*3.4. Analysis of Mosques in Terms of Legal Grounds*

Regarding the Meltem Mosque, one of the mosques examined within the scope of the study, a lawsuit has been filed against the decision of the council of the Antalya Metropolitan Municipality to add a planning note that "Commercial uses may take place under the mosque building within the planning area. The first Administrative Court decided unanimously to reject the lawsuit filed by Muratpa¸sa Municipality, deciding that the commercial function was architecturally compatible with the mosque, environmental factors were not adversely affected in its current situation, and that it was in accordance with the principles of urban planning, planning principles, and public interest.

After an appeal, the case was heard at the Konya Regional Administrative Court. The court of appeal approved the prior decision of the local court by a unanimous vote, stating that the decision of the local court and the reasoning on which it was based were in accordance with the law and procedure, and that there was no reason for the annulment of the decision. The judge of the Konya Regional Administrative Court, who voted against the decision, stated that the current regulation describes which buildings and outbuildings can be built within the scope of the place of worship, that trade was not a worship to be performed within the scope of a religious facility, that trade was not a religious service that will benefit people, and that the transaction that includes a business within the scope of a religious facility was contrary to the provisions of the current regulation. Due to the application to the highest administrative court in Turkey (the Council of State) following that decision by the court of appeal, the judicial process regarding the matter is still ongoing.

Akınlar Mosque, which is located within the boundaries of the Kultur Mahallesi of the Kepez district, is another mosque examined within the scope of the study. In the Antalya 4th Administrative Court, a firm has filed a lawsuit against the Kepez and Antalya Metropolitan Municipality, which has taken a decision to reject the 1/1000 scaled implementation development plan change proposal in order to bring a decision on "optional trade" and to add planning notes to the mosque area. In its defense, the Kepez Municipality stated that "the plaintiff's request was rejected as there was no benefit in its implementation since the current regional needs, planning principles and public interest were taken into account, and it was not in accordance with the demands of the people in the surrounding area". The experts whom the Antalya 4th Administrative Court consulted in the resolution of the dispute differed in opinion and prepared reports in different directions. The Antalya 4th Administrative Court accepted it as worthy of decision, although there was an annotation in the expert's report, and decided that there was no harm in having a commercial unit under the mosque. While the Antalya Metropolitan Municipality decided to have a commercial function under the Meltem Mosque, Akınlar Mosque became the defendant in a similar situation and took a stance to make a contrary decision.

In the lawsuits filed for the settlement of the dispute between the parties regarding the use of a mosque and a commercial unit together, the local courts were often observed to decide in favor of commercial units of mosques. However, when the process was examined in detail, we saw that the local courts, the courts of appeal, and the 6th Chamber of the Supreme Court, the Council of State, gave different decisions on the same issue, and even the judges who gave the verdict in the court decisions could not make their decisions unanimously. It is clearly understood that the uncertainty experienced in the judicial process is not only between the parties, but also between the experts in the subject matter and the judges giving the verdict. This further emphasizes the importance of our study, and that the issue in question concerns the whole society and, thus, needs to be clarified and solved.
