Valuer Membership Annulled: Council of State 2025/1837

For foreigners who want to obtain Turkish citizenship by buying real estate, the value of the home matters because of whether it passes the set minimum threshold. The reports that establish this value are prepared by real estate valuers licensed by the Capital Markets Board. When a valuer's reports are found to show values clearly above the market, the professional association may impose the heaviest disciplinary penalty. So what happens if that penalty rests on a regulation that was never published in the Official Gazette?

In its decision of 6 May 2025, Docket No. E.2024/405, Decision No. K.2025/1837, the 13th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay) annulled, by majority, the decision cancelling a real estate valuer's membership of the Turkish Valuation Experts Association (TDUB), the part of the Capital Markets Board (SPK) decision that rejected the objection to it and concerned the claimant, and the TDUB Disciplinary Regulation; the claim against Article 28 of the TDUB Statute was rejected.

📨 The letter from the land registry and two investigations

The process began with a letter dated 23 August 2021 from the Real Estate Valuation Department of the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre. The letter stated that, for independent units in the Esenyurt and Beylikdüzü districts of Istanbul, the values assessed in the claimant valuer's reports differed to a high degree from reports prepared by other firms for the same properties, that the area information was inconsistent, and that the reports were drawn up contrary to the required format.

TDUB appointed an investigator and asked the valuer for a defence, which the valuer submitted in two separate petitions. The membership cancellation imposed at the end of the first investigation was overturned by the Capital Markets Board on objection. The reason for overturning was that the person who prepared the investigation report was also a member of the Disciplinary Committee and had signed the decision accepting the report.

The new investigator's report included the following findings:

On 24 April 2022 the Disciplinary Committee concluded that membership should be cancelled, and the Board of Directors approved this on 23 May 2022. On 2 March 2023 the Capital Markets Board overturned the decision again, this time on the ground that a penalty one degree lighter should be considered. On 7 August 2023 the Committee stated that the reports were prepared for obtaining citizenship and that, given the effect on the public and the sector, the penalty could not be reduced; the Board of Directors approved the decision on 5 September 2023, and the Capital Markets Board rejected the objection.

📂 The three regulations challenged by the valuer

In the case heard by the Council of State as a court of first instance, the expert made three separate annulment requests: the TDUB and Capital Markets Board decisions cancelling the membership, all the articles of the TDUB Disciplinary Regulation, and Article 28 of the TDUB Statute published in Official Gazette No. 28690 of 2 April 2014.

The valuer's main arguments were that a new defence was not taken after the second reversal, that the investigation time limits were not observed, that a decision was made without an expert examination, that the penalty was disproportionate, and that disciplinary offences and penalties were regulated by the Statute and the regulation rather than by law. The valuer also argued that valuation reports have consequences that directly concern the public, such as foreigners obtaining citizenship, and that the Regulation therefore had to be published in the Official Gazette.

The Capital Markets Board and TDUB, for their part, argued that the Regulation concerned only members of the profession, that it was discussed at the General Assembly, adopted by the votes of the members and entered into force with the Board's approval, that the content of the reports had been deliberately steered, and that the penalty was proportionate.

🧭 The diverging opinions of the reporting judge and the prosecutor

The Council of State reporting judge considered that the Regulation did not need to be published in the Official Gazette and that there was no unlawfulness in Article 28 of the Statute, and that the membership cancellation should be examined on the merits. The Council of State prosecutor, by contrast, stated that the Regulation contained provisions belonging to the Association's powers and duties and therefore had to be published; he asked for annulment of the Regulation and the acts based on it, and for the claim to be rejected as regards Article 28 of the Statute. The case was heard at a hearing held jointly by the 13th and 8th Chambers under Additional Article 1 of the Council of State Law No. 2575.

🏛️ The decision of the Council of State

The Chamber examined the three criteria in Article 1 of Law No. 3011 on Regulations to Be Published in the Official Gazette one by one. Since TDUB members are not public officials and the Regulation concerns a particular professional group, the conditions of paragraphs (b) and (c) were not met. By contrast, because the Regulation lays down the disciplinary procedures and principles that fall entirely within TDUB's own powers and duties, under the authority given by Law No. 6362 and the Statute, it is a regulation that falls under paragraph (a), one "regulating provisions on their powers and duties", and must be published in the Official Gazette.

The Regulation, which should have been published but was not, the membership cancellation issued on its basis, and the Capital Markets Board decision rejecting the objection were found unlawful. Article 28 of the Statute, however, was found lawful because it was drawn up within the authority granted by Articles 75/3 and 76/4 of Law No. 6362.

An appeal to the Plenary Session of the Administrative Chambers of the Council of State remains open within 30 days of notification of the decision.

🧩 The distinctions underlying the decision

⚖️ Two separate dissenting opinions

Two dissenting opinions were written against the annulment part of the decision, from two different angles. According to the first, the Regulation is not directly related to the Association's field of authority drawn by the Constitution and the law, and does not need to be published in the Official Gazette. This opinion referred to an earlier judicial decision on the personnel regulations of professional bodies, and stressed that the Regulation was on the agenda of the General Assembly of 19 December 2021, was announced on the website and was adopted unanimously, and that the claimant did not argue that he was unaware of the Regulation. According to these members, the merits of the membership cancellation should have been examined.

The second opinion agreed with the annulment but proposed a different reasoning: under Article 75/3 of Law No. 6362, all procedures and principles on disciplinary penalties must be regulated in the Statute put into force by Presidential decision. Because the fifth paragraph of Article 28 of the Statute leaves this matter to a regulation, that paragraph should also have been annulled.

🆕 What the decision changes and what it does not

The decision contains a finding that directly affects how the disciplinary rules of professional associations under capital markets legislation enter into force: a regulation governing the Association's disciplinary authority cannot serve as a basis for a penalty unless it is published in the Official Gazette, even if it was adopted by the General Assembly and approved by the Board.

On the other hand, the decision does not mean that the values in the reports were correct. The Chamber made no assessment on this point; the findings of the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre and of the investigator remained undiscussed on the merits. The decision is a first-instance decision and may be subject to appeal review before the Plenary Session of the Administrative Chambers.

On the administration's power to withdraw citizenship acquired through real estate, readers can look at the decision on withdrawal of citizenship by investment; on the Board's supervision of valuation firms, the decision on an SPK penalty over a valuation reportTR.

❓ Questions people ask

For detailed information and legal support, you can contact Savun Law & Consultancy. Contact details are on the contact page; other decisions on capital markets and administrative law are available on the Precedent DecisionsTR page.