Conditions for Filing a Direct Full Judgment Action
Article 12 of the Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure 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 annulment and full remedy actions together, or they may first file an annulment action and upon the resolution of this action, they may file a full remedy action within the period of action starting from the date of notification of the decision on this matter or the decision to be given in case of application for legal remedies, or the date of execution for damages arising from the execution of an action.
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 aforementioned 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 remedy action for the same action after the rejection of the annulment action, but with the amendment made by the Law No. 1740, it has been envisaged that a full remedy action can be filed without filing an annulment action, as well as a full remedy action can be filed upon the rejection of the annulment action. In the preamble of Law No. 1740, it is stated that, according to the rules of administrative law, if an action established by the administration, although it is in accordance with the legislation, violates the rights of any person, then a full remedy action can be filed without annulling the action. Accordingly, if persons have suffered damages due to administrative actions that do not carry any legal infirmity and therefore do not require annulment, 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 an annulment action has not been filed does not constitute a legal obstacle to the filing of a full judgment action in terms of that transaction.
In this case, in order to be able to file an action for full judgment directly, the illegality of the transaction in accordance with the law does not require the rejection of the action for full judgment due to the transaction that has not been determined by a judicial decision in an annulment case, and therefore there is no compliance with the law in this respect in the decision of the administrative court (İDDK – Decision: 2007/1820).
Period for Filing a Full Judgment Action in the Presence of Ongoing Damage
In 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, it should be accepted that the period for filing a lawsuit will not expire as long as the restriction continues, even if the administrative action or transaction was learned earlier.
In this case, there was no legal accuracy in the decision subject to appeal, which was given for the rejection of the lawsuit due to the statute of limitations, 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 and 12 of the Law No. 2577, before the date of execution of the administrative action. (6th Chamber of the Council of State – Decision: 2015/18939.
