I. Introduction

Private educational institutions, due to the nature of their activities, are subject to intensive administrative supervision and frequently encounter administrative sanctions, particularly with respect to student admission procedures, electronic registration systems, and the implementation of free or scholarship-based student practices.

One of the principal issues encountered in practice is that procedures duly carried out in compliance with the legislation in force at the time of student admissions are subsequently subjected to inspections based on later regulatory amendments, resulting in the imposition of administrative fines. Such an approach directly conflicts with the fundamental principles governing administrative sanctions law.

II. The Importance of the Principle of Legality in Crimes and Punishments with Respect to Administrative Sanctions

The principle of legality in crimes and punishments, which is safeguarded under Article 38 of the Constitution, is not limited solely to criminal law but also finds direct application with respect to administrative fines.

Pursuant to this principle, for an act to be subject to an administrative sanction, there must be a clear and definite legislative provision in force at the time the act is committed, and regulations that enter into force subsequently must not be applied retroactively. Otherwise, the sanction imposed by the administration becomes unlawful.

III. Amendments in the Legislation Governing Private Educational Institutions and the Issue of Retroactivity

Within the framework of Law numbered 5580 on Private Educational Institutions and the relevant Regulations on Private Educational Institutions, significant amendments have been introduced in recent years concerning the procedures for determining free or scholarship students and the conduct of these processes through electronic modules.

However, it is observed that the effective dates of certain regulations have been postponed, transitional provisions have not been clearly regulated, and the administration has adopted expansive interpretations in practice. This situation may result in transactions that were lawfully established in the past being subsequently assessed as unlawful.

IV. The Judicial Approach Adopted within the Scope of a Recent Precedent Decision and the Result of Definitive Annulment

In its decision dated 22.10.2025 and numbered 2025/6189 (Miscellaneous Proceedings), the Karşıyaka 2nd Criminal Court of Peace determined that an administrative fine imposed on a private educational institution on the grounds of free/scholarship student practices had been issued based on legislation that was not in force at the time the act was committed. The Court stated that:

• the date of the misdemeanor must be taken as the basis,
• sanctions cannot be imposed based on regulations that entered into force subsequently or whose entry into force was postponed,
• such practice clearly constitutes a violation of the principle of legality in crimes and punishments,

and accordingly ruled for the definitive annulment of the administrative fine. In this respect, the decision constitutes not merely a theoretical assessment but a strong example of judicial protection that is directly applicable and produces concrete legal consequences for private educational institutions.

In the specific case at hand, an administrative fine was imposed on a private educational institution on the allegation that “free students were determined in a manner contrary to the legislation” with respect to the 2024–2025 academic year. In the relevant decision, the misdemeanor date was determined as 13.08.2024 and prior, the violated provision was specified as Article 7(d) of Law numbered 5580 on Private Educational Institutions, and the inspection report of the Inspection Board Presidency of the Ministry of National Education was designated as evidence.

The fact that the inspection report is dated 2025 and that the legislative provisions relied upon therein may not have been in force as of the misdemeanor date accepted as 13.08.2024 and prior creates a decisive legal area of dispute in the resolution of the case.

In order to concretize the discussion on retroactivity, the Court examined the Regulation across three different time periods:

• The Regulation published in the Official Gazette dated 20.03.2012 and numbered 28239 (“Regulation”): Articles 57, 58, and 59 set forth in Chapter 6 of the Regulation, which were relied upon in the administrative fine issued based on the Inspection Report, were not included in the Regulation during this period.
• The Regulation amended by the Official Gazette dated 16.02.2024 and numbered 32462:
  The Court noted that Article 57/1 was amended by Article 25 of the amending Regulation dated 16.02.2024 and that this amendment referred to a placement system through a module in the determination of free students. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that pursuant to Article 31 of the same Regulation, the provisions added to Article 57 through Article 25 would enter into force six months after the date of publication.
• The Regulation amended by the Official Gazette dated 03.01.2025 and numbered 32771:
  The Court determined that the current versions of Articles 57, 58, and 59 of the Regulation were established by this amendment and that these changes entered into force on the date of publication.

The Court considered the imposition of an administrative fine—without taking into account the legislation applicable to the period prior to and including 13.08.2024, which is the misdemeanor date when the act was committed—based solely on the amended version of the Regulation published in the Official Gazette dated 16.02.2024 and numbered 32462, as contrary to the principle of legality in crimes and punishments.

V. Judicial Remedies Against Unlawful Administrative Fines

Administrative fines imposed on private educational institutions are assessed within the scope of the Misdemeanors Law numbered 5326.

In this context, an objection may be filed against an administrative fine before the criminal court of peace. This application does not constitute criminal proceedings; rather, it is a special judicial review mechanism through which the lawfulness of the administrative sanction is examined. The objection period is 15 days from the notification of the administrative sanction or administrative fine. This period is peremptory in nature, and failure to file an objection within this period results in the fine becoming final.

In conclusion, the aforementioned recent precedent judicial decision clearly demonstrates that practices duly established in compliance with the legislation in force at the relevant time cannot be subjected to administrative fines on the basis of subsequent legislative amendments. In cases where judicial remedies are pursued against such unlawful administrative sanctions, we are of the opinion that there exists a strong legal basis for annulment, depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

Best regards,
DT Law