Administration Share Collected According to the Geothermal Resources and Natural Mineral Waters Law No. 5686 and the Jurisdiction Issue

Abstract

The Geothermal Resources and Natural Mineral Waters Law in our country has brought provisions regarding the exploration, research, development, production and protection of geothermal and natural mineral water resources. Although these resources mainly belong to the public, it is also possible to have rights on them, to transfer these rights, to evaluate them economically and to abandon them. Benefiting from all this scope of activity can only be realized by obtaining a license. In this respect, the administration share represents the price that has to be paid in order for the license holder to continue his activities.

In the study, the administrative share that must be paid every year in return for the basic activities of exploration and operation of geothermal resources has been examined. In this respect, first of all, the legal regulations regarding the administration share are explained. Then, the concept of financial liability and its basic types of tax, duty and fee are briefly explained, since the administration's share is considered to be a financial liability. Subsequently, which of the mentioned financial obligations resembles the administrative share, it has been evaluated especially through the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Council of State. As a result, it has been concluded that the administration’s share is a financial obligation similar to a duty.

In addition, in the study, the problem of the competent court, which arises due to the resolution of the disputes regarding the administrative share in practice, by both the administrative courts and the tax courts, has been evaluated within the framework of the decisions of the Council of State and the legal nature of the administrative share. In this respect, it has been concluded that tax courts are competent for disputes regarding the accrual and collection of the administrative share due to the fact that it is a duty-like financial obligation and for other disputes, it has been concluded that administrative courts are competent. In cases where the license holder leases its rights through private contracts, it has been evaluated that the disputes between the parties will be subject to the provisions of private law, but these contracts will not bind the administration in terms of collection of the administration’s share.