Subject: Administrative Ex Officio Termination Procedure in Delays Caused by the Contractor and the Protection of Owners within the Scope of Law No. 6306, Article 6/14 and Implementation Regulation, Article 13/11

This study includes an analysis of court decisions concerning the administrative ex officio termination procedure, which is initiated by a simple majority decision of the owners, in cases of delays caused by the contractor in areas under disaster risk (failure to commence construction work within 1 year or failure to continue with sufficient equipment for 6 months after a unanimous/agreement or simple majority decision).

1. Legality of the Administrative Ex Officio Termination Authority and Freedom of Contract 

Decisions of the Council of State rule that the ex officio termination authority granted to the administration is not contrary to the freedom of contract guaranteed by the Constitution and serves the public interest.

In the decision of the 6th Chamber of the Council of State dated 17.11.2021, numbered 2020/2638 E. and 2021/12690 K., it was stated that the purpose of the rule is to establish healthy and safe living environments, and that this rule could be applied if the co-owners of the land shares suffer due to reasons attributable to the contractor; no contradiction to the purpose of the Law and public interest was found in the regulation, and the annulment lawsuit was rejected. Although a dissenting opinion claimed a violation of the freedom of contract, this authority was affirmed by majority vote.

In the decisions of the Council of State Administrative Litigation Chambers Board dated 22.02.2023, numbered 2022/3386 E. and 2023/307 K., and dated 22.02.2023, numbered 2022/1167 E. and 2023/306 K., it was confirmed that the basis of Article 13/11 of the Regulation is Article 6/14 of Law No. 6306, and the authority to terminate given to the administration was unanimously upheld as lawful.

2. Scope of Administration’s Review and Absence of Obligation to Determine Fault 

The most fundamental legal principle highlighted in judicial decisions is that the administration is not obliged to meticulously determine the fault ratios of the parties or the reasons for the cessation of construction during the termination process.

In the decisions of the 6th Chamber of the Council of State dated 10.02.2022, numbered 2020/10800 E. and 2022/1325 K., and the Council of State Administrative Litigation Chambers Board dated 22.02.2023, numbered 2022/2496 E. and 2023/308 K., it was clearly ruled that “there is no obligation for the administration to determine at what level the construction stopped or which party caused it to stop after it began.” It was deemed sufficient for the administration to merely determine that the construction has not continued at the specified level for at least six months and to implement the warning procedure. The contractors’ claims that the delay was due to the owners did not prevent the establishment of this administrative action.

3. Operation of the Termination Procedure and Implementation Steps

 The practical implementation of the procedure operated within the scope of the Law and Regulation has been concretized by judicial decisions.

In the decision dated 10.02.2022, numbered 2020/8160 E. and 2022/1324  K. of the 6th Chamber of the Council of State, the steps of the procedure were detailed as; application with evidence to the Ministry/Administration, granting the contractor a 15-day defense period after review, subsequently issuing a 30-day warning, and in case of non-compliance, establishing ex officio termination, and was found to be in accordance with the law.

In the decision dated 20.10.2025, numbered 2023/777 E. and 2025/811 K. of the Istanbul 10th Civil Court of Commerce, the actual practice of the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change is included. The Administration, based on the 2/3 majority decision of the owners, first notified the contractor to provide information within 15 days, then issued a warning to start/continue work by granting a 30-day period, and at the end of the period, informed the relevant institutions, owners, and the contractor that the contracts were terminated ex officio.

4. Legal Consequences of Termination 

As summarized in the decision dated 2022/3386 E., 2023/307 K. of the Plenary Session of the Administrative Cases Divisions of the Council of State, after ex officio termination;

Without seeking the consent of the interested parties, the contracts are deemed terminated.

The promise to sell real estate and construction contracts in return for land share that have been annotated in the land registry of the immovables are cancelled upon the request of the owners or the Ministry.

For works performed and payments made until the date of termination, general provisions of law apply.

Rental assistance payments made by the contractor to the beneficiaries until the date of termination cannot be reclaimed.

ADDITIONAL CONTEXT OBTAINED FROM SECONDARY SOURCES

The following findings were obtained from secondary sources that are not directly based on Law No. 6306 but show the courts’ approach to contractor delays and administrative termination processes in public procurement legislation (Laws No. 4734/4735) and general private law (Turkish Code of Obligations, Turkish Civil Code) disputes. These decisions provide additional context regarding the general functioning of administrative termination mechanisms:

Strictness of the Warning Requirement: It has been emphasized that for the administration to exercise its power of ex officio termination in public procurement contracts, it must strictly comply with the warning periods stipulated in the law. In the decisions of the 13th Chamber of the Council of State dated 23.03.2021, numbered 2016/4375 E. and 2021/1020 K., and dated 15.09.2022, numbered 2022/2845 E. and 2022/3132 K., it was found unlawful for the administration to directly terminate the contract without granting the mandatory warning period (at least 10 days) or without issuing a proper warning letter, and thus the actions were annulled. This situation constitutes a strong precedent that the 30-day warning period in Law No. 6306 is a strict formal requirement for the administration.

Claims of Administrative Fault and Force Majeure: In the decisions from İstanbul 1st Commercial Court of First Instance (dated 19.02.2026, numbered 2025/372 E. and 2026/135  K.) and the Council of State 13th Chamber (dated 05.12.2016, numbered 2016/3562 E. and 2016/4065  K.), termination and sanctions against the contractor were deemed unjust in cases where the delay stemmed from the administration’s own fault (failure to expropriate, failure to remove occupations). Conversely, in the decisions from Sakarya Commercial Court of First Instance (dated 05.02.2025, numbered 2024/336 E. and 2025/63  K.) and the Council of State 13th Chamber (dated 05.10.2023, numbered 2022/2123 E. and 2023/3880  K.), disaster/force majeure defenses such as earthquakes or pandemics were not considered sufficient to prevent termination in the face of proper administrative warnings and determinations.

General Legal Remedies When Administrative Procedure Is Not Followed: In cases where the administrative ex officio termination method under Law No. 6306 is not pursued or the process is not completed, it is observed that owners file lawsuits for contract termination in general courts. In the decisions of the Bursa 1st Civil Court of Commerce, dated 13.11.2025, with file no. 2024/1392 and decision no. 2025/1266 and the Antalya 2nd Civil Court of Commerce, dated 22.12.2023, with file no. 2021/784 and decision no. 2023/854, it was ruled that contracts should be terminated retroactively in accordance with the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), due to the contractor failing to obtain a license or not starting construction. However, as stated in the decisions of the Gaziantep Regional Court of Justice, 17th Civil Chamber, dated 07.02.2017, with file no. 2017/40 and decision no. 2017/39 and the Izmir Regional Court of Justice, 14th Civil Chamber, dated 22.12.2017, with file no. 2017/806 and decision no. 2017/1249, in cases where the special majority (2/3) rule of Law No. 6306 cannot be applied, the unanimity of all shareholders is sought as per Article 692 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), otherwise, the contracts are deemed invalid.

Scope of Administrative Jurisdiction: In its decision, the Legal Department of the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, dated 17.04.2023, with file no. 2023/51 and decision no. 2023/279, ruled that disputes arising from actions unilaterally and ex officio taken by the administration using public power within the scope of Law No. 6306 (e.g., ex officio demolition) should be heard by administrative courts.

Frequently Asked Questions

Kentsel dönüşümde müteahhit sözleşmesi idari yolla feshedilebilir mi?

Evet. 6306 sayılı Kanun ve Uygulama Yönetmeliği kapsamında, belirli şartların gerçekleşmesi hâlinde hak sahipleri, hisseleri oranında salt çoğunlukla karar alarak idari fesih sürecini başlatabilir. Ancak bu süreç, doğrudan tek taraflı fesih değil; ilgili idarenin incelemesi, müteahhide süre verilmesi ve kanundaki şartların oluştuğunun tespiti ile ilerleyen özel bir prosedürdür.

İdari fesih sonrası eski müteahhitten alınan kira yardımı geri istenir mi?

Hayır. Kanun açık biçimde, fesih tarihine kadar müteahhit tarafından hak sahiplerine ödenen kira yardımlarının geri talep edilemeyeceğini düzenlemektedir. Ancak feshe kadar yapılan işler, ödemeler, devredilen hisseler ve diğer alacak-borç ilişkileri bakımından genel hukuk hükümleri uygulanır.

Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary? (The Most Effective Way to Prevent Loss of Rights in Urban Transformation)

Disputes with contractors in urban transformation projects are not merely a contract issue, contrary to popular belief. This process is a multi-layered and technical field that simultaneously encompasses administrative law, land registry law, condominium ownership, co-owner majority calculations, risky building procedures, land registry annotations, administrative application processes, and litigation strategy. Therefore, even a small error in managing the process can lead to serious grievances for the rights holders that can last for years.

Particularly, the administrative termination process under Law No. 6306 is strictly dependent on formal requirements. If the owner majority is miscalculated, the grounds for termination are not sufficiently supported by concrete evidence, the application to the administration is prepared incompletely, or the contractor’s defenses cannot be foreseen; the request for termination may be rejected, or the process may become entirely invalid. This can lead to the continuation of the contract with the current contractor, the project being stalled, and the rights holders being unable to find a solution for a long time.

However, even if an administrative termination decision is made, the process does not end there. After termination, the selection of a new contractor, the establishment of a new contract, the removal of annotations, share transfer processes, and potential compensation lawsuits require professional legal planning. Otherwise, rights holders may find themselves caught between the old contractor and the new process and face a second legal crisis.

At this very point, an expert Istanbul urban transformation lawyer, by drawing a strategic roadmap from beginning to end of the process, ensures the proper execution of both administrative applications and potential lawsuits. Particularly, experts with regional experience, such as a Tuzla urban transformation lawyer, a Pendik urban transformation lawyer, and a Gebze urban transformation lawyer, can manage the process much faster and more effectively because they are intimately familiar with local practices, municipal procedures, and administrative operations.

It should not be forgotten that errors made in urban transformation often lead to irreversible consequences. An incorrect majority calculation, an incomplete application, or a flawed termination process can directly affect real estate values worth millions of liras. Therefore, receiving professional support from the very beginning of the process is not merely a preference, but a critical necessity for the protection of rights.

In this context, for rights holders seeking support from an experienced team in urban transformation disputes, 2M Hukuk Law Office is a strong solution partner in managing the process safely, quickly, and in compliance with the law. With the right strategy, right timing, and right legal steps, it is possible to both prevent existing grievances and build the new process on solid foundations.