Constitutional Law in Türkiye

Constitutional Law Articles

Individual Application to the Constitutional Court

The time limit for an individual application to the Constitutional Court (AYM), the admissibility requirements, filing through the National Judiciary Informatics System (UYAP), and violations of the right to a fair trial.

Topics covered: Law No. 6216 · 30-day time limit · Fair trial

Read the article (in Turkish)

Other Practice Areas

• Family Law (in Turkish)
• Labor Law
• Commercial Law
• Criminal Law
• Inheritance Law

Let Us Defend Your Fundamental Rights Together

Legal support in individual applications to the Constitutional Court and in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

Our office is located at Süleyman Bey Mah. Arabacılar Sok. No. 55/1-2, Merkez / Yalova. Office hours are Monday to Friday, 09:00 to 18:00. You can request an appointment through the booking page (in Turkish) or by calling 0226 911 07 99.

Constitutional Law Case Law

All constitutional law decisions (in Turkish)

Can a Protective Order Under Law No. 6284 Be Extended Without Reasons? Violation Found Where Objections Were Rejected with Boilerplate

The Second Section of the Constitutional Court unanimously held that the right to a reasoned decision under Article 36 of the Constitution had been violated. In the case before it, a preventive measure ordered under Law No. 6284 had been extended without interruption in six-month periods since 2018, the extension requests rested on one party's unilateral statement, and every objection had been rejected with the same one-sentence formula: "the nature and extent of the hostility between the parties." The decision is IN FAVOR of the person subject to the measure. As redress, the Court ordered a retrial; the claim for compensation was rejected on the ground that a retrial would provide sufficient redress. The standard the decision lays down is this: the fact that no evidence or documents are required for the initial protective order does not mean that the same flexibility applies to decisions continuing the measure. In extension decisions that keep a measure in force for a long time, whether a new fact capable of leading to violence exists must be examined in more detail than in the first decision, and the required standard of reasoning must rise accordingly. An extension decision that merely refers to "pending investigations" without discussing their nature, the timing of the complaint or report, or whether the person had acted in breach of the measure, together with a decision of the objection authority rejecting the objection without any concrete assessment, does not satisfy the guarantees of the right to a reasoned decision.

Read the decision (in Turkish)

Is Dismissal from Civil Service over Intimate Images Circulated on Social Media a Violation According to the Constitutional Court?

In this decision dated 21 January 2015 and published in the Official Gazette, the First Section of the Constitutional Court found that dismissing the applicant S.T., a civilian nurse employed at the Gülhane Military Medical Academy, from civil service because of sexually explicit images on a social networking account opened in the applicant's name violated the right to respect for private life. The applicant maintained that the images were not of them and that, even if they were, they had been recorded secretly in a home setting and shared without consent. The forensic reports expressed the view that the person in the images and the applicant were the same person, but no detailed identification could be made because of the low resolution. The High Disciplinary Board of the Ministry of National Defense accepted that the images might have been obtained unlawfully, yet imposed the penalty of dismissal from civil service, stating that in administrative law a disciplinary investigation may rely on any kind of evidence. The High Military Administrative Court then dismissed the action despite the opinion of its own Chief Public Prosecutor's Office in favor of annulment. The Constitutional Court found that the conduct underlying the disciplinary action consisted of private-life acts unrelated to professional activity, falling within the sphere of intimacy, with no finding that they had been made public with the applicant's consent. It further found that, by choosing the harshest sanction while graduated disciplinary penalties were available, no fair balance had been struck between the public interest and the loss suffered by the individual. The outcome is IN FAVOR of the applicant: the Court unanimously held that Article 20 of the Constitution had been VIOLATED and ordered a retrial. The claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages were rejected.

Read the decision (in Turkish)

Can a Lawyer Dismissed from Public Service Be Re-Enrolled on the Bar Roll?

The Plenary Assembly of the Constitutional Court held that the administrative court's annulment of the decision re-enrolling the applicant, who had been dismissed from public service, on the bar roll violated the right to respect for private life. The decision was unanimous and is in favor of the applicant. The applicant had graduated from law school, completed the legal traineeship and been enrolled on the bar roll in 2006, and later had the registration removed at their own request. While subsequently working as a specialist at a public institution, the applicant was dismissed from public service under a decree-law issued during the state of emergency. The request for re-enrollment on the bar roll was initially refused. The Union of Turkish Bar Associations (TBB) upheld the applicant's objection and set the refusal aside, but the administrative court annulled that decision. The Constitutional Court accepted that the interference formally rested on a statute, yet concluded that the substantive content of the lawfulness criterion had not been met. According to the reasoning, the applicant had not acquired the title of attorney by virtue of public office; the applicant held that title before entering public service. Moreover, practice as a self-employed attorney cannot be regarded as employment in public service unless it rests on an administrative, commercial or industrial contract. The provision relied on by the lower courts therefore could not be accepted as the legal basis for the interference. Since the lawfulness requirement was not satisfied, the remaining guarantee criteria were not examined separately. A retrial was ordered to remedy the consequences of the violation, and the claim for compensation was rejected.

Read the decision