Significant Amendments To Administrative Judiciary Legislation Under Law No. 7589

Law No. 7589 on Amendments to Certain Laws for the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary (the "Law"), published in the Official Gazette dated 31 July 2026 and numbered 33326, introduced significant amendments concerning the transitional period applicable to the institutional structure of the Council of State, the scope of cases to be heard by a single judge before administrative and tax courts, the outcomes of appellate review, and the decisions subject to cassation in administrative proceedings.

The Law amends the Council of State Law No. 2575, Law No. 2576 on the Establishment and Duties of Regional Administrative Courts, Administrative Courts and Tax Courts, and the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577. The principal amendments and their potential practical implications are summarised below.

Transitional Periods Concerning the Institutional Structure of the Council of State Have Been Extended

Pursuant to the amendment to Provisional Article 27 of the Council of State Law No. 2575, the ten-year period set out in paragraph thirteen has been extended to fourteen years. In addition, a provision added to paragraph seventeen stipulates that the provisions of that paragraph will not apply until 23 July 2030.

The amendment extends the transitional regime governing the chamber and board structure of the Council of State. Accordingly, the timetable for the expiry of the temporary institutional structure has been postponed until 23 July 2030.

The Scope of Administrative Cases to Be Heard by a Single Judge Has Been Expanded

Article 7 of Law No. 2576 has been revised to provide that, except for actions brought against regulatory acts, actions for annulment and full remedy actions whose subject matter does not exceed TRY 486,000 will be determined by a single judge of the administrative court. The monetary threshold in paragraph two of the same article has likewise been increased from TRY 25,000 to TRY 486,000.

In addition to cases subject to the monetary threshold, disputes concerning certain disciplinary and educational measures imposed on students; temporary assignments, travel allowances, official housing and leave of public officials; warning sanctions imposed on public officials; disciplinary sanctions imposed by professional organisations that do not prevent the exercise of the relevant profession; and pensions granted under Law No. 2022 will also be heard by a single judge.

The amendment seeks to reduce the number of cases heard by judicial panels, enabling administrative courts to distribute their workload more flexibly and issue decisions more quickly. However, because cases heard by a single judge fall outside the scope of cassation, this classification will also have a direct impact on the legal remedies available to the parties.

The Decisions Available to Regional Administrative Courts on Appellate Review Have Been Expressly Regulated

Paragraph three of Article 45 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 has been amended to expressly provide that a regional administrative court will dismiss an appeal if it finds the first-instance judgment lawful. Where the outcome is lawful but the reasoning is incorrect or incomplete, the appeal will be dismissed after the reasoning has been substituted; where material errors can be corrected, the necessary corrections will be made and the appeal dismissed.

The amendment provides an express statutory basis for regional administrative courts to conclude appellate review without setting aside a first-instance judgment solely because of deficiencies in reasoning or material errors that do not require a change in the operative part of the judgment.

The Circumstances in Which the File May Be Remitted to the Court of First Instance Have Been Restricted

Pursuant to the amendment to paragraph five of Article 45 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, the circumstances in which a regional administrative court may set aside a first-instance judgment and remit the case file to the court that rendered the decision have been exhaustively enumerated.

Accordingly, the judgment may be set aside and the case file remitted where:

• a preliminary examination decision or any other procedural final decision is found to be erroneous;
• the case has been heard by a court lacking subject-matter or territorial jurisdiction, or by a disqualified or recused judge;
• a judgment on the merits has been rendered although the petition should have been rejected;
• the proceedings have been completed against an incorrect or incomplete defendant;
• the court has failed to rule on a claim or has rendered an incomplete judgment;
• a mandatory site inspection or expert examination has not been conducted; or
• a mandatory hearing has not been held.

Furthermore, the regional administrative court may itself remedy the failure to conduct a site inspection or expert examination, or the omission of a mandatory hearing, and render a decision accordingly.

The case file may not be remitted to the court of first instance on any grounds other than those expressly listed above. The amendment is intended to reinforce the role of regional administrative courts as appellate courts deciding disputes on the merits and to prevent unnecessary remittals of case files between first-instance and appellate courts.

Certain Judgments Re-rendered by Regional Administrative Courts Have Become Subject to Cassation

Under the new paragraph added to Article 46 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, in disputes other than the cases and matters listed in paragraph one as being subject to cassation, judgments re-rendered by a regional administrative court after setting aside the first-instance judgment may be appealed before the Council of State within thirty days of service.

However, the following will remain outside the scope of this new right of cassation:

• cases heard by a single judge;
• cases arising under the Law on the Protection of Farmers' Property, the Law on the Prevention of Trespass to Immovable Property, and the Law on Foreigners and International Protection;
• certain decisions falling below the monetary thresholds specified in the Law; and
• decisions concerning only attorneys' fees and litigation costs.

The amendment expands review by the Council of State where there is a material difference between the first-instance judgment and the judgment re-rendered by the regional administrative court. However, appellate judgments will remain final in disputes of limited significance or in categories of cases that the legislature intends to be concluded swiftly.

Transitional Regime for the Application of the Amendments to Pending Cases

Pursuant to Provisional Article 1 of the Law, the amendments to Article 7 of Law No. 2576 concerning cases to be heard by a single judge will apply only to actions filed after the Law entered into force. Actions filed before that date will be concluded under the previous rules on jurisdiction and judicial composition.

The amendments to Article 46 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 concerning cassation will apply to judgments rendered by regional administrative courts after the Law entered into force. The previous cassation provisions will continue to apply to judgments rendered by regional administrative courts before that date.

Accordingly, when determining whether the new provisions apply, the filing date of the action will be decisive for the single-judge regime, while the date of the regional administrative court judgment will determine the applicable cassation regime.

Entry into Force and Implementation

Article 3 of the Law, which amends Provisional Article 27 of the Council of State Law No. 2575, entered into force on 31 July 2026 with effect from 23 July 2026.

Article 4, which amends Article 7 of Law No. 2576, and Articles 5 and 6, which amend Articles 45 and 46 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, entered into force on 31 July 2026, the date of publication of the Law.

The provisions of the Law will be implemented by the President of the Republic of Türkiye.

Assessment and Conclusion

Taken together, the amendments concerning administrative proceedings reflect a clear policy aimed at enabling first-instance and appellate proceedings to be concluded more quickly. The expansion of the categories of disputes and the monetary threshold for cases to be heard by a single judge will alter the distribution of courts' workloads while also directly affecting the remedies available in those cases.

Restricting the circumstances in which regional administrative courts may remit files to first-instance courts reinforces the role of appellate review as a mechanism for deciding disputes on the merits. At the same time, opening cassation review in certain disputes where the regional administrative court sets aside the first-instance judgment and renders a new judgment enables the parties to seek review of that new judgment by the Council of State.

Since different timelines are applied to the new provisions depending on the lawsuit filing date and the regional administrative court decision date, it is vital to evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, the procedural and legal remedy regime to be applied in ongoing administrative and tax disputes.

Should you have any questions regarding the matters discussed above, please feel free to contact us.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.