1) Why EIA litigation has become a “project-critical” risk in Turkey
In Turkey, energy projects are built on a chain of public approvals: licensing and grid connection, land use and zoning, forestry/pasture permissions, and—very often—Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) decisions issued under the ÇED system. When an EIA decision is challenged and annulled, the impact is rarely limited to “paperwork.” It can suspend construction, freeze financing draws, trigger termination rights under EPC and offtake agreements, and force a project company to restart permitting from the beginning.
For developers and investors, EIA litigation is therefore a bankability risk. For affected communities and land users, it is the primary judicial tool to test whether environmental effects were properly assessed and whether public participation and scientific review were handled lawfully.
This guide is designed to be practical for both sides. It explains:
- which EIA decisions are typically sued (ÇED Olumlu, ÇED Gerekli Değildir, etc.),
- where and when to file,
- how “stay of execution” works,
- the most common annulment grounds in energy projects,
- what evidence and expert analysis usually decide outcomes,
- how to build a litigation-ready file (as a project company) or a focused claim (as a claimant).
2) The ÇED framework in one page: decisions, annexes, and why thresholds matter
2.1 The decision types that become litigation targets
Under the ÇED Regulation, the administration can issue decisions such as:
- ÇED Olumlu (EIA Positive),
- ÇED Olumsuz (EIA Negative),
- ÇED Gerekli Değildir (EIA Not Required),
- and related procedural decisions (scope/special format, public participation stages, etc.). A consolidated regulation text reflects these categories and definitions. (ENOFİS ÇEVRE DANIŞMANLIK)
In practice, lawsuits in energy projects most commonly target:
- ÇED Olumlu decisions for large projects (wind farms, solar parks, mining-integrated energy, hydro, geothermal, biomass, pipelines, major grid infrastructure), and
- ÇED Gerekli Değildir decisions for projects that the administration places into a lighter screening track.
2.2 Annex-1 vs Annex-2: the legal gate that shapes the project’s entire risk profile
The annex classification does not just decide paperwork; it changes the depth of assessment, the public participation process, and the litigation surface area.
A key update for renewables was introduced by amendments published in the Official Gazette on 26 June 2025, which (among other changes) set:
- Wind power: “15 turbines and above” and offshore wind as categories triggering higher-level assessment, and
- Solar power: “project area 25 hectares and above” (excluding rooftop/facade systems) in the higher category. (LEXPERA)
Those thresholds are frequently used in both investor due diligence and claimant arguments. A classification mistake (wrong area calculation, turbine count, auxiliary units missing, fragmented parcel strategy) can become a core illegality claim.
2.3 A compliance detail investors often miss: a “ÇED Olumlu” can become invalid if the project does not start
The Ministry’s public guidance states that if a project that received ÇED Olumlu does not commence investment within five years without force majeure, the EIA positive decision is treated as invalid. (Çevre Bakanlığı)
This is not just administrative theory: it can break the project’s financing timeline, especially for projects stuck in grid capacity or land procurement disputes.
3) Legal nature of EIA decisions: why they are reviewed by administrative courts
A ÇED decision is an administrative act. Annulment lawsuits therefore follow the Administrative Jurisdiction Procedure Law (İYUK No. 2577). The main remedies are:
- Annulment (iptal) action against the EIA decision, and
- a request for stay of execution (yürütmenin durdurulması) to prevent implementation while the merits are litigated.
The practical reason is obvious: if the project proceeds and irreversible environmental changes occur, a later annulment may be too late in real terms. Turkish constitutional jurisprudence has repeatedly emphasized the need for effective judicial protection in environmental contexts and has discussed the “ineffectiveness” problem where decisions are implemented before full review. (Anayasa Mahkemesi)
4) Who can sue? Standing (“interest violation”) in environmental annulment cases
4.1 The general test: “menfaat ihlali” (interest violation)
In Turkey, standing in annulment actions is not “actio popularis” by default. Claimants must typically show an interest connection to the administrative act. In environmental disputes, this concept is debated and has evolved through case law and doctrine.
A Turkish Bar Association journal article (TBB) discusses the “personal interest” concept in annulment actions and how it is interpreted case by case. (Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi)
4.2 Practical standing categories in energy-EIA cases
In real EIA litigation around energy projects, standing most often arises from:
- Residents and land users in the affected area (including those impacted by noise, shadow flicker, water usage, dust, traffic, ecosystem disruption),
- Landowners / right holders (including pasture/forest users where applicable),
- Local professional chambers and NGOs, depending on statutory framework and how courts interpret the interest link in that specific case type (this area can be contentious, so file strategy matters).
4.3 Why standing is not a “formality”
Standing disputes can decide the entire case before the merits are examined. From a claimant perspective, it is crucial to document:
- residency/relationship to the project area,
- how the project affects daily life, health, livelihood, or property use,
- why the EIA decision specifically impacts the claimant’s legally protected interests.
From an investor perspective, standing disputes are not the main defense you should rely on. Strong projects “win” by showing the EIA file is scientifically adequate, procedurally clean, and internally consistent—because standing doctrine in environmental matters can be interpreted more broadly in appropriate fact patterns. (Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi)
5) Where and when to file: jurisdiction, time limits, and the “notification trap”
5.1 Time limit: the 60-day rule (and why announcement mechanics matter)
İYUK’s general framework includes the concept of a lawsuit time limit (commonly 60 days for many administrative acts unless a special rule applies). The safest approach is to calculate conservatively based on proper notification/announcement and to file early.
The consolidated text of İYUK No. 2577 is accessible through reputable legal databases; it contains the procedural structure for administrative actions and interim relief, including Article 27 on stay of execution. (LEXPERA)
Practical trap: EIA decisions are frequently announced via administrative channels and online platforms. Disputes often arise over:
- when the claimant is deemed to have learned of the decision,
- whether local announcement was done properly,
- whether the announcement included necessary procedural information.
Because limitation disputes can end a case without reaching merits, both sides should build a clean chronology with documents showing dates, announcement content, and “learned on” evidence.
5.2 Competent court: why venue analysis must be done case-by-case
Energy projects often span multiple administrative jurisdictions (project site, grid connection point, port/landing point for offshore, etc.). While many EIA decisions are challenged in administrative courts with subject-matter competence over the relevant act, the correct venue can become a threshold issue. If a project has multiple linked acts (zoning decisions, expropriation, forestry permits), parallel cases may exist in different courts.
Best practice: treat EIA litigation as a “multi-permit dispute map,” not a single case file.
6) Stay of execution (injunctive relief): the two-condition test and what persuades courts
6.1 The legal test under İYUK Article 27
Under İYUK, filing a case does not automatically suspend the act. A stay of execution generally requires two cumulative conditions:
- the act’s implementation would cause irreparable or difficult-to-compensate harm, and
- the act is clearly unlawful. (LEXPERA)
In energy-EIA cases, the “harm” prong is often argued through:
- irreversible environmental impact (habitat loss, water depletion, deforestation, soil disruption),
- irreversible social impact (loss of livelihood for agriculture, pasture, beekeeping, tourism),
- project “fait accompli” risk (once built, restoration is practically impossible).
The harder prong is usually “clear unlawfulness.” Courts are most convinced when the claim identifies specific, document-based defects, not general opposition to the project.
6.2 What actually wins (or loses) interim relief
Courts tend to focus on whether the alleged defects are:
- procedural (mandatory steps missing) and obvious from the file, or
- substantive and supported by credible expert indications that the EIA assessment is scientifically incomplete or inconsistent.
Because EIA disputes are technical, interim relief often depends on the first expert report or preliminary technical analysis submitted with the stay request—especially in projects like wind farms (ornithology), hydro (water balance), geothermal (chemicals, reinjection), mining-linked energy (tailings, blasting), and large infrastructure.
7) The most common annulment grounds in energy project EIA cases
Below are the grounds that repeatedly appear in successful claims or in serious expert criticisms. Think of these as a “risk checklist” for developers and an “issue map” for claimants.
7.1 Procedural defects: public participation, scoping, and “paper compliance” failures
Common procedural grounds include:
- deficiencies in the public participation meeting process (timing, accessibility, meaningful engagement),
- incomplete consideration of submissions received during the process,
- failures in the scoping/special format stage leading to a “too narrow” assessment,
- inconsistencies between the project description and the technical annexes.
The ÇED Regulation and its implementing practice emphasize public participation as a structured stage (public information and participation meeting). (ENOFİS ÇEVRE DANIŞMANLIK)
7.2 Incomplete baseline studies and “seasonality” failures (especially wind and biodiversity)
Energy EIA files are often annulled or heavily criticized where baseline studies are:
- too short,
- not seasonally representative,
- not site-specific,
- or not aligned with the project footprint (turbine layout, cable routes, access roads, quarries, batching plants).
Wind projects are particularly exposed on:
- bird migration corridors,
- collision risk modeling,
- cumulative impact with other wind farms in the region.
7.3 Cumulative impacts and project splitting
A recurring legal risk is “project splitting,” where a larger development is presented as smaller components to fit under lighter annex categories. Courts and experts often examine:
- whether auxiliary units (roads, substations, quarries, storage, hybrid additions) should be evaluated together,
- whether cumulative impacts with nearby projects are properly addressed.
7.4 Water and hydrogeology: the decisive layer for hydro, geothermal, and mining-linked energy
Water issues frequently decide EIA disputes:
- hydro projects (flow regime, ecological flow, downstream users),
- geothermal (reinjection, chemical management, groundwater interaction),
- mining-integrated energy (leachate, tailings, acid mine drainage),
- biomass (water use, wastewater discharge, odor, ash management).
If the water model is weak, courts may see the file as a “non-preventive” assessment—especially where drinking water basins, irrigation, or protected wetlands are implicated.
7.5 Noise, shadow flicker, and health-adjacent impacts (wind and transmission)
In wind projects, disputes frequently focus on:
- noise modeling assumptions,
- receptor identification (villages, isolated houses, seasonal dwellings),
- shadow flicker modeling and mitigation,
- turbine setback logic and cumulative exposure.
Transmission lines and substations can trigger additional concerns (land use, electromagnetic field perceptions, safety zones), though EMF claims are more complex and evidence-sensitive.
7.6 Cultural assets and archaeology: “if you missed it, the file collapses”
Projects crossing rural and coastal zones are exposed to archaeology/cultural heritage risk. If the EIA file fails to show proper screening and mitigation measures, it can become a strong unlawfulness argument—particularly because cultural assets are constitutionally protected interests.
8) Evidence and expert reports: why EIA cases are “won on the file”
8.1 The decisive role of expert panels
EIA disputes are rarely resolved by witness testimony. They are decided by:
- the administrative record (EIA report, annexes, meeting minutes, institutional opinions), and
- court-appointed expert reports.
For claimants: the strongest litigation strategy is to present precise technical criticisms that guide the court’s expert mandate (what the expert should measure, which models should be checked, which missing data should be identified).
For developers: the strongest defense is a litigation-ready EIA file that is internally consistent and supported by data that can survive expert scrutiny.
8.2 Constitutional Court perspective: effective protection and reasoned decisions matter
The Constitutional Court’s communications in environmental contexts emphasize effective protection and highlight the importance of reasoned judicial review where environmental effects intersect with protected rights (including private life in environmental impact contexts). (Anayasa Mahkemesi)
This is particularly relevant where:
- courts reject claims without engaging with substantial expert findings, or
- interim relief is denied without adequately addressing irreversibility risk.
9) What happens after annulment? Practical consequences for projects and investors
9.1 The “stop and restart” reality
If the EIA decision is annulled:
- construction may be halted (especially if interim relief is granted or if other permits depend on EIA validity),
- lenders may suspend disbursements,
- contractors may invoke delay/termination clauses,
- the administration may require a new EIA process or a revised file.
9.2 Can the administration issue a new EIA decision after annulment?
Often yes—if the defects are cured and the process is rerun lawfully. But the second file must be treated as a new litigation target: courts and claimants will compare the “old” and “new” EIA decisions and the extent to which defects were truly corrected. Developer risk management here is largely about credibility: superficial revisions tend to trigger repeat litigation.
9.3 Can investors claim compensation for losses caused by annulment?
This is fact-dependent and high-risk. In some scenarios, parties attempt to pursue compensation claims based on reliance and administrative fault concepts, but outcomes vary significantly depending on attribution, foreseeability, and the investor’s own risk assumptions. As a practical matter, investors should not treat potential compensation as a substitute for a robust permitting strategy.
10) A practical litigation strategy map
10.1 For project companies and investors (defensive strategy)
A. Pre-litigation: build a “court file” before you need court
- Document all public participation steps, announcements, and responses.
- Maintain baseline study datasets (raw data access matters in expert reviews).
- Keep a clean version history of the EIA report and annexes.
B. When sued: run two parallel tracks
- Legal track: procedural compliance + jurisdiction/time limit arguments where appropriate.
- Technical track: immediate expert-level review to identify the real weak points and how to rebut them with data.
C. Contract and finance protection
- Align EPC milestones with permitting risk (avoid unconditional NTP too early).
- Include change-in-law and permitting delay clauses.
- Create a lender communication protocol (surprises destroy trust more than delays).
10.2 For affected parties and claimants (offensive strategy)
A. File discipline and standing proof
- Show why the project impacts you (location, livelihood, health-adjacent exposure, property use).
- Build a clean date record to avoid limitation dismissal.
B. Focus on provable defects
Courts react best to:
- missing mandatory steps,
- numerical inconsistencies,
- missing baseline studies,
- clear contradictions between project description and annexes,
- measurable cumulative impact gaps.
C. Interim relief is a strategic decision, not a reflex
A weak interim relief request can backfire. A strong one is built on:
- irreversibility evidence, and
- a clear unlawfulness narrative tied to documents and technical logic. (LEXPERA)
11) Client-ready checklist: the “Top 20” EIA litigation risk indicators for energy projects
- Annex threshold ambiguity (area/turbine count) (LEXPERA)
- Missing auxiliary units (roads, quarries, substations)
- Weak cumulative impact analysis
- Incomplete seasonal biodiversity data
- Water model gaps (groundwater, downstream users)
- Weak waste/ash management plan (biomass)
- Noise and shadow modeling not receptor-specific
- Inconsistent maps/coordinates
- Public participation process defects
- Institutional opinions missing or contradictory
- Protected area / buffer zone issues
- Cultural heritage screening gaps
- Rehabilitation plan unrealistic or unfunded
- Traffic/logistics impacts ignored (construction phase)
- Emergency response and fire safety thin (storage or biomass)
- Monitoring commitments vague or not measurable
- “Mitigation by promise” without enforceable steps
- Five-year non-start risk for ÇED Olumlu projects (Çevre Bakanlığı)
- Financing documents not aligned with permitting litigation risk
- Communication strategy absent (social risk becomes legal risk)
Yanıt yok