Lawsuit to Annul a Risky Building Determination: The Case Process, Time Limits, Suspension of Execution, and Property Owners' Rights under Law No. 6306

What is a lawsuit to annul a risky building assessment, which court hears it, what is the time limit for filing a lawsuit, does a stay of execution stop demolition, and what are the rights of the property owners? A comprehensive legal guide under Law No. 6306.

---

What is a lawsuit to annul a risky building assessment?

A lawsuit to annul a risky building designation is an administrative lawsuit filed in court against the designation of a building as a "risky building" under Law No. 6306 on the Transformation of Areas Under Disaster Risk. The aim of this lawsuit is to demonstrate that the risky building designation process is contrary to law, procedure, technique, and legislation, and to have the administrative action annulled.

A risk assessment of a building is not merely a technical engineering report. As a result of this assessment, a designation of the building as a risky structure can be added to the property deed, owners can be notified, an appeals process can begin, and if the assessment is finalized, the evacuation and demolition phase can commence. Therefore, a risk assessment of a building is a serious administrative process that directly affects the property owners' rights, their use of the property as a residence or workplace, the economic value of the property, and their bargaining power in the urban transformation process.

A lawsuit to overturn a risk assessment decision becomes particularly important in cases involving flawed technical reports, incomplete inspections, incorrect property information, irregular notifications, insufficient sample collection, erroneous concrete strength calculations, incorrect soil assessments, or reports prepared by unauthorized organizations. This is because once a risk assessment decision is finalized, the eviction and demolition process for the building can proceed. According to the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, filing a lawsuit against a risk assessment decision or demolition order does not automatically prevent the execution of administrative actions unless a stay of execution or annulment decision is issued.

Legal Nature of Risky Building Determination

Identifying a building at risk is one of the administrative actions that produces results using public authority. Although the assessment report is based on an examination requiring technical expertise, the acceptance of this report by the administration, its notification to the land registry, its announcement to the owners, and the initiation of the demolition process constitute administrative actions.

Therefore, a lawsuit against a risky building assessment should be filed in an administrative court, not a private law court. The lawsuit should be structured not as "determination that the building is sound," but as "cancellation of the risky building assessment." The petition should explain that the administrative action is unlawful, that the report is technically and procedurally deficient, and that the action is flawed in terms of its cause, subject matter, form, authority, or purpose.

Correctly determining the legal nature of a risky building assessment is crucial. This is because the competent court, the time limit for filing a lawsuit, the request for a stay of execution, the defendant administration, and the method of presenting evidence are all determined according to administrative law. Filing a lawsuit in the wrong court, missing deadlines, or incorrectly classifying the case legally can lead to serious loss of rights for the property owner.

The Difference Between an Appeal Against a Risky Building Assessment and a Lawsuit for Annulment

There are two main legal avenues against the identification of a building as risky. The first is an administrative appeal, and the second is an annulment lawsuit in administrative courts.

An objection to a building designation as risky is an application made to the administration by the building owners or their legal representatives. According to the Urban Transformation Presidency's explanations regarding the risky building process, building owners or their legal representatives can object to the building designation as risky within fifteen days from the last day of the announcement made at the local administrative office.

The appeal triggers a technical committee review. The technical committee examines whether the risky building report complies with regulations and technical principles. If deficiencies, calculation errors, incorrect assessments, or technical discrepancies are found in the report at this stage, the risky building designation may be revoked, or the report may be re-evaluated.

A lawsuit to annul a risk assessment of a building is filed in the administrative court. This lawsuit is based on the illegality of the administration's risk assessment process. While an objection is an administrative appeal, an annulment lawsuit is a judicial review process. The objection period and the lawsuit filing period should not be confused. The 15-day period is the administrative objection period; the 30-day period is the lawsuit filing period against administrative actions under Law No. 6306. Ministry statements also indicate that lawsuits against administrative actions established under this law can be filed within thirty days of the notification date, in accordance with Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure.

In which court should a lawsuit be filed to annul a risky building assessment?

A lawsuit to annul a risk assessment of a building is filed in the administrative court. The competent court is, as a rule, the administrative court of the location where the risky building is situated. For example, if a property in Istanbul has been assessed as a risky building, the lawsuit should be filed in the Istanbul Administrative Court.

This case cannot be filed in a civil court of first instance, a magistrates' court, or a consumer court. This is because the dispute does not arise from a contract between the owner and the contractor, but from an action taken by the administration under Law No. 6306. However, if private law disputes arise after the determination of a risky building, such as contractor contracts, construction contracts in exchange for land shares, transfer of land shares, sharing of independent units, or delay compensation, these disputes may also fall within the jurisdiction of the judicial courts.

The defendant is determined according to the nature of the administrative authority that carried out the action. In the specific case, the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, the Urban Transformation Presidency, the relevant provincial directorate, the municipality, or the administration to which the authority has been delegated may be named as the defendant. Correctly identifying the defendant administration in the lawsuit petition is important for the healthy progress of the proceedings.

Time Limit for Filing a Lawsuit to Annul a Risky Building Assessment

One of the most important issues in a lawsuit challenging a risky building designation is the time limit for filing the lawsuit. The time limit for filing a lawsuit against administrative actions under Law No. 6306 differs from the general administrative lawsuit time limit. While the general administrative lawsuit time limit is 60 days for most actions, it is 30 days for actions under Law No. 6306.

This period begins to run from the date of notification. However, in the process of identifying risky buildings, not only classic postal notifications but also special notification methods such as land registry notifications, reports posted on the building, e-Government notifications, announcements at the local administrative office, and announcements on the Presidency's website may be used. The Urban Transformation Presidency's statements indicate that the 15-day objection period begins from the last day of the announcement made at the local administrative office.

Therefore, the date of the report alone should not be considered when calculating the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit. The date the report was prepared, the date it was submitted to the administration, the notification to the land registry, the notice posted on the building, the announcement by the local headman, the e-Government notification, and the date of notification of the technical committee's decision (if an objection was filed) should all be considered together. An error in calculating the time limit may result in the lawsuit being dismissed due to exceeding the statute of limitations.

Who can file a lawsuit to annul a risky building assessment?

A lawsuit to annul a risk assessment of a building can be filed by the property owners directly affected by the decision. A property owner is the person who holds ownership rights to the immovable property according to the land registry. In buildings with condominium ownership or easement rights, the owners of independent units; in buildings with land shares, the owners of the land shares can file the lawsuit.

If the owner has passed away, the heirs have the right to sue. A certificate of inheritance must be obtained, and the heirs' rights to the property must be shown. Ministry sources state that, in cases where the owner is listed as deceased in the MERNIS system and the transfer of ownership has not been completed in the land registry, if the heirs are known, notification should be sent to the heirs, and they should be granted the right to object to the risk assessment process.

If a lawsuit is to be filed through a representative, the power of attorney must include the authority to file lawsuits and follow up on urban transformation procedures. Especially for property owners living abroad, it is crucial that the power of attorney is properly prepared, that all apostille or consular procedures are completed, and that a complete Turkish translation is provided.

The situation is different for tenants. The right to object to a risky building designation is generally granted to property owners. However, tenants may also be affected by the process in terms of eviction, lease agreements, deposits, business operations, relocation assistance, and commercial losses. A tenant's right to directly request the annulment of a risky building designation can be discussed separately depending on the specific interest involved. In practice, lawsuits for the annulment of a risky building designation are primarily conducted with the property owner as the central focus.

Legal Irregularities That Can Be Raised in a Lawsuit to Annul a Risky Building Assessment

In a lawsuit challenging a building's risk assessment, a simple statement of "our building is sound" may not be effective. The administrative court reviews whether the action is lawful. Therefore, the lawsuit must establish detailed allegations of illegality regarding the elements of the administrative action.

1. Illegality in Terms of Authority

The assessment of risky buildings must be carried out by licensed institutions and organizations, and reviewed by the relevant authority in accordance with the legislation. It should be investigated whether the organization conducting the assessment is authorized, whether its license is valid, whether the report is signed by authorized persons, and whether the report has been properly processed in the relevant system.

A determination made by an unauthorized person or organization may lack legal basis. In this case, the administrative act becomes flawed in terms of its authority.

2. Illegality in Terms of Form and Procedure

The risk assessment report for buildings must meet specific formatting requirements. The report must include all relevant information: block and parcel number, address, building code, building details, owner information, technical inspection results, sample information, calculation methods, and all appendices.

Furthermore, the notification of the report to the property owners, the posting of a record on the property, the e-Government notification, the announcement by the local headman, and the land registry procedures must be carried out in accordance with the proper procedure. Irregular notification, incomplete announcement, incorrect property owner information, notification to a deceased property owner, or failure to include heirs in the process may be grounds for litigation.

3. Illegality in Terms of the Causal Element

The reason for an administrative action is the material and legal facts that give rise to the action. In the identification of a risky building, the reason is scientific and verifiable data indicating that the building is indeed technically risky. If the report is based on incomplete examination, faulty sampling, incorrect concrete strength calculation, incorrect soil classification, or limited observations that do not represent the building as a whole, the causal element of the action is flawed.

One of the strongest objections in such cases is the claim that the risky building report is not supported by scientific and technical data. In particular, if the conclusion of a risky building is reached without examining the entire load-bearing system, taking sufficient samples, or properly assessing the building's current structural condition, this can create a serious legal irregularity in terms of an annulment lawsuit.

4. Illegality in Terms of Subject Matter

The result of a risk assessment is that the building is deemed a risky structure, and this affects the title deed, eviction, and demolition processes. However, if the process is carried out regarding the wrong building, the wrong plot, the wrong block, or the wrong independent unit, then illegality arises in terms of the subject matter.

Especially if there is more than one block or building on the same plot, it must be clearly determined which building has been identified as a risky structure. Ministry statements indicate that when there are multiple buildings on a plot, the designation of a risky structure should be applied only to the buildings identified as risky, not to all buildings.

5. Illegality in Terms of the Intent Element

The purpose of administrative action is public benefit. The aim in identifying risky buildings is to make structures at risk of disaster safe or to transform them. However, if the identification process is used not as a genuine risk assessment but rather as a tool for pressure from one of the owners, for a contractor to expedite their project, for the creation of land share sales, or for a malicious transformation plan, then its illegality in terms of purpose can be debated.

Such allegations should not be left abstract. Claims of bad faith, irregularities, or disproportionate actions in the lawsuit must be supported by concrete documents, meeting minutes, correspondence, technical reports, and identifiable events.

Suspension of Execution in the Case of Annulment of the Risky Building Determination

In lawsuits challenging the determination of a risky building, the most critical request is often a stay of execution. This is because simply filing a lawsuit does not automatically halt the execution of administrative actions. According to ministry statements, unless a stay of execution or annulment decision is issued in a lawsuit filed against a risky building determination or demolition decision, merely filing a lawsuit does not prevent the administration from carrying out its actions.

Therefore, the request for a stay of execution in the lawsuit petition must be detailed and strongly justified. According to the Administrative Procedure Law, two fundamental conditions are required for a stay of execution: the action must be clearly unlawful, and its implementation must cause irreparable harm.

In terms of identifying risky structures, irreparable harm is often evident. Because once a building is demolished, a subsequent cancellation order will not effectively bring the demolished building back. The owner may lose their home, workplace, or economic value. Therefore, in a request for a stay of execution, it must be explained that the demolition will have irreversible consequences, severely affect property rights, and that proceeding with the demolition process without addressing the technical deficiencies in the report is disproportionate.

However, simply stating that "damage will occur if the building collapses" is not sufficient. Clear legal violations must also be substantiated. For example, the report should explain that the number of samples was insufficient, the entire load-bearing system was not evaluated, incorrect procedures were followed regarding the structure, owners were not properly notified, or the technical committee's inspection was incomplete.

Expert Examination in a Case of Annulment of a Risky Building Determination

In cases involving the annulment of risk assessments of buildings, technical issues are paramount. In most cases, the court sends the file to an expert to determine whether the building is truly risky, whether the report was prepared in accordance with technical principles, the sampling method, the evaluation of concrete and reinforcement, the soil data, and the analysis of the structural system.

For the plaintiff property owner, expert examination is of great importance. Therefore, the questions to be asked of the expert should be clearly stated in the lawsuit petition. For example, the following issues may be requested to be examined:

Do the samples taken from the building represent the entire structure? Are the concrete strength calculations in accordance with regulations? Is the reinforcement identification sufficient? Has the soil class been correctly accepted? Has the building's existing structural design been taken into account? Have different blocks on the same plot been separated from each other? Was the actual condition of the building accurately determined on the date of inspection? Is the report's conclusion consistent with the technical data?

It is also important to file timely and detailed objections to the expert report. If the expert report obtained by the court is incomplete, contradictory, or not suitable for review, an additional report or a new expert panel may be requested.

Can demolition be carried out while a lawsuit to annul a risky building assessment is ongoing?

The filing of a lawsuit alone does not stop the demolition. Therefore, unless a stay of execution order is issued, the administration can continue with the eviction and demolition process. This is the most overlooked point in lawsuits challenging the determination of risky buildings.

If no objection is raised to the risky building assessment, or if the objection is rejected, the assessment becomes final, and according to the statements of the Urban Transformation Directorate, the process of evacuating and demolishing the risky buildings begins.

Therefore, the property owner filing the lawsuit should request a stay of execution as soon as possible. If the demolition is imminent, this urgency should be emphasized in the lawsuit petition; if possible, the demolition notice, eviction order, electricity-water-natural gas disconnection notices, municipal letters, and administrative deadlines should be included in the file.

What happens if the lawsuit to annul the risky building assessment is accepted?

If the court finds the risk assessment process for the building to be unlawful, it will order its annulment. This annulment legally nullifies the administrative action. In this case, a new assessment is required regarding title deeds, eviction and demolition procedures, and any subsequent administrative actions based on the risk assessment.

If the building has not yet been demolished, the cancellation decision can have extremely significant consequences for the owner. The risky building status is removed, and the administration is obliged to take action in accordance with the court decision.

However, if a stay of execution has not been granted and the structure has been demolished while the lawsuit is ongoing, the practical effect of the annulment decision becomes more complex. In this case, the owner may face a full judicial review lawsuit regarding the damages suffered, claims for compensation, or separate lawsuits against subsequent actions. Therefore, requesting a stay of execution in an annulment lawsuit is of vital practical importance.

What happens if the lawsuit to annul the risky building assessment is rejected?

If the court finds the risk assessment of the building to be lawful, the case will be dismissed. In this case, the risk assessment remains valid, and the evacuation and demolition process continues. If the case is dismissed, the property owner may appeal the decision, depending on its nature.

However, even if the lawsuit is dismissed, the legal rights of the property owners do not completely cease. Subsequent processes such as property owner decisions after demolition, sale of land shares, contractor contracts, division of independent units, rental assistance, eviction proceedings, insufficient compensation, or breach of contract may also be subject to legal review. However, the dismissal of the lawsuit against the risky building assessment may affect the property owner's position in subsequent processes.

The Most Common Mistakes in Lawsuits to Annul Risky Building Assessments

The most common mistake in practice is missing the deadline for filing a lawsuit. It should be remembered that there is a special 30-day lawsuit period for transactions covered by Law No. 6306. Property owners relying on the general 60-day administrative lawsuit period may lose their rights.

The second mistake is confusing the 15-day appeal period with the 30-day lawsuit period. An appeal is an administrative application, while an annulment lawsuit is a judicial application. Both have different time limits and outcomes.

The third mistake is the weak preparation of the request for a stay of execution. Since filing a lawsuit does not automatically stop the demolition, the request for a stay of execution must be supported by concrete technical and legal grounds.

The fourth mistake is preparing the lawsuit petition using only emotional or general statements. In a lawsuit to annul a risky building assessment, it must be clearly shown where the technical report is flawed.

The fifth mistake is failing to have an independent technical review conducted. Obtaining expert opinions, particularly regarding concrete strength, reinforcement, structural system, soil, and static calculations, can significantly strengthen the case.

The Role of the Lawyer in a Case to Annul a Risky Building Assessment

In a lawsuit to overturn a risk assessment of a building, the lawyer's role is not limited to writing the lawsuit petition. The lawyer primarily ensures the correct calculation of the timeframe. The report date, notification, local administrative notice, e-Government notification, technical committee decision, demolition notice, and other administrative documents are all examined together.

Next, the legal basis of the case is established. It is determined which elements of the administrative act are flawed, what technical deficiencies exist, how the request for a stay of execution will be justified, and what questions will be asked in the expert examination.

The lawyer also considers the outcome of the case in conjunction with the subsequent stages of urban transformation. This is because a lawsuit to annul a risky building designation is directly linked to processes such as eviction, demolition, rental assistance, sale of land shares, property owner decisions, construction contracts in exchange for land, and contractor selection.

Conclusion

A lawsuit to overturn a risk assessment of a building is one of the most important legal avenues available to property owners to protect their property rights during the urban transformation process. Since the eviction, demolition, title deed procedures, and reconstruction process can begin once a risk assessment of a building is finalized, the duration, content, and evidence presented in this lawsuit are of paramount importance.

In this case, the 15-day administrative appeal period and the 30-day lawsuit filing period should not be confused. Lawsuits against the determination of a risky building are filed in the administrative court, and the lawsuit petition must detail the technical, procedural, and legal irregularities.

Filing a lawsuit alone will not stop the demolition process. Therefore, the request for a stay of execution must be prepared with strong justifications. Since a subsequent annulment decision after the building is demolished may have only a limited practical effect, the lawsuit strategy must be established quickly and carefully.

In conclusion, a lawsuit to annul a risk assessment report is not merely an appeal against a report. This lawsuit is a strategic type of administrative litigation that protects property owners' real estate, its economic value, its residential or commercial use, and its rights in the urban transformation process. Failure to meet deadlines, the proper preparation of technical evidence, and the strong establishment of a request for a stay of execution are crucial to the success of the case.