Filing an action against a municipality’s demolition order does not by itself stop the demolition. To prevent the structure from being removed before the case is concluded, a stay of execution must be requested in the annulment action filed within the time limit, and the court must decide accordingly. Neither an objection made to the municipality, nor a permit application, nor payment of a zoning fine has, on its own, an effect that stops the demolition act. [2, Art. 27]
In a demolition dispute, the outcome does not depend solely on whether the building has a permit. The accuracy of the finding, whether the violation can be remedied, the competence of the authority that took the act, notification and the limits of the part to be demolished are examined together. A decision to demolish an entire building because of a balcony addition and an act concerning a structure that is entirely unpermitted and cannot be covered by a permit cannot be subject to the same legal assessment.
This article addresses demolition decisions within the scope of Article 32 of Zoning Law No. 3194. It explains the routes of recourse from the construction stoppage record (yapı tatil tutanağı) to the enforcement of the court decision, and shows why the different regimes applying to dangerous buildings, urban transformation and specially protected areas must be assessed separately.
Which documents should be examined first when a demolition notice arrives
The first step is to determine the legal nature of the document at hand. A letter sent by the Building Inspection Directorate (Yapı Kontrol Müdürlüğü) may be a new demolition decision, or it may consist merely of the notification of a municipal executive committee (encümen) decision taken earlier. Looking only at the most recent letter may cause the original decision, and the time limit for filing an action relating to it, to be overlooked.
The construction stoppage record, the sealing record, the municipal executive committee decision, the cancellation of the permit if any, the zoning fine and the notice of the demolition day should be arranged in chronological order in the file. For each act, the date of issue, the date of notification or of learning of it, the legal basis and the consequence it produces should be recorded separately. An action filed against one act does not mean that all the other acts have also been made the subject of the action.
For example, if only the annulment of the fine is requested, it cannot be assumed that the decision the court gives in that case will protect the building from demolition. Similarly, in an action filed against the withdrawal of the permit, a demolition decision issued subsequently must be assessed separately. The existence of a connection between the acts does not remove the need to set out the prayer for relief clearly in the petition.
If the demolition date is approaching, completing the documents and preparing the action must proceed together. Requesting a copy of the file from the administration should not be regarded as an act that suspends the time limit for filing an action unless the content of the application meets the conditions of Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK). The court may be asked to obtain the file of the administrative act; however, the known decisions and time limits must be shown in the petition.
Not every demolition decision is subject to the same legal regime
Article 32 of the Zoning Law is aimed at remedying construction that is unpermitted or contrary to the permit and its annexes. Article 39 of the Law regulates a different process for buildings that are so dangerous as to require demolition and for certain derelict buildings. A building may be both contrary to its permit and dangerous; in that case, it must be clear on the basis of which finding the administration is exercising which power. [1, Arts. 32 and 39]
Risky-building procedures under Law No. 6306, interventions under the Squatter Housing (Gecekondu) Law No. 775, and decisions based on protection legislation also require special assessment. The general rules explained for Article 32 cannot be automatically carried over to the time limits and application conditions in these regimes. That the heading of a decision merely says “demolition” is not sufficient to determine the applicable procedure.
| Nature of the act | Basis to examine first | Decisive distinction in the file |
|---|---|---|
| Unpermitted construction or work contrary to the project | Law No. 3194, Art. 32 | Concrete finding of the violation and whether it can be remedied |
| Building so dangerous as to require demolition | Law No. 3194, Art. 39 | Technical finding of the danger and the special notification procedure |
| Risky building and transformation act | Law No. 6306 | Objection and action provisions specific to the type of act |
| Special area or immovable with a special status | Relevant special law and plan provisions | Competent administration, special protection conditions and applicable procedure |
Exemption from the permit requirement must also be investigated separately. Simple maintenance and repair are distinguished from substantial alterations that are subject to a permit. Exceptions in villages and rural areas, for their part, are not a general freedom granted to every structure. The conditions of the exemption are assessed together with the project and notification obligations. Calling a work a “pergola,” a “lean-to roof” or a “temporary structure” does not, on its own, provide an exemption. [1, Arts. 21 and 27]
Why the construction stoppage record is the basic document of the case
The construction stoppage record is the record of the violation and of the state of the structure at the time of the finding. It may also give rise to the sealing and the halting of construction. For this reason, waiting on the assumption that the record is merely a preparatory document for a demolition decision to be taken in the future may cause a loss of rights.
In the technical review, the parcel, building, floor and independent unit information must corroborate one another. A general statement in the form of “construction contrary to the project has been carried out” does not explain which work is contrary to which project, and why. The situation in the approved project and the work actually carried out should be compared in terms of measurements, location and nature. It should be clear to which date and which structure the photographs belong; a sketch or measurement should remove uncertainty.
The technical qualification and authorization of the officials who prepared the record are also reviewed. The result report concerning the 2021 Istanbul meeting of the Presidency of the Council of State (Danıştay Başkanlığı) specifically addresses the participation of technical staff, detailed findings and reading the acts as a whole. The report also contains distinctions and differences of opinion on the consequences of deficiencies such as the record not being left with the neighborhood head (muhtar) and a wrong owner name. For this reason, it cannot be said that every formal deficiency is a definite ground for annulment. [3, pp. 38–40]
For the case to be argued strongly, the effect of the error on the result of the act must be explained. Measurement on the wrong parcel, treating a lawful floor as a violating section, or bringing an unmeasured area within the scope of the demolition directly makes the material basis disputable. By contrast, the result of a minor typographical error concerning an expressly identified same structure may be different.
The administration may argue that the supplementary reports and sketches prepared together with the record provide sufficient explanation. For this reason, not only the first page of the record but all its annexes should be examined. However, it cannot be assumed that an explanation prepared later will in every case remedy a material deficiency in the finding as of the date of the act.
How sealing and notification affect time limits
Under Article 32 of the Zoning Law, the structure is sealed and the construction is stopped. The stoppage is deemed notified to the building owner by posting the construction stoppage record at the building site. The Law also provides that one copy be left with the neighborhood head and one copy be sent to the relevant provincial directorate. Because of this special provision, it is not safe to wait for a postal envelope to arrive. [1, Art. 32]
Whether the record was actually posted, the date of posting and its connection with the structure are investigated through the records in the file. Dated photographs, the posting record and the administration’s records are important at this point. If an improper notification is alleged, the specific date of learning must also be honestly disclosed; the notification debate should not be regarded as an unlimited right to file an action.
The special notification procedure applicable to the construction stoppage record does not mean that a municipal executive committee demolition decision taken subsequently is also automatically deemed notified. The notification of the demolition decision and the interested person’s becoming aware of that decision are assessed separately. In particular, for persons directly affected other than the owner, the start of the time limit may differ according to the notification made to them and the documents of specific learning.
The removal of the seal must also be done by a recorded administrative act. It is not safe for a person who believes the violation has been remedied to continue the construction on his or her own assessment. How the intervention needed to correct the structure is to be made should be clarified with the administration in writing; the sealing and the ban on activity must not be disregarded.
The one-month period granted to remedy the violation
The Law provides that the building owner may, within at most one month from notification, request the removal of the seal by bringing the structure into conformity with the permit or by obtaining a permit. This period differs from the time limit for filing an annulment action. Both of the conclusions “one month has passed, an action can no longer be filed” and “I have sixty days for the action, so no demolition will occur until then” are wrong. [1, Art. 32; 2, Art. 7]
Where the violation can be remedied, the period granted and the applications made must be evaluated. The administration’s acting without waiting for the period it has given, not examining the application at all, or misjudging the existing project may affect the merits of the dispute. By contrast, the mere filing of a petition within the period does not show that the permit was obtained or that the violation was remedied.
In structures determined to be incapable of being covered by a permit or to have violations that cannot be remedied, the one-month period is not awaited. Because of this exception in the last paragraph of the Law, applying old decisions without taking into account the amendment of legislation as of the date of the act would not be correct. If the administration relies on the exception, it must make the reason for the impossibility of remedy concrete; the expression “unauthorized building” alone does not take the place of this review. [1, Art. 32, last paragraph]
The claim that a structure can be covered by a permit should be supported by the current zoning status, plan note, alteration project and technical report. The parcel’s having no building right, encroachment on a neighboring parcel or protection provisions may form the administration’s counter-defense. A neighbor’s consent does not by itself change the zoning conditions arising from public law.
Who may issue the demolition decision and which part may be demolished
Distinguishing the decision-making body from the unit that issues the notification
Article 32 of the Zoning Law provides that demolition be carried out in the process following the decision of the municipal executive committee or the provincial administrative board (il idare kurulu). Special competence rules in the relevant area are reserved. The technical unit that makes the finding, the body that takes the decision and the administration that carries out the implementation do not perform the same function. [1, Art. 32]
If there is no municipal executive committee decision beneath a letter from a municipal directorate, a competence issue should be investigated. However, a letter that merely notifies a municipal executive committee decision cannot be characterized as an incompetent demolition decision simply because it was sent by the directorate. The request should be directed at the actual act behind the notification.
In metropolitan cities, the powers of the district municipality and the metropolitan municipality, and in special areas the relevant special regulations, are examined separately. That the decision was issued by a municipality is not enough by itself; it must be determined whether that municipality is competent with respect to that structure and that act. [8, Art. 11]
Does a partial violation require demolition of the whole building
The scope of the demolition should be tied to the concrete violation. If the removal of the permitted sections as well is envisaged because of a violation in only one part of the structure, the technical necessity must be explained. The severability of the violating part, the condition of the load-bearing system and the safe method of intervention may require expert review.
Hypothetical example: A closed annex not included in the project has been built in the garden of a permitted building. If the annex can be removed independently, the justification for a demolition covering the whole building is open to debate. However, if it has been technically shown that the intervention would affect the load-bearing system, the argument of a “small annex” alone may not be sufficient.
A claim of proportionality should not be confined to the statement that “the building is of high value.” A feasible alternative that preserves the lawful part should be shown. The administration may also argue that the violation extends to the whole structure or that the proposed intervention is not safe. The court’s review rests on the evidence for these mutual technical claims.
The protective effect of the construction permit, occupancy permit and building registration certificate
The construction permit and the occupancy permit are important legal documents with respect to the work they cover. However, an unauthorized floor or enclosed area added later does not automatically fall within the scope of the earlier document. The state of the structure on the date it was permitted should be distinguished from later changes.
In cases where the permit or the underlying plan has been annulled by a court, a vested-rights argument requires a different review. The decision of the Plenary Session of the Administrative Chambers of the Council of State (İdari Dava Daireleri Kurulu) dated November 12, 2014, E.2012/477, K.2014/3990 shows that the protection claimed in reliance on an unlawful plan and permit is not unlimited. The building conditions and the context of judicial annulment in the decision must be distinguished from a case in which the plan was merely amended afterward. [5, pp. 243–247]
In legal scholarship, there are different assessments between protecting the state a structure has actually reached, good faith and reliance on the law, and the public interest. This debate cannot be reduced to a one-sentence rule that every permitted structure will necessarily be protected or that a structure can be demolished immediately upon every plan annulment. The validity of the permit, the level of construction, the reason for the annulment and the date on which the owner became aware of the judicial process are important together. [6]
With respect to the building registration certificate (yapı kayıt belgesi), the validity of the certificate, the structure it covers and the date of the work are investigated. The legal consequences within the scope of provisional Article 16 of the Zoning Law do not extend to later works outside the certificate or to all special-law regimes. If there is a separate act on the cancellation of the certificate, the application time limits of this act and of the demolition decision should be tracked together. Instead of being content with submitting the certificate number, it should be shown with technical records that the work in question falls within the scope of the certificate. [1, provisional Art. 16]
Objection to the municipality and the time limit for filing an annulment action
Is an administrative application mandatory
In ordinary Article 32 acts within the scope of this article, objecting to the municipality before filing an action is not a general requirement. The person concerned may file an annulment action directly. It is also possible, under Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law, to request the revocation, withdrawal or amendment of the act. The application is addressed to the superior authority if there is one, and otherwise to the authority that took the act. [2, Art. 11]
The subject of the application should be set out clearly. A letter requesting only a copy of the file, information or a meeting should not be assumed to suspend the time limit. The receipt of the application, the registration number and the list of annexes should be kept. That a postponement of the demolition has been requested also does not mean that this request has been granted; the administration’s written act or a court decision should be relied on.
The sixty-day period and thirty days of non-response
Unless there is a special provision, the time limit for filing an annulment action is sixty days from the day following written notification. An Article 11 application made within the time limit suspends the running of the time limit for filing an action. Upon rejection of the application or thirty days of non-response, the remaining period continues to run. A new sixty-day period does not begin. [2, Arts. 7, 8 and 11]
In a simplified example, if twenty days had passed before the application, forty days as a rule remain after the rejection. This example is not a substitute for a calendar calculation. Electronic notification, holidays, periods of work recess and claims of specific learning should be assessed separately on the basis of the actual documents. It should not be assumed that a period that has expired can be restarted with repeated petitions.
| Period or stage | General rule | Point not to be confused |
|---|---|---|
| Remedying the violation | At most one month under Art. 32; there is an exception for impossibility of remedy | Not the time limit for filing an action |
| Annulment action | Sixty days unless there is a special provision | Filing an action does not stop demolition |
| Non-response to an Art. 11 application | Implied rejection after thirty days | Days that have passed are counted |
| Objection to a decision on stay of execution | In the general procedure, seven days from the day following notification | Separate from the legal remedy against the decision on the merits |
| Implementation of the court decision | Without delay; at most thirty days under the general provision | Does not give authority to wait in order to continue with the demolition |
Who may file the action and which court is applied to
An annulment action requires that the person’s legitimate, personal and current interest has been violated by the act. In addition to the owner and the direct addressee of the decision, the interest of a person whose right of use or operation is directly affected by the demolition may also be assessed. A tenant should not be content with saying he or she is a tenant; the connection between the lease contract and the documents of actual use and the act should be explained. [2, Art. 2]
Authority of representation is also important in co-ownership in shares, condominium ownership and company ownership. It cannot be assumed that an apartment building manager may file all actions on behalf of each owner. Capacity to sue, connection of interest and powers of attorney or representation documents are examined together.
The court with subject-matter jurisdiction is the administrative court. In a demolition dispute concerning an immovable, the court with territorial jurisdiction is, as a rule, the administrative court of the place where the immovable is located. The administration to be named as defendant in a municipal executive committee decision and the public official who signed the decision should not be confused. In acts of the special provincial administration (özel idare) or a Ministry, the proper defendant is determined separately. [2, Art. 34]
The petition should clearly state the date and number of the act, the notification information, the grounds for annulment, the evidence and the prayer for relief. Whether related acts are sued together is assessed under the conditions of Article 5 of the Administrative Procedure Law. Court fees, postage costs and, if necessary, an advance for an on-site examination or expert come into play. Because these are determined according to the file and the tariff in force, a single total cost cannot be stated for all cases.
How a request for a stay of execution is substantiated
For a stay of execution, the conditions that the act is manifestly unlawful and that its implementation would cause damage that is difficult or impossible to remedy are required together. The physical consequence of demolition is a strong fact with regard to damage. However, the statement “the building will be demolished” alone does not satisfy the condition of manifest unlawfulness. [2, Art. 27]
In the request, the strongest unlawfulness in the file should be tied to a concrete document. For example, the decision’s relating to the wrong parcel, treating a section in the approved project as violating, not waiting for the period granted for a remediable violation, or the absence of a decision by the competent board are different grounds. Instead of listing all of them abstractly, those that actually exist in the case should be explained.
With regard to damage, the letter announcing the demolition day, the current use of the building, the goods inside it and the effect of the interruption of activity may be shown. If the administration has a defense of safety of life or technical danger, answering it only through property value may not be sufficient. Safe temporary measures and a technical report gain importance in this debate.
In acts whose effect would be exhausted by their implementation, it is possible for a stay decision to be given without obtaining the administration’s defense and to be re-evaluated afterward. If a demolition date is near, this should be clearly shown and urgent review requested. There is no guarantee as to within how many days the court will decide. Submission of the request and its acceptance are different stages.
Whether to require security, or not to require it according to the circumstances, is assessed by the court. Under the general procedure, a decision on a request for a stay of execution may be objected to once, within seven days from the day following notification. The bar on repeating a request on the same grounds should also be borne in mind; if there is a new fact or document, how it differs from the earlier request should be shown. [2, Art. 27]
Technical evidence and expert examination
The court conducts legal review; the technical expert answers the questions of expertise put to him or her. The whole question “Is the act lawful?” cannot be left to the expert. By contrast, the conformity of the work actually carried out with the project, the severability of the violating section or the cause of a measurement difference may require technical examination.
| Document | Matter it clarifies | Point to check |
|---|---|---|
| Permit and approved projects | The construction that was permitted | Revision and approval dates |
| Record and supplementary sketches | The alleged violation | Parcel, floor, measurement and signature information |
| Notification and application records | Start of the time limits | Type of notification, registration date and content of the request |
| Dated photographs and aerial imagery | Existence and timing of the work | Source of the image and its match with the structure |
| Technical report and alteration project | Possibility of correction or partial intervention | Conformity with the concrete project and the plan in force |
| Demolition implementation documents | Scope and cost of the intervention | Relationship between the work done and the amount requested |
A private expert report does not bind the court; but it can make the dispute concrete from a technical standpoint. If the wrong project was used in the court-appointed expert’s report or a claim was not answered, the objection must show this error. Merely stating that one is dissatisfied with the result does not explain the need for a new examination.
The need for timely preservation of evidence should be assessed for evidence that may disappear if the demolition takes place. The condition of the existing structure, its installations, the boundary between lawful and violating sections and removable elements should be recorded. Waiting for the demolition to be completed in order to collect evidence may make the subsequent compensation review harder.
The court decision and the effect of obtaining a permit afterward
A stay of execution provides interim legal protection; it is not an annulment decision on the merits. It should be read to see which act the decision is directed at and what its reasoning is. A decision stopping only the demolition should not be interpreted as meaning that a sealing ban imposed by another act has also been lifted or that permission to continue construction has been given.
A decision of annulment also does not by itself give the structure a permit. If the annulment rests only on a lack of competence or procedure, the administration may remedy the deficiency and take a new act. By contrast, if the court has decided that certain work is permitted or that there is no ground for demolition, the administration cannot disregard the same material situation and the binding reasoning.
Under Article 28 of the Administrative Procedure Law, the decision must be carried out without delay; the general upper limit is thirty days from notification to the administration. In a decision that stops the demolition, this limit does not mean that demolition may be carried out for thirty more days. Delivering the decision to the relevant implementing unit and keeping the receipt record help to monitor actual implementation. [2, Art. 28]
If an alteration permit is obtained or the violation is remedied while the case continues, the new documents should be submitted to both the administration and the court. The effect on the proceedings of the withdrawal or annulment of the demolition decision or of the disappearance of the reason for its implementation is determined in the concrete file. The judicial process should not be abandoned of its own accord on the assumption that the case has become moot.
The appeal to the regional court of appeal (istinaf) against the decision on the merits and, where available, the further appeal on points of law (temyiz) are assessed according to the type and date of the decision and the transitional provisions in force. The general time limit for an appeal is thirty days. Resorting to a legal remedy does not by itself stay execution. Without examining Articles 45, 46 and 52 of the Administrative Procedure Law together, it cannot be said that all demolition cases will become final at the same stage. [2]
Demolition costs and compensation claim
The article applied to the demolition cost is decisive
In an administrative demolition under Article 32 of the Zoning Law, collection of the cost from the building owner is provided for. This article contains no general provision that automatically adds twenty percent to all costs. Article 39, concerning dangerous buildings, contains a separate provision on collection with a twenty percent surcharge. The financial consequences of the two regimes should not be transferred to each other. [1, Arts. 32 and 39]
The addressee of the provision on collection with a hundred percent surcharge, which appears in the Ministry’s intervention under Article 32 upon the inaction of the relevant administration, is the relevant administration. This provision, on its own, does not mean that double the amount may be demanded from the building owner in every file.
In its decision dated November 8, 2018, E.2017/456, K.2018/4661, the Plenary Session of the Administrative Chambers of the Council of State found lawful, in the concrete case, the cost demanded because an addition that encroached on the neighboring parcel and could not be covered by a permit had been demolished through a contractor. The dissenting opinion joined the reasoning of the Chamber, which called for an investigation of the claim that the cost was excessive. This decision neither shows that an objection to cost will be automatically accepted nor says that all costs are beyond review. [4, pp. 76–79]
For this reason, the cost debate should be built on the work items, the quantity survey (metraj), the payments made to the contractor and the actual intervention. If a payment order or another act is sent separately for collection, the application time limit specific to that act should also be examined separately.
Does an unlawful demolition give rise to compensation
If damage has arisen because of an unlawful act or action, the administration’s liability and a full remedy action may come into play. However, an annulment decision does not automatically ensure the payment of every item of damage claimed. The existence and amount of the damage, its connection with the administrative activity and the contribution of the injured person are investigated separately.
The value of the structure and installations, removable elements, moving costs and provable loss of activity should be separated within the same calculation. A hypothetical expectation of earnings differs from a documented loss. Damage caused during the demolition to lawful sections outside the scope of the decision is also assessed separately.
Article 12 of the Administrative Procedure Law, for damage arising from administrative acts, and Article 13, for damage arising from administrative actions, contain different application regimes. For this reason, a single time limit that applies in every case cannot be given for compensation. The application plan should be built by determining the source of the damage and the time it was learned. [2, Arts. 12–13]
Expenditures made in reliance on the permit and claims for the structure to be preserved as it is also differ. A general rule that the value of the structure must necessarily be paid before demolition cannot be accepted. The claim that the administration was at fault should be examined separately from the lawfulness of the demolition decision and the need for interim protection. [5; 6]
Conclusion
An effective recourse against a demolition decision rests on bringing the right act before the court within the time limit and documenting concrete unlawfulness. The construction stoppage record, the municipal executive committee decision and the implementation letter should be read together; the time limit and consequence of each should be determined separately. Whether the violation can be remedied or partial intervention is possible should be shown with technical documents.
If the structure is to be preserved during the case, a stay of execution should be addressed separately in addition to the request for annulment. It should not be assumed that demolition has stopped while the result of an administrative application or permit preparation is awaited. After the court decision too, the scope of the judgment, the administration’s implementation and any new acts should be monitored. Resolving the legal status of the structure permanently requires assessing the review of the demolition decision together with conformity with the permit and project.
Frequently Asked Questions
If I file an action against the demolition decision, must the municipality wait?
No. Filing an action is not automatically suspensive. The court must grant a stay of execution, or the administration must take a separate decision legally stopping the act. Details are in the section on stay of execution.
How many days is the time limit for objecting to a demolition decision?
In ordinary Article 32 acts, unless there is a special provision, the time limit for filing an action is sixty days from the day following written notification. The special notification procedure for the record and the effect of the administrative application are calculated separately. See the explanations on time limits.
Is it mandatory to object to the municipality?
Under the general Article 32 regime, there is no mandatory objection before filing an action. An Article 11 application may be made within the time limit; however, this application does not automatically stop the demolition. See the section on the administrative application.
Do I gain another sixty days by applying to the municipality?
No. An application meeting the conditions suspends the time limit. After rejection or thirty days of non-response, the remaining days are calculated by deducting the period that passed before the application. See the section on calculating the period.
Must one month always be awaited?
No. The statutory exception may apply to structures determined to be incapable of being covered by a permit or to have violations that cannot be remedied. Where the violation can be remedied, the period granted and the acts carried out are examined together. See the section on the one-month period.
I applied for a permit; will the demolition decision be lifted?
The application does not by itself take the place of a permit. After the permit is obtained or the violation is remedied, the status of the administrative decision and of the pending case should be addressed separately. See the effect of obtaining a permit afterward.
Can a demolition decision be issued for a building with an occupancy permit?
It can be, with respect to unauthorized works carried out afterward. A general answer for the whole building cannot be built without determining what situation the occupancy permit covers and its validity. See the section on the permit and occupancy permit.
Does a building registration certificate prevent every demolition?
No. The validity of the certificate, the work it covers and the law on which the act rests are important. The certificate does not protect all additions made afterward. See the protective effect of the certificate.
Can a tenant file an action against a demolition decision?
If there is a legitimate, personal and current interest in the act, capacity to sue may be assessed. The direct effect must be shown with lease and use documents. See the section on parties and court.
Does annulment of the demolition decision make the building permitted?
No. Depending on the ground of annulment, the administration may take a new act; conformity with the permit and project must be resolved separately. See the effect of the court decision.
Is the demolition cost always increased by twenty percent?
No. Article 32 and Article 39 contain different provisions. Without seeing the basis article and the cost calculation, the lawfulness of the increase cannot be assessed. See the demolition cost section.
After the demolition takes place, do the case and compensation become meaningless?
No. Legal interest may continue with respect to review of the act and redress of the damage. The nature of the claim, the stage of the case and the full remedy time limits are assessed separately. See the compensation section.
Sources and legal bases
[1] Zoning Law No. 3194, particularly Articles 21, 27, 32, 39 and provisional Article 16. Official text; consolidated text accessed.
[2] Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, particularly Articles 2, 5, 7, 8, 11–13, 27, 28, 34, 45, 46 and 52. Official text; consolidated text accessed.
[3] Presidency of the Council of State, Result Reports of the Regional Administrative Courts Case-Law Sharing and Evaluation Meeting, Istanbul, November 4–7, 2021; published 2022, pp. 38–40. It is not the full text of a decision but a report evaluating practice. Official publication.
[4] Plenary Session of the Administrative Chambers of the Council of State, November 8, 2018, E.2017/456, K.2018/4661, Council of State Journal (Danıştay Dergisi), 2019, issue 150, pp. 76–79; majority and dissenting opinion. Official decision publication.
[5] Plenary Session of the Administrative Chambers of the Council of State, November 12, 2014, E.2012/477, K.2014/3990, Council of State Journal (Danıştay Dergisi), 2015, issue 138, pp. 243–247. Official decision publication.
[6] Cenk Şahin, “The Effect of the Judicial Annulment of a Zoning Plan on the Legal Status of the Structure According to Council of State Decisions – A Critical Look” (“Danıştay Kararlarına Göre İmar Planının Yargı Yerince İptal Edilmesinin Yapının Hukuki Durumuna Etkisi – Eleştirel Bir Bakış”), Istanbul Law Review (İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası), 2018, 76(2), pp. 757–785, DOI: 10.26650/mecmua.2018.76.2.0026. Full text.
[7] Attorney Gökhan Bilgin, “Objection to a Demolition Order, Annulment Action and Stay of Execution under Article 32 of the Zoning Law in Light of Judicial Decisions” (“Yargı Kararlarıyla İmar Kanunu’nun 32. Maddesi Kapsamında Yıkım Kararına İtiraz, İptal Davası ve Yürütmenin Durdurulması”), September 19, 2026. It was consulted for comparison of the subject and the sources; decisions reported in the article have not been cited as precedent without independent verification. Article.
[8] Metropolitan Municipality Law No. 5216, Art. 11. Official text.