every case be taken to mean that occupancy has been granted. The most reliable examination is to investigate the date, scope and validity of the document in the file of the administration that issued the permit. ([1, prov. art. 16] [7, arts. 10–14])

The general prohibition on buildings without occupancy permits benefiting from infrastructure services must also be read together with the special provisions. Provisional Article 11 of the Development Law allows temporary water or electricity connections under specific dates and technical conditions. The provision contains different conditions for buildings for which a permit was obtained before 1 July 2022 and for buildings constructed before 31 December 2021. An existing subscription therefore does not by itself prove occupancy; a temporary connection also does not create an acquired right. The general rule, the special scope and the dates of the particular building must each be examined. ([1, art. 31, prov. art. 11])

How should an occupancy application be prepared?

The application is made by the owner or authorised representative to the competent administration that issued the construction permit. The petition must clearly state the parcel and block of the property, the permit details, the block and independent unit numbers where present, and whether a full or partial occupancy permit is sought. A general request such as "solve the problem of our building" may leave unclear which administrative act is sought. The registration number, date of submission and list of annexes must be kept. ([1, art. 30] [2, art. 64] For fees payable when applying, the article Objection to Construction Permit and Occupancy Fees Demanded by the Municipality may also be examined.)

Under the Development Regulation for Planned Areas, Articles 64 and 65, the application petition or form, the reports of the responsible technical officer or building inspection organisation, the energy identity certificate and photographs of the building are regulated. The statement in the reports that "construction is finished" is not considered sufficient. Conformity with the project, with technical and health rules, and the compliance of the materials used with the legislation must be examined in a verifiable way. The building inspection organisation's duty to report that the building has been partly or fully completed is also set out in law. ([2, arts. 64–65] [6, art. 2])

In decision E.2016/11303, K.2020/9068 of 8 October 2020, the 6th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 6. Dairesi) held decisive that the application for an independent unit had not included the required report, energy identity certificate and photographs. The Chamber upheld the dismissal of the case on that ground. The first-instance court's assessment of the building's defects and the Council of State's reasoning based on the lack of documents must be distinguished from each other. The decision shows that a technical claim of rightfulness does not remove the need for a properly documented application file. ([9])

Is every document requested by the municipality mandatory?

A list of documents published on the municipality's website does not by itself create a new legal obligation. Article 65 of the Regulation limits the re-requesting of information that is in the administration's possession or accessible electronically. The sharing of numbering and channel-connection information between the relevant units is provided for. The same article lists, among documents that may not be requested from the applicant, a natural gas conformity certificate, a fire safety report, a shelter report and certificates that there are no debts. ([2, art. 65])

It must be distinguished who obtains a document from what conditions the building must satisfy. The fact that a fire brigade report may not be requested from the applicant does not mean that fire safety rules may be disregarded. The Regulation does not remove financial obligations imposed by statute either. In particular, the SGK clearance condition and the special provision of the Development Law protecting a building owner who is not a developer must be read together and resolved. ([1, art. 28, 30] [2, art. 65] [5, art. 90])

Where no action is taken on the ground of a missing document, a written explanation should be requested of which document is required under which provision. A document that the administration itself should obtain from its own records being placed on the applicant is not the same legal problem as a technical report that should have been attached to the application but was never submitted. The case file must make this distinction visible.

If no answer is given within thirty days, is the occupancy permit deemed granted?

Article 30 of the Development Law requires that owners' applications be concluded within thirty days at the latest, and provides that otherwise use of the whole building or of the completed part is deemed permitted. This special provision differs from the general rule of implied refusal in Article 10 of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK). In legal writing too, the occupancy permit is examined as one of the typical examples of a positive consequence attached to administrative silence. ([1, art. 30] [3, art. 10] [14, PDF p. 3416])

However, the lapse of thirty days alone does not resolve the whole matter. It is investigated when a properly made application was lodged, whether the necessary reports were submitted, what act the administration performed within the period, and whether the building conforms to the permit. The same article states that even a permission given does not remove liability arising from non-conformity with the permit. For this reason, a claim of implied permission cannot be used as an amnesty for unlawful construction or to cure a safety deficiency. ([1, art. 30] [2, arts. 64–65])

If the silence continues, which route should be followed?

First, the records and annexes of the application are obtained, and it is determined whether the administration has in fact remained silent. Where it is alleged that the conditions for implied permission have arisen, it may be expressly requested that the legal consequences be recognised and documented. If the administration does not recognise this right, refuses to issue a document, or obstructs use by a connected act, the act to be challenged and the start of the period are determined by reference to the concrete correspondence.

Two errors must be avoided here. It is wrong to treat silence on the first application as an implied refusal without examining the special provision. Equally, the view that "implied permission has arisen, so no period runs any more" is not safe. A later express refusal, a separate closure act or a reply to a request for documentation may have their own legal consequences. Where there is a dispute about the nature of the application, the existing possibility and period for bringing an action must be preserved while the right under the special provision is asserted. ([1, art. 30] [3, arts. 7, 10–11])

Under a separate request for action subject to Article 10 of the İYUK, thirty days of silence constitute an implied refusal. The applicant who receives a non-final reply within the first thirty days may treat it as a refusal and bring an action, or may wait for a final reply; the wait may not exceed four months from the date of application. There is separate provision for a late reply whose conditions have arisen. These rules must not be confused with the special implied permission provision for occupancy applications and with the objection under Article 11. ([3, art. 10])

On what grounds may an occupancy permit be refused?

The administration's review is directed at conformity with the permit and the project, and at the safe and lawful use of the building. Interference with the load-bearing system, the creation of an independent unit contrary to the project, incomplete common facilities or non-compliance with applicable technical rules may constitute grounds for refusal. However, the statement in the refusal that "there is a deficiency" is not in itself a sufficient explanation. It must be determined which construction work is contrary to which project or rule. ([1, art. 30] [2, art. 64])

In an action for annulment, the act is examined in terms of competence, form, cause, subject matter and purpose. For example, relying on the wrong project without examination may render the cause element contestable, and treating a condition not provided in law as an obstacle to the permit of use may render the subject matter contestable. It is also separately checked whether there was a transfer of authority or of signature. It cannot be assumed that every refusal requires a decision of the municipal executive committee. ([3, art. 2])

Defects in notification also require careful handling. An irregular notice may in particular affect the start of the period; however, not every error in service automatically renders the substance of the refusal unlawful. The action should not rest only on this allegation; substantial unlawfulness in the act must also be explained. The administration's strong argument will be that the deficiencies are necessary for real and safe use. The answer to this must be a concrete technical and legal examination, not an abstract account of hardship. ([3, arts. 2, 7–8])

Under what conditions can a partial occupancy permit be obtained?

A partial occupancy permit may secure permission for the part of a building that has been completed in a usable manner. The article by Av. Gökhan Bilgin on this subject draws attention to the need to assess this possibility separately. However, under the current regulation partial use within the same building and the position of separate buildings on the same parcel are dealt with under different provisions. The ground on which the application relies must be clearly stated. ([1, art. 30] [2, arts. 54(12), 64(5), 64(10)] [16])

Completion of only one part of the same building

Under Article 64(5) of the Regulation, the common-use areas serving the parts to be permitted partially must be complete and usable, and the building must be free of any non-compliance with the legislation. The fact that the interior of a flat is finished does not render insignificant deficiencies in the common staircase, fire precautions, load-bearing system or necessary installations. Missing works and works contrary to the legislation must be distinguished. ([2, art. 64(5)])

The applicant must show by a technical report the boundaries of the part it wishes to use and its relation to the common areas. Where the administration alleges an obstacle affecting the whole building, the location of the obstacle and its effect on use must be explained. Concluding, on the basis only of short summaries of earlier decisions, that "a non-compliance in another flat will never be an obstacle to mine" overlooks the requirements of the current regulation.

More than one building on the same parcel

Article 64(10) of the Regulation provides that a non-compliance in some buildings on the same parcel does not prevent permission being granted for buildings without non-compliance. Article 54(12) also contains special distinctions concerning the state of the permit, the completion of common areas and the building registration document. Granting an occupancy permit for buildings within the same paragraph does not mean that condominium ownership may also be established; the provision contains a further limitation on this point. ([2, arts. 54(12), 64(10)])

Hypothetically, suppose that blocks A and B stand on the same parcel. If block A has been completed in conformity with its permit and the common areas serving it are usable, the effect of the non-compliance in block B on block A must be assessed under the relevant provisions. However, if the common fire system or the mandatory access has not yet been completed, the fact that the facade of block A is finished alone is not sufficient. The application and a possible expert examination must resolve this connection.

Does the expiry of the permit period or a change of plan prevent an occupancy permit?

Distinction between the five-year period and a building completed within time

Under Article 29 of the Development Law, construction must begin within two years from the date of the permit, and the building must be completed within five years including the starting period. Extensions, renewals and suspension periods are assessed separately according to the file. The conclusion that "if no occupancy permit has been obtained within five years, none may be granted under any circumstances" does not accurately reflect the current regulation, as set out in the study by Bilgin which deals with this matter through decisions of different dates. ([1, art. 29] [2, art. 54] [15])

Under Article 54(7) of the Regulation, a building completed in accordance with its permit and annexes but for which an occupancy permit could not be issued within the period may be allowed to be used without a new permit being issued, provided that a required inspection report is prepared and the administration carries out an examination in the file and on site. The essential matter of proof is therefore when, and to what level of conformity, the construction was completed. Dated work completion, inspection and administrative findings matter more than a general explanation prepared later. ([2, art. 54(7)])

In decision E.2011/7355, K.2015/1331 of 5 March 2015, the 6th Chamber of the Council of State examined a building whose completion within five years was established by a work completion minute and where no construction work remained. The Chamber, taking into account the special provision of the building inspection legislation, quashed the decision dismissing the case. The result of the decision rests not merely on the claim of actual use but on the technical and administrative records showing completion. ([11])

By contrast, in decision E.2008/12154, K.2010/10561 of 29 November 2010, the Chamber accepted that, under the regulations of that date, a new permit was required for a building for which an occupancy permit had not been obtained within the period, and quashed the annulment decision. The two decisions cannot be turned into a single fixed rule by detaching them from their dates and the regulations applied. In a current application, the explicit exception in Article 54(7) must be examined separately. ([10] [2, art. 54(7)] On this topic, see also Objection to a Zoning Plan Amendment and Annulment Action.)

Amendment of a plan, annulment of a plan and parcelling are not the same act

A subsequent change of plan is not the same as a building having been constructed without permit from the outset. Article 54 of the Regulation contains different provisions for completed buildings, buildings that have become non-compliant because of a changed plan, and buildings located on land to be expropriated. For buildings lying on a road or technical infrastructure area and subject to an expropriation decision, there is a special process dependent on the opinion of the relevant public body. ([2, art. 54(7–9)])

Where the court annuls the plan, the reasoning, scope and effect of the decision on the building permit, and the implementation required, must be separately investigated. The parcelling decision must also be examined separately from the plan and the permit. Where the administration says only that "the parcelling has been annulled", it must be clarified how this result affects the position, permit and conditions of use of the building in question. Generalisations that all permits automatically remain valid, or that all permits automatically cease to exist, must be avoided. ([1, arts. 18, 30] [3, arts. 2, 28])

Even in files requiring a new permit, outdated information must not be used. The provisions added to Article 54(5) of the Regulation on 1 July 2026 distinguish buildings whose construction began within two years from buildings whose construction has not begun. For buildings whose construction has begun, the current legislation on fire, earthquake, thermal and water insulation, environment and energy efficiency applies; for other matters, the legislation at the date of the first permit is the basis. For buildings not yet begun, a new permit is issued under the plan and legislation in force. It must also be checked whether the building is subject to other special provisions. ([2, art. 54(5)] For a similar dispute, see also Objection to a Parcelling Procedure and Annulment Action.)

Can an occupancy permit be held back because of the developer's debt or refusal to sign?

The special rule on tax and SGK debts

Article 90 of Law No. 5510 provides that, before an occupancy permit is issued, a document is required showing that no debt to the Institution arises from the construction. By contrast, Article 28 of the Development Law contains a special provision enabling a building owner who is not the developer to obtain an occupancy permit under specific conditions. It matters not only whether the applicant is the title holder, but also whether it holds the status of developer. ([5, art. 90] [1, art. 28])

For the special provision to apply, the architectural and engineering inspection reports must be prepared; the completion must be established by minutes drawn up jointly by the building owner, responsible technical officers and administrative officials; and the procedures must be unable to be completed because the developer has not discharged its responsibilities arising from the construction, such as taxes, social security premiums or other liabilities. In that case, on the request of the building owner who is not the developer, the administration makes a finding of the situation and issues the document. Not every building with technical deficiencies can be made habitable on the basis of this provision. ([1, art. 28])

In decision E.2008/1940, K.2010/2085 of 3 March 2010, the 6th Chamber of the Council of State shows this distinction. The Chamber took into account the amendment to Article 28 that came into force during the proceedings; it held unlawful the refusal of an occupancy permit to a claimant who was not a developer because of the developer's premium debt, and confirmed the annulment decision with reasons. A dissenting opinion objected to applying the new provision to a past application. In the present file, the provision of the former Law No. 506 must not be used as though it were the current rule; the Law No. 5510 and Law No. 3194 now in force must be read together. ([12])

This route does not erase the developer's debt. The process of occupancy and the collection of public receivables are different processes. In an application to the administration, it is not enough to say only that "the debt is not mine"; it must be documented that the concrete technical and personal conditions of the special provision are fulfilled. If the building owner is also the contractor, or if the problem arises from non-conformity with the project rather than from debt, the legal assessment changes. ([1, arts. 28, 30])

Where the developer, site chief or project author does not sign

Article 64(12) of the Regulation provides a special solution for certain persons where it is documented that the building was completed within the statutory period in accordance with its permit and annexes. Where the developer, site chief or architectural project author cannot be reached because of death, conviction or similar reasons, or refuses to sign without a justified reason, a document may be issued without their signatures, provided the records listed in the provision are in the file. Those persons remain liable. ([2, art. 64(12)])

For this purpose, the earlier report of conformity for occupancy, the application documents within the period, records showing that the persons concerned could not be reached, and contracts are important. The signature of the responsible technical officers is separately regulated in Article 64(13). The possibility of issuing an unsigned document granted for certain persons cannot be interpreted as a general exemption from all signatures and technical reports. It must be made concrete whether the refusal to sign is based on a technical reason or on a private law claim. ([2, art. 64(12–13)])

Article 64(11) also provides that, where the building has been completed in accordance with its permit and project, the consent of all parcel owners is not required at the occupancy stage. This rule does not remove the different conditions required for altering project in common areas or for establishing condominium ownership. ([2, art. 64(11)] [7, arts. 12, 19])

Administrative objection to a refusal and the time limit for an action

Direct action and an application under İYUK Article 11

After an express refusal has been served, and unless a special period applies, an annulment action must be brought within sixty days from the day following service. This is the period for bringing an administrative action; it must not be confused with the private law limitation period. Before going to court, it is possible under Article 11 of the İYUK to apply to the superior authority or, where there is none, to the authority that performed the act. This application is, as a rule, optional. ([3, arts. 7–8, 11])

The application must be made within the period for bringing the action, which has already begun to run. The removal, withdrawal, alteration or the making of a new act must be expressly requested. Every institution other than the municipality is not the hierarchical superior of the municipality. The correct addressing of the petition and the documentation of the date of registration are therefore important. It cannot be assumed that a request for information, a complaint or a request for a meeting suspends the period without its contents being examined. ([3, art. 11])

An application under İYUK Article 11 does not reset the period; it suspends it. If no reply is given within thirty days, the objection is deemed rejected. The period remaining after an express service of refusal or after an implied refusal continues to run. Hypothetically, if an application is duly made after twenty days of the action period have passed, the remaining forty days, not a new sixty days, are the basis after the refusal. The dates of application and service must be separately verified in calculating the days. ([3, art. 11])

Table showing the periods together

Calculations of time must also take account of public holidays, the holiday status of the last day, and the rules in İYUK on pauses in work. The date of legal service for electronic notification must be determined from the records. The late-reply provision in İYUK Article 10 cannot automatically be carried over to an objection under İYUK Article 11. Repeating the same petition, or continuing meetings with the institution, does not revive a period already passed. ([3, arts. 8, 10–11, 27–28, 45])

A new application may be made after the missing work has been remedied, a new alteration permit has been obtained, or there has been a material change in the legal position. A new refusal is assessed on its own conditions. However, a new application does not retrospectively correct the period missed for objecting to an earlier refusal. The lawfulness of the earlier act and the conditions for the new application that arose later are separate questions.

By whom and in which court is the annulment action brought?

The dispute over the municipality's refusal of an occupancy application arises from an administrative act made in the exercise of public power. The general competent court is the administrative court. For property actions concerning development legislation, under Article 34 of the İYUK the administrative court of the place where the property is located has jurisdiction. The fact that the claimant or the company headquarters is in another city does not change this special rule of venue. Files in which a different venue or jurisdiction is provided by special law are assessed separately. ([3, arts. 2, 34])

In an annulment action, a personal, legitimate and current interest must be shown. The owner's title deed, the claimant's status, the person to whom the refusal is addressed and the independent unit it covers are important. The position of a buyer or contractor whose transfer of title has not yet taken place is examined through their contract and direct link with the act. The status of building manager does not by itself confer power to sue on behalf of all owners in every dispute; the documents of representation and authorisation must be checked. ([3, arts. 2, 14–15])

The defendant is the administration which made the refusal. In an action against a municipal act, the action is not directed personally at the official who signed the act or at the mayor. If the building permit was issued by another institution, the proper defendant is determined accordingly. Although the court may correct a wrong defendant, filing an action in reliance on this without examining the administrative structure of the file creates unnecessary procedural problems. ([3, art. 15/1-c])

There is no general compulsory mediation requirement for an administrative annulment action concerning refusal of an occupancy permit. Claims against the developer or seller under private law have a different venue, condition for bringing an action and time limits. The fact that they concern the same building does not mean that all claims can be pursued in the same action. ([17, art. 3, 73, 73/A] [18, arts. 18/A–18/B] [3, art. 11])

The petition, evidence and expert examination

The petition must state the refusal act being challenged by its date and number; where implied refusal is relied upon, the date of application and the nature of the request must be shown. The service and the period calculation must be explained, and the administration's answer to each ground for refusal must be given separately. The request for annulment and the request for stay of execution must be separated; for interim protection, the grounds of unlawfulness and of harm must be separately justified. ([3, arts. 3, 27])

The court does not act as the administrative body that issues the permit in the administration's place. The claim seeks, as a rule, annulment of the refusal, a stay of execution where necessary, and costs of the proceedings. The reasons why the conditions for the permit were met are explained, while the boundary is observed that the court cannot itself take the administrative act of granting the permit. ([3, art. 2/2])

Presenting a document in the proceedings to explain a legal claim is different from requesting the administration to supply a document at the application stage. For example, even if the approved project is in the municipal archive, it is useful to show in the action which drawing is relied upon. Approved and dated copies of documents should be preferred; later works should not be presented as evidence of the earlier state.

An on-site examination and an expert examination may be needed in a technical dispute. The fact that the court may investigate on its own motion does not remove the need for the parties to set out their claims and documents. The questions to be put to the expert should focus on which project is to be applied, the state of the building on the date of refusal, which part the deficiencies serve, the technical conditions of partial use and the agreement of the completion date with the records. The legal characterisation and the power to decide rest with the court. ([3, arts. 20, 31])

When the report is received, it should not simply be said that "we do not accept it because it is against us". Concrete objections must be shown, such as the wrong project, an incomplete measurement, a common area not examined or a circumstance that has changed since. If deficiencies have been remedied during the action, this must be explained, and the need for a new examination or application should be assessed. A later state of conformity does not show that the earlier refusal was necessarily unlawful.

Can a stay of execution be requested against a refusal of occupancy?

Manifest unlawfulness and irreparable harm must be shown together

Under Article 27 of the İYUK, the filing of an action does not by itself suspend the effect of the refusal. For a stay of execution, the conditions must be met together: the act must be manifestly unlawful, and its implementation must cause harm that is difficult or impossible to remedy. The strength of one condition does not make it unnecessary to explain the other. ([3, art. 27] [4, art. 125])

For example, if the owner whose technical conformity is documented, and who meets the conditions of Article 28 of the Development Law, has its request refused solely because of the developer's debt, that may be the basis for a claim of manifest unlawfulness. In addition, however, the consequences of the refusal must be shown with concrete documents: the inability to use the dwelling, the impossibility of obtaining mandatory subscriptions, or a serious disruption of a particular activity. Every loss of rent or probable failure of a sale is not in itself sufficient. The likelihood of harm, its gravity and its link with the refusal act must be explained. ([3, art. 27])

The administration may plead public safety or technical deficiencies. Therefore, relying only on economic hardship does not remove the risk of fire or load-bearing failure. A request for interim protection must be supported by a file showing the building's suitability for use. As a rule, the court decides after hearing the defence or after the period for it has expired; the existence in special conditions of a possibility of protection before the defence is heard does not mean that the same procedure applies in every occupancy file. ([3, art. 27])

The limit of the decision in the case of a negative act

Refusal of an occupancy permit is a negative administrative act. For such an act, the concrete protection that a stay of execution would provide must be separately explained. The decision may require that the legal effect of the refusal be suspended and that an act be performed in accordance with its reasoning; however, a court decision does not by itself replace an occupancy permit. Nor are the technical deficiencies of the building completed by a decision being given. ([3, arts. 2(2), 27–28])

It is particularly important to establish whether the administration cannot rely on a certain ground, as distinct from establishing that all permit conditions have been met. It is not correct to treat the building as open for use, or a separate sealing act as ineffective, without examining the operative part and reasoning of the decision. If there are separate closure, sealing, demolition or subscription procedures alongside the refusal of occupancy, these too must be dealt with within their own time limits.

A stay of execution may be requested against security; the security may not be required depending on the circumstances. An objection to the administrative court's decision on this request may be made once only, before the regional administrative court, within seven days from the day following service. The same grounds may not be relied on for a second request. Rejection of the request does not mean that the main action will necessarily be dismissed. ([3, art. 27/6–10])

How is an occupancy permit obtained after an annulment decision?

An annulment decision removes the unlawful refusal act. Thereafter the administration must implement the judgment and its reasoning. Under Article 28 of the İYUK, decisions on the merits and on stay of execution must be carried out without delay; the period, running from service of the decision on the administration, may not exceed thirty days. The thirty days are not a period that gives the administration in every case a right to wait. ([3, art. 28])

The effect of the decision depends on the ground of annulment. If the court has identified only a deficiency in investigation or a problem of competence, the administration may need to carry out a new lawful assessment. Where it has been established that the conditions of the permit have been met and that the refusal ground cannot be used, repeating the same ground in a different letter does not amount to implementation of the decision. By contrast, a genuine safety problem arising later may be separately addressed, taking account of the scope of the decision. ([3, arts. 2, 28])

During implementation, the date of service of the decision on the administration, the act to be performed, the scope of the document issued and, where applicable, the forwarding to the cadastre and land registry must be followed. For the change from flat ownership easement to condominium ownership, the electronic notification and ex officio procedures under Article 10 of the Condominium Law are also important. Even where an occupancy permit has been granted, the related steps of the file may not yet be fully complete. ([7, art. 10])

An appeal or appeal on points of law does not by itself stop implementation of the court decision. For the first-instance decision, the general period for appeal is thirty days. It cannot be said that every occupancy dispute necessarily goes to the Council of State; the possibility of an appeal on points of law is assessed under the scope and exceptions in Article 46 of the İYUK. In particular, the provision added in 2026 on the reversal of the first-instance decision on appeal and the new decision given, and its exceptions, must be taken into account. ([3, arts. 45–46, 52])

If the administration issues a new refusal decision, the period for bringing an action against that decision must also be followed separately. Failure to implement the decision may, where its conditions are met, also give rise to a claim for compensation against the administration. Costs of the proceedings and any sums of money awarded by judgment must be separately assessed, including the notification of the account to the administration and the payment procedure under Article 28 of the İYUK. ([3, art. 28])

Can compensation be claimed for delay or unlawful refusal?

For loss suffered as a result of unlawful obstruction of an occupancy permit, a full-remedy action (tam yargı davası) may arise in administrative jurisdiction if the loss is proved. However, annulment of the refusal act does not secure automatic acceptance of all the loss heads alleged. The administrative conduct causing the loss, the real loss and an appropriate causal link must be shown. The fact that the building would already have been unusable because of its own deficiencies, or that part of the delay was caused by the applicant, affects the assessment of compensation. ([4, art. 125] [3, arts. 2, 12–13])

If lost rent, additional financing costs or other expenses are claimed, the period and amount must be documented. A hypothetical maximum rent, an uncertain sale gain or a calculation that counts the same loss twice is not sufficient. Losses arising from administrative delay must be distinguished from losses arising from the developer's incomplete work; the same loss must not be recovered twice, from both the administration and the contractor. ([4])

The distinction between administrative act and administrative conduct changes the time limit

Where the loss arises from an administrative act, the routes under Article 12 of the İYUK are considered. There are options of a direct full-remedy action, of bringing an annulment action and a full-remedy action together, or of bringing a compensation action within time after first bringing an annulment action. The article also lays down separate starting points for loss arising from a judgment on appeal and from the execution of an act. A single start date cannot be assumed for every file. ([3, art. 12])

Where the loss arises from administrative conduct, Article 13 requires an application to the administration within one year from learning of the loss and in any event within five years from the date of the conduct. Following rejection of the application, or its remaining unanswered for thirty days, an action is brought within the period for bringing it. This route is not a general option that extends the sixty-day annulment period in every occupancy dispute. It is necessary to characterise correctly the conduct that caused the loss. ([3, art. 13])

In its decision E.2023/1557, K.2024/4388 of 1 July 2024, the 6th Chamber of the Council of State examined the delay of condominium ownership caused by the failure to send issued occupancy documents between administrations and to the land registry. The Chamber treated this inaction as an administrative conduct and, stating that the time calculation must be made under Article 13 of the İYUK, quashed the time-bar conclusion. The decision did not award compensation directly; it showed that the merits must be examined. It shows the procedural importance of the difference between refusing to issue a document and failing to process a document already issued. ([13])

How is a claim against the developer distinguished from the administrative action?

If the developer fails to complete the work or does not carry out the occupancy procedures it has undertaken under the contract, this may give rise to a private law dispute separate from the action against the administration. First, it is examined how delivery is defined in the contract, to whom the obligation for occupancy and costs has been assigned, and whether there is incomplete or defective work. Performance in kind, compensation for delay, rights in respect of defects and the option of terminating the contract are not subject to the same conditions. ([8, arts. 112–125, 470–478])

Under the conditions of Article 113 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), where a performable obligation is concerned, permission may be sought for the performance to be carried out at the debtor's expense; this route, discussed in practice as performance in kind by a third party, does not remove the public law supervision of the municipality. If the building cannot be made lawful in planning terms, permission from the private law court does not remove the technical or legal impossibility. A buyer of an independent unit from the contracting party and the landowner, rather than from the contractor, may also have a different basis for its claim. ([8, art. 113])

The competent court and the condition for mediation are determined by the status of the parties and the nature of the claim. For consumer transactions, the consumer court and the relevant conditions for bringing an action apply; for commercial or other contractual disputes, their own special rules are examined. Not every action concerning a property is subject to the same mediation regime alone. Meeting the contractor or bringing a private law action does not by itself suspend the administrative action period against the municipality's refusal decision. ([17, arts. 3, 73, 73/A] [18, arts. 18/A–18/B] [3, art. 11])

A workable road map for the application and the action

1. Determine the current state of the file. Distinguish the first application, the request to complete a missing document, the final refusal and the separate sealing procedure. Where the refusal has been served, calculate the action period while the investigation continues.

2. Define the technical obstacle concretely. Compare the permit, the approved projects and the actual state. Determine whether the obstacle arises from a document, missing work, non-conformity with the project, debt, signature or plan. Examine the possibility of partial occupancy by reference to the state of the building and of the common areas.

3. State the legal basis of the request clearly. Where necessary, rely on special provisions such as Regulation Art. 54(7), Art. 64(12) or Development Law Art. 28, together with documents showing their conditions. Do not apply the same standard petition to every occupancy file.

4. Make the choice between administrative objection and action while preserving the period. Record the effect of an İYUK Art. 11 application on the remaining period. Where necessary, bring a stay of execution request with the annulment action, based on concrete grounds of unlawfulness and of harm.

5. Follow implementation after the decision. Check the service on the administration, the new act, the scope of the document issued and the related notifications. If there is a claim for compensation, manage the periods and documents separately while keeping the distinction between administrative act, administrative conduct and developer liability.

Court fees, service fees, on-site examination and expert fees may arise in the proceedings. The security for a stay of execution is assessed separately from these. The amounts vary according to the type of action, the tariff in force and the examination to be carried out. For those whose financial circumstances do not permit payment, the possibility of legal aid may be examined under the provisions to which the İYUK refers. There is no single action period or fixed total cost that guarantees a result. ([3, arts. 6, 27, 31])

For more details, you may read our article on Objection to and Annulment Action Against an Administrative Fine for Zoning Violations.

Conclusion

In resolving a refusal of an occupancy permit, the effective legal route is to examine the grounds for refusal together with the actual technical and legal state of the building. An incomplete application, an unremedied non-conformity with the project, a developer's debt and the non-issue of a document for a building completed within time do not require the same solution. The special implied permission provision after thirty days of silence, and, in the case of an express refusal, the action period and the effect of any administrative objection, must be assessed together.

Annulment actions and stays of execution are instruments that can remove an unlawful obstacle. Their concrete result appears in the performance of an administrative act consistent with the reasoning of the court's decision. Protection of the right to occupancy is possible through documentation of the correct application, observance of time limits, and follow-up of the actual implementation of the decision.

Frequently Asked Questions

If the municipality does not grant an occupancy permit, can I bring a direct action?

If there is a final refusal act, you may, as a rule, bring an annulment action without first making an objection. The general period is sixty days from the day following service of the refusal. The first permit application and the objection to the refusal must be kept distinct. ([3, arts. 7, 11]) For details, see the section on administrative objection and time limits.

Does failure to answer within thirty days always amount to an implied refusal?

No. Article 30 of the Development Law contains a special implied permission provision for occupancy. However, it cannot be assumed that the permit arises without examining the application and the conditions of the building. Different time-limit rules may arise where separate documentation or action is requested. ([1, art. 30]) The distinction is explained in the section on silence.

If I object to the municipality, do I get a new sixty days?

An application under İYUK Article 11, if made in time and in the proper form, suspends the action period. Days that have already passed are counted; the remaining period continues. ([3, art. 11]) See the time table.

If five years have passed, must I necessarily obtain a new permit?

Not in every case. For a building completed in accordance with its permit and annexes, a new permit need not be issued and occupancy may be granted, provided the report and administrative examination conditions of Regulation Art. 54(7) are met. The position of buildings not yet completed is different. ([2, art. 54]) See the section on the permit period.

Does the developer's SGK debt prevent occupancy of my flat?

If the applicant is not the developer and the report, completion minutes and other conditions of Development Law Art. 28 are met, the special provision may apply. The fact that the debt belongs to someone else does not in itself show that all conditions are met. ([1, art. 28]) The conditions are explained in the section on debts.

Can I obtain a partial occupancy permit for my flat alone?

Partial use is legally possible, but the fact that the flat is finished is not sufficient alone. The completion of the common areas serving it and the conditions of Regulation Art. 64(5) are examined. Provisions on separate blocks are different. ([2, arts. 54(12), 64]) See the section on partial occupancy.

If the developer cannot be reached, does the process stop entirely?

Not always. Regulation Art. 64(12) permits, in certain conditions, the issue of a document without the signature of the developer, site chief or architectural project author. Records of completion and of the inability to reach them are important; a separate provision applies to responsible technical officers. ([2, arts. 64(12–13)]) See the section on signature problems.

May I start using the building when I have brought an action?

The bringing of an action does not give a right of use and does not automatically suspend the effect of the act. Even if a stay of execution is granted, the scope of the decision, the act the administration must perform and independent barriers to use must be examined. ([3, arts. 27–28]) See the limits of interim protection.

If the application for a stay of execution is rejected, what can be done?

A decision of the administrative court on this request may be objected to once, before the regional administrative court, within seven days from the day following service. The rejection does not by itself determine the outcome of the main action. The rule that the same request may not be repeated on the same grounds must be observed. ([3, art. 27]) See the section on stay of execution.

Within what period does an annulment decision bind the municipality?

The administration must carry out the judgment without delay and, at the latest, within thirty days from service on it. An appeal or appeal on points of law does not by itself stop implementation. The act to be performed depends on the ground of annulment. ([3, arts. 28, 52]) See the section on implementation.

If I have an electricity or water subscription, do I also have an occupancy permit?

No. Provisional Article 11 of the Development Law allows temporary water or electricity connection under specific dates and technical conditions. Such a subscription does not replace occupancy and does not create an acquired right. The permit and construction dates and the special conditions must be checked. ([1, prov. art. 11])

Does a building registration document or a title deed for a condominium replace occupancy?

A building registration document is not the same document as occupancy. Condominium ownership may be established without an occupancy permit under the special conditions of Provisional Article 16. For this reason, the administration's occupancy file should be examined rather than relying on the registry entry alone. ([1, prov. art. 16] [7, arts. 10–12]) See the section on concepts.

Can I claim my rent loss because the occupancy permit was delayed?

Compensation may be claimed if unlawful administrative conduct, actual loss and a causal link are proved. Whether the damage-causing conduct is an administrative act or conduct changes the periods and the applications. The loss must be calculated from documents, not on assumptions. ([3, arts. 12–13]) See the section on compensation.

Does bringing an action against the developer stop the period against the municipality?

No. An action under private law against the developer and an annulment action against the municipality's refusal are separate processes. While contractual rights are pursued, the administrative action period must also be separately protected. ([3, art. 11] [8, arts. 113, 117–125]) See the section on claims against the developer.

Sources and legal bases

Legislation

[1] Development Law No. 3194 (İmar Kanunu), in particular arts. 4, 18, 28–32, provisional arts. 11 and 16. Current text.

[2] Development Regulation for Planned Areas (Planlı Alanlar İmar Yönetmeliği), Official Gazette 3 July 2017, No. 30113; in particular arts. 2, 54, 64 and 65. Current text.

[3] Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), in particular arts. 2–3, 6–13, 14–15, 20, 27–28, 31, 34, 45–46 and 52. Current text.

[4] Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, arts. 35 and 125. Text.

[5] Law No. 5510 on Social Insurance and General Health Insurance (5510 sayılı Sosyal Sigortalar ve Genel Sağlık Sigortası Kanunu), art. 90. Current text.

[6] Law No. 4708 on Building Inspection (4708 sayılı Yapı Denetimi Hakkında Kanun), art. 2. Current text.

[7] Condominium Law No. 634 (634 sayılı Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu), in particular arts. 10–14 and 19. Current text.

[8] Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu), in particular arts. 112–125 and 470–478. Current text.

[17] Law No. 6502 on Consumer Protection (6502 sayılı Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun), arts. 3, 73 and 73/A. Current text.

[18] Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (6325 sayılı Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), arts. 18/A–18/B. Current text.

Court decisions

[9] 6th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 6. Dairesi), 8 October 2020, E.2016/11303, K.2020/9068. Deficiency in the application documents; reasoned upholding of the decision dismissing the case. Full decision text, Hukuki Haber.

[10] 6th Chamber of the Council of State, 29 November 2010, E.2008/12154, K.2010/10561. Permit period under the regulations at the date of the act; quashing of the annulment decision. Full decision text, Hukuki Haber.

[11] 6th Chamber of the Council of State, 5 March 2015, E.2011/7355, K.2015/1331. Building completed within time and work completion minute; quashing of the refusal judgment. Full decision text, copy published by Sezgen Hukuk.

[12] 6th Chamber of the Council of State, 3 March 2010, E.2008/1940, K.2010/2085. Building owner who is not the developer and premium debt; reasoned upholding of the annulment judgment, with a dissenting opinion. Full decision text, copy published by Sezgen Hukuk.

[13] 6th Chamber of the Council of State, 1 July 2024, E.2023/1557, K.2024/4388. Non-transmission of documents and delay of condominium ownership; time examination and quashing under İYUK art. 13. Full decision text, AvEvrak.

Academic work and subject reviews

[14] Şerife Yıldız Akgül, "The Applicability of Implied Acceptance as a Solution to the Administration's Inaction" (İdarenin Hareketsizliğine Karşı Bir Çözüm Olarak Zımni Kabulün Uygulanabilirliği Meselesi), Marmara University Faculty of Law Research Journal (Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi), 2016, vol. 22, issue 3. Printed p. 3416 of the PDF published for the occupancy example. Publication record · Full text.

[15] Av. Gökhan Bilgin, "Occupancy Permit Refusal Problem and Council of State Case Law" (İskan/Yapı Kullanma İzni Verilmemesi Sorunu ve Danıştay İçtihatları), 19 October 2025. Bilgin Hukuk.

[16] Av. Gökhan Bilgin, "Ways of Obtaining Partial Occupancy for Unfinished Buildings" (Tamamlanmamış Binalara Kısmen İskan Alma Yolları), 10 February 2025; update stated on the page dated 12 August 2025. Gökhan Bilgin.