Annulment of Administrative Acts

What Are Administrative Acts?

Administrative acts are actions unilaterally taken by an authorized public authority using public power for the purpose of carrying out public services. By their nature, administrative acts are final and executive. Being final means that the administrative act is signed by the authorized person or persons following the necessary administrative procedural rules and produces legal consequences; being executive means that the act, made unilaterally and directive by the administration’s authority, produces legal effects on its own.

Lawsuit for the Annulment of Administrative Acts

The request for annulment of administrative acts, whose characteristics are explained above, can be pursued through administrative judicial review aimed at examining the legality of administrative acts. This annulment lawsuit can be filed by individuals whose interests and rights have been violated as a result of alleging that at least one of the elements—authority, reason, form, purpose, or subject matter—in the administrative act is unlawful. It should be noted that, in this context, the claimed interest must be legitimate, current, and personal (Council of State, 14th Chamber, Decision dated 12.04.2017, Case No. 2017/589, Decision No. 2017/2258).

Reasons for Filing a Lawsuit for the Annulment of Administrative Acts

A lawsuit for the annulment of administrative acts can be filed if the relevant administrative act is found to be unlawful in terms of authority, reason, form, subject, or purpose. Moreover, unlawful acts in this context are classified under five subcategories:

1. Administrative Acts Unlawful in Terms of Authority

An administrative act carried out by an authority not explicitly empowered by law constitutes a violation of the law. Additionally, it should be noted that the subsequent approval of an administrative act by a competent authority does not render lawful an administrative act initially performed by an unauthorized administrative body.

2. Administrative Acts Unlawful in Terms of Cause

The justification in administrative acts refers to the public service or necessity considered by the administration when taking action. Accordingly, even if the act falls within the scope of discretionary power, it must absolutely include a justification—that is, the cause.

3. Administrative Acts Unlawful in Terms of Form

The administrative act carried out must comply with the prescribed formal requirements. In this regard, it should be noted that such formal requirements are regulated by norms such as laws, regulations, and bylaws. Therefore, failure to comply with the specified formal requirements in an administrative act constitutes a violation of the law.

4. Administrative Acts Unlawful in Terms of Subject Matter

The subject matter of an administrative act refers to the legal outcome that will result from the act. Therefore, unlawfulness in the subject matter of the act leads to an incorrect or incomplete application of the substantive rules.

5. Administrative Acts Unlawful in Terms of Purpose

All administrative acts are tied to a specific general or particular purpose. However, whether the stated purpose is general or specific does not affect the determination of its unlawfulness.

Time Limit for Filing an Action for Annulment of Administrative Acts

The action for annulment of administrative acts is subject to general and special time limits for filing a lawsuit, depending on the nature of the relevant administrative act (Administrative Jurisdiction Procedures Law – Article 7). Accordingly:

>>The special time limit for filing a lawsuit refers to a specific provision stated in the law for annulment actions regarding certain administrative acts. If a special time limit is not explicitly stated in the administrative act, an annulment action may be filed within the general time limits against the relevant act.

>>The general time limit for filing a lawsuit is 60 days before the Council of State (Danıştay) and administrative courts, and 30 days before tax courts. It should also be noted that the general time limit for filing an annulment action is a statute of limitation, meaning the right to file the lawsuit is forfeited after the deadline.

Procedural Rules in Actions for Annulment of Administrative Acts

In annulment actions against administrative acts, the competent court varies depending on the nature of the administrative act subject to annulment. The courts with jurisdiction over such cases can be listed as follows:

1. Administrative Court
2. Tax Court
3. Regional Administrative Court
4. Council of State

In annulment cases filed for the cancellation of administrative actions, the competent court is the court located in the jurisdiction of the administrative authority that issued the administrative action subject to annulment. In this regard, the parties may need an administrative law attorney who will file and follow up the relevant case, specifically an administrative law attorney in Antalya.

Frequently Asked Questions

1.Who Can File an Administrative Procedure Cancellation Lawsuit?

As stated under the heading “Administrative Procedure Cancellation Lawsuit,” anyone whose interests are violated as a result of an action claimed to be unlawful can file a lawsuit for the cancellation of an administrative procedure.

2.What Is the Difference Between a Cancellation Lawsuit and a Full Jurisdiction Lawsuit?

A full jurisdiction lawsuit filed in administrative courts aims to compensate for damages resulting from the establishment of an administrative act, and can be considered a type of compensation lawsuit. However, a cancellation lawsuit filed in administrative courts does not include any compensation ruling; instead, it seeks the annulment and removal of the relevant administrative act due to its unlawfulness.

3.What Is the Capacity to File an Administrative Cancellation Lawsuit?

The ability to file an administrative cancellation lawsuit depends on the person’s legal capacity. Accordingly, it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to merely have the capacity to exercise civil rights; there must also be an interest relationship (subjective capacity) between the plaintiff and the administrative act that is the subject of the lawsuit.

4.When Can a Stay of Execution Be Requested in an Administrative Cancellation Lawsuit?

A stay of execution can be requested at any stage of the lawsuit. In the case of an administrative cancellation lawsuit, a stay of execution decision can be granted if, first, the implementation of the administrative act would cause irreparable or impossible-to-remedy harm before the final judgment is rendered. Secondly, this decision depends on the clear demonstration that the administrative act is unlawful.

5.How Does a Stay of Execution Decision Affect the Administrative Cancellation Lawsuit?

Filing a lawsuit for the annulment of administrative actions in judicial authorities does not suspend the execution of the related administrative action. Therefore, in order to suspend the execution of the administrative action, the judicial authorities must issue a stay of execution decision. The stay of execution decision suspends the legality and lawfulness aspects, which are characteristics of the administrative action, and postpones the implementation of the action until the conclusion of the lawsuit.

6.Can the Decision to Suspend or Reject the Suspension of Execution in an Administrative Action Annulment Lawsuit Be Appealed?

Bu hususa ilişkin kararların Danıştay dava daireleri tarafından verilmesi durumunda konusuna göre değişiklik arz etmek üzere İdari veya Vergi Dava Daireleri Genel Kurullarına ayrıca Bölge İdare Mahkemelerine, İdare ve Vergi Mahkemelerine; kararın tebliğinden itibaren 7 gün içerisinde bir defaya özel olmak üzere itiraz edilebilmektedir. Yetkili makam ilgili itirazı dosyanın kendisine ulaşmasından başlayarak 7 gün içerisinde inceleyip karara bağlamak zorundadır.

7.When Can an Administrative Action Annulment Lawsuit Be Filed?

The statute of limitations for filing an annulment lawsuit against administrative actions is regulated as stated in Article 7 of the Administrative Judicial Procedures Law (İYUK):

‘’1. The lawsuit filing period, in cases where special laws do not specify a different duration, is sixty days for the Council of State and administrative courts, and thirty days for tax courts.

2. These periods start from the day following: a) In administrative disputes, the date the written notification is made, b) In disputes arising from taxes, fees, charges, and similar financial obligations including their increments and penalties: For taxes collectible upon assessment, the date of collection; For cases involving notification or equivalent procedures, the date of notification; For taxes withheld at source, the date payment is made to the rightful recipients; For registration-based taxes, the date the registration is made; In matters where the administration must file a lawsuit, the date the relevant authority or commission decision is received by the administration.

Some Council of State Decisions Regarding the Annulment of Administrative Actions

1. In the case filed for the annulment of the administrative action dated 13.10.2010, which declared the plaintiff—who served as an officer in the Directorate—dismissed due to absence from duty starting from 23.09.2010 pursuant to Article 94 of the State Officials Law No. 657, and requested payment of the monthly and other financial rights for the period of being unemployed along with legal interest; upon examination of the information and documents submitted to the case file, it was found that there was a duly obtained medical report concerning the days the plaintiff did not attend duty. It is clear that the act of unauthorized and unjustified absence causing the plaintiff to be considered resigned did not occur, and merely because this report was not converted into sick leave, the administrative action declaring resignation was not in accordance with law and equity. Therefore, the annulment of the disputed action and payment of calculated material losses with legal interest was decided by the Administrative Court by the decision dated … and numbered E:…, K:… which is now requested to be reviewed and overturned by appeal. The review and overturning of decisions given by administrative and tax courts via appeal are only possible if one of the reasons stated in Article 49 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Law No. 2577 is present. Since the decision given by the administrative court and its grounds are in accordance with law and procedure, and there is no reason to annul it, the appeal request is rejected and the mentioned decision is upheld. (Council of State, 12th Chamber Presidency, dated 02.02.2017, Case No: 2016/9184, Decision No: 2017/128)
2. Upon examination of the file; it is understood that during an inspection conducted by technical personnel of the defendant administration on 12.03.2013 at the workplace of the plaintiff company engaged in stone crushing, screening, and washing activities, samples were taken and analyzed, resulting in a high level of solid waste matter parameter. Consequently, an administrative fine of 101,595.00 TRY was imposed for violation of Article 20/f of Law No. 2872. The said administrative action was notified to the plaintiff company on 30.05.2013. The lawsuit under consideration was filed with a petition submitted to the … Civil Court of First Instance on 01.07.2013 (Monday). According to the aforementioned legislative provisions; the general lawsuit filing period in administrative courts is sixty days, and the starting point of this period is the day following the notification of the administrative action. These general rules and principles apply unless otherwise regulated by special laws. If special laws contain different provisions, such differences must be explicitly stated in the administrative action. In the present dispute, the contested administrative action was notified to the plaintiff company on 30.05.2013. The special lawsuit filing period regulated under Article 25 of Law No. 2872 clearly states that a lawsuit can be filed within 30 days from the date of notification of the administrative action before the Administrative Court. Unlike the general rule in Article 8 of Law No. 2577, the cited law does not specify that the lawsuit filing period starts from the day after the notification date. Therefore, in calculating the 30-day special lawsuit filing period, the day of notification must also be included. Accordingly, a lawsuit should have been filed against the contested administrative action—whose special lawsuit filing period was explicitly stated—within 30 days starting from 30.05.2013 and no later than the end of business hours on 28.06.2013 (Friday). Since the lawsuit was filed after this period, on 01.07.2013 (Monday), the court’s decision to dismiss the case due to expiration of the lawsuit filing period is not legally erroneous. (Council of State, 14th Chamber Presidency, dated 04.02.2016, Case No: 2015/3716, Decision No: 2016/669)
3. Upon examination of the file; it is understood that the Council of Ministers Decision dated 12/12/2016 and numbered 2016/9618 was made regarding the declaration of the areas located within the boundaries of the province, district, and neighborhood, the boundaries and coordinates of which are shown in the attached sketch and list, as risky areas. The plaintiffs, who are the Municipality and members of the Municipal Council, filed the ongoing lawsuit claiming that they do not own any immovable property in the area subject to the case, and, as Municipal Council Members, alleged that the contested administrative act disrupts the planning integrity of the district. In this case, considering that there are no immovable properties belonging to the plaintiffs within the boundaries of the declared risky area, it is clear that the declaration of immovables, to which the plaintiffs have no ownership or legal interest, as risky areas does not affect the plaintiffs’ legitimate, personal, and current interests. Moreover, the claim by the plaintiffs that the contested decision disrupts the planning integrity cannot be examined at this stage; such an issue would be examined if the matter is brought after the announcement of zoning plans to be prepared by the municipal council, in which the plaintiffs may also participate after the risky area declaration. Therefore, since the municipal council members are requesting the annulment of the Council of Ministers Decision concerning the declaration of the risky area, and it is understood that there is no legitimate, personal, and current interest relationship, it has been concluded that the lawsuit should be dismissed due to lack of standing. (Council of State, 14th Chamber Presidency, dated 12.04.2017, Case No: 2017/589, Decision No: 2017/2258)
4. Upon examination of the part concerning the annulment of the administrative act dated 14.05.2015 and numbered 489589, which relates to the banning of the plaintiff’s vehicle from traffic under Article 2/3 of the Additional Provisions of Law No. 2918; according to Article 49, paragraph 1 of Law No. 2577 on Administrative Judicial Procedure titled “annulment of the decision,” the Council of State may annul the decision under review due to: a) acting beyond jurisdiction and authority, b) unlawful decision, c) failure to comply with procedural rules. Upon reviewing the documents in the file and the allegations in the appeal petition, it was concluded that the decision subject to appeal is lawful and procedurally appropriate in this respect, and there is no legal ground requiring its annulment. Upon examining the part concerning the annulment of the administrative act dated the same day and numbered 818551, regarding the administrative fine imposed on the vehicle driver; Article 2, paragraph 1(a) of Law No. 2577 defines “annulment lawsuits” as lawsuits filed by those whose interests are violated due to administrative acts being unlawful in terms of jurisdiction, form, reason, subject, or purpose. Review of the case file reveals that in the subject and result parts of the lawsuit petition dated 29.05.2015 filed by the plaintiff, it is stated with date and number that only the annulment of the administrative act banning the plaintiff’s vehicle from traffic was requested, while there was no claim made regarding the administrative fine imposed on the vehicle driver. In this case, the Administrative Court should not have ruled on the administrative act for which annulment was not requested, yet it annulled this act as well, which leads to the conclusion that the Court’s decision is not lawful in this respect. (Council of State, 15th Chamber Presidency, dated 10.06.2016, Case No: 2016/3697, Decision No: 2016/4340)
5. Upon examination of the documents in the file, it is understood that the plaintiff filed this case seeking the annulment of the administrative act dated 17/01/2015 and numbered 458127, which banned the plaintiff’s vehicle with license plate … from traffic pursuant to Article Ek-2/3 of the Highway Traffic Law No. 2918, and the administrative fine of 2,400.00 TL imposed on the plaintiff by the administrative act dated 17/01/2015 and numbered 596454. In this case, the administrative fine dated 17/01/2015 and numbered 596454 was imposed on the vehicle driver, and since the fine does not violate the plaintiff’s personal, current, and legitimate interests, the part of the claim concerning the administrative fine imposed on the vehicle driver should be dismissed for lack of standing. Therefore, there is no legality in the Administrative Court’s decision to annul the administrative fine dated 17/01/2015 and numbered 596454. (Council of State, 15th Chamber Presidency, dated 10.06.2016, Case No: 2016/1989, Decision No: 2016/4312)

Views: 1