Legal Basis: Law No. 6306 Article 3/1 | Implementing Regulation Article 7/3

A risky structure report for your building was prepared, but something went wrong: the report was erroneous, the objection was rejected, the building later suffered serious damage or was reinforced, and the annotation was removed. Now you want to have a new assessment done — but there’s a previous report. Is this possible? Law No. 6306 and its Implementing Regulation stipulate that, as a rule, only one risky structure assessment report shall be issued for each structure. However, this rule is not absolute: Article 7/3 of the Regulation foresees three separate exceptions. This article details the single-report principle, its exceptions, the role of the electronic system in this process, and how a structure’s record can be deleted, according to the current legislation of 2026. (Law Article 3/1 — Reg. Article 7/3)

Basic Rule: One Report Per Structure

Article 7/3 of the Implementation Regulation clearly stipulates the basic principle: Except for exceptional cases, only one hazardous building assessment report can be issued for each structure. (Reg. Art. 7/3)

The rationale behind this rule serves multiple purposes. Firstly, it ensures process security: Issuing multiple reports for the same structure can lead to contradictory results and create legal uncertainty about which report should be taken as a basis. Secondly, it prevents manipulation: It prevents the owner from attempting to obtain a different result by applying to a different licensed institution if they are not satisfied with the assessment outcome. Thirdly, it regulates administrative operations: Land Registry Directorates, Urban Transformation Directorates, and licensed institutions process based on a single report for the same structure.

The practical implication of this rule is extremely important: After an assessment report is prepared and submitted to the administration for a structure, a new report cannot be prepared for the same structure unless exceptional circumstances arise, and the structure’s record in the electronic system will display only one report.

Control Obligation of Licensed Institutions

To ensure the “one report” principle can be applied, the Regulation has imposed an active obligation on licensed institutions: Licensed institutions and organizations, when receiving a request for hazardous building assessment, must check through the electronic software system whether a hazardous building assessment report has been previously issued for that structure. (Reg. Art. 7/3)

This check is mandatory for both licensed private institutions and the Administration. If a previous record appears in the system and one of the three exceptions has not occurred, a new report cannot be issued, and a structure record cannot be created. Thanks to this control mechanism, the “one report” principle becomes applicable in practice.

Three Exceptions Under Which a Second Report Can Be Issued

Article 7/3 of the Regulation has stipulated three situations where the single report principle does not apply, based on the numerus clausus principle (numerus clausus). No exceptions are accepted outside of these three cases. (Reg. Art. 7/3)

First Exception: Re-assessment Required Upon Objection or Judicial Decision

In the first report, the structure was deemed “risk-free”; however, if a re-technical examination is required as a result of an objection or court decision, a new report can be issued. Or the opposite situation may arise: if the structure was found to be “risky” in the first report, and upon objection, it was determined by the technical committee or by judicial decision that the report needed to be re-examined, a second report can be prepared. (Reg. Art. 7/3)

For this exception to become effective, it is mandatory that either an administrative objection has been made through official channels or a judicial decision exists. An attempt by the owner to commission a new report merely because they are dissatisfied with the outcome, without resorting to the objection process, does not fall within the scope of this exception. If, during the technical committee’s review of the objection, it is ruled that the report needs to be re-prepared, the licensed entity issues the new report and submits it to the Directorate; this process does not violate the single report principle. (Law Art. 3/1 — Reg. Art. 7/5, 10/7)

In practice, this exception most frequently arises in two scenarios: Upon objection, the technical committee decides that the initial report contains deficiencies and orders its correction; or the court grants a stay of execution and issues a cancellation decision, ordering the administration to re-process the matter.

Second Exception: Discovery That the Report Was Prepared Contrary to Truth

If it is subsequently understood that the initial report was prepared contrary to the truth, either intentionally or due to gross negligence, a new report can be made. (Reg. Art. 7/3)

This exception is subject to an extremely strict condition. A mere technical error or interpretive difference is not considered “contrary to the truth”. The Regulation has not concretely specified which cases this scope covers; however, judicial precedent has established that being contrary to the truth must be based on a verifiable, objective fact. Examples of situations that can be given for this are: showing core samples as taken when they were not; using fake photographs or measurement values that do not reflect the actual condition of the structure; producing results without any structural system assessment; using data from another building.

It is necessary for the contradiction to the truth to emerge during Ministry inspections, complaint reviews, or the judicial phase. The owner requesting a new report on this ground must prove the contradiction to the truth with concrete facts and, if possible, with documentary evidence. Additionally, administrative sanctions may be applied against the licensed organization, and if necessary, its license may be revoked. (Law Art. 3/1 — Reg. Art. 6)

Third Exception: Occurrence of a Concrete Incident Not Originating from Intentional Intervention

A new determination can be made if a concrete event occurs that could affect the risk status of the structure but does not originate from the owner’s intent. (Reg. Art. 7/3)

The Regulation has limited this situation with two elements: the incident must be concrete and of a nature that affects the risk status of the structure; and this incident must stem from an objective event, not an intentional intervention.

Events that can be considered under this exception are: The occurrence of new damage to the structure as a result of natural disasters such as earthquakes, storms, floods, fires, or collapses, or unexpected events; the subsequent occurrence of new damage to the structure despite the structure having been strengthened and the risky structure annotation removed after the initial detection; external factors such as a construction accident affecting the building’s load-bearing system or ground subsidence.

The term “intentional intervention” covers the deliberate and willing intervention by the owner or a third party to change the risk status of the structure. Situations such as deliberately weakening some columns of the structure, demolishing load-bearing walls, or intentionally acting to partially damage the building are outside this scope. The legislator aimed to prevent the misuse of the risky structure process by excluding intentional intervention from the exception.

Deletion of Building Record from the Electronic System: Two Separate Processes

A provision of the Regulation, related to the single report principle but regulating a different matter, concerns the deletion of the building record. After a building record is created via the electronic software system: (Art. 7/3 of the Regulation)

If the determination is not made within two months, the building record is deleted from the electronic system upon the owner’s request. This rule allows the owner to reset the system in cases where the application is stalled and no progress can be made.

If the determination is not made within six months, the building record is deleted ex officio by the Presidency without delay. This rule serves as an automatic clearing mechanism against administrative bottlenecks.

The practical importance of deleting the record is as follows: When a building record is deleted, the “validity” status of the single report principle for that building is considered to have ceased. After the deletion, a new building record can be created and the assessment process can be initiated by reapplying. Technically, this is not a “second assessment”; it is a new initial assessment process started after the record has been deleted.

Re-assessment After Reinforcement: A Special Case

If, after the hazardous building annotation is registered in the land registry, the owner has chosen the reinforcement method, completed the reinforcement, and the annotation has been removed, the building’s future return to a hazardous state may be considered under the third exception. In this case, a new assessment report can be issued as long as both the existence of a new concrete incident and the absence of intentional intervention conditions are met. (Art. 7/3)

The second assessment carried out after the reinforcement is completed and the annotation is removed is technically considered the first assessment after the date the building was “reset”; therefore, the existence of any of the three exception conditions is not sought. This is because a building with a removed annotation is no longer in hazardous building status, and re-assessment is initiated as a new process.

Attempts to Overcome the Single Report Principle and Their Legal Consequences

In practice, it is observed that some owners, dissatisfied with the initial assessment result, attempt to obtain a second report by applying to a different licensed institution. These attempts remain unsuccessful for several reasons.

If the licensed institution sees a previous record in the electronic system, a new record cannot be created; therefore, the second report technically cannot find a record in the system. A licensed institution that issues a second report contrary to the system faces the risk of losing its Ministry license; license revocation comes directly onto the agenda as an administrative sanction. (Reg. Art. 6)

Should the second report reach the administration for any reason, the Directorate will refuse to process the new report, citing the previous record. Judicial precedent is also consistent on this matter: The Council of State and administrative courts do not consider second reports issued contrary to the single report principle to have legal validity.

Relationship of the Single Report Principle with the Right to Property

From the perspective of the right to property guaranteed in Article 35 of the Constitution, the single report principle requires a separate evaluation. The Constitutional Court has issued guiding decisions on this matter in individual applications: It has accepted that the single report principle does not violate the right to property, provided that avenues for objection against risky structure detection and judicial remedies are kept open. In this context, if the owner is not satisfied with the initial report, there are three avenues they can pursue: administrative objection (15-day period), judicial remedy (30-day lawsuit period), and the alternative of reinforcement. (Law Art. 3/1 — Reg. Art. 7/5)

The effective use of these three avenues constitutes the main basis for making the single report principle compatible with the constitutional guarantee of property.

Impact of the 2026 Amendment on the Single Report Principle

The amendment to the Regulation, published in the Official Gazette dated February 4, 2026, and numbered 33158, has introduced updates regarding risky structure detection forms, notification mechanisms, and technical report templates. (Reg. Art. 7 — OG. 04.02.2026/33158)

No change has been made to the essence of Article 7/3, which regulates the single report principle; the three exceptions remain valid in the same way. However, the technical report standardization introduced with the amendment facilitates the detection of erroneous or untrue reports and thus paves the way for the second exception to be used more effectively.

Frequently Asked Questions

The report result came out as risk-free, but I believe the structure is truly risky, can I have it done again?

Simply being unsatisfied with the result is not a sufficient reason for a second report. However, in this situation, three paths are open: You can request an evaluation by the technical committee through administrative appeal; you can resort to legal action; or if there are concrete facts indicating that the report was prepared falsely, you can file a complaint with the Directorate.

Damage occurred in my building after the earthquake, is the old “risk-free” report still valid?

An earthquake can be considered a “concrete event affecting the risk status of the structure” within the scope of the third exception. In this case, you can make a written application to the Directorate requesting a new assessment. For your request to be accepted, it is sufficient to document the damage and demonstrate that there was no intentional intervention.

The licensed firm did not carry out the assessment within two months, what can I do?

If an assessment is not carried out within two months after the building record is created, the record is deleted from the system at the owner’s request. You can reapply, choose a new licensed organization, and restart the process. (Article 7/3 of the Regulation)

What happens if the previous report, after strengthening, had the annotation removed, but later it turns out to be risky again?

In this case, since the structure is legally in a “risk-free” status, a new initial assessment is in question. As the previous assessment and annotation removal processes have been completed, a new assessment for this structure will not be subject to the single report principle.

Practical Advice

Exercise your right to object in a timely manner. If you are not satisfied with the result of the first report, instead of having a second report due to the single report principle, effectively use the 15-day objection period. If the technical committee accepts the objection, it will be possible to issue a new report in the system. (Art. 7/5)

If you believe the report is contrary to the truth, document it. If you are taking this claim to the Directorate, you must support it with concrete facts and, if possible, another engineering opinion.

In case of natural disaster or external damage, document it immediately. Record any changes in the structure after an earthquake, flood, or external damage with photographs. These documents will serve as a basis for requesting a new assessment under the third exception.

Check your existing record by searching in the electronic system. An inquiry made through e-Devlet will show whether a report has been previously issued for your building. In addition, the licensed organization must also perform this check during the application process.

Verify if the building record has been deleted. If you are requesting the deletion of the record because no assessment was carried out within the two-month period, confirm from the electronic system whether the deletion process has taken place. Applying to a new licensed organization before the record is deleted will result in a system blockage.

Why is Expert Legal Support Necessary?

The single report principle and its exceptions constitute one of the most technical legal details of the urban transformation process. As 2M Law Firm, we observe the following during the urban transformation consultancy we provide throughout Istanbul, especially in Tuzla:

Property owners often apply to a second licensed institution, unaware of the single report principle, and this attempt faces a systemic blockage, leading to valuable time loss. An urban transformation lawyer assesses in advance which exception can be applied, or how the objection and litigation process can be effectively utilized, in cases where the first report is not satisfactory.

The process of filing a complaint that the report is inaccurate with the Directorate, applying for administrative sanctions against the licensed institution, and subsequent requests for new assessments are procedures requiring legal justification and document support. As an Istanbul urban transformation lawyer, we provide effective legal representation at every stage of these processes.

Requesting a new assessment under the third exception after an earthquake or external damage is also a process that needs to be managed with a written application to the Administration and the correct set of documents. This service, which we provide within the scope of urban transformation consultancy, is offered throughout Istanbul through 2M Law Firm, which operates as a Tuzla lawyer.

Conclusion

In accordance with Article 3/1 of Law No. 6306 and Article 7/3 of the Implementing Regulation, as a rule, only one risky building determination report can be issued for each building. Licensed organizations must check the previous record in the electronic system when they receive a new request. There are only three exceptions where a second report can be issued: re-determination being required upon an objection or a court decision; detection that the report was prepared contrary to the truth; and the occurrence of a concrete incident affecting the risk status of the building, other than intentional interference. If the determination is not made within two months after the building record is created, it will be deleted upon the owner’s request; if not made within six months, it will be deleted ex officio by the Presidency; after deletion, a new application is possible. (L. Art. 3/1 — R. Art. 7/3)

This article has been prepared based on Law No. 6306 (Art. 3/1) and the Implementing Regulation (Art. 7/3), as well as the Regulation amendment published in the Official Gazette dated February 4, 2026, and numbered 33158. Since each specific situation may vary, it is recommended to seek support from an expert urban transformation lawyer for legal processes.