Monetary Limit for Legal Remedies in Administrative Jurisdiction

Monetary Limit for Resorting to Legal Remedy and its Application in Terms of Time

Art.45/1-s.2 of the APL regulates the monetary limits for appeals of the first instance court decisions, while art. 46/1-b regulates the monetary limits for cassation of the decisions subject to cassation. Art.45/1-s.2 stipulates that appeals cannot be lodged against the first instance courts’ decisions in tax cases, full remedy actions, and annulment cases against administrative acts that do not exceed a certain monetary limit; meanwhile while art. 46/1-b allows appeals to the Court of Cassations to be lodged against decisions in tax cases, full remedy actions, and annulment cases against administrative acts that exceed a certain monetary limit. Additionally, Annex 1 of the APL provides that these monetary limits should be increased annually by the revaluation rate.

However, these provisions and legislation do not contain explicit regulations regarding the impact of the monetary limit application on pending administrative cases. This situation creates a practical problem regarding when the monetary limits will be applied for appeals and cassations.

As a solution to this problem, the Council of State and regional administrative courts have developed the following jurisprudence: For the appeals to the regional administrative courts, the monetary limits are determined based on the date of the first-instance court’s decision; meanwhile, for the cassation, the date of the regional administrative courts’ decision is considered to determine whether the appeal or cassation route is available against the decisions in question.  

However, as noted in legal doctrine, this approach may lead to other problems. This is because, unlike the wording of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100 and Law No. 2576, the regulations in the APL allow for the application of monetary limits based on the date of the lawsuit. Furthermore, the impact of monetary limits in the appeal and cassation routes on pending administrative cases could result in sacrificing the principle of legal certainty for the principle of immediate application of procedural rules, which would be incompatible with the principle of the rule of law. Indeed, the change in monetary limits every year could undermine the principle of predictability; and in cases where two administrative lawsuits filed with the same monetary claim are concluded in different years, one of the decisions may fall below the updated monetary limit, which could also violate the principle of equality.  These issues are discussed in the Constitutional Court decisions examined in this study.

CC Decision-1

Constitutional Court Decision-1 is a decision given following a request for the annulment of art. 46/1-b of the APL because the provision is unconstitutional, in a lawsuit filed for the refund of stamp duties, before the 2nd Tax Chamber of the Samsun Regional Administrative Court.

The CC stated that the contested rule imposes a limitation on the right to request the review of a judgment in cases falling below a certain monetary limit, emphasizing that any legislative regulation limiting the right to request the review of a judgment must be specific, accessible, and predictable to prevent arbitrariness. In its examination, the CC concluded that due to the annual updating of the monetary limit used to determine decisions subject to cassation, it is necessary for the specific date on which the monetary limit will be valid for resorting to the cassation route to be clearly and predictably determined in the law. However, the CC evaluated the lack of specific clarity and predictability in the law regarding this issue as not meeting the requirement of legality.

The CC also considered that the finalization of disputes that are not considered insignificant solely due to the value of the claim, without being subject to any review by the appellate court, violates the right to access to justice and the right to have the judgment reviewed by another judicial authority. According to the CC, the inability to review a court judgment due to the monetary limit regulation imposes an excessive burden on individuals and disrupts the balance in the exercise of the right of plaintiffs to request the review of the judgment, which is one of the purposes of art. 46/1-b of the APL aimed at reducing the workload of the Council of State.

The CC decided to annul Article 46/1-b of the APL because it violates the articles 13 and 36 of the Constitution. CC Decision-1 was published in the Official Gazette dated 13 October 2023 and numbered 32338. CC Decision-1 will come into effect nine months after its publication in the Official Gazette. 

CC Decision-2

CC Decision-2 concerns the applications made by the 2ndTax Chamber of the Samsun Regional Administrative Court and the Istanbul 13th Administrative Court of First Instance regarding the annulment of the provisions of art.45/1-s.2 and Annex 1 of the APL, on the grounds of being unconstitutional, in a case concerning the cancellation of a payment order issued due to non-payment of a court-ordered judgment execution fee and in a case concerning an administrative fine imposed by the Social Security Institution.

In examining the contested provision, the CC, as in CC Decision-1, considered that any legislative regulation limiting the right to request the review of a judgment must be specific, accessible, and predictable to prevent arbitrariness. The CC also evaluated that due to the annual updating of the monetary limit, the lack of clear and predictable regulation in the law regarding which date's monetary limit would be valid for resorting to the appellate route constitutes a violation of the principle of legality.

The CC decided to annul art.45/1-s.2 of the APL, which regulates the monetary limit, and Annex-1 of the APL, which includes the rule for updating the monetary limit, because they are contrary to articles 13 and 36 of the Constitution. CC Decision-2 was published in the Official Gazette dated 21 December 2023 and numbered 32406. CC Decision-2 will come into effect nine months after its publication.

Conclusion

Based on the explanations provided above, the CC annulled both the provisions specifying the monetary limits for both the cassation and appeal routes and the provisions regulating the updating of these monetary limits in the APL. The nine-month periods prescribed for the entry into force of the CC Decisions have not yet elapsed. 

When the grounds for annulment in the CC Decisions are examined, it may not be concluded that the monetary limits prescribed for the legal remedies are directly contrary to the Constitution. The CC has pointed out that it is not the monetary limit itself but the uncertainties and problems in its application that violate the Constitution. As of now, there has been no new legislative regulation based on the grounds for annulment stated in CC Decision-1 and CC Decision-2. However, if no regulation is made within these nine-month periods, the condition of the monetary limit for resorting to administrative jurisdiction may be deemed to have been eliminated. In this case, it is considered that the scope of the appellate application may expand, particularly.