Council of State's Ruling on the Annulment of Customs Fines Based on Electronic Notification

In the jurisprudence of the 7th Chamber of the Council of State, bearing file number 2025/12 E. and decision number 2025/228 K., the annulment of an irregularity penalty imposed under the Customs Law was based on the finding that the request for information and documents was communicated to the addressee solely through the Revenue Administration's system and directed to the electronic notification system instead of a Registered Electronic Mail (KEP) address, contrary to Article 7/a of the Notification Law. This ruling reinforces the established jurisprudence that proper notification is an essential element for the validity of administrative acts, and that formal deficiencies will render such acts unlawful.

Attorney Dr. Tolga Ersoy | March 30, 2025

The Council of State, as one of the fundamental pillars of Turkey's administrative justice system, not only resolves specific disputes through its rulings but also establishes jurisprudential boundaries that guide the administration. The decision of the 7th Chamber of the Council of State, dated January 28, 2025, numbered 2025/12 E. and 2025/228 K., published in the Official Gazette on March 26, 2025, is significant for outlining the principles the administration must observe when exercising its discretionary power in the appointment and reassignment of public officials. According to this ruling, the judicial review of administrative acts is not merely formal but encompasses numerous elements, from the justification of the decision to its alignment with its purpose and the exigencies of public service. In this regard, the approach adopted by the Council of State strongly emphasizes that administrative discretion must not be conflated with arbitrariness.

Upon examining the essence of the ruling, it is notable that emphasis is placed on the requirement for reassignments made without the public official's consent to be based on objective and concrete grounds. The administration is obligated to justify its discretionary actions by citing service requirements; otherwise, the act loses its presumption of legality. Accordingly, the emphasis on "objectivity" in the ruling's rationale stands as a fundamental principle that delineates the boundary between arbitrariness and lawfulness.

The Council of State does not consider the obligation to provide reasons in administrative acts as merely a procedural formality. Rather, the justification ensures both judicial review of the act and the addressee's right to defense. Consequently, relying on personal assessments or abstract statements in appointment decisions contravenes both statutory law and established jurisprudence. The concept of "exigencies of service," as articulated in the decision, has also been elaborated upon in detail, demonstrating that the court subjects all potentially arbitrary actions of the administration to judicial scrutiny.

Here, the question arises: How can the objectivity of an act performed under discretionary power be judicially reviewed? In Council of State rulings, this review is conducted based on comparable practices, the principle of public interest, and the proportionality between the individual's personal circumstances and the exigencies of service. Consequently, not only the content of the act but also its intended outcome and the relationship of that outcome to public service are subject to evaluation. The relevant decision also establishes that appointment procedures carried out without due consideration of the public official's personal and professional circumstances may be subject to annulment under the principles of "lack of justification" and "disproportionality." At this point, the ruling explicitly states that when undertaking reassignment procedures, the administration must consider not only the staffing situation or the justification of need but also the individual's past service and current conditions. This approach, as noted in the decision, is supported by numerous prior Council of State judgments.

Another crucial point is that defenses based on justifications formulated after the date of the administrative act are insufficient to legitimize it. In this matter, the Council of State, when delivering its ruling, conducts an assessment "according to the legal and factual situation prevailing at the moment the act was established." In this regard, the principle that the justification must exist at the time of the act, rather than being created subsequently, serves as a guarantee of legal certainty in administrative proceedings. It is observed that the ruling is constructed in accordance with widely accepted jurisprudence and incorporates considerations parallel to the principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and objectivity. Notably, the balance struck between the continuity of public service and individual circumstances emerges as one of the most salient aspects of this decision. Consequently, when reassigning a public official, not only the exigencies of service but also the individual's private life, family obligations, and social situation must be taken into account.

In this context, it is imperative to pose another question: Can the exigencies of service entirely supersede the individual rights of public personnel? The Council of State's approach unequivocally answers this question in the negative. While the performance of public service is crucial, such administrative acts are subject to annulment if an individual's fundamental living conditions are severely infringed. This approach signifies the growing establishment of a human-centric understanding within administrative law.

The language and legal arguments employed in the ruling are directed not only at the specific case but also at the establishment of forward-looking principles. For example, the requirement that similar appointment procedures must undergo the same scrutiny underscores the precedential effect of the decision. In this regard, the judgment serves not merely to resolve a dispute but also acts as a guide that delineates legal boundaries for public administration. This decision is not solely concerned with an individual appointment procedure but also conveys significant messages regarding the balance between public administration and the administrative judiciary. It is self-evident that the administration must conduct its operations in accordance with the principles of justification, legality, and proportionality. It is clear that without the application of these principles, arbitrary conduct by public authorities cannot be forestalled.

The approach articulated in the Council of State's decision demonstrates that justification in administrative acts is not merely a procedural requirement but fundamentally impacts the quality of public service. Consequently, a body of jurisprudence has been developed that enhances the effectiveness of judicial review and safeguards the interests of public officials. In light of this ruling, it has been reaffirmed that the administration, when exercising its discretionary power, must act without arbitrariness, with proportionality, justification, and equity. Ensuring the balance between the administration and the individual is not solely the prerogative of the judiciary. It is also essential for individuals involved in the legal process to undertake thorough preparation concerning information, documentation, and deadlines. At this juncture, the proper conduct of the process increases the likelihood of a favorable outcome for the individual. Considering the complexity of procedures, the imperative to observe deadlines, and the necessity to diligently monitor jurisprudence, leveraging technical expertise is crucial for the accurate interpretation and management of the process.

Relevant Council of State Ruling:

https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/03/20250326-8.pdf