Official Gazette / June 11-15, 2025

The Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change has published the Regulation on Amendments to the Building Inspection Implementation Regulation, the Communiqué on Amendments to the Communiqué on the Procedures and Principles Regarding the Supervision of the Activities of Building Inspection Organizations, the Implementation of Administrative Sanctions and the Collection of Administrative Fines, and the Communiqué on Amendments to the Communiqué on the Procedures and Principles Regarding the Determination of Building Inspection Organizations to Sign Building Inspection Service Contracts with Building Owners in an Electronic Environment. With the regulation and the two communiqué amendments, the guarantees received from building inspection organizations will be determined according to the CPI (Consumer Price Index) instead of the PPI (Producer Price Index) as of 2026. The obligation for the Electronic Distribution System for buildings with a construction area of less than 500 m2 has been lifted, and property owners have been granted the opportunity to work with a building inspection organization of their choice instead of one mandatorily assigned by the Ministry, and to sign a service contract with a service fee between 1.75% and 3.50%. Furthermore, a provision has been added stating that the contract may be terminated if building inspection organizations neglect their legal duties, such as taking delivery of formwork and reinforcement manufacturing and supervising concrete pouring. The scope of responsibility for building inspection firms has been expanded, and a regulation has been introduced for the cancellation of the firm's license and the seizure of its guarantee if the building collapses within 15 years after the occupancy permit is obtained or if damage is caused to surrounding structures during the construction phase.

The Ministry of Treasury and Finance has published the Communiqué on Amendments to the General Communiqué of the Financial Crimes Investigation Board (Serial No: 19) (Serial No: 28). The amendment in question facilitates the implementation of a stronger and verifiable control mechanism by crypto asset service providers during remote identity verification processes with their customers.

The Constitutional Court, with its decision dated 09.01.2025 and application number 2020/17953, concluded that the collective bargaining agreement provision, which regulates that civil servants who are not members of the authorized union can benefit from the social balance agreement by paying a certain fee difference (it was written in the collective agreement that up to double the fee could be requested), is in accordance with the law, and that the contrary decision of the Council of State violates the prohibition of discrimination in terms of trade union rights. The decision included the reasoning that benefiting from the financial and social rights brought by the collective agreement is a privilege of the members of the authorized union who contributed to the making of this agreement, and that benefiting from the collective agreement by paying a certain fee difference by non-union members does not harm the freedom of organization, but on the contrary, observes social justice.

The Constitutional Court, with its decision dated 09.01.2025 and application number 2023/33667, issued a violation decision that will set a precedent regarding the fact that some files that are finalized in the appellate court (istinaf) and cannot be appealed to the Court of Cassation (temyiz) in terms of criminal law can be appealed. It was concluded that the finalization of conviction decisions given by the first-instance court after the second appellate review on the file, following an appellate court decision that overturned the acquittal decision given by the first-instance court regarding some crimes and ordered the conviction of the defendants for some crimes and the investigation of some criminal accusations and evidence, implicitly prevents the right to make an oral defense before the regional court of justice and to benefit from the related procedural rights, thereby violating the right of access to court. In the case, it was explained that the appellate court issued a reversal decision for a reason other than those explicitly recognized by law, and that this led to the deprivation of the applicant's right to appeal to the Court of Cassation. It was stated that in similar applications, the Court of Cassation also considers that after the acquittal decision given by the first-instance court is overturned by the appellate court for the purpose of conviction, the conviction decision given by the first-instance court, which has no authority to resist (is obliged to comply), should essentially be accepted as a conviction decision given by the Regional Court of Justice (Appellate Court), that in this case the parties' rights to appeal to the Court of Cassation are taken away, and that in this case, the parties can apply to the objection legal remedy among the extraordinary legal remedies via Article 308/A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK).

The Council of State Tax Litigation Chambers Board, the highest decision-making body of the Council of State, issued a permanent, definitive, and final decision following contradictory decisions given between the 5th and 7th Tax Litigation Chambers of the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court regarding the minimum land m2 unit values that form the basis for property tax. With the decision dated 26.02.2025, numbered 2024/6 Basis and 2025/1 Decision; it ruled that since it is possible to make value appraisals for lands on a neighborhood basis, street by street, or by different regions in terms of value in accordance with the Property Tax Law in the appraisal commission according to the provisions of the Tax Procedure Law regarding the determination of minimum unit values, it is possible to make different value appraisals by accepting areas such as islands, parcels, sites, and shopping centers as different regions in terms of value (that there is no need for a single and unchangeable value determination on a neighborhood basis).

With the decision dated 10.06.2025 issued by the Public Oversight, Accounting and Auditing Standards Authority, the general audit criteria threshold values were determined as 300 million liras for total assets and 600 million liras for annual net sales revenue. For the 2024 accounting period, the threshold values in the relevant accounting period will be taken as the basis for being subject to audit / exiting the scope of audit. The legislative amendment in question will be applied to accounting periods starting from January 1, 2025.

The Constitutional Court, with its decision dated 06.03.2025, numbered 2024/169 Basis and 2025/72 Decision, annulled the 2nd paragraph of Article 3 of the Law on the Protection of the Value of Turkish Currency, to be effective after 9 months (as of 13.03.2026). The annulled article stipulated that an administrative fine of up to the market value of the commodity in question be imposed for the unauthorized entry/exit of foreign currency, precious metals, and precious stones into the country. The Constitutional Court based its annulment decision on the reasoning that allowing for the examination of issues such as the degree of fault of the person committing the violation, the source of the valuable goods, and the extent to which the intended legal purpose is harmed—that is, allowing for intervention according to the conditions of the event—could lead to different results, and that the current legislation prevents this by directly imposing a fine, thus imposing an excessive burden on individuals.

The Council of State Tax Litigation Chambers Board, with its decision dated 09.04.2025, numbered 2025/1 Basis and 2025/13 Decision, issued a precedent-setting decision stating that since the procedures for being included in the scope of taxpayers subject to special principles are of a nature that may violate the interests of real and legal persons who do not have tax liability on the date this procedure is established, the aforementioned persons have the standing to file a lawsuit against these procedures.