The Effect of Subjecting Zoning Plan Changes to Annulment During an Active Lawsuit

N.A.

Makale detayları

The Effect of Subjecting Zoning Plan Changes to Annulment During an Active Lawsuit

Yazarlar:

N.A.

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Environmental Law

Dergi:

İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası Vol.81 Issue 2, pp.531-545

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

2/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001304488

pISSN:

2636-7734

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Both administrative and judicial system courts can only decide on matters that have been requested of them. However, administrative courts in practice make an exception to this rule, particularly for zoning plans. Accordingly, if the zoning plan concerning a lawsuit filed against said zoning plan changes while the lawsuit is still ongoing and the new plan contains the same illegalities that were the subject of the first lawsuit, then the court hearing the case will also assess the legality of the new plan in the same proceedings. The Council of State decides whether a zoning plan that has been subjected to a lawsuit is to change while the lawsuit is ongoing. If so, an expert examination of the new plan should be made, and the new plan should be investigated as to whether the reason the original lawsuit had been filed exists in the same way in the new plan. Again, if so, the lack of an examination in this direction should be considered as a reason for annulment. Of course, although annulment of the second plan is not clearly stated in the judgment, this second plan also being unlawful is clearly understood based on the trial and the reasoning of the judgment. This is because the courts include the second plan in the evaluation on the grounds that the second plan is essentially a continuation of the first plan, that the contents of the plan are the same in terms of the subject matter of the case, and that the second plan cannot be accepted once the first plan has been abolished. In cases of unlawfulness, the courts are to decide to annul the second plan.

 Both administrative and judicial system courts can only decide on matters that have been requested of them. However, administrative courts in practice make an exception to this rule, particularly for zoning plans. Accordingly, if the zoning plan concerning a lawsuit filed against said zoning plan changes while the lawsuit is still ongoing and the new plan contains the same illegalities that were the subject of the first lawsuit, then the court hearing the case will also assess the legality of the new plan in the same proceedings. The Council of State decides whether a zoning plan that has been subjected to a lawsuit is to change while the lawsuit is ongoing. If so, an expert examination of the new plan should be made, and the new plan should be investigated as to whether the reason the original lawsuit had been filed exists in the same way in the new plan. Again, if so, the lack of an examination in this direction should be considered as a reason for annulment. Of course, although annulment of the second plan is not clearly stated in the judgment, this second plan also being unlawful is clearly understood based on the trial and the reasoning of the judgment. This is because the courts include the second plan in the evaluation on the grounds that the second plan is essentially a continuation of the first plan, that the contents of the plan are the same in terms of the subject matter of the case, and that the second plan cannot be accepted once the first plan has been abolished. In cases of unlawfulness, the courts are to decide to annul the second plan.

 Both administrative and judicial system courts can only decide on matters that have been requested of them. However, administrative courts in practice make an exception to this rule, particularly for zoning plans. Accordingly, if the zoning plan concerning a lawsuit filed against said zoning plan changes while the lawsuit is still ongoing and the new plan contains the same illegalities that were the subject of the first lawsuit, then the court hearing the case will also assess the legality of the new plan in the same proceedings. The Council of State decides whether a zoning plan that has been subjected to a lawsuit is to change while the lawsuit is ongoing. If so, an expert examination of the new plan should be made, and the new plan should be investigated as to whether the reason the original lawsuit had been filed exists in the same way in the new plan. Again, if so, the lack of an examination in this direction should be considered as a reason for annulment. Of course, although annulment of the second plan is not clearly stated in the judgment, this second plan also being unlawful is clearly understood based on the trial and the reasoning of the judgment. This is because the courts include the second plan in the evaluation on the grounds that the second plan is essentially a continuation of the first plan, that the contents of the plan are the same in terms of the subject matter of the case, and that the second plan cannot be accepted once the first plan has been abolished. In cases of unlawfulness, the courts are to decide to annul the second plan.

 Gerek idari yargıda gerekse adli yargıda mahkemeler, kural olarak, yalnızca kendilerinden talep edilen hususlarda karar verebilirler. Ancak uygulamada idare mahkemeleri, imar planları özelinde bu kurala bir istisna getirmektedir. Buna göre, bir imar planına karşı açılan davada, dava devam ederken dava konusu planın değişmesi halinde, yeni plan, ilk davaya konu olan hukuka aykırılıkları aynen bünyesinde taşıyor ise, bu durumda davayı gören mahkeme, yeni planı da yargılamaya dahil etmektedir. Danıştay, dava devam ederken dava konusu imar planının değişmesi halinde, yeni plan hakkında bilirkişi incelemesi yaptırılarak dava açma gerekçesinin yeni planda da aynı şekilde bulunup bulunmadığının araştırılması gerektiğine karar vermekte ve bu yönde bir inceleme yapılmamasını bozma sebebi olarak görmektedir. Elbette hüküm fıkrasında ikinci planın iptal edildiği açıkça ifade edilmese de, yapılan yargılamadan ve kararın gerekçesinden ikinci işlemin de hukuka aykırı olduğu yönünde bir yargısal irade açıkça tespit edilmektedir. Zira mahkemeler, ikinci planın esasen ilk planın devamı niteliğinde olduğunu, dava konusu yönünden plan içeriklerinin aynı olduğu ve ilk planın yürürülükten kalktığının kabul edilemeyeceği gerekçesiyle ikinci planı da değerlendirmeye dahil etmekte ve hukuka aykırılık tespiti halinde dava konusu planın iptaline karar vermektedir. Ancak bu durumda verilecek iptal kararının davalı idareler tarafından uygulanmasında güçlükler yaşanması kuvvetle muhtemeldir. Zira davalı idareler, iptal edilen işlemin zaten yürürlükten kalktığını, halihazırda yeni bir imar planının buluduğunu ve bu imar planı hakkında verilmiş bir iptal kararı bulunmadığını iddia edeceklerdir. Bu nedenle, mahkemelerin yeni tarihli imar planını da hüküm fıkrasında zikrederek iptal kararı vermeleri, iptal kararının uygulanabilirliği açısından önem arz etmektedir.

Makale detayları

The Effect of Subjecting Zoning Plan Changes to Annulment During an Active Lawsuit

Yazarlar:

N.A.

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Environmental Law

Dergi:

İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası Vol.81 Issue 2, pp.531-545

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

2/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001304488

pISSN:

2636-7734

Administrative Act

Revocation

Abrogation

Zoning Plan

Principle of the Binding Effect of A Petitionİdari İşlem

Geri Alma

Kaldırma

İmar Planı

Taleple Bağlılık İlkesi

Davanın Kabulü

Sayı

Makale detayları

Yazarlar: N.A.

Yayıncı: Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar: Environmental Law

Dergi: İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası Vol.81 Issue 2, pp.531-545

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 2/2023

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001304488

pISSN: 2636-7734

Sayı

Yazarlar:

N.A.

Yayıncı:

Istanbul University

Ana Başlıklar:

Environmental Law

Dergi:

İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası Vol.81 Issue 2, pp.531-545

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

2/2023

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001304488

pISSN:

2636-7734