Case-Law Summary
Case | Decision | Case-Law Development | Related |
I. Individual Application | |||
Mehmet Emin Okyay | Violation and no violation of the right to respect for private life, safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution, read in conjunction with Article 15 | - Alleged violation of the said right due to dismissal from public service on account of alleged affiliation with the FETÖ/PDY. | |
II. Constitutionality Review | |||
E.2025/163 | Dismissal of the request for annulment of Article 40 § 1 of the Turkish Civil Code no. 4721, insofar as it concerns the first sentence thereof | - The contested provision stipulates that a person wishing to undergo gender reassignment may personally apply to the court seeking judicial authorisation for gender reassignment. |
|
Case | Decision | Case-Law Development | Related |
I. Constitutionality Review | |||
E.2023/128 12 February 2026 (Plenary) | Annulment of the relevant parts of the first sentences of Article 134 §§ 1 and 2 of Code of Criminal Procedure no. 5271 | - The contested provisions set out the principles and procedures governing the search of computers, computer programs and computer records, as well as the copying and seizure of data contained therein. - The contested part of the first sentence of Article 134 § 1 reads as follows: “In the course of a criminal investigation, if there are strong grounds for suspicion based on concrete evidence and if obtaining evidence by other means is not possible, a judge … shall order the search of the computers, computer programs and computer records used by the suspect, the copying of the data contained therein, and the decoding of such data into written text”. - The contested part of the first sentence of Article 134 § 2 reads as follows: “Where access to computers, computer programs or computer records cannot be obtained due to the inability to decrypt passwords, or where concealed information cannot be accessed, … such devices and equipment may be seized in order to enable the decryption of the data and the making of the necessary copies.” - It is maintained in brief that the impugned provisions are unconstitutional as they do not specify the judicial authority authorised to examine digital data, lack safeguards ensuring the integrity of evidence and the protection of personal data, fail to regulate the storage and destruction of forensic copies, and do not provide for objections or compensation, thereby disproportionately restricting fundamental rights. - The Court has noted that since computers and the digital data stored therein may contain all kinds of personal data, the impugned provisions interfere with the right to respect for private life and the right to protection of personal data. - By enabling the effective collection of evidence, the efficient conduct of criminal investigations and the effective fight against crime, the contested provisions are found to satisfy a pressing social need in a democratic society. - However, the impugned provisions did not lay down any rules on the storage, deletion, time limits or procedures concerning personal data after a final judgment. Nor did they establish the scope, conditions or competent authority for the retention of such data, resulting in a lack of adequate safeguards concerning personal data protection. - As a matter of fact, Recital 26 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 emphasises that personal data should not be retained longer than necessary and, where kept for evidentiary purposes, must be subject to restricted processing. Article 16 also guarantees the rights to rectification, erasure and restriction of processing, including where data are preserved for evidentiary purposes. - The Court has therefore held that the restrictions imposed by the impugned provisions on the rights to respect for private life and to protection of personal data were disproportionate. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled in so far as they concern the disputed parts. |
|
E.2024/187 12 February 2026 (Plenary)
| Annulment of the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Law no. 6502 | - The impugned provisions stipulate that an e-commerce intermediary service provider is not liable for the unlawful content, goods or services offered by the service provider. - It is maintained in brief that the impugned provisions undermine consumer protection, disrupt the balance between consumers and intermediary service providers, unjustifiably exempt the latter from liability, restrict consumers’ right of access to a court, and give rise to inequality between intermediary service providers and small-scale sellers or providers. - Intermediary service providers are natural or legal persons that provide an online platform for economic and commercial activities between third parties. While some merely facilitate communication between buyers and sellers, others may have knowledge of, or exercise control over, the goods or services offered through their platforms. Such providers are regarded as active intermediary service providers. - The Court has noted that, under comparative law, the “safe harbour” principle generally exempts neutral intermediary service providers from liability, whereas intermediaries playing an active role are not afforded such protection. - It has observed that the impugned provisions exclude the liability of intermediary service providers in all circumstances, including where they play an active role in commercial activities: leaving consumers without effective protection, especially when sellers or providers are not accessible. - It has accordingly concluded that the impugned provisions impose an excessive burden on consumers, upsetting the fair balance between intermediary service providers and consumers. The provisions are incompatible with the State’s positive obligations regarding the protection of property rights and consumers. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled in so far as they concern the disputed phrases. |
|
E.2025/219 12 February 2026 (Plenary)
| Annulment of the phrase “…provided that it has been paid to the tax office by those responsible for withholding tax…” in the third sentence of Provisional Article 72 § 2 of the Income Tax Law no. 193, as amended by Article 21 of Law no. 7194 | - The impugned provision provides that, where taxes withheld from athletes’ wage income are not paid to the tax office by those responsible for withholding, such unpaid taxes may not be offset against the income tax calculated on the basis of the athletes’ annual tax returns. - It is maintained in brief that making the offsetting of withholding tax against the tax calculated on annual returns conditional upon payment of the withheld tax by the withholding agents constitutes a disproportionate interference with athletes’ property rights and lead to inequality between athletes contracted with different sports clubs. - The Court has found that the rule requiring athletes liable to file tax returns to pay taxes not paid by withholding agents satisfied the requirement of lawfulness and pursued a legitimate aim. - It has further concluded that the provision is suitable for achieving its legitimate aim of ensuring prompt tax collection, and given the legislature’s margin of appreciation in choosing means to secure tax payment, the provision also satisfies the requirement of necessity. - As regards proportionality, the Court examined whether a fair balance was struck between the interference and the aim pursued. It has noted that taxes withheld at source are, by nature, payable by the withholding agents and that taxpayers have no control over such amounts at that stage. It has further observed that, where withheld taxes are not paid, they may be recovered from the liable parties through enforcement under Law no. 6183 on the Procedure for the Collection of Public Receivables. - The Court has held that the provision imposes an excessive burden on taxpayers, thus being disproportionate. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled in so far as it concerns the disputed phrase. |
|
Case | Decision | Case-Law Development | Related |
I. Individual Application | |||
Aynur Ceylan and Others 2020/36883
16 December 2025 (Plenary) | Violation of the right to an effective remedy, in conjunction with the right to property, respectively safeguarded by Articles 40 and 35 of the Constitution | - Alleged violation of the said principle due to the alleged failure to compensate for the damage arising from the sale of immovable property in the proceedings conducted without proper involvement of the parties. - The applicants became aware of the proceedings regarding the dissolution of co-ownership as well as the sale of the immovable property only approximately ten years later and were therefore able to challenge the decision through the available legal remedies only after the said period. - Upon appeal, the Court of Cassation quashed the first-instance decision, but the magistrate’s court did not render a fresh decision concerning the request for dissolution of co-ownership. - The Court reiterates that establishing appropriate legal mechanisms that enable individuals to participate as parties in judicial proceedings and that ensure the resolution of disputes through the decisions ultimately rendered, as well as securing the effective operation of such mechanisms in practice, falls under the State’s positive obligations. - Proceedings for the dissolution of co-ownership are, in principle, capable of providing an effective remedy for terminating co-ownership in terms of jointly owned properties. - However, in the present case, the impugned property had been sold after notifications had been served on the deceased predecessor as though he were still alive. - Therefore, both the judicial proceedings and the sale process had been completed without affording the applicants any opportunity to object to the proceedings or the sales process. - As a result, although proceedings for the dissolution of co-ownership are, in theory, capable of providing an effective remedy in relation to jointly owned immovable properties, that legal avenue offered the applicants no prospect of obtaining redress for the damage they had sustained. - Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to an effective remedy, in conjunction with the right to property. | |
II. Constitutionality Review | |||
E.2025/190 12 February 2026 (Plenary) | Annulment of the provision enabling the registration of the immovable property in the name of the administration, pending the proceedings regarding the determination of expropriation compensation | - The contested provision, the eighth sentence of Article 10 § 8 of the Expropriation Law no. 2942, in so far as it concerns the phrase “The registration order shall be final, …”, provides that, in proceedings instituted for the determination of expropriation compensation and the registration of the immovable property in the name of the administration, the registration order rendered by the court in favour of the administration shall be final. - It is argued that the provision gives rise to significant practical problems, as the registration of the property may remain valid even where the underlying expropriation decision is subsequently annulled. It is further maintained that the provision may deprive property owners of their property before they receive its full value, contrary to the constitutional principle requiring payment of the true value of the property, and compels them to initiate additional proceedings to protect their rights. - The Court recalls that Article 46 of the Constitution permits expropriation only where the actual value of the property is paid in advance and in cash, describing this requirement as a special constitutional safeguard for property owners. - The Court observes that, under the contested provision, the registration order is final and cannot be challenged on appeal, whereas appellate review is available only in respect of the amount of compensation. - Consequently, ownership of the property passes to the administration before it has been definitively established whether the compensation awarded by the trial court reflects the property’s true value, since appellate proceedings may subsequently result in an increase in the compensation. - As a result, allowing ownership to be transferred to the administration before the actual value of the property has been finally determined and fully paid is incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of advance payment under Article 46. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled in so far as it concerns the disputed phrase. | |
Case | Decision | Case-Law Development | Related |
I. Constitutionality Review | |||
E. 2024/173 25 December 2025 (Plenary) | Dismissal of the request for annulment of Article 125 § 3 (a) of the Turkish Criminal Code no. 5237, as well as of the phrase “…except for offences committed against public officers by reason of their official duties…” in Article 131 § 1 thereof. | - The contested provisions stipulate that the offence of insult committed against a public officer on account of his or her official duties is punishable by a minimum term of one year’s imprisonment and is subject to ex officio investigation and prosecution. - It is maintained that the provisions have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, afford public officers greater protection than other individuals, and prescribe a disproportionate sanction, thereby infringing the principles of the rule of law and equality before the law. A. Article 125 § 3 (a) - The provision restricts freedom of expression by criminalising the acts that impair the honour, dignity, or reputation of a public officer on account of his or her official duties. It is explicit that the offence is not triggered solely by the victim’s status as a public officer, but requires a link between the insulting conduct and the performance of public duties. - The provision seeks to protect the honour and reputation of public officers and to safeguard public order by ensuring the effective performance of public services. Accordingly, the restriction on freedom of expression was found necessary in pursuit of the legitimate aim. - It has been also observed that the provision enables penalties to be tailored to the offender and allows for appellate review of convictions. - In view of the safeguards ensuring its proportionate application and the fair balance struck between the public interest pursued and individual rights, the impugned restriction was found proportionate. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional, and therefore the request for its annulment has been dismissed. B. The phrase “…except for offences committed against public officers by reason of their official duties…” in Article 131 § 1 - In criminalising insults committed against public officers on account of their official duties, the legislature seeks to protect not only their honour and reputation but also public order by ensuring the effective and efficient delivery of public services. - In this context, where the offence implicates not only the victim’s interests but also those of the public, subjecting it to ex officio investigation and prosecution contributes to the prevention of crime and the maintenance of public order: thus, a matter falling within the legislature’s margin of discretion. - Besides, it is evident that perpetrators of insult against a public officer on account of official duties and those of its basic or aggravated forms are not in a comparable legal position. Accordingly, subjecting persons in different legal situations to different legal regimes cannot be regarded as contrary to the principle of equality. In this respect, the impugned provision does not conflict with the principle of equality. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional in so far as it concerns the impugned phrase, and therefore the request for its annulment has been dismissed. |
|
Case | Decision | Case-Law Development | Related |
I. Individual Application | |||
Hürmet Alpay and Others 18 September 2025 (Plenary) | Violation of the right to property, safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution | - Alleged violation of the said right due to the low amounts of the expropriation compensation awarded to the applicants without regard to the cultural value of their immovable properties, namely their antiquity, rarity and artistic value. - The Directorate General for Foundations (“the Administration”) ordered the expropriation of the applicants’ immovable properties pursuant to Article 15 of Law no. 2863 on the Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets (“Law no. 2863”), on the ground that they constituted a cultural asset requiring protection. - In the proceedings for the determination of the expropriation compensation and the registration of title, the trial courts conducted an on-site inspection and obtained expert reports. According to these reports, the applicants’ immovable properties were classified as plots of land, and the expropriation compensation was determined with reference to comparable properties. - . It was also stated therein that as the immovable properties had a commercial character for being used as shops, an objective increase in value of 150% should be applied. - The courts, however, determined the expropriation compensation without applying any such increase and without addressing the findings of the expert reports. - Article 46 § 1 of the Constitution sets forth that the expropriation shall be effected in return for the real value of the immovable property and requires that the compensation awarded ensure a fair balance between the public interest pursued and the interests of the owner. - Accordingly, it is evident that, pursuant to Article 46 of the Constitution, the expropriation compensation required to reflect the real value must be determined having regard to all characteristics and qualities that affect the value of the immovable property. - However, in the present case, Article 15 § 1 (d) of Law no. 2863 expressly precludes the antiquity, rarity and artistic value of the applicants’ immovable properties from being taken into account in the determination of the expropriation compensation: depriving the applicants of the guarantee of full compensation enshrined in Article 46 § 1 of the Constitution. - Therefore, the interference with the applicants’ right to property was not in conformity with the wording of Articles 13, 35 and 46 of the Constitution. - Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to property. | |
II. Constitutionality Review | |||
E. 2025/203 12 February 2026 (Plenary)
| Dismissal of the request for annulment of the phrase “…one year…” included in Article 166 § 4 of the Turkish Civil Code no. 4721, as amended by Article 13 of Law no. 7532 | - The contested provision stipulates that where an action for divorce filed on any grounds is dismissed and one year has elapsed since the dismissal decision became final, the marital union shall be deemed to have irretrievably broken down if the spouses have failed to re-establish their common life for any reason, and divorce shall be granted upon the request of either spouse. - The contested provision is claimed to be unconstitutional as the one-year period prescribed by the contested provision significantly hinders individuals from obtaining a divorce and is therefore incompatible with the principle of proportionality. - Article 41 of the Constitution enshrines the family as the foundation of Turkish society and imposes on the State the duty to protect the family. In this regard, the one-year waiting period clearly serves the aim of preserving, to the greatest extent possible, the family institution. - Therefore, the restriction imposed by the provision, which remains within the legislature’s discretion, cannot be considered unnecessary in pursuit of the legitimate aim of protecting the family. - However, it must not impose an excessive burden on the individuals concerned, in accordance with the sub-principle of proportionality. - It should be noted that the legislature previously amended the provision, reducing the required period from three years to one year, with a view to striking a balance between the interests of individuals seeking to exercise their right to divorce and the public interest in the protection of the family: imposing no excessive burden on the individuals concerned. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional, and therefore the request for its annulment has been dismissed. | |
Case | Decision | Case-Law Development | Related |
I. Constitutionality Review | |||
E.2022/85 17 June 2025 (Plenary) | Annulment of the provision including the disputed phrases, which allows the Turkish Football Federation Board of Executives to appoint members of the Arbitration Committee | - The contested provision, Article 6 § 2 of the Law no. 5894 on the Establishment and Duties of the Turkish Football Federation (TFF), stipulates that the members of the Arbitration Committee shall be appointed by the Board of Executives, and that the appointed members shall take their oath and assume office no later than one week following the decision of the Board of Executives on the appointment. - It is argued that the provision fails to provide adequate safeguards for the Committee’s independence and impartiality since all of the members of the Committee are appointed by the Board of Executives, and that neither the taking of oath nor the provisions regulating their tenure are sufficient to ensure the impartiality. - According to the established case-law of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, the Arbitration Committee is regarded as an independent tribunal established by law, exercising a judicial function and empowered to resolve legal disputes. - Law no. 5894 contains no provisions as to the composition or structure of the Board of Executives. It appears that, pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Law, the matters related to the composition, structure and functioning of the Board are provided for in the Turkish Football Federation Statutes, which are adopted by the TFF Congress. - It is evident that the members of the Arbitration Committee are not chosen by the parties to the dispute, but are appointed unilaterally by the TFF Board of Executives. - Law no. 5894 provides no safeguards to ensure adequate representation of the parties to the dispute before the Committee. - The absence of any legal framework regarding the representation of parties in the formation of the Congress and the Board of Executives effectively precludes the fair representation of such parties before the Committee. - Thus, in the absence of legal safeguards ensuring a fair balance among all football stakeholders in the formation and composition of the Congress, the appointment of the Committee members by the Board of Executives under the contested provision cannot be deemed compatible with the right to a trial by an independent and impartial tribunal. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled in so far as it concerns the disputed phrases. | |
E.2025/120 25 December 2025 (Plenary)
| Annulment of the provision including the disputed phrase, which stipulates the pronouncement of name changes on the portal of the Press Announcement Agency | - The contested provision, Article 27 § 2 of the Turkish Civil Code no. 4721, stipulates that name changes shall be pronounced on the portal of Press Announcement Agency (Agency). - It is maintained that the announcement published on the Agency’s website regarding court-ordered name changes is accessible to the public, and that such an announcement renders the personal data publicly available, which may potentially facilitate the commission of offences through the exploitation of such data. - The right to the protection of personal data safeguards individual’s rights and freedoms not only against data processing but against all forms of interference directed at such data. - The provision imposes a restriction on the right to the protection of personal data. -Neither the contested provision nor any other statutory provision specifies how long the announcement will remain on the portal of the Agency. The indefinite public disclosure of name change decisions may have severe consequences for the interests of the individual concerned. - Furthermore, the contested provision prescribes the categorical announcement of all name change decisions, leaving judges without discretion to assess whether such decisions should be published in specific cases. - In certain cases, there may exist a prevailing legal interest in withholding such changes from public disclosure. Thus, the blanket requirement to announce all decisions on name changes, combined with the absence of judicial discretion, may give rise to severe consequences for the individuals concerned. - Hence, the contested provision disrupts the reasonable balance between the public interest and the interests of individuals, thereby imposing a disproportionate restriction on the right to the protection of personal data. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled in so far as it concerns the disputed phrases. | |
E.2025/94 15 January 2026 (Plenary)
| Annulment of the provision governing the authority to determine the procedures and principles for electronic notification to taxpayers | - The contested provision, Article 107/A § 3 of the Tax Procedure Law no. 213, stipulates that the Ministry of Treasury and Finance is authorised, in relation to electronic service of documents, to impose an obligation to use an electronic address, to determine those to be notified electronically, and to lay down other procedures and principles relating to electronic notification. - It is argued that pursuant to the contested provision, legal entity taxpayers whose tax registrations have been terminated ex officio cannot opt out of the electronic notification system until they are deregistered from the trade registry, and are therefore required to check electronic notifications every five days. - It is further submitted that, notwithstanding the electronic notification, those who fail to submit their ledgers and documents for inspection are subject to custodial sentences, which imposes an excessive burden on the parties concerned. - The Court considers that requiring taxpayers to use an electronic address and accept notifications via electronic means, and attributing legal consequences to such notifications, constitutes a restriction on the right of access to a court. - While the Law confers upon the Ministry the authority to impose an obligation to use an electronic address and to determine the persons who will be notified electronically, as well as the relevant procedure, it fails to set out the fundamental principles governing the limits of this authority. - Accordingly, the Court has concluded that granting the administration such authority, without the fundamental principles and criteria being laid down in law, is incompatible with the principle that any restriction on the right of access to a court must be prescribed by law. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled in so far as it concerns the phrase in question. | |
E.2025/182 15 January 2026 (Plenary)
| Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision envisaging the reclassification of the municipalities with a population below 2,000 as villages | - The contested provision, Article 11 § 2 of the Law no. 5393 on Municipalities, stipulates that municipalities with a population below 2,000 shall be reclassified as villages. - It is claimed that the provision fails to serve a public interest and that such reclassification would accelerate depopulation in small towns and villages, causing a demographic concentration in more populous administrative units, such as metropolitan municipalities. - Provided that it determines the fundamental principles governing the establishment of local administrations and the relevant substantive and procedural framework, the legislator may dissolve or reclassify a municipality or village in order to ensure the effective provision of public services depending on the scale of the relevant unit. - Thus, the reclassification of municipalities with a population below 2,000 into villages under the contested provision serves the public interest, as it seeks to ensure the effective delivery of public services. - The contested provision, enacted within the scope of the legislator’s margin of discretion, is found compatible with the principle of the rule of law, the constitutional requirement for the dissolution of public legal entities by law, and the principle of local autonomy. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional, and therefore the request for its annulment has been dismissed. | |
Case | Decision | Case-Law Development | Related |
I. Constitutionality Review | |||
Özgür Arıkan (2) 18 September 2025 (Plenary) | Violation of the right to seek judicial review of a decision, safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution | - The applicant, indicted for the offences of intentional injury and threat, was subjected to a one-day disciplinary detention for disrupting the order of the hearing during the proceedings. He was released after serving the disciplinary detention. - He maintained that his right to seek judicial review of a decision had been violated on account of having been definitively sentenced to one day of disciplinary detention for disrupting the order of the hearing. - Under the Code of Criminal Procedure no. 5271, the disciplinary detention imposed for the purpose of maintaining order and discipline during the hearing constitutes a court decision and, in principle, is not subject to appeal. - However, any interference with the right to seek judicial review of a decision must be, inter alia, proportionate, requiring a fair balance between the aim pursued and the means employed. The restriction must not impose an excessive or disproportionate burden on the individual. - It is evident that the absence of an appellate remedy for disciplinary detention orders constitutes a suitable means of ensuring the uninterrupted maintenance of the judge’s authority to conduct proceedings in an orderly and disciplined manner, thus securing a fair trial. Nevertheless, the significance of ensuring that decisions which entail deprivation of liberty are subject to judicial review cannot be overlooked. - It has accordingly been concluded that the interference with the right to seek judicial review of a disciplinary detention order was not necessary, as other possible alternatives were not considered. - Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to seek judicial review of a decision. | |
II. Constitutionality Review | |||
E. 2025/128 25 December 2025 (Plenary)
| Annulment of Article 616 § 1 (h) of the Turkish Commercial Code no. 6102, as well as the phrase “… bringing an action for the exclusion of a partner from the company on justified grounds…” contained in Article 621 § 1 (h), in so far as they apply to “limited liability companies with two partners” | - The contested provisions allow for bringing an action, in limited liability companies with two partners, for the exclusion of a partner from the company on the basis of a resolution of the general assembly adopted with the required quorum. - The contested provisions are claimed to be unconstitutional on the grounds that they preclude the possibility of excluding a partner from limited liability companies with two partners, and that the right to bring an action for exclusion, which may be exercised by a single partner in a general partnership (an unlimited company), is not granted to partners of limited liability companies, contrary to the principle of equality. - The freedom of enterprise enshrined in Article 48 of the Constitution imposes a positive obligation on the state to protect enterprises against any acts of partners. However, this obligation does not grant company partners the right to exclude another partner from the company without dissolving the company. - Under Article 640 § 3 of the Turkish Commercial Code no. 6102 (Law no. 6102), partners of limited liability companies are granted the right to request the competent court to exclude another partner on justified grounds, without dissolving the company. This provision is intended to ensure the continued operation of the limited liability company and the involvement of its partners in its operations. - Accordingly, the mechanism allowing a partner to request the exclusion of the other partner, established by the legislator so as to ensure the continued functioning of the company, must be regarded as falling under the freedom of enterprise. - Given the conditions laid down in the provisions, it is evident that, in limited liability companies with two partners holding equal shares, a partner’s request to exclude the other partner on justified grounds cannot be effected by a general assembly resolution. In addition, the exclusion of a partner on justified grounds cannot take place if none of the partners holds an absolute majority of the company’s capital. - Accordingly, under the contested provisions, in limited liability companies with two partners, the other partner cannot request the exclusion of a partner who disrupts the company’s operations, either directly or through the general assembly. As a result, the exclusion mechanism, which is intended by the state as a means under its positive obligation to protect the freedom of enterprise, cannot be applied to these companies. Such a limitation is not compatible with the state’s obligation to provide an effective remedy for rights granted under its positive obligations. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been found unconstitutional and thus annulled in so far as they apply to “limited liability companies with two partners”. | |
E. 2025/141 25 December 2025 (Plenary)
| Annulment of Article 80 § 2 of Code of Criminal Procedure no. 5271, as amended by Article 4 of Law no. 5353 | - The contested provision provides that any data obtained through genetic analysis for the purpose of gathering evidence in relation to an offence shall be destroyed immediately upon the expiry of the time-limit for challenging a decision of non-prosecution, upon dismissal of such challenge, or upon an acquittal or a decision not to impose a penalty, once such decisions have become final. - The contested provision is claimed to be unconstitutional on the grounds that genetic analysis results are special category of personal data, and that the provision does not provide sufficient safeguards for the protection of such data. It was further argued that the provision provides for the immediate destruction of genetic analysis results only upon the issuance and finalisation of certain decisions, and that, where a decision, other than the prescribed ones, is delivered or such decisions have not yet been issued, the provision may be interpreted as allowing the retention of such results and thereby the creation of a DNA database. - The contested provision imposes a restriction on the right to the protection of personal data by permitting, under certain circumstances, the retention of genetic analysis results obtained in the course of a criminal investigation or prosecution, which constitute personal data. - Pursuant to Articles 13 and 20 of the Constitution, any restriction on this right must be prescribed by law and must be formulated with sufficient clarity, accessibility, and foreseeability so as to prevent arbitrariness, and must also be compatible with the requirements of a democratic society and the principle of proportionality. - It has been observed that Law no. 6698 on the Protection of Personal Data excludes from its scope the processing of personal data by judicial authorities or enforcement bodies in the context of investigation, prosecution, trial, or execution proceedings. Therefore, it must be assessed whether adequate constitutional safeguards are ensured in respect of the personal data obtained under the contested provision. - The contested provision provides that data obtained through genetic analysis shall be destroyed upon the finalisation of certain types of decisions. However, there is no statutory provision regarding the period for which, and the manner in which, genetic data are to be retained pending the issuance and finalisation of those decisions, nor in respect of cases where other forms of decisions, such as conviction, dismissal, or discontinuance of proceedings, are rendered, nor as to whether such data are to be destroyed or whether the individuals concerned may request their erasure. - It has therefore been concluded that the contested provision restricting the right to the protection of personal data does not satisfy the requirement of legality, in the absence of adequate safeguards and fundamental principles governing the protection of data obtained through molecular genetic analysis. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled. | |
Case | Decision | Case-Law Development | Related |
I. Individual Application | |||
Fatih Bozkurt 18 September 2025 (Plenary) | No violation of the principle of legality, safeguarded by Article 38 of the Constitution | - Alleged violation of the said principle due to unforeseeable application of legal provisions in the criminal proceedings against the applicant for violating the Constitution. - The applicant, who served as a senior master sergeant at the Turkish Military Academy, was sentenced to 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for aiding the offence of violating the Constitution in relation to the coup attempt. - The trial court established that some of the staff, who had been present at the Academy at the material time, left there once they became aware of the coup attempt, in order to avoid being subjected to unlawful orders. - However, certain accused persons, including the applicant, had complied with the said unlawful orders by receiving weapons distributed and waiting for further orders although it had already become clear that the events constituted a coup attempt. - Considering all circumstances and the applicant’s objections together, the inferior courts concluded that the applicant had aided the acts of other perpetrators who committed the offence of violating the Constitution. - Consequently, the Court has found no violation of the principle of legality. | |
B.K. 20 November 2025
Sinan Ulu 25 September 2025
Sümeyra Bakla 20 November 2025 (Plenary)
| Violation of the right to respect for private life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution, taken in conjunction with Article 15, in so far as it concerns the application lodged by B.K.; whereas no violation of the same right, in so far as it concerns the applications lodged by Sinan Ulu and Sümeyra Bakla | - Alleged violation of the said right due to the applicants’ dismissal from public office or their professions on the grounds of their alleged affiliation or connection with FETÖ/PDY, an organisation considered to have engaged in activities against the national security of the State. As regards the Applicant B.K. - In order for any interference with the right to respect for private life to be regarded as necessary to the extent required by the particular circumstances of the case within the meaning of Article 15 of the Constitution, the administrative and judicial authorities must provide sufficient reasoning based on serious and objective grounds demonstrating a breach of the allegiance to the democratic constitutional order arising from an individual’s alleged affiliation with FETÖ/PDY, the perpetrator of the coup attempt. - In the present case, the relevant authorities failed to demonstrate, on the basis of relevant and sufficient grounds, that the applicant had been affiliated with FETÖ/PDY. - Thus, the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for private life, in the form of his dismissal from the profession, was not necessary to the extent required by exigencies of the situation. - The Court has concluded that the interference with that right did not comply with the criteria set out in Article 15, which governs the suspension and restriction of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms during a state of emergency. - Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to respect for private life. As regards the Applicants Sümeyra Bakla and Sinan Ulu - The judicial authorities concluded that taking part in the organisation of sohbet meetings or, depending on the specific circumstances of the case, mere attendance at such meetings may suffice to establish affiliation with and connection to FETÖ/PDY. - Furthermore, in order for the suspicion regarding a public official, arising from alleged affiliation with or connection to FETÖ/PDY and relating to the breach of allegiance to the constitutional order, to be supported by objective elements, a qualitative assessment of participation in the aforementioned meetings must also be carried out. In this regard, witness statements that are based merely on hearsay, rather than personal observation or knowledge, cannot, as a rule, be regarded as concrete and objective evidence of such participation or organisation. - Given that the events and facts reported in the witness statements, which were based on personal observation and knowledge regarding both applicants, were neither coincidental nor inconsistent, they might be regarded as serious, significant and concrete objective evidence indicating a breach of allegiance to the constitutional order. - The applicants were dismissed from public office on the basis of relevant and sufficient grounds in pursuit of the interest of safeguarding the democratic constitutional order. Nevertheless, they were not subject to any additional restrictions preventing them from working in the private sector. - Thus, the impugned measure taken in the specific circumstances of the present cases was suitable for eliminating the threat or danger that had led to the declaration of the state of emergency, was necessary for that purpose, was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and was not arbitrary. - Consequently, the Court has found no violation of the right to respect for private life. | |
II. Constitutionality Review | |||
E.2025/100 26 November 2025 (Plenary)
| Annulment of the provision preventing the relocation of workers transferred to permanent positions | - The contested provision, Provisional Article 23 § 5 of Decree Law no. 375, stipulates that those transferred to permanent positions may be employed, provided that they satisfy the necessary conditions, to perform the services previously carried out under the procurement contract in the organisation and unit where they were employed prior to the transfer procedure. -It is argued that the provision categorically prevents the relocation of workers appointed to permanent positions, thereby precluding their reassignment to another province or region. As a result, judicial authorities are unable to review the employer’s managerial prerogative in decisions regarding requests for relocation. - It was further submitted that the provision places workers employed under Provisional Article 23 in a less secure position compared to other workers holding permanent positions, thereby violating the principle of equality. - Article 49 of the Constitution provides a specific safeguard reflecting the State’s obligation, inherent in the principle of the social state, to protect employees in business life. - Although the contested provision is intended to prevent disruptions in the functioning of the relevant organisation or unit, it cannot be assumed that granting relocation requests would, in every case, lead to such disruption. - The provision has been found incompatible with the State’s obligation to protect employees. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled in so far as it concerns the disputed phrase. | |
E.2025/89 26 November 2025 (Plenary)
| Annulment of the provision preventing payment for on-call duties exceeding certain time limits in various healthcare institutions | - The contested provision, the third sentence of Additional Article 33 § 1 of the Civil Servants Act no. 657, stipulates that remuneration is payable only for on-call duties performed up to certain time limits depending on the type of healthcare institution, and that no payment shall be made even in cases where such duties necessarily exceed the said limits. - It is argued that the provision limits the remuneration payable to healthcare personnel for on-call duties to a specified period and provides that even if such duties are performed beyond this period, no payment would be made for the additional time, which is in breach of the principle of the rule of law, the prohibition of forced labour, and the right to property. - In its earlier decision of 25 January 2023 (no. E.2022/97, K.2023/13), the Court held that requiring individuals with professional expertise to perform certain services related to their field of specialisation cannot, in principle, be regarded as forced labour or compulsory service, provided that such obligations do not impose an excessive burden on them. - The Court further emphasised that ensuring the uninterrupted provision of healthcare services falls within the State’s positive obligations under Article 56 of the Constitution, and that the mere imposition of on-call duties on healthcare personnel does not per se violate Article 18. - However, such duties must not prejudice the exercise of the right to rest, and mandatory on-call obligations should be appropriately compensated in order to strike a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of healthcare personnel. - Accordingly, the Court found that the provision, which neither set an upper limit on on-call duties nor guaranteed remuneration for work exceeding such limits, was in breach of Article 18. - Thus, the Court has found no reason to depart from its previous decision. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled. | |
Case | Decision | Case-Law Development | Related |
I. Constitutionality Review | |||
E.2025/155 11 December 2025 (Plenary) | Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision subjecting the legal liability of motorised bicycle riders to the general provisions | - The contested provision, Article 103 of the Highway Traffic Law no. 2918, stipulates that the legal liability of motorised bicycle riders shall be subject to the general provisions. - It is argued that pursuant to the contested provision, liability arising from traffic accidents involving motorised bicycles is limited solely to the riders; and that the operators of such vehicles engage in commercial activities and derive commercial profit, yet are not held liable for the resulting damage. - It is further asserted that the provisions on compulsory motor third-party liability insurance are not applicable to these vehicles, thereby precluding recourse against insurers for the damages sustained. - According to the Court, various liability regimes have been introduced in certain laws with a view to redressing the damages arising from accidents involving motorised bicycles. – Thus, the Court has found that subjecting the legal liability of motorised bicycle riders to the general provisions, by excluding them from the scope of Law no. 2918, does not conflict with the State’s positive obligations regarding the right to protect and develop one’s corporeal and spiritual existence as well as the right to property. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional and therefore the request for its annulment has been dismissed. | |
Case | Decision | Case-Law Development | Related |
I. Constitutionality Review | |||
E. 2025/124 8 October 2025 (Plenary) | Annulment of Article 362 § 1 (a) of Code of Civil Procedure no. 6100, in so far as it concerned the cases concerning the determination of the compensation for expropriation | - The contested provision stipulates that, as of 2025, decisions rendered by the civil chambers of the regional courts of appeal in cases with an amount or value not exceeding 544,000 Turkish liras (TRY) shall not be subject to appeal. - The contested provision was claimed to be unconstitutional on the grounds that, inter alia, making the expropriation value of the immovable the decisive criterion for appeal prevents the parties from invoking different claims concerning the value in appellate proceedings, thereby infringing the right to legal remedies. - In its decisions, the Court has acknowledged that the right to seek judicial review of a court decision by another judicial authority is safeguarded within the scope of the right to legal remedies. - In cases concerning the determination of the compensation for expropriation, the establishment of the value of the property constitutes the very substance of the dispute. In other words, in such proceedings, the parties’ claims, or subject-matter of the dispute, do not consist of claims involving a specific monetary amount or value. - Accordingly, pursuant to the provision, in proceedings concerning the determination of the compensation for expropriation, no specific amount can be identified at the time the proceedings are instituted. In such cases, the application of the monetary threshold by the judicial authorities may be based on the date of the delivery of the judgment, the value of the expropriated property at the time the proceedings are instituted, or another relevant criterion. | |
Case | Decision | Case-Law Development | Related |
I. Constitutionality Review | |||
E.2025/106 10 September 2025 (Plenary) | Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision stipulating that an investigation or prosecution shall be conducted, even in the absence of a complaint, in cases where the right to inviolability of the home is violated for the purpose of committing theft | - The contested provision, Article 142 § 4 of the Turkish Criminal Code no. 5237, stipulates that in cases where the inviolability of the home is violated for the purpose of committing theft, an investigation or prosecution shall be conducted into the impugned offence, without requiring a complaint. - It is argued that in addition to the imposition of an increased penalty for aggravated theft, the contested provision also allows for the imposition of a separate penalty for the violation of the inviolability of the home. - According to the Court, in cases where committing theft is directly intended, it is not in breach of the principle of the rule of law to allow the initiation of investigation and prosecution into the violation of the inviolability of the home, in the absence of a complaint. - In addition, where the acts resulting in a violation of the inviolability of the home are committed for the purpose of committing theft in respect of property kept within a building or its annex, the imposition of separate penalties for the two offences does not entail the institution of a second set of proceedings for the same act. - Accordingly, the contested provision does not breach the ne bis in idem principle, which prohibits being tried or punished more than once for the same act. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional and therefore the request for its annulment has been dismissed. | |