Ⅰ. Introduction
Municipalities are public legal entities established to carry out local public services in accordance with Article 127 of the Constitution, and their decision-making bodies are composed of elected representatives. Within this structure, municipal councils hold an important position as the highest decision-making body of the municipality. Municipal council decisions often have the characteristics of administrative acts, and their judicial review is a requirement of the rule of law principle.
This paper aims to examine the judicial review of municipal council decisions within a legal framework. In this context, the legal nature of the decisions, review mechanisms, conditions for filing lawsuits, and issues arising in practice based on judicial decisions will be discussed.
ⅠⅠ. Legal Nature of Municipal Council Decisions
Municipal council decisions are administrative acts that are issued unilaterally based on the use of public power and are intended to produce legal consequences. These decisions can sometimes be individual, and other times, they may be general and regulatory in nature.
For instance, a municipal council's decision to declare an area as a "commercial zone" within the scope of urban planning is a regulatory act. Similarly, a decision to change the name of a street or neighborhood within municipal borders is an individual act.
These decisions are evaluated based on the classic administrative act theory, which includes the elements of authority, form, cause, subject, and purpose. The proper establishment of each of these elements is necessary for the legality of the act. For example, the element of authority refers to the decision being made by the competent body. If the municipal council exceeds its authority and makes a decision on a matter that falls under the municipal board's jurisdiction, the decision will be invalid due to lack of authority.
Similarly, the form element involves ensuring that the decision is made in compliance with procedural requirements, such as being placed on the agenda, adopted by the required majority, and recorded in the minutes.
The subject and purpose elements are particularly significant in the context of judicial review. The decision must be based on public interest, and administrative discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily.
Misuse of authority refers to situations where a decision appears to be in compliance with the law on the surface, but is actually made for purposes other than public interest. Such decisions are unlawful due to flaws in the purpose element. Examples of misuse of authority include:
- A municipal council changing a zoning plan to grant a special advantage to a specific landowner, such as converting land into residential areas that only benefit a particular contractor.
- The municipality making it harder for certain businesses to obtain licenses or imposing special taxes or fees on businesses that are in conflict with local authorities.
- The municipal council using planning authority to forcefully displace residents of a particular area, such as turning a social housing area into an industrial zone to force residents to relocate.
In case law, the Council of State has explicitly identified such situations as misuse of authority. In the 2017/2284 E., 2018/4132 K. ruling of the 6th Chamber of the Council of State, a municipal council decision to change the zoning plan in a way that only benefited a particular company was annulled for failing to serve the public interest.
Thus, it can be concluded that municipal council decisions, which have both formal and substantive characteristics of administrative acts, are subject to judicial review to ensure their compliance with the law, especially when they violate the requirements of the elements of authority, form, subject, and purpose.
ⅠⅠⅠ. Lawsuits Against Municipal Council Decisions
Lawsuits against municipal council decisions are often filed in administrative courts, typically as annulment cases. According to the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 ("APL"), individuals whose interests are affected by the decision can file an annulment case within 60 days. The right to file a lawsuit is granted only to individuals whose legal status is directly affected by the decision.
In such cases, decisions regarding zoning plans, urban planning, and licensing procedures are frequently contested in court. For example, in a lawsuit filed by residents against a municipal council's decision to open a park area for construction, the Council of State ruled that the decision violated the principle of public interest.
Regulations under Law No. 5216 on Metropolitan Municipalities and Law No. 5393 on Municipalities provide additional review mechanisms for council decisions. For instance, under Article 23 of Law No. 5393, municipal council decisions can also be reviewed by the governor. The governor can request the reconsideration of decisions found to be in violation of the law. This may delay the enforcement of the decision or lead to its annulment.
Furthermore, municipal mayors also have the authority to send council decisions back for reconsideration. These administrative review mechanisms come into play before the judicial review process, allowing for potential corrections before the decision is formally challenged in court.
Ⅳ. Judicial Decisions in Practice
According to the decisions of the Council of State, municipal council decisions are subject to administrative judicial review. Particularly, many annulment decisions have been made regarding council decisions on zoning plans, due to violations of the public interest principle.
In one decision of the 6th Chamber of the Council of State, a municipal council decision to alter the zoning plan was annulled because it did not serve the public interest. The ruling emphasized that the change in the plan disproportionately benefitted a particular investor, which was contrary to the principles of urban planning.
In another decision, the Council of State annulled a decision by the municipal council to convert a park area into residential land, arguing that this violated the public interest principle by harming the public's need for recreational and green spaces.
Additionally, municipal councils engaging in covert favoritism or making decisions to the detriment of certain individuals are considered cases of misuse of authority and are grounds for annulment. These types of decisions not only harm public trust but also violate the rule of law. Judicial rulings guide municipalities in the planning and decision-making processes, ensuring that administrative discretion is exercised objectively and within the framework of public interest.
Ⅴ. Conclusion and Evaluation
The judicial review of municipal council decisions is a critical mechanism for ensuring transparency and legal compliance in public administration. Municipalities are required to provide services that meet the needs of the local population, and these services must be based on the rule of law and public interest. In this context, municipal council decisions affect both individuals and society at large. The review of the legality of these decisions acts as a safeguard against arbitrary local government practices and solidifies the foundations of a democratic local governance system.
Judicial review is an important tool for uncovering the unlawfulness of municipal council decisions. Concepts such as "misuse of authority" and "purpose deviation" reveal instances where local governments' decision-making processes do not align with legal principles. Decisions by the Council of State emphasize that municipal council decisions must be evaluated within the framework of the public interest principle. These decisions clearly delineate the boundaries of municipal authorities' discretionary powers and help prevent the abuse of public power.
Moreover, the judicial review of municipal council decisions strengthens the functioning of local democracy and ensures the application of the rule of law at the local level. Lawsuits against municipal council decisions provide an opportunity to rectify legal violations, thus making a significant contribution to the protection of public rights. In this regard, annulment decisions issued by the judiciary offer guidance to municipal authorities, allowing them to correct legal violations.
In conclusion, the judicial review of municipal council decisions is not only essential for safeguarding the rule of law but also for ensuring that local governments can provide public services in a transparent, accountable, and fair manner. The review of municipal decision-making processes protects the rights of local populations and prevents arbitrary use of public power. This review mechanism guarantees that municipal council decisions align with public interest, while contributing to the development of a democratic local governance model.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
