In short
Full remedy speaks of the loss that arose from the administration's act or action; it is not the automatic money extension of a judgment of annulment.
It speaks of the loss that arose from the administration's act or action.
It is not the automatic money extension of a judgment of annulment.
Whether there is a condition of a prior decision or of an administrative application is looked at in the facts.
Related articles: an action for annulment.
What does a full-remedy action aim at?
A full-remedy action is the administrative-court route that aims at making good the losses arising from the administration's acts or actions. The basic purpose of this action is compensation of the pecuniary loss, or the non-pecuniary loss if the conditions are there, that formed in the person because of an administrative activity that is contrary to law or that rests on a service fault. In this respect it performs a function different from an action for annulment.
While an action for annulment focuses more on removing the act from the legal order, a full-remedy action gives priority to making good the loss. In some disputes, annulment of the act first and then compensation of the loss come onto the agenda; in some files a direct claim for compensation may come to the fore. Which route is more suitable is determined according to the structure of the event.
This text is for general information. The rules of period and of procedure in the administrative courts require an assessment file by file.
The relation between a full-remedy action and an action for annulment
When building a litigation strategy in administrative law, the subject most often asked is how actions for annulment and for full remedy will be placed together. Their basic differences may be summarised as follows:
- An action for annulment: removal of an administrative act that is contrary to law
- A full-remedy action: making good the loss that arose because of the act or the action
- An appearance together: two routes that complete each other in some files
For example, in the tax field a debate on whether the act conforms to law often comes to the fore. In this context, contents such as an objection to a tax penalty are helpful for understanding the axis of annulment. If, however, there is an allegation of a loss that must also be compensated because of the act, the full-remedy dimension may come onto the agenda.
Mixing the kinds of action may cause the claims to weaken on procedure. For this reason it is important that the result of the claim is written clearly, and that which logic of action each item rests on is shown openly.
In which situations can a full-remedy action be brought?
A full-remedy action comes onto the agenda when a person's right is infringed because of an administrative act or action, and this infringement gives birth to a concrete loss. The critical point here is that a proper causal link can be built between the existence of the administrative activity and the loss.
Example fields met in practice:
- An economic loss because of an administrative act contrary to law
- Personal loss, or a loss of assets, because of the administration's action
- Losses that arise as a result of a public service operating badly
- Claims for compensation because of an infringement of a right in an administrative process
Not every administrative dispute is fit for a full-remedy action. Sometimes annulment of the act alone may be enough, and sometimes the claim for compensation may stay weak because the allegation of loss could not be built clearly. Making this separation at the very start increases the yield of the file.
The basic elements of a full-remedy action
For acceptance of a claim for compensation, the following elements are looked for in most files:
- The existence of an administrative act or action
- An assessment of contrariness to law, or of a service fault
- The claimant's concrete loss
- A causal link between the loss and the administrative activity
- An application that conforms to the conditions of procedure and of period
A lack in any of these elements may affect the whole of the claim. In particular, leaving the item of loss abstract, or not being able to build the causal link clearly, becomes the weak side of the file. For this reason a strong bridge should be built in the statement of claim between the plot of the event and the calculation of the loss.
A prior application, and management of the administrative process
In full-remedy disputes, the necessity of a prior application may change according to the character of the file. In some situations, applying to the administration and waiting for the answer carries weight from the procedural side. If an answer is not given, the mechanism of an implied refusal is also taken into account separately.
Errors made at this stage may give birth to a procedural debate at the very start of the action:
- An application to the wrong institution
- An application made by missing the period
- Leaving the subject of the claim uncertain
- Presenting the evidence of the application incompletely
The prior-application process is not only a formality; it builds the backbone of the court file. The text of the application made to the administration affects the frame of the claims that will later be put forward before the court.
Evidence and proof: the approach in the administrative courts
Because there is a structure weighted towards examination on the file in administrative proceedings, the order of written evidence is particularly important. The claimant is obliged to make concrete the existence of the loss and its connection with the administrative act or action. Official documents, technical reports, financial records, and expert examinations when needed, are decisive at this stage.
The following headings come to the fore from the side of proof:
- How were the kind and the amount of the loss calculated?
- Which document supports which item of loss?
- How was the link between the administrative act and the loss built?
- How were allegations of an alternative cause set aside?
In files whose integrity of documents is not strong, it may become harder for a view to form about the rightness of the claim. For this reason, classifying the file before the action provides a practical benefit.
The full-remedy dimension in tax disputes
Tax disputes often move with a focus on an action for annulment; even so, in some files separate compensation of a loss arising from an administrative act or practice may come onto the agenda. At this point the tax technique and the procedure of the administrative courts need to be assessed together.
For example, in the decision process relating to tax acts, the heading when a tax settlement is preferred may help in understanding strategic preferences. In some files, pressure of collection after an administrative act may also intersect with the heading an action against a payment order.
It should not be forgotten, however, that not every tax dispute gives birth to a full-remedy action. Making the loss concrete independently, and building the causal link, is the basis.
Is non-pecuniary compensation possible?
In a full-remedy action, when the conditions have formed, a claim for non-pecuniary compensation may also come onto the agenda. For this, it must be shown on the basis of the concrete event that a serious infringement of personality values formed because of the administrative action or act. The real effects of the event should be told, instead of abstract and formulaic expressions.
When the court assesses non-pecuniary compensation, it takes together the weight of the event, the scope of the infringement, the effect the claimant suffered, and the balance of equity. It is not right to expect acceptance of non-pecuniary compensation in every file; the claim should be built with a concrete basis.
Why are the periods so critical?
In the administrative courts, periods often give a forfeiting effect. A wrong calculation of elements such as the date of service, the date of the application, the time for an answer, and the time for bringing the action may give an adverse result before the merits are reached. For this reason, management of the period is one of the most critical technical fields of a full-remedy action.
Errors often made:
- Interpreting the date of service wrongly
- Not following the process of an implied refusal
- Mixing the periods of the administrative application and of the action
- Neglecting calculations of holidays and of procedural days
Calculation of the period is not only a calendar matter; it is a direct part of procedural law. For this reason it is useful to prepare a period chart at the start of the file.
Notes of practice in the Ankara context
In administrative-court files heard in Ankara too, the basic frame rests on national legislation. Local density, the hearing plan, or expert processes may affect the speed of the file; the legal elements of a full-remedy action, however, do not change. For this reason, local practical knowledge should be carried together with the substantive legal infrastructure.
Especially in administrative files with many documents, filing the evidence chronologically and thematically makes the court's examination easier. A scattered presentation may reduce the visibility of strong allegations.
Strategy errors often met
Strategy errors that repeat in full-remedy actions are these:
- Bringing the action without making the item of loss clear
- Writing the claims for annulment and for full remedy in a mixed way
- Seeing the prior-application process as unnecessary
- Leaving the causal link abstract
- Putting the calculation of the period in the background
- Postponing the collection of the documents until the stage of the action
These errors often increase the procedural debates and delay reaching the merits. With correct planning, however, the file becomes both more understandable and more capable of being defended.
The importance of the records of correspondence with the administration
Correspondence established with the administration in the prior-application process carries a critical document value at the stage of the action. The date of the application, the scope of the claim, the content of the administration's answer, and the grounds of refusal form the skeleton of the court file. For this reason it is recommended that each correspondence be carried in a dated, recorded, and if possible registered, way.
The administration's not answering may bring the mechanism of an implied refusal into play. The effect of the implied refusal on the calculation of the period, and the date of then passing to the route of the action, should be followed carefully. If the calculation of the period is made without this connection being built, a procedural surprise may be met on the date of the action.
Full-remedy practice in tax and in other administrative fields
In the tax field, most disputes run on the axis of an administrative objection and of annulment. Even so, the full-remedy dimension may gain importance in files where an allegation of economic loss after the act is carried independently. In these files both technical tax knowledge and the procedure of the administrative courts should be managed together. An analysis carried with a single discipline may miss the risks in the other dimension.
A similar logic holds in other administrative fields too. The full-remedy window should be looked into on subjects such as disruptions in public services, delays in permit and licence processes, or administrative sanctions. Each file's own administrative context requires the suitable route of claim to be determined correctly.
A note of result and of information
A full-remedy action is an important legal tool in making good the losses that arise because of the administration's act or action. A sound course becomes possible with the choice of the right kind of action, complete following of the procedural steps, a strong organisation of evidence, and a clear building of the link of loss and causation. Because technical complexity increases in files related to tax, strategic planning gains still more importance.
This content is for general information. Because the structure of the event, the character of the administrative act, the calculation of the period, and the order of the evidence differ in every file, a definite legal result cannot be foreseen without a concrete examination being made.
How a full-remedy file is separated
Full remedy is read as an allegation of loss arising from the annulment of the act. A day of action that is not written in the file is not added. A judgment of annulment is not counted as a copy of the compensation route in the field of tax law. The Çankaya office does not change the competent authority.
An Ankara lawyer does not write the full-remedy claim as a result that the act was lifted by itself.
Conclusion
This article is for general information. The document, the period, and the procedure of the concrete event should be read separately; there is no promise of a result from memory.