What grounds can be put forward in an objection to the determination of a risky building? Main reasons for objection include deficiencies in the report, sample collection, notification procedures, and non-compliance with principles.

The success of an objection to the determination of a risky building largely depends on the strength of the grounds put forward in the objection petition. Since the technical committee examines the report with all its elements, objections supported by concrete and technical bases are more effective. In this article, we address what grounds can be put forward in an objection to the determination of a risky building, under technical and procedural headings.

Scope of Technical Committee Examination

First, it should be remembered: The technical committee, without being bound by the reason stated in the objection petition, examines whether the risky building determination report has been prepared in accordance with all its technical elements and the Principles for the Determination of Risky Buildings (Implementation Regulation Art. 10). Therefore, in the objection petition, it is beneficial to present the technical and procedural weaknesses of the report as concretely as possible to draw the committee’s attention to the relevant points.

Technical Grounds Related to the Report

A significant portion of objections is directed at the technical content of the report. Among the main technical grounds are: the report being incomplete or incorrectly prepared, the necessary analyses and calculations not being fully performed, samples taken from the structure (core samples, etc.) not being taken properly or from the correct locations, inadequate assessments regarding the load-bearing system, and the report not being prepared in accordance with the Principles in Annex-2. Supporting such technical objections, if possible, with a civil engineer’s opinion or a technical report increases the strength of the objection.

Procedural Grounds

In addition to technical grounds, procedural defects can also be raised as objections. In this context, issues such as the detecting organization or the assigned engineer not possessing the necessary authorization and qualifications, non-compliance with notification and announcement procedures, or the absence of mandatory information (UAVT address, building code) in the report can be put forward (Implementation Regulation Articles 6 and 7). A lack of license or authorization, or an error in the notification procedure, can constitute an important basis for questioning the legality of the report.

Grounds for the Structure Not Being Risky

Some objections are directly aimed at the outcome; that is, it is argued that the structure is not actually risky. In this context, claims such as the structure having sufficient resistance to earthquakes, not having completed its economic life, or that necessary maintenance and reinforcements have been carried out, can be brought forward. However, such claims must also be supported by technical data; because the determination of a risky structure is a process based on scientific and technical data (Law No. 6306, Article 2/1-d). For the overall process, the articles on the general framework of the urban transformation process and for the stage after the determination becomes final, how the simple majority is calculated in urban transformation can be reviewed. For the current text of the legislation, the Legislation Information System should be followed.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What grounds can be put forward in an objection to a risky structure? The main grounds are technical claims that the report is incomplete/erroneous, defects in sampling and analyses, procedural errors such as notification and authority, and that the structure is not risky (Implementation Regulation m. 6, 7 and 10).

Should the objection petition be supported by a technical report? Although not mandatory, an opinion from a civil engineer or a technical report can increase the strength of the objection and the likelihood of an on-site inspection by the committee.

Can a notification error be a reason for objection? Yes. Procedural flaws, such as non-compliance with notification and announcement procedures, can be made grounds for objection (Implementation Regulation m. 7).

Can I claim that the structure is sound? Yes; however, this claim must also be supported by scientific and technical data (Law no. 6306, art. 2/1-d).

Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary?

The correct selection of objection grounds and their reinforcement with concrete technical basis directly affects the success chance of the objection. A petition containing vague or abstract grounds may not be effective before the technical committee; furthermore, these grounds will also form the basis of a lawsuit to be filed if the objection is rejected. Urban transformation is a multi-layered process where administrative law, real estate law, and contract law intersect, and even a single procedural error can lead to significant loss of rights. For this reason, structuring the objection grounds with an expert lawyer in the field is of great importance.

As 2M Law Office (Atty. Meryem Günay), we provide services throughout Turkey, and especially in Istanbul, where urban transformation is most intense; including Istanbul’s priority transformation districts: Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Ümraniye, Ataşehir, Kadıköy, Sancaktepe, and Küçükçekmece, as well as Kocaeli’s Gebze and Darıca regions. As an urban transformation lawyer in Istanbul and Tuzla, we offer legal support to rights holders during risky building detection and objection processes.