Legal Basis and the Relationship between Occupancy Permit and Parking Pursuant to **Article 37** of Zoning Law No. 3194>; it is not possible to issue a building permit unless the necessary parking space is allocated for buildings and facilities requiring parking, and it is not possible to issue an occupancy permit (iskan) unless parking facilities are established. This mandatory provision is supported by Article 12, Paragraph 9 of the Parking Regulation. According to the relevant regulation, 25% of the parking fee must be paid during the permit application stage, and the remaining 75% must be paid no later than before the occupancy permit is issued.
Legal Consequence: The fact that a building has obtained an “Occupancy Permit” (iskan) is legal proof that the building has fulfilled its parking obligation either physically within its parcel or by paying the fee for a regional parking facility.
The Principle of “Presumed Paid” in Urban Transformation When new buildings are constructed in place of risky structures demolished under Law No. 6306 on the Transformation of Areas Under Disaster Risk, municipalities frequently demand retroactive payment receipts. However, according to recent decisions of the 6th Chamber of the Council of State (e.g., E.2019/21746, K.2023/9779):
If the demolished building had an occupancy permit, the parking fee is presumed to have been collected previously.
The administration’s request for receipts from the owner that should be in its own archives, or its demand for a new payment, claiming “payment not visible in records“, constitutes “service fault” and “contradiction of presumption“.
The phrase “taken” in the text of the law should not be interpreted as “collected” but as “the process that must legally be taken and results in an occupancy permit”.
Disputes Regarding Square Meter Increase and Re-evaluation of Fees Article 7, paragraph 9 of Law No. 6306 (former 7/9, parallel to new regulations) regulates that, in addition to previously collected duties and fees for the existing areas of risky structures, a difference can be charged only for changes in intended use and increases in building area.
Point of Contention: Municipalities, claiming that with the regulation amendment dated 21.06.2019, the parking fee was removed from the exemption list, are demanding the full fee, even if the square footage does not increase, on the grounds that it is “a new construction activity”.
Judicial Approach: Some decisions of the Council of State emphasize that the parking fee is not a “fee” in the sense of Law No. 2464, that it is a special obligation arising from zoning regulations, and that the purpose of Law No. 6306 (to encourage urban transformation) prevents this fee from being collected redundantly. If there is no square meter increase in the new building, or if the increase is within the 1.5 times limit specified in Law No. 6306, the parking right of the old building with an occupancy permit must be offset against the new building.
Points to Consider in Practice
Offset Method: If the new construction area is larger than the old construction area, the parking fee should be calculated only for the “increased portion”.
Burden of Proof: Once the occupancy permit is submitted, the burden of proof shifts. The obligation to prove that the payment was not made now passes to the administration.
1. Legal Presumption Regarding the Acceptance that the Parking Fee for the Occupancy Permit Has Been Paid
Pursuant to Article 37 of the Zoning Law No. 3194; it is not possible to issue a building permit unless the necessary parking space is allocated for buildings and facilities requiring parking, and it is not possible to issue an occupancy permit (iskan) unless parking facilities are established. This imperative provision is supported by Article 12, paragraph 9 of the Parking Regulation, which stipulates the obligation to pay the entire parking fee no later than before the occupancy permit is issued.
Judicial precedents accept that a building having obtained an “Occupancy Permit” (iskan) serves as legal proof and a presumption that the building has fulfilled its parking obligation either physically on its parcel or by paying the fee at a regional parking facility. This situation was expressed in the decision numbered Council of State 6th Chamber-2019/21746-2023/9779 (21.12.2023) as: “Since it is clear that a building permit and an occupancy permit cannot be issued for a structure without the parking fee being paid, it must be presumed that the parking fee has been paid.” Similarly, in the decision numbered Council of State 6th Chamber-2018/8078-2022/2221 (24.02.2022), it was emphasized that the administration has no legal basis to seek retroactive proof of payment.
2. The Principle of “Presumed Paid” in Urban Transformation and the Burden of Proof
While new buildings are being constructed in place of risky structures demolished under Law No. 6306 on the Transformation of Areas Under Disaster Risk, municipalities’ request for retrospective payment receipts constitutes “service fault” and “contradiction to presumption”. In its decision numbered Council of State 6th Chamber-2020/8529-2021/8388 (16.06.2021), it was stated that claims of non-payment of parking fees for structures with licenses and occupancy permits have no legal basis, and that the occupancy permit constitutes a presumption that payment has been made.
In this context, the phrase “received” in the legal text should not be interpreted as “collected”, but as “the process that should legally be collected and results in occupancy”. In its decision numbered Council of State 6th Chamber-2019/21980-2023/9778 (21.12.2023), it was ruled that it is unlawful for municipalities to burden taxpayers by demanding receipts that should be in their own archives from property owners or by stating “payment does not appear in records”. The burden of proof shifts once the occupancy permit is submitted; the obligation to prove non-payment now passes to the administration.
3. Square Meter Increase and Re-pricing Demand Disputes
Article 7, Paragraph 9 of Law No. 6306 (in parallel with current regulations) stipulates that, in addition to fees and charges previously collected for the existing areas of risky structures, a difference can only be charged for changes in purpose of use and increases in the building area.
Offset Method: If the new construction area is greater than the old construction area, parking fees should only be calculated for the “increased portion.” In its decision numbered Council of State 6th Chamber-2022/118-2025/5954 (20.11.2025), it was clearly stated that the amount paid for the old structure should be offset from the parking amount required for the new structure.
Point of Contention: Municipalities claim that the parking fee was removed from the exemption list with the regulation amendment dated 21.06.2019, and therefore demand the full fee even if the square meterage does not increase. In the decisions numbered Council of State 4th Chamber-2025/1512-2025/3948 (23.06.2025) and Administrative Litigation Chambers Board-2024/1173-2025/231 (05.02.2025) k, there are views stating that the parking fee is not among the fee and charge exemptions in Law No. 6306, and therefore its collection is in accordance with the law.
However, in its decision numbered Council of State 6th Chamber-2022/954-2024/186 (11.01.2024), it was emphasized that interpretations narrowing exemptions should be avoided in accordance with the purpose of urban transformation, and that the parking fee is covered by the exemption. However, in its decision numbered Administrative Litigation Chambers Board-2024/1525-2025/232 (05.02.2025), a middle ground was adopted, stating that if the risky structure is rebuilt exactly as it was, no new fee will be paid, but if there is an increase in area causing a population increase, only this difference should be calculated.
4. Conclusion and Implementation Principles
When judicial decisions and legislative provisions are evaluated together;
In case an occupancy-permitted building is demolished and rebuilt, it is a legal presumption that the parking fee for the old building has been paid, and the administration cannot demand a receipt from the taxpayer unless it proves otherwise.
If the purpose of use has not changed in the new building and there is no increase in the construction area, it is unlawful to demand a parking fee again under Law No. 6306.
In case of an increase in the construction area, a difference fee should only be accrued for the increased portion.
If municipalities accrue the full parking fee again for buildings with occupancy permits, the administrative judicial path is open for the cancellation of the transaction and the refund of the fee, if paid.
Protect Your Occupancy-Permitted Building’s Parking RightsIn a cancellation and refund lawsuit, the burden of proof rests with the administration — the right petition makes a difference2M Law Office · Tuzla / Istanbul · Kocaeli
8. Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary?
Parking fee disputes in urban transformation involve technical stages such as proving the occupancy status, making payments with reservations, and filing a lawsuit for cancellation of accrual and refund in the correct court and within the legal time limit. Due to conflicting precedents, the structuring of the petition with correct legal grounds (presumption in Article 37 of the Zoning Law, offsetting principle in Article 7/9 of Law No. 6306, current Council of State decisions) directly affects the outcome.
As 2M Law Office, we provide consultancy and litigation tracking services throughout Turkey and especially in Istanbul, in the regions of Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Ümraniye, Ataşehir, Kadıköy, Sancaktepe, Küçükçekmece, and Kocaeli (Gebze, Darıca), in the fields of urban transformation law, risky building processes, and fee and parking fee disputes.
To secure your process and protect the parking rights of your occupancy-permitted building, you can contact our team: 2M Law Office — Our Lawyer Team (Atty. Meryem Günay).
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
We demolished our building with an occupancy permit; the municipality is requesting the parking fee again. Am I obligated to pay?
As a rule, no. The existence of an occupancy permit is a legal presumption that the parking fee is considered paid. Unless the administration proves otherwise (that it was not paid), it cannot demand a receipt or a new fee from you. Due to conflicting case law, it is recommended that your specific case be evaluated by a lawyer.
I can’t find the old parking receipt; the municipality says “not on record”. Is this against me?
No. The absence of the receipt in the archive is the administration’s own fault and does not invalidate the presumption. You cannot be expected to have kept a receipt from years ago. Presenting the occupancy permit is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the administration.
The new building will be larger than the old one. Will the parking fee not be paid at all?
If there is an increase in area, the difference is calculated only for the increased portion , not a “full fee from scratch”, and the parking right of the old building is offset. If the purpose of use is the same and the increase is within the 1.5 times limit, offsetting the old right against the new building comes into question.
If I don’t pay the fee, I can’t get an occupancy permit. What should I do?
To prevent delays in your occupancy permit, you can pay the fee “under protest” and then file a lawsuit in administrative courts for the cancellation of the accrual and the refund of the paid amount. Making a payment under protest is important for your refund request; therefore, consult your lawyer before making the payment.
Is the case law entirely in favor in this matter?
There is no complete unity in case law. While the 6th Chamber of the Council of State largely rules in favor of the owner, some decisions of the Plenary Session of Administrative Law Chambers (İDDK) and the 4th Chamber contain opinions in favor of municipalities. The outcome may vary depending on the occupancy permit status, purpose of use, area increase, and the specific chamber where the case is heard.
Which court should I file the lawsuit in?
Against the parking fee accrual/payment order, either an administrative court or a tax court may be competent, depending on the nature of the transaction. Correctly determining the competent court and the lawsuit period is critical to prevent loss of rights; this assessment must absolutely be done with a lawyer.
Legal Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Since there is no unity in case law regarding parking fee disputes, your specific situation must be evaluated by a lawyer, and judicial precedents must be confirmed from current official sources. It is recommended that you consult a specialist lawyer before taking any steps related to your specific case.
Tags: occupancy permitted building parking fee, urban transformation parking fee, presumption of parking fee paid, Law No. 6306 parking, Zoning Law Article 37 parking, parking fee refund lawsuit, urban transformation offset, Tuzla urban transformation lawyer, Istanbul urban transformation lawyer, Council of State parking fee decision
