complaint

Milas and Yatağan Olive Producers v. Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (Council of State challenge to Provisional Article 45 of the Mining Law) - complaint

Litigation

Sabin

Sabin Litigation

Filing Year For Action

Seventy-seven olive producers from the Milas and Yatağan districts of Muğla Province filed a joint lawsuit at the Turkish Council of State challenging the constitutionality and legality of Law No. 7554, which amended the Mining Law to permit the conversion of designated olive groves into open-pit coal mines for nearby thermal power plants.

Primary Question:
Is Provisional Article 45 of the Mining Law (Law No. 7554), which permits uprooting and relocation of olive groves for mining, unconstitutional under the Turkish Constitution?

Sub-questions:
1.	Did the Ministry of Energy unlawfully implement the law through an improperly prepared regulation circumventing environmental protections?
2.	Do the mapped and targeted olive groves enjoy constitutional protection as agricultural, environmental, or property assets?
3.	Should execution of the contested regulation be suspended to prevent irreversible environmental damage pending judicial review?

The plaintiffs argue that:
•	Provisional Article 45 of the Mining Law violates the Constitution, property rights, and environmental protections.
•	The law targets specific parcels and operators (Yatağan TEP / YK Enerji), violating the constitutional principle of generality of law.
•	The Ministry of Energy’s implementing regulation was unlawful.

The plaintiffs request:
•	Referral to the Constitutional Court for constitutional review under Article 152 of the Constitution.
•	Suspension of execution of the regulatory act. They request that the enforcement or implementation of the contested regulatory act be suspended until the Constitutional Court issues its decision, to prevent potential ongoing harm.
•	Annulment: They request that, following the oral proceedings, the contested regulatory act be annulled.

Standing and Environmental Rights
The plaintiffs argue that as olive producers on the affected lands, they have standing because the administrative act directly threatens their environmental rights. They cite domestic and international sources, including:
•	1972 Stockholm Declaration (right to live in a dignified environment; duty to protect natural resources for present and future generations)
•	Turkish Constitution Articles 17, 36, 56
•	Environmental Law Article 30 (allowing citizens to challenge administrative acts threatening the environment)
•	European Convention on Human Rights, Article 2 (linking the right to life to the right to a healthy environment)

Constitutional and Environmental Violations
The plaintiffs contend that the law authorizing the clearance of olive groves contravenes Article 56, which guarantees the right to a healthy and balanced environment. Olive trees provide economic value and critical ecological functions such as carbon sequestration, soil erosion prevention, and biodiversity habitat. Destroying these groves for coal mining would harm local communities’ rights to clean air, water, and soil and disrupt regional ecological balance.

Under Article 90 of the Constitution, ratified international treaties prevail over conflicting domestic legislation. The plaintiffs invoke:
•	1972 Stockholm Declaration
•	1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and Agenda 21
•	Convention on Biological Diversity
•	1979 Bern Convention

They also cite relevant jurisprudence:
•	Constitutional Court: Recognizing procedural obligations to prevent environmental harm, ensure public participation, and balance competing interests (Cerattepe Decision, 2017/33865).
•	European Court of Human Rights: Environmental decision-making must preemptively assess harm, provide access to information, enable participation, and allow judicial recourse (Taşkın and Others v. Turkey, 46117/99).

Although Turkey has not ratified the Aarhus Convention, plaintiffs argue that its principles—public access to environmental information, participation in decision-making, and access to justice—are widely recognized and persuasive in evaluating environmental and life-right claims.

The plaintiffs further assert that removing olive groves in Akbelen and Yatağan would irreversibly destroy traditional livelihoods, violating domestic constitutional guarantees and international environmental obligations.

Additional Constitutional Concerns
The law is also alleged to violate:
•	Article 17 (Right to Life)
•	Article 23 (Freedom of Settlement)
•	Article 35 (Right to Property)
•	Article 45 (State duty to protect agricultural lands and support agricultural production)

The case forms part of broader community and environmental resistance to coal mining expansion in the Akbelen–Milas–Yatağan region.