Sealing and Closure of a Tourism Facility: Objection, Lawsuit and Stay of Execution

The course of action against the sealing of a tourism facility depends on the decision on which the seal is based. Cancellation of the workplace license, cancellation of the tourism certificate, a stop-work record, a demolition order and an administrative fine are separate proceedings. The same court and the same time limit do not apply to all of them. The first task is to identify every decision and notification; then, for each proceeding, to assess the competent body, the time limit and the need for interim legal protection.

This guide has been prepared as of 11 October 2026 on the basis of the current text of the laws and the relevant decisions. In particular, it takes into account the Constitutional Court's annulment decision on tourism legislation, the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes' 2026 decision on jurisdiction, and the change to the administrative judicial remedy system in July 2026. A precise timetable for applications concerning a particular facility cannot be calculated without seeing the decision and notification documents.

Are sealing and closure the same administrative act?

The decision and its enforcement must be distinguished

Sealing is in most cases the means of enforcing a suspension or closure decision. The seal on the door does not show the full basis of the action. The municipal executive committee decision, the license cancellation by the competent authority, the governorate decision, the cancellation of the ministry certificate or the stop-work record must be obtained separately. It is possible for more than one authority to act on different grounds.

For example, construction at a bungalow business may be halted because of building work, while the operation of the business at the same site may be stopped because of a lack of a workplace license. The unlawfulness of one action does not automatically remove the other. The protection sought from the court is linked to the scope of the decision under challenge. [1, Arts. 2, 5, 27]

The table is an initial classification. The name of the court written beneath a penalty decision should not on its own be treated as sufficient; the competent branch of the judiciary must be checked against the law and current case law. The legal effect of an incorrect or incomplete notice of remedies may be debated, but an application should not be delayed on the strength of that possibility. [1] [2]

Bringing a lawsuit does not remove the seal automatically

Filing an administrative action does not stay the execution of the challenged action. A separate request and a court assessment are needed for a stay of execution. An objection petition submitted to the administration, a new license application or the actual rectification of deficiencies does not by itself mean that the facility has reopened. The competent administration must act, or the court's decision must be legally implemented. [1, Arts. 27–28]

Removing a seal, using it for a purpose other than its own, or carrying on activity in breach of the prohibition the seal protects may create a risk of a criminal investigation under Article 203 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (Türk Ceza Kanunu). Admitting customers through another door without breaking the physical seal does not solve the problem either. If access is needed for technical repairs, its scope and conditions must be set out in writing by the administration. [3]

Which documents should be collected at the initial stage?

The action and notification file

The first group of documents consists of the closure or suspension decision, its date and number, the service receipt (mazbata) or electronic notification record, the sealing report and the inspection report. If a prior notice of deficiency was given, its notification and the time allowed are also added. The account "the municipal police came and closed it" is not sufficient to determine which action is to be challenged.

The second group consists of the workplace license, the tourism certificate, the building permit and occupancy permit, the approved project, the fire assessment, the relevant agricultural or conservation permits and the earlier correspondence with the institutions. The documents are compared with respect to name, address, plot and block, capacity and operator. A document issued in the name of a former operator and used by a new company may not be treated as a simple error in a name.

The third group is evidence of the activity and the loss: reservation lists, cancellation records, payroll records, fixed costs, agency obligations and the condition of the facility on that date. Guests' health, identity and contact details must not be placed in the file or made public unnecessarily; only the data needed for proof should be presented in proportion. Evidence must not be gathered by entering the sealed area without authority or by altering records.

The operator, the owner and the document holder may not be the same person

Standing to sue, the interest relationship and the addressee of a fine are examined separately. It is not correct to hold the owner of a property automatically liable for every business debt, or a company shareholder for every sanction against the company. Equally, an owner or document holder who overlooks an independent action addressed to them may also lose a right. [1, Arts. 2, 14] [2, Arts. 25–27]

Where a transfer of the business, a lease or a sub-operating agreement has no counterpart in the administrative records, the file becomes complicated. The petition should name clearly the relevant natural or legal person rather than a commercial brand, and identify the correct administration that made the decision. Whether linked actions can be challenged in the same petition is assessed under the connection conditions of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK); there is no automatic consolidation. [1, Art. 5]

Ownership, personal liability and objection to an expert report

In its decision of 27 October 2021, B. No. 2018/7477, in the case of Gülsüm Kestaneci, the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court found that establishing the link between the applicant and the act solely through ownership, in a fine relating to agricultural land, was contrary to the presumption of innocence. The decision does not mean that every owner is free of responsibility; it requires examination of the concrete act and the link to responsibility. The date of transfer, the use agreement, the persons who carried out the activity and the notifications made to the administration are therefore important. [15, §34–39]

The violation found by the Constitutional Court in its decision of 30 April 2025, B. No. 2022/41702, in the case of Bekir Ağartıoğlu, concerned the failure to notify the applicant of an adverse expert report relied on in the judgment and the lack of an effective opportunity to object to it. The decision should not be reported directly as a ruling that "the amount of the penalty is wrong" or "no penalty can be imposed on the whole plot". In the file examined, the technical findings as to how much of the area was used, how and when, are important, as is the guarantee of the right to respond to those findings. A decision ordering retrial is not a guarantee that the applicant will ultimately be found right on the merits. [16, §17–23]

How are application and lawsuit time limits calculated?

The general time limit and the special time limit are checked together

Under Article 7 of the İYUK, unless another period is set by a special law, the time limit for bringing an action in the administrative court is sixty days. This period is the starting rule for many licence cancellation and activity suspension actions. For administrative fines, however, the fifteen-day route to a criminal judgeship of peace under the Misdemeanors Law, or a special law, may produce a different result. The payment period, the objection period and the period for completing deficiencies cannot be used in place of one another. [1] [2]

In administrative lawsuits, public holidays count towards the time limit; where the last day is a holiday, the rule extends it to the next working day. The special provision applicable during a suspension of work is also examined separately. The expressions "thirty days", "one month" and "two weeks" must not be converted into one another to produce a rough timetable. Where there are several notifications, a separate line must be kept for each decision. [1, Art. 8]

The start point for electronic notification and the stop-work record

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 date on which it reached the electronic address. The date on which a document is noticed by email or opened by the user may not be the same as the legal date of notification. UETS records must be preserved; an ordinary information email should not be confused with a formal electronic notification. [4]

Article 32 of Zoning Law No. 3194, meanwhile, contains a special provision that a stop-work record is deemed notified when it is posted at the construction site. For this reason, waiting for a postal notification may lead to a wrong assessment of the time limit in a building matter. If there is an allegation of irregularity, the content of the record and the posting and notification steps must be examined on the basis of concrete documents. [5]

Applying to the administration does not always gain a new sixty days

An application made within time under Article 11 of the İYUK, seeking the removal or amendment of an existing action, suspends the period for bringing a lawsuit that had started to run. If the request is expressly rejected, or the administration does not reply within thirty days, the remaining period resumes. For example, twenty days used before the application are not disregarded after a rejection. Nor can it be assumed that repeating the same request renews the period indefinitely. [1, Art. 11]

Article 10 of the İYUK, by contrast, governs a request that the administration take a new action or act; it is not the same as Article 11. A pending new licence application and a request to remove the existing closure decision in the same file have distinct legal effects even if they appear in the same file. It should not be assumed that every message sent to CİMER (Presidential Communication Center) or to an unauthorized body stops the time limit.

Absence of a stated time limit or an application to the wrong branch of the judiciary

The decision of the Council of State Board for the Unification of Case Law (Danıştay İçtihatları Birleştirme Kurulu) dated 15 March 2022, E.2021/2, K.2022/1, provides that where a written administrative action does not state the time limit for bringing an action, the general time limit for bringing an action applies. This approach does not recognize an unlimited right to sue. This case law on the special time limit for administrative litigation may not be used as a rule that automatically extends the fifteen-day application under the Misdemeanors Law in criminal judgeship of peace matters to sixty days. [14]

Article 9 of the İYUK provides that where a case within the competence of the administrative judiciary is rejected by the civil judiciary on grounds of jurisdiction, an action must be brought in the competent administrative court within thirty days from the day the decision becomes final. The date of the first application is treated as the date of application to the administrative judiciary; whether the first application was made in time is also important. This route is not a general thirty-day right applicable in the same way to every jurisdictional error in either direction. The finality record, the first petition and the notifications must be preserved; it should not be assumed that the file will be sent automatically. [1, Art. 9]

Administrative court or criminal judgeship of peace?

The source of the fine and other actions are decisive

The Misdemeanors Law provides the general route of challenge against administrative fines where no contrary provision exists in another law. However, where decisions falling within the scope of administrative justice have also been issued against the same person under the same action, the rule of joint examination in Article 27, paragraph 8, may come into play. Saying only "the municipality imposed a penalty" or "the Ministry took action" is not sufficient to identify the judicial branch. [2, Arts. 3, 27]

In that exception, the same person, the same scope of action and the request to annul the related administrative decision are important. The existence of a licence file for a different operator does not automatically bring the fine before the administrative court. Where an express rule of jurisdiction exists in a special law, it applies in addition. Rather than relying on the possibility that a wrong choice of forum can later be corrected, all decisions should be classified together at the first application.

What does the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes' decision No. 2026/71 say?

In its decision of 16 February 2026, E.2026/15, K.2026/71, the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes found the civil judiciary competent for an administrative fine relating to a boat operating without a marine tourism certificate, under Article 33 of Law No. 2634. In the file, there was no requirement to seek the annulment of another decision within the administrative judiciary's competence together with the fine. [6]

The practical result of the decision is this: not every fine in the tourism field is heard by an administrative court merely because it is based on Law No. 2634. On the other hand, the decision does not mean that all tourism facility closure disputes will be heard by the criminal judgeship of peace. A fine imposed on a boat and the cancellation of a hotel's license are different types of action. [6]

The same decision considered the repeal of the former Article 35 of Law No. 2634. A seven-day objection to the Ministry or a referral to an administrative court found in old regulations or internet texts may not be used in place of an examination of the current legal competence and time limit. The legal remedy must be established from the provisions in force, not from a historical text. [6] [7]

For agricultural fines, two decisions on jurisdiction must be read together

Even for disputes under Law No. 5403, no general rule of a single judicial route can be applied. The following two decisions of the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes show the importance of examining the challenged actions together. [12] [13]

The 2026 decision does not confirm the result that "if a threefold penalty is imposed, one goes to the administrative court". The 2024 decision also does not take every agricultural penalty to the administrative judiciary. All the documents served, the same scope of action, the same person and the decisions actually under challenge must be examined together. A later demolition order does not in itself restart the expired application period for an earlier fine. [1] [2] [12] [13]

Does the Constitutional Court's decision completely prevent the closure of facilities without certificates?

The annulled provision and its date of entry into force

In its decision of 17 October 2024, E.2021/100, K.2024/174, the Constitutional Court annulled the provision in paragraph 7 of Article 5 of Law No. 2634 on the termination of activity and the cancellation of the workplace license for facilities that fail to obtain a tourism certificate within the period set. The third sentence linked to it is also within the annulment. The decision was published in the Official Gazette of 24 March 2025; the relevant annulment provisions took effect nine months later, on 24 December 2025. [8]

The Court's reasoning concerns the requirement that limits on interference with freedom of enterprise be set by law. The Court emphasized that the legal framework on the conditions of the tourism certificate had been left unclear. Reducing the decision to the single sentence "a business without a certificate can never be closed for any reason" would go beyond both the reasoning and the scope of the ruling. [8, §46–55]

Permit and sanction provisions that were not annulled

The obligation to obtain a tourism operating certificate, the workplace license, building safety, fire and special area permits are each assessed separately. The current six-month certification system under Article 5 of Law No. 2634 and the grounds for cancellation of the certificate under Article 34 may not be read as though they were the annulled paragraph. In particular, under paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs (j) and (l), of Article 34, there is a separate provision for cancellation of the workplace license within one month where the certificate is cancelled. [7]

Whether a closure decision rests only on the annulled provision or on other valid legal grounds may produce different results. The date of the action, its basis, the effect of the Constitutional Court's decision and any new legal arrangement are examined together. It cannot be said that all earlier final actions have automatically lapsed or that every business closed on that basis has been automatically reopened.

How should a file for a stay of execution be prepared?

Both conditions must be shown together

Under Article 27 of the İYUK, the conditions that the administrative act is clearly unlawful and that its implementation would cause damage difficult or impossible to remedy must be met together. A large investment alone does not prove unlawfulness. However, explaining the specific reason why the action is unlawful and documenting the damage makes it possible to assess the request. [1]

The administration's counter-arguments must also be assessed in the file. Where there is a concrete and serious danger from fire or health, the operator's loss does not by itself remove the requirement of safety. Even if the deficiency can be remedied, it must also be explained separately why halting the service until it is remedied is unlawful. The claim that "others in the same area are operating" does not in itself prove the lawfulness of one's own activity.

Can a decision be made without waiting for the defence?

For actions whose effect is exhausted once implemented, a stay of execution may be granted without waiting for the administration's defence, with a fresh decision to be made after the defence is received. For this purpose, merely writing "urgent" is not enough; the imminent date of demolition, the short season or a concrete result that cannot be reversed must be stated. It cannot be guaranteed that the court will apply this procedure or will decide on a particular day. Security may also arise within the framework of the conditions in the law. [1, Art. 27]

Against a decision either rejecting or granting the request, there is a seven-day objection route under the general procedure; the objection may be made only once. The provision that a second request for a stay of execution cannot be made on the same grounds must be observed. Whether new documents or changed circumstances create a genuinely new ground is assessed; submitting the same petition again creates no new legal basis. [1]

Points of difference in closures arising from construction, agriculture and health

Zoning non-compliance: record, fine and demolition are examined separately

Article 32 of Zoning Law No. 3194 regulates the process of establishing, sealing, bringing into conformity and demolishing an unlicensed or non-compliant building. The building owner may, within one month at most from the date of special notification, bring the building into conformity or obtain a permit and request the removal of the seal. This does not mean that every breach can always be licensed, or that the one-month period is the period for bringing an action. [5]

For the fine under Article 42 of the Law, the building class, area, increases and the responsible person are also checked separately. The addressee of a demolition order and the personal liability for a fine are not the same assessment. At a facility with a mobile vehicle, it is important that the record separate fixed additions, the vehicles and the interference on the land. The technical basis for this distinction is explained in the Tiny House and Bungalow Facility Guide.

A general prohibition, removal and towing to a car park are checked separately

A general ban on all tiny houses in a district and a building action concerning construction on a particular plot cannot be defended on the same grounds. The authority taking the action, its legal competence, the place and scope of activity, the concrete finding and proportionality are each examined separately. Where a vehicle has been physically removed and taken to a car park following a demolition order, the underlying decision, the removal and handover record, the conditions of storage and any fee demand must also be obtained. That an action is called "demolition" does not make every implementation lawful, and the fact that a vehicle can be moved does not mean that every interference on the land was unauthorized. The lawsuit and the damages claim are framed by the action and implementation that actually took place. [1, Arts. 2, 12–13] [5]

A criminal file and a zoning sanction are not the same examination

Article 184/1 of the Turkish Penal Code defines the act of constructing or having constructed a building without or contrary to a permit; the concept of a structure under the Zoning Law is broader. For the purposes of the offence, the conditions of Article 184/4, such as municipal boundaries or the special zoning regime, are also considered. Accordingly, an acquittal based only on the absence of the character of a building does not automatically remove the administrative building fine or the demolition order. The findings of fact and of the perpetrator in the criminal decision are assessed separately. Breaking a seal and conduct under special conservation legislation are also examined by their own elements. [3, Arts. 184, 203] [5, Art. 5]

On agricultural land, the permit period is not the lawsuit period

The provisions of Law No. 5403 amended in 2026 include the suspension of unauthorized use, a subsequent permit application under the relevant conditions, the restoration of agricultural character and demolition procedures. The one-month window for a permit application from service of the relevant fine does not replace the period allowed for administrative judicial review or another legal remedy. Where legal protection against the sanction is needed through a permit application, the two must be managed together. [9]

The application of the new square-metre amount to which act and date, the status of the great plain, the area used or damaged, the repetition condition and the addressee must be checked against concrete documents. Automatic application of a new and heavier amount to an earlier act, or incorrect measurement of the same area, are problems requiring separate examination. The cancellation of a fine alone is not enough to end the continued unauthorized use.

The restoration letter and the stages of the threefold fine

In its decision of 27 October 2025, E.2025/3290, K.2025/4877, the 10th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 10. Daire) assessed the action notifying the obligation to restore the land to its former condition within two months as a final action that must be executed. The Chamber did not find it appropriate to dismiss the case without examination and quashed the decision under appeal. The decision shows that the restoration letter cannot be treated as "merely a warning, no action may be brought" by looking only at its title; it is not a decision annulling the concrete obligation to restore the land to its former state. [17]

Under Article 21/2-a of Law No. 5403, the first fine, the application for a permit, the two-month correction obligation and the subsequent finding are distinguished from one another. The file may be reviewed in the following order: [9]

The existence of a first fine does not show that all subsequent conditions have been met. A cancellation of an action on procedural grounds also does not in every case prevent the administration from curing the defect and creating a new action. On the other hand, the penalty, the demolition order and the clearance cost are not the same debt. The law provides for collection of the Ministry's costs from those responsible, and a separate scheme for collection of one hundred per cent more from the municipality or provincial special administration that does not carry out the demolition within the set time. It is not correct to add the increase in the second rule directly to all the costs of the owner of the land. [9, Art. 21]

Does closing the wellness unit affect the whole hotel?

The Wellness Services Regulation provides for sanctions under Annex 4 for different breaches and for suspension of activity by the governorate in cases of immediate danger. A wellness license and the tourism and workplace certificates of the hotel are not the same. Whether the action covers only the wellness service or the whole facility must be determined from its reasoning and legal basis. Where the danger affects the entire building, different safety measures may also apply. [10]

A lack of a responsible director, staff without work certificates, a registration obligation and unlicensed activity do not fall under the same sanction line. A situation in which a period must first be given differs from an imminent danger. It should not be generalized that "a period of fifteen days is always given first" or that "every deficiency leads to immediate closure". The inspection and deficiency-correction system in the general workplace licensing regulation also applies within its own scope. [10] [11]

Sanctions on online listings and reservation platforms

Article 33 of Law No. 2634, as amended in 2025, provides for sanctions on the electronic promotion of accommodation businesses without certificates and on the verification of certificate numbers by platforms. Where a platform fails to remove content within twenty-four hours despite a warning from the Ministry, a separate consequence arises. This period is not the general lawsuit period against a physical closure decision of the operator. [7]

A decision of the Ministry to remove content or block access is sent to the Access Providers Union and submitted within twenty-four hours for the approval of a criminal judgeship of peace. If the judge does not decide within forty-eight hours, the decision lapses automatically. The objection procedure under the CMK against the judge's decision is examined. Deleting an advertisement from a platform does not mean that the facility's licensing problem has been resolved; posting a new advertisement under a different address is not a legal solution. [7]

Reopening after a court decision, legal remedies and compensation

Action is taken according to the scope of a favourable decision

Article 28 of the İYUK provides that the administration implements decisions annulling an action and staying its execution without delay; under the general rule, the period from service on the administration may not exceed thirty days. Thirty days is not a free period the administration may wait out in all cases. The operative part of the decision and the action it covers are identified, and implementation is requested accordingly. [1]

After obtaining a favourable decision, the operator should not remove the seal personally. The competent administration should be approached with the decision and the notification information, and the removal of the seal and, where necessary, a fresh examination should be carried out formally. Where another independent fire, zoning or licensing action is continuing, its consequences are resolved separately. A court decision is not a general opening document that replaces all missing permits.

The July 2026 change to the legal remedy system

General appeal and appeal on points of law time limits are thirty days, but not every decision is open to appeal on points of law. Article 46 of the İYUK brings within the scope of appeal on points of law those actions which prevent a particular commercial activity indefinitely or for thirty days or longer. The duration and legal nature of the suspension are therefore important. [1]

Law No. 7589, which entered into force on 31 July 2026, amended the provisions on the quashing of a decision on appeal and the re-examination of a case, and added a new second paragraph to Article 46. The new provision contains exceptions, such as matters heard by a single judge. The transitional rule depends on whether the regional administrative court's decision was given before or after the entry into force of the new regulation. A monetary limit or a statement such as "the BİM decision is final" found in an old internet table should not be applied automatically to a current file. [1]

Compensation for loss is not automatic

Where loss arises from an unlawful closure, a full remedy action may be considered. Obtaining a decision of annulment does not mean that the entire turnover claimed will be paid automatically. The actual loss, the causal link with the unlawful action, the costs saved, the possibility of mitigating the loss and whether the operator was legally ready to operate are examined. The gross value of reservations and the net loss of income are not the same calculation.

The routes under Article 12 of the İYUK for loss arising from an administrative act and the preliminary application and one- or five-year period under Article 13 for loss arising from an administrative action must not be confused. Whether the concrete matter is an act or an action changes the litigation strategy and the starting date. The operator must also manage contractual obligations to guests, employees, landlords and agencies; an administrative lawsuit does not suspend them automatically. [1]

Conclusion

Effective legal work at a sealed facility begins by separating all the actions and notifications. Then the competent judicial branch, the time limit, standing to sue and the protection required for each decision are identified. An allegation of a clear breach of law must be supported by concrete documents; the risk of damage difficult to remedy must be demonstrated through the operator's actual records.

The Constitutional Court's annulment decision, the 2026 case law on jurisdiction and the new legal remedy provisions offer important possibilities and distinctions; but none of them automatically produces a result of reopening for all facilities. Where the remedy of missing permits, judicial application and the management of obligations to guests are carried out together, the risk of loss of rights is controlled more reliably.

Frequently Asked Questions

Where should one first object when a facility is sealed?

First, the decision on which the seal is based must be obtained. A license cancellation, a building action and a fine alone may be subject to different routes. The effect on time limits of an application to the competent authority and of an application to a court is assessed separately. [1] [2]

If an action is brought in the administrative court, can the business reopen?

Bringing an action does not itself stay the decision. Implementation by the administration is required depending on the scope of a stay of execution or annulment decision. Other independent actions still in progress must also be checked. [1]

Do all tourism fines carry a sixty-day time limit?

No. Under the Misdemeanors Law, the general time limit for an application to the criminal judgeship of peace is fifteen days. A special law and related administrative decisions within the same action may change the competent judicial route. [2] [6]

Does writing to CİMER stop the lawsuit time limit?

Not every CİMER message stops the time limit automatically. Whether the application was addressed to the competent authority, its content and timing, and whether it falls within Article 11 of the İYUK are assessed. The judicial time limit must not be overlooked while awaiting a reply. [1]

Has the Constitutional Court's decision made obtaining a tourism certificate unnecessary?

No. The decision annulled certain sanction provisions; it did not remove the entire system of tourism and workplace certificates. The other provisions of the current law and the concrete ground for closure are examined separately. [7] [8]

What can be done if a request for a stay of execution is rejected?

Under the general procedure, an objection may be made once within seven days from the day following service of the decision. The special procedures and the nature of the decision are checked. The prohibition on a second request on the same grounds must also be observed. [1]

If I remedy the deficiency, can I remove the seal myself?

No. A documented application should be made to the competent authority for an inspection and the formal removal of the seal. Breaching the seal or the prohibition it protects may also create criminal liability. [3] [5]

Are all reservation payments compensated because of an unlawful closure?

Not automatically. The existence and amount of the loss, its link with the action, the costs avoided and the possibility of mitigating the loss are assessed. The gross reservation amount is not the same as the net loss of income; the lawsuit and pre-application time limits must also be protected. [1]

Is every fine imposed under Law No. 5403 heard in the administrative court?

No. A fine on its own and related administrative decisions concerning the same person and the same action are treated separately. The decisions of the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes No. 2024/5 and No. 2026/165 reached different jurisdictional outcomes in different file circumstances. [12] [13]

Can a letter requiring restoration of land within two months be challenged in court?

It can, where its content creates a definitive obligation that must be executed. The Council of State 10th Chamber's decision No. 2025/4877 explains this distinction. Relying only on the title of the letter and waiting for a later fine may cause a loss of time. [17]

Is the one hundred per cent increase on demolition costs always applied to the landowner?

No. The collection of costs from those responsible under Law No. 5403, and the rule of collection of one hundred per cent more from the municipality or provincial special administration that does not carry out the demolition on time, are different provisions. The debtor, the basis and the calculation are checked separately. [9]

Sources and legal bases

• [1] Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure (İYUK), in particular Arts. 2, 5, 7–14, 27–28 and 45–46; Law No. 7589, Arts. 5–6 and transitional provision. Consolidated text incorporating the amendments of 31 July 2026.
• [2] Law No. 5326 on Misdemeanors (Kabahatler Kanunu), in particular Arts. 3, 25–29; time-limit amendment and transitional provision of Law No. 7499. Current consolidated text.
• [3] Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (Türk Ceza Kanunu), Arts. 184 and 203; zoning pollution and breaking of seals. Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi law text.
• [4] Law No. 7201 on Notification (Tebligat Kanunu), Art. 7/a; deemed electronic notification. Consolidated text.
• [5] Zoning Law No. 3194 (İmar Kanunu), in particular Arts. 5, 32 and 42. Consolidated text.
• [6] Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, 16 February 2026, E.2026/15, K.2026/71; in particular §22–26 and the operative part. Full decision published by the Court.
• [7] Law No. 2634 on the Encouragement of Tourism (Turizmi Teşvik Kanunu), in particular Arts. 5 and 33–35; online listing provisions introduced by Law No. 7565, Art. 7. Current consolidated text.
• [8] Constitutional Court, 17 October 2024, E.2021/100, K.2024/174; §46–55, §298–300 and operative part C/1. Official Gazette of 24 March 2025, No. 32851. Text of the decision. The relevant annulment provisions took effect on 24 December 2025.
• [9] Soil Protection and Land Use Law No. 5403 (Toprak Koruma ve Arazi Kullanımı Kanunu), in particular Arts. 20–21; amendments by Law No. 7584, Official Gazette of 20 June 2026, No. 33286. Consolidated text.
• [10] Wellness Services Regulation, Official Gazette of 4 July 2026, No. 33300, Art. 18 and Annex 4. Text on the Ministry of Health provincial directorate site; PDF copy of the regulation annexes.
• [11] Regulation on Workplace Opening and Operating Licenses (İşyeri Açma ve Çalışma Ruhsatlarına İlişkin Yönetmelik), Official Gazette of 10 August 2005, No. 25902, in particular Arts. 6 and 13. Official Gazette issue.
• [12] Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, 8 January 2024, E.2023/616, K.2024/5, in particular §15–19 and the operative part. Full text of the decision verified via De Jure. Reader access may require a session; the official PDF link could not be obtained in this check.
• [13] Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, 13 April 2026, E.2026/134, K.2026/165, in particular §17–21 and the operative part. Full decision published by the Court.
• [14] Council of State Board for the Unification of Case Law, 15 March 2022, E.2021/2, K.2022/1; Official Gazette of 19 June 2022, No. 31871. Accessible text of the decision; De Jure decision record.
• [15] Constitutional Court General Assembly, Gülsüm Kestaneci, B. No. 2018/7477, 27 October 2021, §34–39; Official Gazette of 25 November 2021, No. 31670. Constitutional Court decision record; De Jure record used to verify the full text.
• [16] Constitutional Court Second Section, Bekir Ağartıoğlu, B. No. 2022/41702, 30 April 2025, §17–23; Official Gazette of 6 January 2026, No. 33129. Constitutional Court decision record; De Jure record used to verify the full text.
• [17] Council of State 10th Chamber, 27 October 2025, E.2025/3290, K.2025/4877; the executory nature of the obligation to restore the land to its former state and the reversal of a dismissal without examination. Full text of the decision verified via De Jure.