Single Judge and Appeal Limits in the Administrative Courts

What law no. 7589 changed in administrative justice

Law no. 7589, known as the 12th Judicial Package, was published in the Official Gazette of 31 July 2026 (issue 33326) and entered into force on that date. Three of its provisions directly affect which court hears an administrative case and at what stage that case becomes final.

The changes fall under three headings. First, the range of cases heard by a single judge was redrawn and the monetary threshold raised substantially. Second, the situations in which a regional administrative court may set aside a judgment and remit the file were made an exhaustive list. Third, appeal to the Council of State against a fresh judgment given after setting aside was regulated, and certain categories of case were excluded from that route altogether.

Read together, the picture is this: a significant share of administrative cases will now be heard by a single judge and will become final at the appellate stage, with markedly fewer files reaching the Council of State.

The single-judge threshold rose to TRY 486,000

Article 4 of the law replaced the first paragraph of article 7 of law no. 2576 in its entirety. The new wording lists six categories of case to be decided by a single judge and raises the monetary threshold in the second paragraph from twenty-five thousand to four hundred and eighty-six thousand Turkish lira.

The first category has the widest reach: actions for annulment of administrative acts and full-remedy actions whose subject matter does not exceed TRY 486,000 are decided by a single judge. That threshold brings the great majority of files concerning administrative fines, the financial entitlements of public officials and mid-sized compensation claims before a single judge.

One exception is important: actions against regulatory acts fall outside this scope regardless of value and continue to be heard by a panel.

The other categories heard by a single judge

Five further groups are assigned to a single judge by reference to their subject matter rather than their value.

The first concerns students: disciplinary penalties imposed on primary, secondary and higher-education students, together with class progression, marking, dormitory, loan and grant decisions. Penalties resulting in suspension or removal from the institution are excluded.

The second concerns certain acts affecting public officials: temporary assignment, travel allowance, housing and leave. The third is actions against the disciplinary penalty of warning. The fourth is disciplinary penalties imposed by professional bodies of a public nature on their members, again excluding penalties that suspend or permanently prevent professional practice.

The fifth concerns claims arising from law no. 2022 on allowances for citizens over sixty-five who are in need.

This change applies only to actions issued after the date of entry into force; files already pending remain subject to the former rules on composition.

Setting aside and remittal now confined to listed grounds

Article 5 of the law replaced the third and fifth paragraphs of article 45 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. The third paragraph governs when the regional administrative court dismisses the appeal: where it finds the judgment lawful; where the outcome is lawful but the reasoning is wrong or incomplete, by substituting its own reasoning; and where clerical errors can be corrected, by making the correction.

The substantive change lies in the fifth paragraph. The situations in which the regional administrative court may set aside the judgment and remit the file are now listed in seven subparagraphs: a well-founded appeal against decisions on preliminary examination or other final procedural decisions; the case having been heard by a court lacking jurisdiction or venue, or by a judge who was recused or disqualified; a decision on the merits where the petition should have been rejected; the file having been completed against an incomplete or incorrect respondent; failure to decide a claim or an incomplete judgment; failure to order a site inspection or expert examination where one was required; and failure to hold a hearing where one was required.

The closing sentence makes the rule exhaustive: outside the situations listed in this paragraph, no decision may be given setting aside the judgment and remitting the file. The regional administrative court may also cure the last two defects itself and give judgment.

The practical effect is to limit the movement of files between first instance and appeal, and to steer the appellate court towards resolving the dispute itself.

Which judgments may be appealed to the Council of State?

Article 46 of the Code of Administrative Procedure lists the regional administrative court judgments that may be appealed to the Council of State. That list is unchanged save that the subparagraph (c) added in 2024 has been repealed.

The principal remaining categories are: actions for annulment of regulatory acts; tax cases, full-remedy actions and actions against administrative acts whose subject matter exceeds nine hundred and twenty thousand Turkish lira; acts resulting in removal from a profession, from public service or from student status; acts preventing the exercise of a commercial activity indefinitely or for thirty days or more; appointment and dismissal by joint decree; cases arising from development plans and parcelling; and acts concerning mines, quarries, forests and geothermal resources.

The time limit for appeal is thirty days from service of the judgment. A regional administrative court judgment outside that list becomes final at the appellate stage.

Fresh judgments after setting aside, and the excluded categories

The second paragraph added to article 46 by article 6 of the law addresses a gap in practice: what may be done where the regional administrative court sets aside the first-instance judgment and gives a fresh judgment.

Under the rule, in cases outside the first paragraph such fresh judgments may be appealed to the Council of State within thirty days of service.

Six groups are excluded from that possibility altogether; in these, no appeal lies even where a fresh judgment has been given after setting aside: cases heard by a single judge; cases arising from law no. 4081 on the Protection of Farmers' Property; cases arising from law no. 3091 on the Prevention of Interference with Possession of Immovable Property; cases arising from the application of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection no. 6458; judgments where the difference between the fresh judgment and the first-instance judgment does not exceed the stated monetary threshold; and judgments concerning only attorney fees and litigation costs.

That list gains further weight when read with the rise in the single-judge threshold to TRY 486,000: a case heard by a single judge will not reach the Council of State even if a fresh judgment is given after setting aside.

Which rule applies to which file?

The law provides separate transitional rules for each change, so the text that applies to a pending file depends on the stage that file has reached.

Single-judge rules (law no. 2576, art. 7): these apply only to actions issued after the date of entry into force. An action issued before that date continues to be heard by a panel.

Appeal rules (art. 46): these apply to judgments given by regional administrative courts after the date of entry into force. The former provisions continue to govern judgments given before that date.

Note that the governing criterion differs between the two: in one it is the date the action was issued, in the other the date of the regional administrative court's judgment.

Where are administrative cases heard in Antalya?

Administrative disputes arising in Antalya are heard by the Antalya Administrative Courts, with appellate review by the Antalya Regional Administrative Court.

As to venue, the general rule points to the court of the place where the administrative authority that issued the act is located; special rules apply, for example the location of the property in matters concerning immovable property, and the place of duty in matters concerning public officials.

Where no separate period is laid down in a special statute, the time limit for bringing an action before the administrative courts is sixty days, running from the date of written notification. The period is one of forfeiture.

For general information on the route and time limits applying to administrative acts, see our Antalya administrative lawyer page.

Frequently asked questions

What is the single-judge threshold in administrative justice?

The monetary threshold in article 7 of law no. 2576 was raised by law no. 7589 from twenty-five thousand to four hundred and eighty-six thousand Turkish lira. Annulment and full-remedy actions not exceeding that figure are decided by a single judge; actions against regulatory acts are excluded.

Is there an appeal in a case heard by a single judge?

Cases heard by a single judge are excluded from appeal against a fresh judgment given after setting aside. Such cases become final at the appellate stage as a rule.

What is the appeal threshold before the Council of State?

Under article 46 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, tax cases, full-remedy actions and actions against administrative acts whose subject matter exceeds nine hundred and twenty thousand Turkish lira may be appealed. The period is thirty days from service.

When may a regional administrative court remit the file?

Article 45/5 lists seven situations: a well-founded appeal against final procedural decisions, lack of jurisdiction or venue, failure to reject the petition, an incomplete or incorrect respondent, failure to decide a claim, failure to order a site inspection or expert examination, and failure to hold a hearing. No remittal may be ordered outside these.

May cases under the Law on Foreigners be appealed?

Cases arising from the application of law no. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection are excluded from appeal, even where a fresh judgment has been given after setting aside.

Does the change apply to pending cases?

The single-judge rules apply only to actions issued after the date of entry into force; the appeal rules apply to judgments given by regional administrative courts after that date. Earlier actions and judgments remain subject to the former provisions.

What is the time limit for bringing an administrative action?

Where no separate period is laid down in a special statute, the period is sixty days from the date of written notification, and it is a period of forfeiture.

The common effect of these changes is that administrative disputes become final at an earlier stage. Presenting the evidence in full at first instance, and drafting the appeal comprehensively, therefore matters more than it did before.

For the general framework in disputes arising in Konyaaltı and the surrounding area, see our Konyaaltı lawyer page. The office can be reached through the contact page.

---

For further detail on the matters discussed here, see our Administrative Law page.

The information on this page is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult a lawyer about your own situation.