Article 12 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 stipulates that the concerned persons may file a full remedy action directly to the Council of State and administrative or tax courts due to an administrative act that violates their rights, or they may file cancellation and full remedy actions together, or they may file a full remedy action within the litigation period starting from the date of notification of the decision on this matter or the decision to be given in case of recourse to legal remedies, or the date of execution due to damages arising from the execution of an action, upon the decision of this case by first filing an action for cancellation.
The issue of whether it is possible to file a full remedy action directly due to administrative actions was subject to discussions during the period of Law No. 521, and later, as a result of the amendment of Article 71 of the said law by Law No. 1740, it was ruled that it was possible to file a full remedy action directly due to the administrative action. On the other hand, in the period prior to the Law No. 1740, it was not possible to file a full court case for the same action after the rejection of the annulment action, but with the amendment made by the Law No. 1740, it is foreseen that a full court case can be filed without filing an annulment action, as well as a full court case can be filed upon the rejection of the annulment action. In the preamble of the Law No. 1740, it is stated that, according to the rules of administrative law, if a transaction established by the administration, although it is in accordance with the legislation, also violates the rights of any person, in this case, a full judicial action can be filed without cancelling the transaction. Accordingly, if persons have suffered damages due to administrative acts that do not carry any legal infirmity and therefore do not require cancellation, this damage may also require compensation. The regulation introduced by Law No. 1740 is also accepted in Law No. 2577.
Therefore, as stated in the decision of the Chamber, the fact that the cancellation action has not been filed does not constitute a legal obstacle to the filing of a full judicial action in terms of that transaction.
In this case, the fact that the illegality of the transaction is not determined by a judicial decision in an annulment lawsuit filed in accordance with the Law, does not require the rejection of the full remedy lawsuit for this reason, so there is no compliance with the law in this respect in the decision of the administrative court (İDDK – Decision: 2007/1820).
THE PERIOD FOR FILING A FULL JUDGEMENT ACTION IN CASE OF CONTINUING DAMAGEIn the case, the restriction of the immovable belonging to the plaintiffs was not removed by executing the zoning plan. Therefore, in the presence of ongoing damage, even if the administrative action or transaction was learnt earlier, it should be accepted that the period for filing a lawsuit will not expire as long as the restriction continues.
In this case, before the date of execution of the administrative action, there was no legal accuracy in the decision subject to appeal, which was given to reject the lawsuit due to out of time, on the grounds that the lawsuit was not filed within sixty days upon the tacit rejection of the application made by the plaintiff to the defendant administration in accordance with Articles 11, 12 of the Law No. 2577. (6th Chamber of the Council of State – Decision: 2015/18939.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking