a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process

and the Implementation Plan with the scale of 1/000 will be appropriate. (1 st
Administrative Court 1997/755E).
In the <strong>evaluation</strong> applied by the Administrative Court dated 23.3.1990, in light
of the determinations of the expert commission, it was indicated that “the arrangement
concerning the light industry site that was proposed in the development plans, was in
conflict with the fundamentals and principles of city planning, public interests and the
construction legislation. Hence, a unanimous decision was passed on the cancellation
of the development plans subject to litigation.
The application submitted by the Administration of Balçova Municipality to the
6 th Department of the Council of State concerning the repeal of the decision, was
examined by the Council of State (as per Resolution No. 1999/4856 E, 2000/5953 KN)
In its Resolution dated 23.11.2000, the 6 th Department of the Council of State has
revoked the decision of the administrative court. The reason for the revocation is
explained as follows:
In the defense submitted by the Balçova Municipality, it is argued that the
immovable property subject to litigation is located beyond the borders of the
development plan, and at the same time, from the implementation plan with the scale of
1/1000 provided in the attachment to the expert report that was taken as basis in court
decision, it is understood that the immovable property in question is beyond the borders
of the approved development plan. Therefore, the pertinent decision must be passed
subsequent to the determination of whether or not the concerned immovable property is
within the borders of the approved development plan.
Although the litigation that was revoked and returned to the administrative
court (through Resolution No. 2001/312 E /718 KN); the administrative court refused
to obey the decision of revoking, and insisted on the validity of its own decision, and
has decided on the cancellation of the development plans on 10.12.2001. The
administrative courts presented the following justification regarding its insistence on the
resolution concerning the cancellation of the development plan:
“Although the plot that is owned by the plaintiff is beyond the borders of the
approved development plan, it is also near the concerned area to the extent that it will be
affected from the implementation of the plan. The decision of revocation passed by the
Council of State, does not contain any clarifications regarding the degree of
166