Council of Judges and Prosecutors Decision on Specialization of the Ankara Administrative Courts

Pursuant to Decision No. 890 of the First Chamber of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (“CJP”), dated 20.04.2026 and published in the Official Gazette on 22.04.2026, it has been decided to introduce specialization within the Ankara Administrative Courts for disputes arising from acts and actions in the nature of board decisions issued in the exercise of the regulatory and supervisory powers of certain regulatory and supervisory authorities.

Within this scope, Ankara 10th, 13th and 25th Administrative Courts will hear cases and matters arising from acts and actions in the nature of board decisions of the Turkish Competition Authority, the Capital Markets Board of Türkiye and the Public Oversight, Accounting and Auditing Standards Authority, as well as certain cases and matters arising from specific acts and actions of the Public Procurement Board.

In addition, the Ankara 12th, 14th and 15th Administrative Courts, as the courts specialized in these areas, will hear lawsuits and matters arising from acts and actions in the nature of board decisions of the Radio and Television Supreme Council, the Information and Communication Technologies Authority, the Energy Market Regulatory Authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Authority, and the Personal Data Protection Board.

As of the entry into force of the Decision on 1 June 2026, no matters will be assigned to these courts through the general case allocation system. The decision also expressly provides that pending cases currently being heard within this scope will not be transferred to the specialized courts on the basis of the new allocation of work; rather, such pending files will continue to be heard by the courts to which they were previously assigned.

CJP’s Rationale: Toward a New Specialized Court Structure in Administrative Judiciary?

In its decision, the CJP emphasized that the acts and decisions adopted by the relevant institutions and boards under their specific legislation concern areas requiring technical and advanced expertise. In particular, it was noted that disputes relating to areas such as banking, finance and competition involve multidimensional and complex assessments and that, when handled within the general court structure, such disputes may both prolong adjudicatory processes and weaken consistency in practice.

The decision states that hearing such cases and matters before specialized courts will enable proceedings to be conducted in a faster, more accurate and more predictable manner and will help eliminate these structural concerns. The CJP also underlined that specialization would not only foster deeper technical expertise, but would also contribute to the standardization of judicial processes, strengthen consistency in case law and improve the overall quality of judicial decisions. On this basis, a structural change enhancing legal predictability and reinforcing legal certainty was considered necessary and appropriate.

In addition, the CJP assessed that specialization within the courts is necessary to prevent delays in judicial proceedings and to ensure the effective protection of the right to trial within a reasonable time. The decision also emphasized the need to prevent rights violations arising from lengthy proceedings and observed that a significant number of applications before both the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights concerning the right to trial within a reasonable time are attributable to the excessive length of proceedings. Against this background, the CJP stated that shortening proceedings through specialization would constitute an effective means of reducing such violations.

Conclusion

This decision constitutes a significant development particularly for administrative judicial disputes arising in the field of competition law and other highly regulated sectors. In practice, the need for a specialized court model for technically complex disputes of this kind has long been debated. The CJP’s decision represents an important step toward establishing a judicial review mechanism with subject-matter specialization in certain fields, with a view to ensuring that technical administrative disputes are heard by specialized courts.