Parking fee exemption in urban transformation; it was explicitly included in the Regulation in 2013 with the phrase “including those collected in accordance with the Parking Regulation”, and this phrase was removed from the text with the amendment on 21.06.2019. In lawsuits filed after that date, first-instance administrative courts and regional administrative courts generally ruled in favor of condominium owners (a parking fee is a charge, cannot be collected up to 1.5 times the area). The 6th Chamber of the Council of State also followed this line, even annulling the part of the 2019 amendment that removed parking. However, the higher authority, the Council of State Administrative Litigation Chambers Board (İDDK) and the 4th Chamber of the Council of State, ruled to the contrary, adopting that parking is not within the scope of the 1.5-fold exception. The situation as of 2026: the legislative text has not changed, there is no unity in jurisprudence, and the higher authority is currently inclined against it. Therefore, each case should be evaluated with current jurisprudence; if payment is required, it should be made with a reservation.
1. The Essence of the Problem: Why Is It So Controversial?
Law No. 6306 provides exemption from fees and charges collected by municipalities to encourage the transformation of risky structures. The discussion boils down to a single question: Is the “parking fee” collected for parking that cannot be provided on the plot included in this exemption? According to one view, the parking fee is exempt because it is a fee determined by a municipal council decision. According to the other view, since the parking area is not included in the “construction area” in zoning legislation, the “1.5 times” exception does not cover parking. Below, you will see step-by-step how this discussion has evolved in terms of legislation and jurisprudence.
2. Beginning: Initial Version of Law Article 7/10 (2012)
In the initial version of Article 7, Paragraph 10 of Law No. 6306, it was stated that in applications made by real persons/private legal entities, for the existing areas of structures in risky areas, in addition to the fees and charges previously collected by municipalities, only the differences in fees and charges calculated for changes in intended use and increases in building area shall be collected. That is, the criterion was: change in intended use + increase in building area.
3. 2013 Amendment: Parking Explicitly Included in Exemption
With the Official Gazette dated 02.07.2013 and numbered 28695, fees, taxes, and charges that should not be collected were added to Article 16 of the Implementation Regulation. Among these exceptions, parking was explicitly listed:“…all kinds of fees determined and collected by municipal council decision, including those collected pursuant to the Parking Regulation, concerning the building determined to be risky.” During this period, it was undisputed that parking fees were within the scope of exemption.
4. 2018: Introduction of the 1.5 Times Rule (Law No. 7153)
Law No. 7153 published in the Official Gazette dated 10.12.2018 and numbered 30621 amended Article 6306, para. 7/10. New text: in cases of implementation by real/private legal entities in parcels where risky structures are located, no fees or charges shall be collected by municipalities for new construction areas up to one and a half times the existing construction area, regardless of any change in function. Thus, the old criterion of “change of use” was abandoned; the criterion became “1.5 times the existing construction area”.
5. 2019 Amendment: Removal of the phrase “Including Parking”
Here is the source of the dispute: Official Gazette dated 21.06.2019 and numbered 30808 re-regulated Article 16 of the Implementation Regulation; subparagraph (f) of paragraph 12 reached its current wording: “f) All fees collected by institutions and organizations under the name of revolving fund fees, and all types of fees determined and collected by municipal council decision regarding the structure identified as risky and the new structure to be built in its place.” As can be seen, the phrase “including those collected in accordance with the Parking Regulation” in the 2013 text was removed. The administration (Ministry) interpreted this as the “abolition of the parking exemption.” However, the condominium owners argued that subparagraph (f) still states “all types of fees determined and collected by municipal council decision,” and since parking fees are also determined by council decision, the exemption continues. The dispute arose from this.
| Date / OG | Amendment | Regarding Parking |
|---|---|---|
| 15.12.2012 / 28498 | Original version of the Regulation | No special fee/charge exemption |
| 02.07.2013 / 28695 | Exceptions added to Article 16 | Parking explicitly included |
| 10.12.2018 / 30621 (7153 s.K.) | Law Article 7/10: 1.5 times rule | The criterion became “1.5 times” |
| 21.06.2019 / 30808 | Article 16 was revised | The phrase “Parking included” was removed |
| 04.02.2026 / 33158 | Last amendment (simple majority etc.) | The parking phrase was not re-added |
6. Decisions of First Instance and Regional Administrative Courts
In annulment and refund cases filed after 2019, first instance administrative courts and regional administrative courts (appeal) generally ruled in favor of the apartment owners. Typical reasoning: the parking fee is also a fee collected by the municipality; pursuant to Article 7/10 of Law No. 6306, if the new building does not exceed 1.5 times the previous floor area, a parking fee cannot be charged; if charged, it must be refunded with legal interest. For example, in İzmir, the refund of the parking fee collected for a building constructed in place of a risky structure, not exceeding 1.5 times the previous floor area, was decided, and the regional administrative court upheld this decision (this decision was later overturned by the 4th Chamber of the Council of State — see section 8).
7. 6th Chamber of the Council of State’s Stance (Favorable)
The 6th Chamber of the Council of State, which deals with zoning disputes, adopted a stance favorable to apartment owners:
Decisions dated 21.12.2023 (e.g., E. 2019/17726, K. 2023/9780; E. 2019/21980, K. 2023/9778): Overturned regional administrative court decisions for re-evaluation within the framework of the 1.5 times floor area and offset principles.
11.01.2024, E. 2022/954, K. 2024/186: Annulled the part of the 2019 amendment that excluded the parking fee from the exception and the municipal council decision based on it. Reasoning: The exception in the law cannot be narrowed by regulation; a contrary interpretation violates Article 73 of the Constitution, which regulates the legality of financial obligations.
06.06.2024, E. 2022/7953: For the same Regulation provision, it issued a stay of execution (YD) decision.
According to this approach, the parking fee is covered by the 6306 exemption and cannot be collected for construction up to 1.5 times (the existing area).
8. Council of State Administrative Litigation Chambers Board (IDDK) and 4th Chamber Approach (Adverse)
However, the hierarchically superior Council of State Administrative Litigation Chambers Board (IDDK) and the Council of State’s 4th Chamber, which hears tax disputes, ruled otherwise:
IDDK, 19.09.2024, Stay of Execution Appeal No: 2024/500: It annulled the stay of execution decision rendered by the 6th Chamber. Rationale: According to zoning regulations, parking areas are not included in the calculation of the construction area, nor are they taken into account in the tax base for building construction fees; therefore, the exemption granted for up to 1.5 times the existing construction area does not cover the parking fee; furthermore, the parking fee cannot be subject to other exemptions in the legislation.
IDDK, E. 2024/1173, K. 2025/231 (05.02.2025): Its assessment that the parking fee is not covered by the 1.5-fold exemption has been reflected in the official correspondence of public administrations.
Council of State 4th Chamber, 23.06.2025, E. 2025/1512, K. 2025/3948: Based on this rationale of the IDDK, it overturned a regional administrative court decision rendered in favor of a refund. The striking point here is: even if the new building does not exceed 1.5 times (the existing area), the parking lot has been considered categorically outside the scope of exemption.
9. Comparison of the Two Approaches
| Council of State 6th Chamber (Pro) | Plenary Session of Tax Chambers + 4th Chamber (Con) | |
|---|---|---|
| Main Thesis | Parking is a “fee” determined by municipal council decision; it falls under the exemption. | The parking area is not included in the construction area/fee base; the 1.5-fold exemption does not cover parking. |
| Regulation Amendment | It narrows the exemption in the law; contrary to Article 73 of the Constitution → annulment. | Parking is not already within the scope of exemption; the amendment is valid. |
| 1.5-fold Argument | Also applies to parking. | Not sufficient to cover parking. |
| From the Flat Owner’s Perspective | In favor of Refund/Exemption | Against Refund/Exemption |
10. Current Situation as of 2026
Current situation (as of the date this article was prepared):
Legislative text has not changed: Article 16/12-(f) still states “all kinds of fees determined and collected by municipal council decision”; the phrase “including parking” has not been re-added. The last amendment dated 04.02.2026 also did not rectify this issue.
No unity in jurisprudence: Two opposing Council of State lines exist. A decision by the Board for Unification of Jurisprudence that would definitively resolve the issue is not yet available (as far as is known).
Higher authority currently rules against: The Unified Decisions Board of the Council of State (İDDK) and the 4th Chamber consider parking outside the scope of exception. This increases the appeal risk in refund requests.
Administrative uncertainty: Implementation varies among municipalities; some administrations have escalated the issue to the Ministry and requested an official opinion.
In short, the matter is an unsettled dispute with strong arguments in favor, but currently progressing against (us/the claim) at the higher authority level. The final direction depends on the establishment of the core decisions of the İDDK or a decision for the unification of jurisprudence.
11. Practical Implications for Property Owners and Contractors
Do not expect automatic exemption/refund: Due to the current approach of the higher authority, the outcome is not guaranteed.
If payment is mandatory, a reservation of rights is essential: This is how you protect your right to a refund if jurisprudence changes in your favor in the future.
Observe deadlines: Do not miss the deadlines for applications under Article 10 of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK) and for filing lawsuits.
Always demand a set-off: Even if a fee is charged, the parking fee paid for the old building should be deducted.
Monitor developments: The principal decision of İDDK or the unification of jurisprudence can fundamentally change the situation. Case details must be confirmed from UYAP before the lawsuit.
12. Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary?
This journey shows why the parking fee dispute should be handled on a case-by-case basis: there are two conflicting high court precedents on the same matter, the legislative text is unclear, and the higher authority is currently unfavorable. The choice between filing a lawsuit, waiting, or paying with reservation depends on the correct interpretation of current jurisprudence, and the proper management of deadlines and set-off calculations.
Assessment of current jurisprudence
The impact of the decisions of the 6th Chamber, İDDK, and the 4th Chamber on your case must be professionally analyzed; false optimism creates a risk of litigation costs and attorney fees.
Strategy and risk management
Payment with reservation, lawsuit timing, set-off, and interest claims must be planned together.
Regional differences in implementation
Urban transformation is intensively applied throughout Turkey, especially in Istanbul and its priority transformation districts such as Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Ümraniye, Ataşehir, Kadıköy, Sancaktepe, Küçükçekmece, as well as in the Kocaeli (Gebze, Darıca) regions; each municipality has different parking tariffs and implementation approaches.
For professional support in identifying risky structures, parking/fee exemptions, administrative lawsuits, and other urban transformation processes, you can reach out to the team of 2M Hukuk Avukatlık Bürosu. Related topic: administrative termination of contractor agreements in urban transformation.
13. Frequently Asked Questions
Has the parking fee exemption been completely removed from the legislation?
No. In 2019, only the phrase “including those collected in accordance with the Parking Regulation” was removed. Subparagraph (f) still states “all kinds of fees determined and collected by municipal council decision”. The debate is whether parking fees fall under this phrase.
Can a parking fee refund lawsuit be won currently?
The outcome is not guaranteed. The 6th Chamber ruled in favor, while the Council of State Administrative Cases General Assembly (İDDK) and the 4th Chamber ruled against it; there is no unity in case law, and the higher authority is currently inclined to rule against it.
If my new building does not exceed 1.5 times, will a parking fee not be charged?
According to the stance of the 6th Chamber, it should not be charged; however, according to the stance of the Council of State Administrative Cases General Assembly (İDDK)/4th Chamber, since parking is categorically considered an exception, the 1.5 times increase alone may not be sufficient.
What should I do in this uncertainty?
If you are obligated to pay, pay with reservation, preserve deadlines, request a set-off, and determine a strategy with a lawyer by evaluating the current jurisprudence of the Council of State Administrative Cases General Assembly (İDDK).
Where can I see the current version of the legislation?
You can access the consolidated current text of Law No. 6306 and its Implementing Regulation via mevzuat.gov.tr; you can confirm the decision records from UYAP / Council of State Case Law Database.
