## Facts

- The Ministry of the Environment authorized Eurogold Madencilik A.Ş. to operate a gold mine in the Bergama–Ovacık area using cyanide heap-leach extraction.
- The authorization relied on the company’s written undertaking to implement detailed protective measures and contemplated ongoing supervision by a Monitoring and Inspection Commission chaired under the İzmir Governor’s Office.
- Environmental Impact Assessment materials and expert analyses identified environmental and human-health risks from cyanide heap leaching, including potential contamination of soil, groundwater, and air.
- Local residents filed an administrative annulment action seeking to void the Ministry’s permit as unlawful in light of the documented risks.
- The İzmir 1st Administrative Court dismissed the action, reasoning that the Ministry’s conditions, the company’s undertakings, and continuous monitoring meant the activity would not endanger public health or environmental and cultural values.
- The residents, represented by Senih Özay, appealed to the Council of State (Danıştay), Sixth Chamber; Eurogold participated in support of the administration.

## Issues

1. Whether permitting cyanide-based gold mining is lawful when the environmental assessment record shows serious potential risks to human life and the environment.
2. Whether an agency and reviewing court may treat the operator’s mitigation undertakings and expected administrative supervision as sufficient to justify authorizing a high-risk activity.
3. How “public interest” should be assessed when economic benefits conflict with documented environmental and health risks and constitutional environmental protections.

## Decision

- The Danıştay Sixth Chamber reversed the first-instance judgment and annulled the Ministry’s permit.
- The court held that, based on the environmental assessment and expert evidence, cyanide-based gold mining posed a serious potential risk and threat to the environment and human health.
- The court concluded there was no public interest in authorizing an activity that could adversely affect nature and human life merely because it had economic value.
- The court rejected the lower court’s reliance on assumptions of full compliance with the undertaking and flawless supervision as an adequate basis to accept the permit’s legality.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional protection of the right to live in a healthy and balanced environment constrains administrative discretion in environmental permitting.
- Administrative acts must serve public interest; where scientific materials show serious potential harm to human life and the environment, public interest is evaluated in favor of protecting life and environmental integrity.
- In reviewing environmental authorizations, a court may treat credible risk of severe harm—without requiring proof of realized damage—as sufficient to find the authorization unlawful.
- Reliance on an operator’s promises of compliance and planned monitoring cannot, by itself, cure unlawfulness when the record establishes significant environmental and health hazards.

## Conclusion

The court annulled the cyanide heap-leach gold mining permit because the administrative record established serious potential risks to human health and the environment, and economic benefit plus asserted mitigation and supervision could not supply the required public interest or satisfy constitutional and statutory environmental protections.


Özay v. Ministry of the Environment & Eurogold Madencilik A.Ş., Ref. No. 1996/5477, Ruling No. 1997/2312 (Danıştay 6th Ch. 1997)