(Maden Ruhsatının İptali ve İdari Yargı Davaları)
Mining projects in Turkey are capital-intensive, permit-heavy, and time-sensitive. A single administrative decision—cancellation of an exploration or operating license (ruhsat iptali)—can stop operations overnight, freeze financing, disrupt supply contracts, and trigger cascading disputes with contractors, landowners, off-takers, and joint-venture partners.
This guide explains how and why mining licenses are cancelled in Turkey, what to do immediately after receiving a cancellation notice, and how administrative litigation (annulment actions and stay-of-execution requests) can protect the project while the merits are heard.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Mining projects require fact-specific legal assessment.
1) Legal Framework: What a “Mining License” Is in Turkish Law
Under Turkish law, a mining license is an administrative authorization issued within the framework of the Mining Law No. 3213 (Maden Kanunu) and secondary legislation (notably the Mining Regulation). The licensing authority and sector governance have been shaped by institutional reforms; today, MAPEG (General Directorate of Mining and Petroleum Affairs) is central to licensing and compliance oversight, with major statutory updates continuing in recent years. (mapeg.gov.tr)
Because a license is an administrative act, disputes about its cancellation are typically reviewed by administrative courts through annulment litigation (iptal davası), often alongside urgent interim relief.
2) What “Cancellation” Means (and Why It’s Different From “Expiration”)
A mining license may end in several ways:
- Expiration: the license term ends and is not extended/renewed.
- Surrender/abandonment: rights are voluntarily relinquished under the applicable rules.
- Cancellation (iptal): the administration terminates the license as a sanction or consequence of non-compliance (fees, reporting, production thresholds, permit obligations, etc.).
Cancellation is the most disruptive scenario because it often comes with forfeiture of guarantees (teminatın iradı), potential administrative fines, and reputational exposure in future licensing processes.
3) Common Grounds for Cancellation: The Practical Reality in Turkey
In practice, mining license cancellations tend to cluster around a few recurring compliance failures. Recent regulatory changes have sharpened these risks.
A) Non-payment of annual license and rehabilitation fees (January deadline risk)
A major compliance trap is the annual payment cycle. A regulatory amendment published on 30 October 2025 introduced clearer consequences: if the full amount of license and rehabilitation fees is not paid by the end of January, the unpaid portion must be completed (with late charges) by the end of June—otherwise the license is cancelled. The same amendment also states that no additional notice is required for fee payment reminders. (Haliç Çevre Laboratuvarı)
Why it matters: Many operators rely on informal reminders or internal finance workflows. The regulation’s “no further notice” approach increases the risk that an internal delay becomes a license-ending event.
B) Failure to submit activity reports or meet minimum activity/investment commitments (exploration stage)
Exploration licenses are highly report-driven. The same 30 October 2025 amendment strengthened the “use it or lose it” approach: missing activity reports or failing to complete minimum activities can trigger forfeiture of the guarantee and cancellation. (Haliç Çevre Laboratuvarı)
In addition, if an investment program is implemented at below 50% for two consecutive years, the guarantee may be forfeited and the license cancelled. (Haliç Çevre Laboratuvarı)
Litigation note: Many annulment lawsuits in this category focus on (i) how “minimum activity” was assessed, (ii) whether the administration properly evaluated submitted data, and (iii) whether the operator was given a lawful opportunity to cure deficiencies.
C) “Non-production” thresholds and temporary suspension issues (operating stage)
Production continuity obligations are a frequent cancellation trigger. Council of State case law (Danıştay 8th Chamber) reflects the approach that, within a five-year review period, extended non-production beyond the legally tolerated threshold can justify cancellation—often tied to force majeure/temporary suspension evaluation and the operator’s documentary burden.
Where disputes arise: Operators often argue that production stoppages were caused by:
- force majeure or unforeseeable events,
- permit delays not attributable to the operator,
- administrative barriers, land access issues, or court injunctions.
Courts scrutinize whether those reasons were properly documented and whether the administration applied the correct legal test.
D) Non-payment after a formal warning period (license fee-based cancellations)
Council of State decisions also show cancellations based on failure to pay license fees despite a warning period—sometimes framed as a three-month payment window before cancellation is executed.
These cases often involve disputes about:
- whether the notice was properly served,
- whether the operator can rely on force majeure,
- whether payment timing and proof were properly evaluated.
E) Unlicensed production / production outside the permitted license group
Another high-risk category is production without the required license, inside another license area, or outside the permitted mineral group. Council of State case bulletins discuss the regulation’s approach: seizure of the extracted mineral and administrative sanctions may follow when detected by competent authorities.
This category can also spill into:
- criminal exposure (depending on conduct and evidence),
- contractual defaults (off-take contracts, EPC contracts),
- environmental enforcement actions.
4) The First 72 Hours After a Cancellation Notice: What You Should Do
Mining license cancellation cases are won or lost early—because the most important “clock” is the litigation deadline.
Step 1: Confirm the notification method and the exact service date
The date you are deemed notified is critical. In mining matters, electronic service methods are frequently used. Council of State bulletins emphasize that MAPEG may notify via registered electronic mail (KEP) or institutional e-notification, and such notice is treated as legally served under the Notification Law framework.
Step 2: Calculate the lawsuit deadline (usually 60 days)
Under the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), unless a special law provides otherwise, the general time limit for filing an administrative lawsuit is 60 days in administrative courts. (LEXPERA)
Missing this deadline is often fatal—many strong substantive cases fail purely on limitation grounds.
Step 3: Secure the project’s evidentiary backbone
Immediately preserve:
- license file, annexes, coordinates, technical reports,
- payment receipts/bank records,
- activity reports and submission confirmations,
- correspondence with MAPEG and other authorities,
- permit applications and rejection/deficiency letters,
- production logs, invoices, weighbridge tickets, stock records,
- force majeure documentation (court injunctions, disaster records, access restrictions, etc.).
Step 4: Decide whether to file an administrative application (objection) before suing
İYUK allows an operator—before filing suit—to request that the administration withdraw, revoke, amend, or replace the challenged act (a pre-litigation application). This application suspends the running of the lawsuit deadline under certain conditions. (LEXPERA)
This can be strategically valuable when:
- you need time to collect technical evidence,
- the cancellation was clearly caused by a correctable error,
- payment/filing issues can be swiftly cured and documented.
5) Key Remedy: Stay of Execution (Yürütmenin Durdurulması)
Mining cancellations are prime candidates for urgent interim relief because the harm is often immediate and difficult to reverse.
İYUK Article 27 sets the two-part test: courts may grant a stay if
- the act is clearly unlawful, and
- its implementation would cause irreparable or very difficult harm. (LEXPERA)
A well-built stay request usually includes:
- Project continuity evidence (workforce, contracts, machinery mobilization),
- Financial harm (loan covenants, off-take penalties, sunk CAPEX),
- Public interest narrative (resource utilization, local employment, compliance culture),
- Clear unlawfulness arguments (procedure, competence, reasoning, proportionality).
Practical point: Courts expect specificity. Article 27 requires the stay decision to identify both (i) why the act is clearly unlawful and (ii) what irreparable harm will occur. (LEXPERA)
6) Annulment Lawsuit (İptal Davası): How the Merits Are Built
A) Core legal theory: “Administrative act review”
Annulment litigation typically attacks the cancellation on classic administrative law grounds, such as:
- Lack of competence (yetki),
- Procedural defects (şekil) — including improper service, missing reasoning, missing cure opportunity,
- Faulty factual basis (sebep) — miscalculated production, misread reports, ignored payments,
- Unlawful subject matter/result (konu),
- Improper purpose (maksat) — disproportionate sanctioning, inconsistent practice.
B) Evidence strategy: technical + legal together
Mining disputes are rarely won with pure legal theory. Courts respond to a coherent record that connects:
- technical reality (geology/reserve/progress),
- regulatory duties (reports, minimum activity thresholds),
- documented compliance (submissions, payments, permits),
- administrative errors (incorrect calculations, missing evaluation).
Council of State bulletins illustrate how factual details—such as production timing, accepted temporary suspension, and documentation—shape whether non-production rules are applied correctly.
C) When compensation is also on the table (tam yargı)
Sometimes cancellation causes measurable loss (equipment immobilization, contract penalties, wasted CAPEX). İYUK allows a claimant, depending on the case structure, to file:
- a direct full remedy action, or
- an annulment action together with a full remedy claim, or
- first annulment, then compensation after annulment. (LEXPERA)
This sequencing matters for limitation management and evidence planning.
7) The Most Common Winning Arguments in Practice
Every case is fact-specific, but these themes frequently drive positive outcomes:
1) “The administration misapplied the cancellation trigger”
Examples include:
- treating partially fulfilled exploration commitments as “no activity,”
- misclassifying minerals or production group,
- ignoring accepted/acceptable temporary suspension periods,
- miscalculating annual obligations.
2) “The operator had lawful justification and documented it”
Force majeure and permit-related obstacles can be persuasive—but only if well-documented and clearly tied to the compliance item that triggered cancellation. Council of State bulletins show how the evaluation must account for documented circumstances.
3) “Service/notification was defective or the ‘deemed service’ date was wrong”
Because 60-day limitation is strict, service disputes can decide the entire case. Where e-notification or KEP is used, the factual record of service must be checked meticulously.
4) “Disproportionate sanction / failure to consider less severe measures”
Administrative law principles generally favor proportionality, especially when a violation could have been cured and the project’s public-interest footprint is significant.
8) Compliance Checklist: How to Reduce Cancellation Risk Before It Happens
Mining license risk is best managed as a calendar discipline.
Annual must-dos
- Track January end payment deadline for license + rehabilitation fees; do not assume reminders will come. (Haliç Çevre Laboratuvarı)
- Pre-schedule internal approvals and banking steps before year-end and early January.
Exploration stage
- Maintain a “reporting matrix”: what report, by when, with what annexes.
- Document minimum activities and investment execution; the “two consecutive years under 50%” risk should be monitored quarterly. (Haliç Çevre Laboratuvarı)
Operating stage
- Keep production logs consistent with declared project quantities.
- If a suspension is unavoidable, build the documentary basis early and align it with the relevant procedural mechanism (temporary suspension/force majeure framework).
Operations discipline
- Avoid any activity that could be interpreted as unlicensed production or outside the permitted group—these cases can trigger severe enforcement.
9) How Counsel Typically Adds Value in Mining License Cancellation Cases
Mining cancellations sit at the intersection of administrative law, technical mining documentation, environmental permitting, and high-stakes project finance. Effective representation usually involves:
- Rapid limitation control (service date + 60-day filing), (LEXPERA)
- A strong stay of execution package built to Article 27 standards, (LEXPERA)
- Technical-legal integration: translating geology, production, and investment data into a litigation-ready narrative,
- Strategic use of pre-litigation administrative applications where it truly buys time or resolution leverage. (LEXPERA)
- Managing parallel risk: contractor claims, off-take defaults, financing covenants, and reputational concerns.
Closing Thoughts
Mining license cancellations in Turkey are not “paper disputes.” They are project-critical crises that demand fast procedural control, disciplined evidence management, and a litigation strategy that speaks both law and mining reality. The regulatory trend is toward tighter enforcement—especially around annual fees, reporting discipline, and demonstrable activity levels. (Haliç Çevre Laboratuvarı)
If you are facing a cancellation decision (or a warning letter that clearly points toward cancellation), treat the situation as urgent: the notification date and the first filing choices may determine whether the project can be preserved during litigation.
Yanıt yok