Since 1923, Turkey has granted “constructive amnesty” 23 times. A third of these decrees were adopted during the time of its current president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The last one was only in 2018 (which included 7.5 million buildings), just before the previous presidential and parliamentary elections. About 75,000 buildings have received a “construction amnesty” in earthquake-affected areas, the head of the Turkish Union of Chamber Engineers told the BBC in an interview. In the area of ​​Izmir, affected by a strong earthquake in 2020, 672,000 buildings have been legalized.

And almost automatically the following thought comes: what is happening in Greece? According to data from a digital database managed by the Hellenic Chamber of Technology on behalf of the Ministry of the Environment, squatters that have been declared and legalized since 2011 now exceed 2 million. Of these, about a quarter (530,000) fall into the so-called “Category 5”, i.e. buildings constructed without a building permit or with serious planning violations. To what extent have these buildings been inspected?

Let’s take the story from the beginning. Since the post-colonial period, nine decrees on the “legalization” of arbitrariness have been adopted, the last three (laws 4014/11, 4178/13, 4497/17) – in the previous decade. These laws mostly had a collection logic and did not extend to other issues. Law 4014 provided for a “structural vulnerability report” among the many supporting documents an engineer had to submit. This is a form in which the engineer was asked to record some basic information about the building (eg, age, construction type, area classification according to anti-seismic codes) in order to classify the building into one of three categories, depending on its vulnerability. The Hellenic Technical Chamber, although instrumental in shaping these rules, has since reversed its position, stating that the ballot is “a standard element of record and information for future processing (…) which is not linked to any scientific result has a study of the static adequacy of buildings” (August 2012).

A few years later, with Law 4178, the Ministry of the Environment provided for a new step in the process: after the vulnerability report was completed, it provided for the preparation of a static adequacy study for two categories of buildings. Buildings that are vital to civil protection (e.g. hospitals, power generation networks) and buildings “the potential collapse of which has serious consequences” (Government Gazette 405B/2014). The second category includes enterprises, hotels, cultural facilities, shopping centers and generally closed crowded places. But buildings before 1983 were excluded.

Finally, five years ago, Law 4497 ​​further specified the procedure by expanding the cases in which a static adequacy study was mandatory. Thus, the study had to be done in buildings that the engineer had classified (in the structural vulnerability report) as high priority, in all buildings that were completely arbitrary, and in some categories of buildings (such as public meeting buildings). The study had to be prepared within 3 or 5 years, depending on the importance of the building (FEKB 1643/18). The law provided that in the event of a static defect, the owner was obliged to prepare and conduct an intervention study within 3 years.

Except that the gaps in this process are numerous and critical.

1. Many “military” engineers interviewed by “K” reported that it was common practice in structural vulnerability reports not to list buildings as “high priority”. The reason is that the engineers were under pressure from the owners, since the study of static adequacy takes time and, above all, money.

2. Excluded all buildings before 1983 (categories 1 and 2, in the process of legalization). These are the buildings that are the most unsafe because they were built according to much older earthquake codes.

3. Legalization did not require the completion of a static adequacy study (where provided). Instead, a deadline of several years was given for its submission. This means that the squatter may meanwhile change hands without the knowledge of the owner of this obligation.

Control was not mandatory for legalization, and delays are constantly given for its implementation.

4. The deadlines for submission of all required supporting documents (including the static adequacy study) are continuously extended. On December 23, 2022, in accordance with the provision of the Coronavirus Bill (No. 5507/22), the deadline was extended until December 31, 2024. This deadline also applies to all applications submitted not only to the 2017 law, but also to the previous one, 2013 (the 2011 law was overturned by the Supreme Court and his statements are “transferred” to the 2013 law).

5. The legislation does not provide for any consequences for arbitrary “high priority” (through a structural vulnerability report) or those deemed problematic through a static adequacy study. In other words, legalization is not cancelled.

6. There is no control, even the selection provided by the legislation of what was declared by the engineers in the successive legalizations of arbitrariness. This was confirmed by the Federation of Public Engineers (POEMDYDAS) in the middle of last year. And the fines for engineers who… accidentally turn out to be illegal are negligible.

7. And most importantly, no one keeps track of how many structural vulnerability reports or static adequacy studies are submitted. This means that the obligation established by the latest law to strengthen buildings recognized as problematic is not controlled within three years. And more broadly, plans for the protection of civilians in areas with a large number of vulnerable tyrants are not affected in any way.

“Obviously, the arbitrary construction in Greece has nothing to do with what is happening in Turkey,” explains Anastasios Sextos, professor of earthquake engineering at NTUA and the University of Bristol. “The quality of construction in Greece may presumably be better than in Turkey, but complacency is unacceptable. Every time an earthquake occurred near urban centers (Thessaloniki 1978, Alkyonides/Athens 1981, Kalamata 1986, Aigio 1995, Parnita/Athens 1999), collapses occurred and people died. Also, the way the arbitrary legalization took place in our country was consistent with the general rule that… in Greece, you are who you say you are. And as if that weren’t enough, the laws have given freehold owners the ability to delay, as long as they can, examining the static sufficiency of their property and applying benefits where they are needed. In my opinion, the whole approach is problematic. Let’s not forget that arbitrary construction (be it rough construction, building a floor, building on unsuitable soils – streams) usually concerns low-income sections of the population who do not have the financial capacity to cover the cost of a static upgrade in any case. Moreover, the legalization of arbitrariness gives the citizen the impression that he is not bound by the rules. It’s like “writing” for speeding and every two years to erase all calls, hoping that a serious accident will not happen.

“The reality is that no mechanism has been put in place to easily know how many structural vulnerability reports and static adequacy studies have been submitted. This is an issue that worries us and we intend to investigate it,” says Giorgos Stasinos, President of the Hellenic Chamber of Tech. “In my opinion, there are two main problems: firstly, the release of buildings erected before 1983 from the obligation to prepare a static justification. These are the buildings that were built according to the old earthquake codes and are potentially the most dangerous. This needs to be reviewed somehow, at least in hindsight. Second, consideration should be given to whether a static adequacy study has been carried out for all legal buildings for public gatherings, such as hotels. For those cases where this has not been done, a time limit must be set which cannot be extended.”

“When Law 4495 was discussed in Parliament, there was a big discussion about static adequacy studies. There were many reactions from agencies – for example. associations of owners who asked for this obligation to be lifted,” says Giorgos Bardakis, President of the Association of Civil Engineers of Greece. “At last the commitment was provided, but with many exceptions. For example, we have required that the study of static adequacy be carried out in accordance with the Intervention Regulation (KANEPE), which is a modern scientific text that has emerged after many years of study. Over time, this became optional, allowing the old building to be inspected in accordance with the regulations in force at the time of its construction. Of course, it’s like if my father gets sick and I take him to the pediatrician. Many arbitrarinesses have also been exempted from the obligation to evaluate their static adequacy, for example. consoles (balconies), which I do not find appropriate.

How dangerous are arbitrary? “I want to believe that even those who built illegally were not murderers. I cannot believe that, especially in large buildings such as hotels, anyone could underestimate their static adequacy. But the truth is, we can’t be sure,” concludes Mr. Bardakis.

“Arbitrary” is a legal definition. During the junta, it was legal to build a hotel on the sand with EOT approval. This does not necessarily mean that it will be safe,” says Manolis Vougiukas, assistant professor of civil engineering at NTUA. “Accordingly, a citizen who has issued a building permit may perform a survey of poor quality, or use poor-quality materials. Therefore, firstly, it is a matter of education, and secondly, control. Especially arbitrary, in my opinion, should be checked before legalization. Completion of the form is not considered an audit, an active evaluation is required. In addition, the data for these controls must be public. To be used by the government to classify property into classes, as it is done today from an energy perspective, to determine allowable rent, etc. We need to find ways to improve citizens’ knowledge of the value of good construction and maintenance.”

Numbers

2 106 181 arbitrary applications were submitted from 2011 to 02/14/23.
3 069 165 transfer reports were released during the same period.
530 000 conditionally belong to the 5th category, i.e. erected without a building permit or have major urban planning
violations.
9 Arbitrary legalization measures have been taken from 1975 to the present. Data in the digital database exists only for the last three.
The legalization of arbitrary category 5, as well as those relating to buildings for public meetings, must be accompanied by a study of static adequacy. There is no picture of how much has been submitted to date.