The competent and authorized court in urban transformation cases

 This comprehensive legal guide covers the competent and authorized courts in urban transformation cases, including risky buildings, risky areas, reserve building areas, share sales, eviction-demolition, permits, occupancy permits, contractor contracts, title cancellation and registration, expropriation, rental assistance, and fee refunds.

---

Why is Court Separation Important in Urban Transformation Cases?

Correctly identifying the competent and authorized court in urban transformation cases is vital to prevent the case from being dismissed without addressing its merits. The urban transformation process is not limited to a single type of lawsuit. Within the same transformation project, there may be different legal areas such as administrative actions, private law contracts, title disputes, expropriation compensation, rent assistance, fee refunds, share sales, building permits, occupancy permits, zoning plans, and contractor liability.

Therefore, there is no single answer to the question, "In which court should an urban transformation lawsuit be filed?" If the subject of the lawsuit is the annulment of a risky building designation, administrative courts come into play. If the issue is the contractor's late delivery or defective delivery of the construction, in most cases the judicial courts and the civil court of first instance come into play. If the cancellation and registration of the title deed is requested, the court of the place where the property is located becomes important. In a lawsuit for the determination of the expropriation compensation, the civil court of first instance of the place where the property is located has jurisdiction. In cases involving requests for fee or tax refunds, a distinction should be made between the tax court and the administrative court depending on the nature of the dispute.

The purpose of Law No. 6306 is to determine the procedures for improvement, demolition, and renewal in areas at risk of disaster and on plots and lands containing risky structures, in order to create healthy and safe living environments. Because this purpose is broad, the procedures covered by the law may fall within the jurisdiction of different courts.

The Difference Between a Court of Jurisdiction and a Court of Competence

In urban transformation cases, the first distinction is between "jurisdiction" and "competence." The competent court refers to which branch of the judiciary and which type of court will handle the dispute. For example, an administrative court, tax court, civil court of first instance, magistrate's court, consumer court, or commercial court of first instance may have jurisdiction.

The competent court, after determining the type of court with jurisdiction, indicates the location where the case will be filed. For example, in an administrative case concerning a risky building located in Istanbul, the competent court is in most cases the administrative court of the place where the property is located. In a case of cancellation and registration of title deeds, the civil court of first instance in the place where the property is located may have exclusive jurisdiction.

If this distinction is not correctly established, the case may be dismissed on procedural grounds, a decision of lack of jurisdiction or competence may be issued, and the deadline for filing a lawsuit may be missed. Especially in administrative actions under Law No. 6306, the deadline for filing a lawsuit is usually 30 days, so filing a lawsuit in the wrong court can lead to serious loss of rights.

The fundamental distinction: Administrative Courts or Judicial Courts?

The most fundamental distinction in urban transformation disputes is whether the dispute arises from an administrative act or from a private law relationship.

In disputes arising from administrative actions, the competent court is, as a rule, the administrative court. This group includes actions such as identifying risky buildings, designating areas as risky, designating reserve building areas, eviction and demolition procedures, share sales, building permits, occupancy permits, zoning plans, parceling, refusal of rental assistance, refusal of interest subsidy, and actions taken by the Ministry or municipality.

In disputes arising from private law relationships, the judicial courts have jurisdiction. Examples of such disputes include construction contracts between contractors and landowners in exchange for land shares, compensation for delays, rent assistance claims, defective or incomplete workmanship, contract termination, cancellation and registration of title deeds, claims by third parties who have purchased independent units from the contractor, and certain private law disputes between heirs or co-owners.

This distinction is not always easy. For example, in urban transformation, the sale of land shares involves both administrative stages and the result of title registration. In expedited expropriation, the annulment of the expropriation decision takes place in administrative courts, while the determination of the price and the registration process take place in judicial courts. Therefore, before filing a lawsuit, it must be clearly determined "which action" the dispute arises from.

Court Cases Regarding Lawsuits Filed Against Risk Assessment of Buildings

In lawsuits filed against the determination of a building as risky, the administrative courts generally have jurisdiction. The determination of a building as risky is the beginning of a chain of administrative actions established under Law No. 6306, based on a technical report, and affecting the legal status of the owners. Once the determination of a building as risky is finalized, the evacuation and demolition process begins; therefore, any lawsuit against the risky building decision must be filed in the administrative court.

In terms of jurisdiction, the administrative court of the location where the risky structure is situated should be considered. Article 34 of the Administrative Procedure Law stipulates that in administrative cases arising from the application of legislation related to immovable properties such as zoning, expropriation, demolition, permits, and occupancy permits, the competent court is the administrative court of the location where the immovable property is situated.

The most important issue to consider when filing a lawsuit against a risky building designation is the time limit. While the general administrative lawsuit period is 60 days in some cases, special periods apply in cases where specific laws stipulate different time limits. Article 7 of the Administrative Procedure Law stipulates that in cases where special laws do not specify different time limits, the lawsuit filing period is 60 days in the Council of State and administrative courts, and 30 days in tax courts. However, the 30-day special period should be considered for administrative actions under Law No. 6306.

Court with jurisdiction over the Risky Area Decision

A risky area designation is a serious administrative action, often established by presidential decree, affecting a wide area. This designation can serve as the basis for numerous processes such as zoning plans, land subdivision, eviction and demolition, ownership rights, valuation, and expropriation. Therefore, lawsuits filed against a risky area designation require special attention depending on the nature of the action.

If the decision regarding a high-risk area is a presidential decree, then, pursuant to Article 24 of the Council of State Law, the Council of State may act as the court of first instance in annulment and full judicial review cases filed against presidential decrees. Article 24 of the Council of State Law stipulates that the Council of State shall decide on cases filed against presidential decrees as a court of first instance.

Furthermore, Presidential decrees issued pursuant to Law No. 6306 are subject to expedited trial procedure under Article 20/A of the Administrative Procedure Law. In expedited trial procedure, the time limit for filing a lawsuit is 30 days; the periods for initial examination and defense are shorter than in general trial.

Therefore, the rule of "administrative court of the place where the property is located" does not always apply directly in decisions regarding risky areas. If the decision is a presidential decree, the first instance court may be the Council of State. Conversely, for implementation actions subsequently taken by the municipality, provincial directorate, or Urban Transformation Presidency based on the risky area decision, the administrative court may have jurisdiction. Before filing a lawsuit, it is essential to distinguish whether the subject of the lawsuit is the declaration of a risky area or an implementation action based on the risky area decision.

Competent Court Against the Reserve Development Area Decision

The decision to designate a property as a reserve development area is also an administrative act. Including a property within a reserve development area for use in applications under Law No. 6306 may directly affect the owner's property rights and the future development regime of the property.

If the decision regarding a reserve development area is an individual action taken by the Ministry or the Urban Transformation Presidency, the competent court is, as a rule, the administrative court. In most cases, the authorized court is the administrative court of the location where the property is situated. This is because the dispute arises from an administrative action that directly affects the zoning and land use status of the property.

Conversely, if the action regarding the reserve building area is a nationwide regulatory act or falls within the scope of Article 24 of the Council of State Law, the jurisdiction should be evaluated separately. Therefore, when filing a lawsuit against decisions regarding reserve building areas, it should be examined by whom the decision was made, in what capacity, and by what type of legal act.

The Court Responsible and Authorized for Evacuation and Demolition Procedures

After the risk assessment of a building is finalized, owners are given a period of time to evacuate and demolish the building. If demolition is not carried out by the end of this period, the administration may initiate demolition procedures. Evacuation and demolition notices, demolition decisions, disconnection of infrastructure services, and administrative demolition processes are considered administrative actions.

The competent court for these proceedings is the administrative court. The authorized court is the administrative court of the place where the immovable property is located. Article 34 of the Administrative Procedure Law explicitly lists "demolition" among administrative cases related to immovable property, and the authorized court is specified as the administrative court of the place where the immovable property is located.

Requesting a stay of execution in eviction and demolition proceedings is particularly important. This is because even if the lawsuit is won after the building is demolished, restoring it to its original state may become practically impossible. Therefore, all documents relating to the risky building report, the finalization process, the notification, the demolition period, and the administration's supporting actions should be attached to the lawsuit petition.

Court Cases Regarding Property Decisions and Sale of Land Shares

One of the most controversial areas in urban transformation is the sale of land shares belonging to owners who do not agree with the decision taken by a simple majority in proportion to their shares. This process includes stages such as calling a meeting, owner's decision, notification of offer, valuation report, auction, sale transaction, and title registration.

As a rule, administrative courts have jurisdiction over administrative actions in the land share sale process. Claims such as the cancellation of the sale transaction, administrative deficiencies in the valuation process, irregularities in the offer notification, errors in the simple majority calculation, and incomplete preparation of the sales file can be raised in the administrative court. In administrative actions within the scope of Law No. 6306, the 30-day lawsuit period should be taken into account.

However, since the sale of a land share leads to title registration, legal proceedings may arise in some cases. For example, if there is a claim for cancellation and registration of the title deed after the sale, fraudulent registration, abuse of power of attorney, forged signature, or ownership claim based on private law grounds, a lawsuit may need to be filed in the civil court of first instance. Here, it is important not to confuse a lawsuit for the annulment of an administrative act with a lawsuit for the correction of the land registry. First, the annulment of the sale transaction in administrative court may need to be addressed, and then the resulting title deed issue may need to be considered separately.

Court Cases Regarding Building Permits, Occupancy Permits, and Zoning Plans

In urban transformation projects, building permits, renovation permits, occupancy permits, zoning plan amendments, and parceling procedures are administrative actions. The competent court for appeals against these actions is the administrative court.

In terms of jurisdiction, the administrative court of the location where the immovable property is situated shall be considered. This is because Article 34 of the Administrative Procedure Law designates the administrative court of the location of the immovable property as competent in administrative cases arising from the application of legislation related to immovable properties, such as zoning, permits, and occupancy permits.

For example, if a building permit obtained by a contractor is deemed to be in violation of the zoning plan, a lawsuit can be filed in the administrative court to have the permit revoked. Similarly, if the municipality has illegally granted an occupancy permit or refuses to grant one without justifiable cause, administrative court proceedings may be initiated. If a zoning plan amendment affects landowners' land shares, building rights, or the balance of social amenities, a lawsuit for the plan's annulment can be filed.

Court Cases Arising from Contractor Agreements

In urban transformation projects, the contract between the property owner and the contractor is usually either a construction contract in exchange for a share of the land or a construction contract in exchange for a share of the completed building. Disputes arising from these contracts are generally heard in the judicial courts.

The competent court is generally the civil court of first instance. Claims such as the contractor's failure to deliver the construction on time, incomplete or defective workmanship, failure to obtain an occupancy permit, failure to pay rental assistance, independent unit allocation contrary to the contract, construction contrary to the technical specifications, or termination of the contract are brought before the civil court of first instance.

However, the status of the parties must be examined in each case. If all parties are merchants and the dispute relates to their commercial businesses, a case may fall under the jurisdiction of the commercial court. If a third party, a consumer who purchased a house from a contractor, files a lawsuit against the seller or contractor, a case may fall under the jurisdiction of the consumer court. In contrast, a classic construction contract in exchange for a share of the land between a landowner and a contractor is generally not considered a consumer transaction.

In terms of jurisdiction, general jurisdiction and contractual jurisdiction rules are considered only if the claim concerns monetary debt, rent assistance, or late payment penalties. However, if the lawsuit results in a transfer of title, cancellation and registration of title, or a change in real rights, the court of the place where the immovable property is located has exclusive jurisdiction according to Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Within the scope of Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court of the place where the immovable property is located has exclusive jurisdiction in lawsuits that may lead to a change in real rights or ownership of real rights on immovable property.

Court Cases Regarding Title Deed Cancellation and Registration

In urban transformation projects, lawsuits for the cancellation and registration of title deeds are very common. Claims such as the return of shares transferred prematurely to the contractor, the recovery of title deeds transferred after contract termination, fraudulent registration, forged power of attorney, abuse of power of attorney, and the cancellation of title deed registration or registration of independent sections after the sale of shares by an owner who did not participate in the decision, can all be the subject of title deed cancellation and registration lawsuits.

In these cases, the competent court is, as a rule, the civil court of first instance. The authorized court is the court of the place where the immovable property is located, and this jurisdiction is absolute. This is because lawsuits for the cancellation and registration of title deeds directly relate to real rights over the immovable property.

If there is more than one immovable property, Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that a lawsuit concerning multiple immovable properties may be filed in the location of one of the properties. However, in practice, the location of the immovable properties and the subject matter of the lawsuit must be carefully determined to avoid jurisdictional objections and procedural risks.

Court Cases Arising from Condominium Ownership

In the urban transformation process, some disputes may arise not from Law No. 6306, but from the Condominium Law. Issues such as the annulment of the decision of the board of condominium owners, the management plan, common areas, dues, apartment management, manager's actions, or the obligations of condominium owners towards each other fall within this scope.

In disputes under the Condominium Law, the competent court is generally the civil court of peace. Regarding the annulment of a decision by the board of condominium owners, the civil court of peace located where the main property is situated has jurisdiction. According to Article 33 of the Condominium Law, an owner who attended the meeting and voted against the decision may file a lawsuit within one month from the date of the decision, and an owner who did not attend may file a lawsuit within one month from the date they learned of the decision; in any case, within six months from the date of the decision. The time limit issue is considered separately in cases of nullity or absolute invalidity.

However, not every property owner's decision in urban transformation projects is based on the Condominium Law. Decisions made by a simple majority under Law No. 6306, sales of land shares, and administrative procedures may be subject to different legal avenues. Therefore, filing a lawsuit in the civil court for every decision that appears to be an "apartment decision" may not be appropriate. It must be determined whether the decision is based on the Condominium Law or Law No. 6306.

Court in Expropriation Cases

In urban transformation projects, expropriation can bring two separate legal avenues into play. If it is argued that the expropriation decision is unlawful, an annulment lawsuit is filed in administrative court. However, the determination of the compensation and the registration of the property in the name of the administration fall within the jurisdiction of the judicial courts.

According to Article 10 of Law No. 2942 on Expropriation, if expropriation cannot be carried out through the purchase procedure, the administration applies to the civil court of first instance in the location of the property to determine the expropriation price and register the property in the name of the administration. The jurisdictional and competency provisions of the same law also stipulate that disputes requiring resolution in the judicial system shall be heard in the civil court of first instance in the location of the property using a simplified trial procedure.

Therefore, if the property owner claims that the expropriation is unlawful, they should file a lawsuit for annulment in the administrative court. If they claim that the compensation is too low, they should object to the expert report in the compensation determination and registration lawsuit in the civil court. These two approaches are not interchangeable.

Distinction Between Courts in Expedited Expropriation Cases

In expedited expropriation cases, there is a two-way court system. The legality of the expedited expropriation decision is reviewed in administrative courts. The process of expedited seizure and compensation determination, however, is conducted in the judicial courts, specifically in the civil court of first instance where the property is located.

Expedited expropriation procedures are considered among the types of procedures subject to expedited judicial procedure under Article 20/A of the Administrative Procedure Law. In expedited judicial procedure, the time limit for filing a lawsuit is 30 days, and the application under Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law does not apply. Therefore, in expedited expropriation, the property owner focuses solely on the compensation claim in the civil court and may lose the opportunity to fundamentally challenge the expropriation decision if they miss the deadline for filing an annulment lawsuit in the administrative court.

Court Cases Regarding Rent Assistance and Interest Subsidy

In urban transformation projects, the rejection of an application for rental assistance or interest subsidy is an administrative act. If the application is rejected due to insufficient payment, incorrect calculation of the payment period, or being submitted outside the deadline, the competent court is the administrative court.

Regarding the competent court, an assessment can be made between the location of the administrative authority that initiated the process and the location of the property. If the dispute directly relates to the property's transformation status, eviction, or risky building process, the administrative court in the location of the property has the stronger jurisdiction. However, in applications solely for monetary support, the location of the administrative authority that initiated the process may also be a matter of debate. Therefore, the administrative authority and the basis of the action in the rejection letter should be examined.

Court Cases Regarding Tax, Fee, and Charge Refunds

In urban transformation projects, disputes may arise regarding exemptions for title deed fees, stamp duty, notary fees, revolving fund fees, municipal fees, and other financial burdens. The competent court is determined according to the legal nature of the collected amount.

If the dispute relates to taxes, duties, fees, or similar financial obligations, the tax court may have jurisdiction. Article 7 of the Administrative Procedure Law stipulates that the general time limit for filing a lawsuit in tax courts is 30 days, unless otherwise specified in special laws. However, for certain fees collected by municipalities, administrative service charges, or collections that do not constitute taxes, the administrative court may be the competent authority.

Therefore, before filing a lawsuit for a refund of fees, the legal nature of the amount charged should be examined, not just its name on the receipt. Is it a land registry fee, stamp duty, municipal fee, revolving fund fee, or service fee? Applying to the wrong court can lead to a waste of time.

Practical Checklist to Avoid Mistakes in Duties and Authority

Before filing a lawsuit regarding urban transformation, the following questions must be answered:

Is the transaction in question an administrative act or a private law contract?

Is the transaction covered under Law No. 6306, the Condominium Law, or the Expropriation Law?

If the case concerns a risky building, a risky area, a reserve building area, demolition, a permit, occupancy permit, or a zoning plan, does administrative law come into play?

If the lawsuit concerns a contractor's contract, delay compensation, defective workmanship, or title transfer, does it fall under the jurisdiction of the judicial system?

If cancellation and registration of title deed is requested, does the court in the location of the property have exclusive jurisdiction?

Is the annulment of the expropriation decision being sought, or is the determination of the compensation being discussed?

Is the transaction in question a presidential decree? If so, does the Council of State have jurisdiction as a first instance court?

Is the time limit for filing a lawsuit 30 days, 60 days, or a special period?

Should a stay of execution be requested?

Filing a lawsuit without answering these questions poses a serious risk, especially in short-term and technical disputes such as urban transformation projects.

Conclusion

In urban transformation cases, the competent and authorized court is determined not by the name of the dispute, but by its legal nature. In administrative matters such as the identification of risky buildings, risky areas, reserve building areas, evacuation-demolition, building permits, occupancy permits, zoning plans, parceling, rejection of rental assistance, and sale of shares, the administrative courts generally have jurisdiction. In cases concerning zoning, demolition, permits, and occupancy permits related to real estate, the competent court is, in most cases, the administrative court of the location where the property is situated.

In contrast, claims arising from construction contracts between contractors and landowners in exchange for land shares, such as delays, rent assistance, defective workmanship, incomplete work, contract termination, and compensation claims, are generally heard in the judicial system, and in most cases, in the civil court of first instance. In cases concerning real rights, such as the cancellation and registration of title deeds, the court of the location of the property has exclusive jurisdiction. For cases involving the annulment of decisions under the Condominium Law and disputes between condominium owners, the magistrates' court comes into play.

In expropriation cases, a dual distinction is particularly important. The annulment of the expropriation decision is handled by administrative courts; the determination of the expropriation price and the registration case in the name of the administration are heard in the civil court of first instance where the property is located. Similarly, in expedited expropriation, the annulment of the expedited decision is handled by administrative courts, while the expedited seizure and price determination are handled by judicial courts.

In conclusion, determining the correct court in urban transformation cases is crucial not only for the success of the case but also for protecting the right to sue. Both administrative and judicial remedies may be applicable in the same case. Therefore, before filing a lawsuit, the type of action, the status of the parties, the requested outcome, the location of the property, the specific statute of limitations, the need for a stay of execution, and the distinction between the available legal avenues must be carefully analyzed. Filing a lawsuit in the wrong court not only wastes time but can also lead to irreparable loss of rights due to the short time limits stipulated in Law No. 6306.