a critical evaluation on the concept of justice in planning process

with the payment of compensations (Decision No: 2001/1096). Compensations were
paid by Mayoralty according to the decision taken by the local court; however there was
an objection application to Supreme Court of Appeals regarding this case.
Because of limiting the research by the year 2003, after this date process has
been pursued according to data obtained from newspapers. According to those data, it is
known that, through October 2004 the case was returned to local court by the Supreme
Court of Appeals and it was transferred to administrative court with the “decision of
nonjurisoliction” by the local court. At the end of this procedure, although the case was
not concluded in administrative court, Mayoralty of Narlıdere has started the
transactions in order to recover the compensation paid to the plaintiff 83 . Basis of the
case, brought because of not taking necessary security precautions in the constructions
of Narbel houses in 2 nd nönü quarter in Narlıdere settlement, depends on the negligence
of the authorities and nonrealization of necessary control.
2. Second case; This action was brought by a family upon the death of their child
because of touching the electric cables in their balcony of an apartment house in Akasya
Street, Onur quarter, in Municipality of Balçova. Plaintiff family brought an action of
compensation for pecuniary loss and mental anguish in zmir Administrative Court
(e.no:2002/1134) against TEDA (Turkish Electricity Distribution Co.) and Mayoralty
of Balçova. Because of limiting the study by the year 2003, there is not any data about
the conclusion of the court. However, it is observed that, there is the problem of
authority, task and liability between the two defendants; Municipality of Balçova and
TEDA . Both of these two institutions have stated that the subject of case has not been
included in their task field. Another important point through these statements is;
touching electric cables was the 9 year old child’s own fault and the authority can not be
responsible of that event.
3. Third case; This is the action proceeded in administrative court with the demand of
damage payment occurred because of the fall of a tree near the road (e.no:1994/2284).
In this case, Mayoralty of Narlıdere as the plaintiff part has started in his petition
submitted to the court that, their tasks/liabilities do not include this subject. In addition,
it has been stated that, subject of the court is under the Responsibilities of Branch
Directorate of Highways. As a result, action has been concluded in favour of plaintiff
83 Newspaper “Radikal” dated Oct 13, 2004 WEB-14 and WEB-15
176