Administrative Justice in Turkey: New Rules on Appeals, the Single-Judge Threshold and Cassation (Law No. 7589)

For persons and institutions that sue over an administrative act or action, it matters greatly at which stage, before which court and within what time the proceedings will end. Law No. 7589, published in Official Gazette No. 33326 of 31 July 2026, made significant changes to administrative proceedings in three areas: the threshold for single-judge cases, the outcomes of istinaf (appeal) review, and the possibility of cassation before the Council of State. This article explains these changes in plain language.

1. New monetary threshold for single-judge cases (Law No. 2576 Art. 7)

Before administrative courts, except for actions against regulatory acts, annulment and full remedy actions whose subject matter does not exceed TRY 486,000 are decided by one of the administrative court judges. The Law rewrote the first paragraph of this article and also replaced the figure "twenty-five thousand" in the second paragraph with "four hundred and eighty-six thousand". The other single-judge cases (for example student disciplinary penalties, travel allowance, housing and leave decisions concerning public officials, and warnings) continue to be listed in the same article.

Transition: This amendment applies to cases filed after its entry into force.

2. Outcomes of istinaf review (Administrative Procedure Law Art. 45)

In istinaf review, the regional administrative court (RAC) now reaches one of the following outcomes:

• If it finds the decision lawful, it rejects the appeal.
• If the outcome is lawful but it finds the reasoning wrong or incomplete, it changes the reasoning and rejects the appeal.
• If material errors can be corrected, it makes the correction and rejects the appeal.
• If it does not find the decision lawful, it sets aside the decision and gives a new decision on the merits (Art. 45/4).

The RAC's ability to send the file back without correcting the first-instance decision is thus limited.

3. Remand is now possible only in listed cases (Art. 45/5)

The RAC may accept the appeal, set aside the first-instance decision and send the file back to the court that gave the decision, but only in the following cases, and finally:

• It finds the appeal justified against decisions given upon preliminary examination and other final procedural decisions,
• The case was heard by a court without jurisdiction or competence, or by a judge who was challenged or disqualified,
• The case was decided without the petition being rejected where it should have been,
• The decision was given with the file completed against an incomplete or wrong respondent,
• No decision was given on a claim, or the judgment was incomplete,
• The decision was given without an on-site inspection or expert examination being conducted where it was needed,
• The decision was given without a hearing where one was needed.

In the last two cases (inspection/expert and hearing), the RAC may remedy the deficiency itself and decide. Apart from the cases listed in the article, no decision to set aside and remand may be given.

4. Cassation before the Council of State after a reversal (Art. 46/2)

Under the new second paragraph, in cases not covered by Art. 46/1, decisions given anew by the RAC after reversing the first-instance decision in its istinaf review may be appealed to the Council of State within thirty days of notification. However, no cassation appeal is available, even if a new decision was given after reversal, in the following cases:

• Cases heard by a single judge in administrative and tax courts,
• Cases arising from Law No. 4081 on the Protection of Farmers' Property,
• Cases arising from Law No. 3091 on Preventing Interference with Possession of Immovable Property,
• Cases arising from Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection,
• Where the difference between the RAC's new decision and the first-instance decision falls below the cassation threshold and does not exceed the monetary limit in Art. 45/1,
• Decisions concerning only attorney fees and litigation costs.

Under the same Law, item (c) of Art. 46/1 on listed cassation cases was repealed. The other listed cassation cases before the Council of State (regulatory acts, tax and full remedy cases above the threshold, zoning plans, dismissal from public office and so on) remain.

Transition: These amendments apply to decisions given by RACs after their entry into force; the previous provisions continue to apply to decisions given before that date.

5. Time limits and points to note

• The istinaf period against administrative and tax court decisions is 30 days from notification. Decisions in cases not exceeding a certain monetary limit are final (Art. 45/1).
• No istinaf appeal is available in cases subject to the expedited procedure (Art. 45/8).
• Since the value of the case determines which court the decision can be taken to, calculating the amount claimed correctly when filing has become more important. As monetary thresholds are updated by the revaluation rate, the current figure at the filing date should be checked.
• In single-judge cases, the Council of State route is closed against the decision given anew after istinaf.

Conclusion

The amendments aim to speed up administrative proceedings and to limit unnecessary remands to first-instance courts. For claimants, the most important consequence is that the value and nature of the case determine which court and how many judges will hear it, and which appeal routes are open. As time limits are short and strict, they should be calculated immediately once a decision is notified.

This article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal support is recommended for specific disputes.