Karabük

Edirne

Kilis

Elazığ

Osmaniye

Erzincan

Düzce

Erzurum

Eskişehir

Gaziantep

Giresun

Gümüşhane

Hakkâri

Hatay

Isparta

Mersin

İstanbul

İzmir

Kars

Kastamonu

Kayseri

Kırklareli

Kırşehir

Kocaeli

Konya

Kütahya

Malatya

Manisa

Kahramanmaraş

Mardin

Muğla

Muş

Nevşehir

Niğde

Ordu

Rize

Sakarya

Samsun

Siirt

Sinop

Adana

Sivas

Adıyaman

Tekirdağ

Afyonkarahisar

Tokat

Ağrı

Trabzon

Amasya

Tunceli

Ankara

Şanlıurfa

Antalya

Uşak

Artvin

Aydın

Yozgat

Balıkesir

Zonguldak

Bilecik

Aksaray

Bingöl

Bayburt

Bitlis

Karaman

Bolu

Kırıkkale

Burdur

Batman

Bursa

Şırnak

Çanakkale

Bartın

Çankırı

Ardahan

Çorum

Iğdır

Denizli

Yalova

Diyarbakır

Türkiye

Turkey

18 million tons of CO2 will have been avoided by 2023 due to fitting out renewable power plants

Aim for 38.8% share of renewable energy generation by 2023, up from 32.5% in 2018

In addition, it is aimed to improve and develop railway infrastructure between the EU and Turkey, conduct studies to declare the Mediterranean Sea as a Sulphur Emission Control Area, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the maritime sector and promote green shipping alternatives, promote alternative fuel vehicles and develop related refuelling/charging infrastructure, amongst other transport sector targets.

In this direction it is aimed to implement actions for the development and dissemination of the reuse of treated wastewater and to increase the waste water reuse rate to 5% in 2023

Number of Buildings to which Zero Waste Program Implemented (Thousand) | 13 (2018)| 400 (2023)

Share of Renewable Resources in Electricity Generation (%) | 32.5 (2018)| 38.8 (2023)
&nbsp;

&nbsp;Domestic Material Consumption per Person (Tons/capita) | 12.91(2015) | 11.8 (2023)

Avoided CO2 Emissions With Newly Installed Renewable Power Plants (Million Tons, Cumulative) | - | 18.0

Number of Protected Areas (National Park, Nature Park, Nature Monument, Nature Conservation Area, Wildlife Development Area, Ramsar Area, Wetlands of National Importance and Wetlands of Local Importance, Natural Site, Special Environmental Protection Area) (Cumulative) | from 1,429 in 2018 to 1,595 in 2023

Number of Houses and Workplaces with Compulsory Earthquake Insurance (Million) | 8.9 (2018) | 12.1 (2023)
Number of Provinces where Disaster Reduction Plans will be prepared (Cumulative) | - | 81 (2023)
Number of Provinces Included in Digital Radio System | 1(2018) | 81 (2023)

Increase the amount of sequestered carbon as a result of agricultural forestry activities by 10% by 2020 against a 2007 baseline

7% less GHG emissions than under the Reference Scenario by 2020

Reduce nationwide electricity distribution losses to 8% by 2023 by 2023

Decrease annual energy consumption in the buildings and premises of public institutions by 10% until 2015 and by 20% until 2023 by 2023

Reduce primary energy intensity by 10% compared to 2008  by 2015 against a 2008 baseline

Reduce deforestation and forest damage by 20% by 2020 against a 2007 baseline

Identify the amount of sequestered carbon in pastures and meadows in 2012, and increase carbon stock 3% by 2020 against a 2012 baseline

Identify the existing carbon stock in wetlands in 2012, and maintain the level until 2020

Identify the quantity of carbon stored in settlement areas in 2012, and increase stored carbon 3% by 2020 through green planting by 2020 against a 2012 baseline

Increase the amount of carbon sequestered in forests by 15% of the 2007 value by 2020 (14,500 Gg in 2007, 16,700 Gg in 2020) by 2020 against a 2007 baseline

181.4 million tonnes of carbon to be absorbed by forest areas in addition to carbon absorbed by existing sinks by 2020 against a 2008 baseline

2.3 million hectares of land to be afforested and rehabilitated by 2012 against a 2008 baseline

Reduce the quantity of biodegradable wastes admitted to landfill sites by 75% in weight until 2015, by 50% until 2018 and by 35% until 2025 against a 2005 baseline

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in new settlements by at least 10% per settlement in comparison to existing settlements by 2023

Dispose 100% of municipal wastes in new  integrated solid waste disposal facilities by 2023

76% of municipal waste to be disposed at 104 new sanitary landfill facilities by 2012

30% share of renewable energy in total electricity generation by 2023

Full utilisation of technical and economic hydroelectric potential by 2023

20,000 MW of wind electricity generation capacity by 2023

600 MW of geothermal electricity generation capacity by 2023

At least 20% of the annual energy demand of new buildings met via renewable energy resources by 2017

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.

The case was filed against the decision of “EIA not required” about the oil exploration and extraction project of “HANCERLI-9”. According to the Turkish EIA regulation, some oil projects should get an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment), while experts should examine others to decide whether an EIA is required. The claimants say that in Diyarbakir, Ergani, Hancerler Village 126 block 1,2,3,4 plots and 127 block 3,4 plots, the decision of “EIA not required” about the exploration and drilling project (Permit No: "AR/TPO/K/L42-c1,c3,c4) of TPAO (Turkish Petroleum) was unlawful. The claimants refer to several grounds to support their argument.  First, they refer to the seismic tests. When searching for oil, a seismic test is required, in which explosions are used to understand what is underground. The claimants argue that seismic testing destroys wildlife and soil. Second, the substances used in drilling wells when searching for oil are toxic, and the debris carried to the surface contains radioactive minerals and heavy metals. Agricultural areas, as well as underground and surface waters, will be in danger. In addition, toxic liquids coming out of the ground because of the exploration activity will mix with the air, soil, underground water, and other water resources. Heavy metals in the fluids brought to the surface will also negatively affect agricultural and animal husbandry activities. Consequently, human health will also be seriously negatively affected. 

The claimants argue that the decision issued by the Diyarbakır Governorship not to require an EIA goes against what expert institutions have clearly stated: that there might be a threat to agricultural production and an EIA process should be carried out. The claimants also refer to several legal bases. In the project introduction file, many toxic chemicals are listed for use during the project. However, there is no explanation about how and how much of these chemicals will be used and what types of damage may occur. TPAO established a financial responsibility insurance for potential hazards, which means the abovementioned dangers are probable. Projects that threaten agriculture also threaten food security, a growing issue worldwide. The claimants further assert that houses are very close to the project area. They refer to the conditions in Annex 50, as required by Article 46/3 of the Turkish Petroleum Law Implementation Regulation, stating that the conditions have not been met. Many of the other conditions in Annex 50 have also not been met. Many special permits and planning required by Article 48/2 and Articles 6 and 9, as well as the documents required by Article 24 of the Turkish Petroleum Law, are missing.
Regarding the field of activity, DSI (State Hydraulic Works) stated that the area was surrounded by drilling wells and indicated that water analyses should be conducted. In addition, DSI noted that because the area is an agricultural site, alternative regions should be explored.

Claimants refer to the National Water Board of Turkey, recently established by the Presidential Decree on November 29, 2023. Considering that the areas have recently been declared an oil exploration and extraction area, water resources are being endangered, and this decree is being violated. In addition, hundreds of mining and oil projects have been launched in the Ergani and Diyarbakir area in recent months, and there is no cumulative impact assessment in the introduction file.  They also assert that in the project area, there are wildlife forms that the Bern Convention of The Council of Europe protects. 

Finally, the claimants argue that the oil exploration and extraction activities are contrary to the global climate goals that Turkey is a party to. They state that the GHG resulting from the use of oil creates a heat-trapping effect in the atmosphere and causes climate change. Turkey, following many international agreements, especially the Paris Climate Agreement, is obliged to limit the temperature increase to 2 degrees and contribute to climate change mitigation. The only way to do this is to reduce carbon emissions or, in other words, to phase out fossil fuels. They also refer to the most recent climate adaptation strategy document of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, namely "Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Strategy to Climate Change for Anatolian Steppe Ecosystems," dated July 6, 2022. The Strategy Document, which covers agriculture, pastures and meadows, inland waters, and forests for the period 2022-2036, aims to:
•        Increase resilience in ecosystems that are and will be negatively affected by climate change, 
•        Make rural population resistant to climate with an improved agricultural economy, 
•        Increase carbon sink potential.

The claimants said the activity would increase global warming by polluting water and agricultural resources and paving the way for fossil fuel use. Therefore, it conflicts with Turkish national plans.
Therefore, a project that bears all the abovementioned risks can’t be exempted from an EIA, and should be annulled altogether, or, at the very least, the decision of “EIA not required” should be overruled.

On April 30, 2024, the court appointed an independent expert committee to explore the field and prepare an expert opinion. The committee completed the explorations on June 26, 2024, and issued its report on August 10, 2024. The report concluded by majority vote that the "EIA not required" decision is lawful.

The case has been filed against the Diyarbakır Governorship, for the suspension of execution and annulment of the decision of “EIA not required”, issued about an oil exploration and drilling project. While the project belongs to a private company, the regulations require an EIA procedure, and the procedure was conducted by the local governorship. According to the Turkish EIA regulation, an EIA is required for some oil projects and expert examination is needed for some projects to determine whether an EIA is required. The exploration and drilling project (Permit No: AR/PRT/K/M45-C) of Çalık Petroleum Exploration and Production Company in Diyarbakir, Bismil, Harmanli Village 112 block 2 plot, which is in question, belongs to the second group. The Diyarbakır Governorship issued a decision that EIA is not required for the project. The claimants argue that the decision of “EIA not required” was unlawful. The claimants refer to several grounds to support their argument.  First, they refer to the seismic tests. When searching for oil, a series of explosions are often used to understand what is underground. This is called a seismic test. The claimants argue that seismic testing destroys wildlife and soil. Second, when searching for oil, taking into account that the substances used in drilling wells are toxic and that the debris carried to the surface during drilling contains radioactive minerals and heavy metals, agricultural areas, underground and surface waters will be in danger. In addition, toxic liquids coming out of the ground because of the exploration activity will mix with the air, soil, underground water and other water resources. Heavy metals in the fluids brought to the surface will also negatively affect agricultural and animal husbandry activities. Consequently, human health will also be negatively affected. The claimants argue that the “EIA not required” decision by the Diyarbakır Governorship, contradict the opinion of expert institutions that there might be a threat to agricultural production and that an EIA process should be carried out. There are water wells and agricultural areas under and around the oil field. Again, in the institution's opinions, due to the water wells around, great care should be taken, and all necessary examinations should be carried out. 

The claimants also refer to several legal bases. Claimants refer to the National Water Board of Turkey which was recently established by the Presidential Decree on November 29, 2023. This oil exploration and extraction activity is clearly against this decree, Considering that every place has recently been declared an oil exploration and extraction area, water resources are being endangered and that this decree, in other words, the state’s purposes, is being violated. In addition, they refer to the conditions in Annex 50, as required by Article 46/3 of the Turkish Petroleum Law Implementation Regulation stating that the conditions have not been met. Many of the other conditions in Annex 50 have also not been met. Many of the special permits, planning required by Article 48/2 and Articles 6 and 9, as well as the documents required by Article 24 of the Turkish Petroleum Law, are missing. The claimants also suggest that hundreds of mining and oil projects have been launched in Bismil and Diyarbakir in recent months, there is no cumulative impact assessment in the introduction file. It is argued that in the file, the real impact of this project on humans and the environment, as has not been taken into consideration. It has been stated that "the project implementer will undertake to take sufficient precautions in such cases during the activity" against the most critical hazardous issues. However, scientific planning and activities have not been concretized. They also assert that in the project area, there are wildlife forms which are protected by the Bern Convention of The Council of Europe.

Second, the Claimants argue that the oil exploration and extraction activities are also contrary to the global climate goals that Turkey is a party to. They state that the greenhouse gases resulting from the use of oil create a heat-trapping effect in the atmosphere and cause climate change. Turkey, in accordance with many international agreements, especially the Paris Climate Agreement, to which it is a party, is obliged to limit the temperature increase to 2 degrees and contribute to the mitigation against climate change. And the only way to do this is to reduce carbon emissions, in other words, to exit fossil fuels. 
They also refer to the most recent climate adaptation strategy document of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, namely "Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Strategy to Climate Change for Anatolian Steppe Ecosystems" dated July 6, 2022. The Strategy Document, which covers agriculture, pastures and meadows, inland waters and forests for the period 2022-2036, aims to:
•        Increase resilience in ecosystems that are and will be negatively affected by climate change, 
•        Make rural population resistant to climate with improved agricultural economy, 
•        Increase carbon sink potential. 

The Claimants put forward, however, the activity in question will serve to increase global warming by polluting water and agricultural resources and paving the way for fossil fuel use. In other words, they argue that the current activity is clearly in conflict with Turkish national plans. Therefore, Claimants argue that the project which bears all those risks mentioned above can’t be exempted from the Environmental Impact Assessment. The Claimants state that the project should be annulled altogether but even if it continues to exist, because an Environmental Impact Assessment procedure is scientifically essential, the decision of “EIA not required” should be annulled.

On June 4, 2023, the Court decided to appoint an independent expert committee for an exploration of the field to prepare an expert opinion. The committee completed the explorations on June 26, 2024 and issued its report July 23, 2024, which is contrary to the arguments of the Claimant. The Court’s decision is pending.


The case has been filed against Diyarbakır Governership, for the suspension of execution and annulment of the decision of “EIA not required”, issued about an oil exploration and extraction project.  According to the Turkish regulation of EIA, an EIA is required for some oil projects and expert examination is needed to determine whether an EIA is required. The exploration and drilling project (Permit No: "AR/TPO/K/L42-c1,c3,c4) of TPAO (Turkish Petroleum)in Diyarbakir, Cermik, Petekkaya Village 154 block 18 plot, which is in question, belongs to the second group. The Diyarbakır Governorship issued a decision that EIA is not required for the project. The claimants argue that the decision of “EIA not required” was unlawful. The claimants refer to several grounds to support their argument.  First, they refer to the seismic tests. When searching for oil, a series of explosions are used to understand what is underground. This is called a seismic test. The claimants argue that seismic testing destroys wildlife and soil. Second, when searching for oil, taking into account that the substances used in drilling wells are toxic and that the debris carried to the surface during drilling contains radioactive minerals and heavy metals, agricultural areas underground and surface waters will be in danger. In addition, toxic liquids coming out of the ground because of the exploration activity will mix with the air, soil, underground water and other water resources. Heavy metals in the fluids brought to the surface will also negatively affect agricultural and animal husbandry activities. Consequently, human health will also be seriously negatively affected. The claimants argue that the “EIA not required” the decision issued by the Diyarbakır Governorship might be a threat to agricultural production and that an EIA process should be carried out. There are water wells and agricultural areas under and around the oil field. 

Nonetheless, the claimants note that hundreds of mining and oil projects have been launched in Cermik and Diyarbakir area in recent months, without any cumulative impact assessment in the introduction file. 
In the product introduction file, it was stated that only 3 tons of caustic chemicals would be used and tens of tons of different chemicals would also be used. TPAO, established a financial responsibility insurance for potential hazards which means the dangers mentioned above are most probable. Also, the area of the project is an agricultural area. Food security is a growing issue worldwide and projects which are threats to agriculture are also threatening food security.

The Claimants assert that there are houses and people living as close as 178 meters from the project area, with wells, pastures and agricultural areas close by. They refer to the conditions in Annex 50, as required by Article 46/3 of the Turkish Petroleum Law Implementation Regulation, stating that the conditions have not been met. Many of the other conditions in Annex 50 have also not been met. Many of the special permits, planning required by Article 48/2 and Articles 6 and 9, as well as the documents required by Article 24 of the Turkish Petroleum Law, are missing. In its opinion regarding the field of activity, DSI (State Hydraulic Works) stated that the area was surrounded by drilling wells and indicated that water analyses should be conducted. In addition, DSI stated that the opinion of the 15th Regional Directorate regarding the nearby dam should be obtained, thus revealing the danger. However, surface waters were not mentioned in the introduction file. Claimants further refer to the National Water Board of Turkey which was recently established by the Presidential Decree on November 29, 2023.  This oil exploration and extraction activity is clearly against this decree, considering that every place has recently been declared an oil exploration and extraction area, and water resources are being endangered.

Furthermore, there are wildlife forms protected by the Bern Convention of The Council of Europe in the project area. Animals like “Night Frog”, “Thin and Broad-Toed Lizard”, “Field Lizard”, “Evening Bat” are endemic to the area, and they are protected by the convention. In addition, the claimants argue that the oil exploration and extraction activities are also contrary to the global climate goals that Turkey is a party to. They state that GHGs resulting from the use of oil create a heat-trapping effect in the atmosphere and cause climate change. Turkey, in accordance with many international agreements, especially the Paris Agreement, to which it is a party, is obliged to limit the temperature increase to 2 degrees and contribute to the mitigation against climate change. And the only way to do this is to reduce GHG emissions, and stop exploiting fossil fuels. The activity in question will serve to increase global warming by polluting water and agricultural resources and paving the way for fossil fuel use. Therefore, Claimants argue that the project which bears all those risks can’t be exempted from an EIA. The claimants state that the project should be annulled or, at the very least, that the decision of “EIA not required” should be annulled.

On May 14, 2024, the Court decided to appoint an independent expert committee for an exploration of the field to prepare an expert opinion. The committee completed the explorations on June 26, 2024 and issued its report August 10, 2024. The report concluded by majority vote that the ‘EIA not required’ decision is lawful. The Court’s decision is pending.

Geography

Türkiye

Recent cases