Court decisions
Search by word, by full text and by category. Case and decision numbers tolerate formatting differences. Only lawyer-approved English records are listed.
- COURT DECISION4734Financial Disputes15 June 2026
Does a stamp duty deficiency in a private sector work experience certificate require forfeiture of the bid bond?
The judgment of the 13th Chamber of the Council of State (case No 2023/3615, decision No 2024/3157) establishes that a bid may be excluded from the evaluation because the stamp duty document relating to private sector work experience is missing, but that this deficiency alone does not require the bid bond to be forfeited.
Danıştay
- COURT DECISION4734Tender Process Disputes15 June 2026
Does late approval of the award decision on its own lead to cancellation of the tender?
The judgment of the 13th Chamber of the Council of State (case No 2023/1748, decision No 2023/3367) establishes that approval of the tender commission's decision after the five working day period does not on its own lead to cancellation of the tender. The judgment also emphasises the importance of the burden of proof in claims concerning the submission of documents.
Danıştay
- COURT DECISION4734Tender Process Disputes15 June 2026
In what circumstances is an allegation of forgery in a document submitted in a tender well founded?
The judgment of Ankara 23rd Administrative Court (case No 2023/763, decision No 2023/1649) shows that in allegations of forged documents a discrepancy on the face of the document is not sufficient on its own; for a sanction to be imposed, the link of responsibility between the document and the tenderer must be established by concrete evidence.
İdare Mahkemesi
- COURT DECISION4734Tender Process Disputes15 June 2026
Is a complaint lodged on EKAP after 18.00 treated as having been made in time?
The judgment of the 13th Chamber of the Council of State (case No 2023/1467, decision No 2023/2970) establishes that in electronic complaints made through EKAP the time of the application is decisive in calculating the time limit. Applications made outside working hours may be treated as having been made on the next working day.
Danıştay
- COURT DECISION4734Tender Process Disputes15 June 2026
May tenderers be excluded from the evaluation on the basis of a Turkish Standards Institution standard that is not in force?
The judgment of Ankara 21st Administrative Court (case No 2024/718, decision No 2024/1163) establishes that qualification documents based on Turkish Standards Institution standards not in force on the date of the tender may not be required. The currency of technical standards is decisive in qualification assessments.
İdare Mahkemesi
- COURT DECISION4735Financial Disputes15 June 2026
May the draft contract provide that no interest may be claimed if a progress payment is made late?
The judgment of the 13th Chamber of the Council of State (case No 2024/986, decision No 2024/1754) establishes that contractual provisions wholly removing the contractor's right to claim interest where progress payments are made late are unlawful. The principle of equality of the parties must be preserved in public procurement contracts.
Danıştay
- COURT DECISION4735Financial Disputes15 June 2026
Which element is taken as the basis for progress payments in catering service procurement?
The judgment of the 13th Chamber of the Council of State (case No 2023/1435, decision No 2023/3059) establishes that in catering service procurement including materials, payment may be made not on the basis of the total number of meals but, where the tender documents so provide expressly, on the basis of the number of meals actually consumed and determined by the contracting authority.
Danıştay
- COURT DECISION4734Tender Process Disputes16 March 2026
What should be borne in mind when updating a construction work experience certificate?
An important judgment of the Council of State has been published concerning the updating of work experience certificates submitted in construction tenders. In the case in question the contracting authority took the view that, notwithstanding the application of an interim unit price system, the index for December of the preceding year had to be taken as the basis for updating the work experience…
Danıştay
- COURT DECISION4734Tender Process Disputes12 March 2026
What should applicants do where the Public Procurement Authority has not examined an abnormally low tender application sufficiently?
The scope of the examination carried out by the Public Procurement Authority in applications concerning abnormally low tender justifications has been assessed by the Council of State in an important judgment. In the case in question the applicant argued that the analyses in the successful tenderer's abnormally low tender justification were contrary to the legislation. The Public Procurement…
Danıştay
- COURT DECISION4734Debarment and Defence23 February 2026
Three important approaches of the Council of State to debarment from public procurement
The judgment of the 13th Chamber of the Council of State of 16 December 2025 (case No 2025/2762, decision No 2025/3965) contains important observations to the effect that debarment sanctions may not be extended by interpretation. In the case examined, the Public Procurement Board had treated matters such as use of the same IP address, a past shareholding relationship, use of the same business…
Danıştay
- COURT DECISION4734Tender Process Disputes06 February 2026
Council of State: documents requested at the contract stage must comply with the principle of competition
By its judgment of 5 November 2025 (case No 2025/1045, decision No 2025/3407), the 13th Chamber of the Council of State clarified the limits of the documents that may be requested at the contract stage in public procurement. The judgment emphasised that requiring documents which could not be foreseen as obtainable before the date of the tender notice and which are not of a standard nature is…
Danıştay
- COURT DECISIONTender Process Disputes05 February 2026
When and how must a sample be declared and delivered in a tender?
By its judgment of 16 December 2025 (case No 2025/2565, decision No 2025/3980), the 13th Chamber of the Council of State removed an important uncertainty as to the stage at which samples must be declared and delivered in public procurement. The judgment held that, where the tender documents do not clearly regulate the manner and time of submission of the sample, a declaration at the bidding stage…
Danıştay
- COURT DECISIONTender Process Disputes04 February 2026
May an expert appraisal report be submitted instead of a capacity report?
By its judgment of 16 December 2025 (case No 2025/2565, decision No 2025/3980), the 13th Chamber of the Council of State resolved an important dispute concerning proof by documents in public procurement. The judgment accepted that, where the tender documents require documents showing that the tenderer is the producer or manufacturer, an expert appraisal report issued by the relevant chamber may…
Danıştay
- COURT DECISION4734Tender Process Disputes30 January 2026
The Council of State has resolved the problem of calculating pro rata depreciation in abnormally low tender justifications
By its judgment of 3 December 2025 (case No 2025/2543, decision No 2025/3766), the 13th Chamber of the Council of State resolved an important doubt in practice concerning the calculation of pro rata depreciation in abnormally low tender justifications. The judgment held that, in vehicle hire service tenders, a pro rata depreciation calculation limited to the contract period is acceptable under…
Danıştay
- COURT DECISION4734Tender Process Disputes20 January 2026
Differences of approach between the Public Procurement Board and the Council of State on forfeiture of guarantees in electronic tenders
The Council of State annulled, as an incomplete examination, the forfeiture of a bid bond on account of deficiencies in the manner in which documents were submitted in an electronic tender, thereby setting limits to the Board's strict approach.
Danıştay
- COURT DECISION4734Tender Process Disputes26 December 2025
Beware of invoices obtained from third parties in abnormally low tender justifications
The Council of State has made clear that, in abnormally low tender justifications, the acts of third parties cannot give rise to the tenderer's liability for prohibited acts unless a concrete connection is established.
Danıştay
- COURT DECISION4734Tender Process Disputes22 December 2025
Situations in which the Public Procurement Board may not decide without obtaining an expert opinion
The 13th Chamber of the Council of State held that the Public Procurement Board may not decide, without obtaining an expert opinion, on matters requiring particular technical expertise such as the assessment of demonstrations and samples. In a tender for biochemistry laboratory services held by a provincial health directorate, an appeal was lodged on the ground that the demonstration process had…
Danıştay
- COURT DECISION4734Tender Process Disputes22 December 2025
The exceptional situation in which transacting from the same IP address is not treated as an offence
I. Development of the case. An appeal was lodged with the Public Procurement Authority on 3 February 2025 in relation to a card-based catering tender conducted by open procedure on 19 December 2024 by an airport operating and aviation industries company.
Danıştay
- COURT DECISION4735Tender Process Disputes25 November 2025
Completion works cannot be tendered by the negotiated procedure under Article 21(b) unless the special conditions arise
A completion work is a work carried out to finish an unfinished contract. In public procurement, where the subject matter of a contract cannot be completed for various reasons (for example on termination or liquidation of the contract), the act by which the contracting authority holds a fresh tender and has the remaining part of the contract performed by a different contractor is called a…
Danıştay
- COURT DECISION4735Tender Process Disputes21 November 2025
Why was a very large tender held by a metropolitan municipality in 2020 cancelled?
The principal procurement procedures under Public Procurement Law No 4734 are the open procedure and the restricted procedure. Negotiated procedures may be used where the special conditions set out in the Law arise. In recent years, however, the proportion of negotiated procedures, and within them the proportion of unadvertised negotiated procedures under Article 21(b), has risen sharply.
Danıştay