Case-Law Summary

Case

Decision

Case-Law Development

Related

I. Individual Application

Ramazan Kavak

2017/20729

5 September 2024 (Plenary)

No violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution

-Alleged violation of the said right due to imposition of a disciplinary penalty in the form of the deferment of promotion for sharing a social media post.

- A disciplinary penalty was imposed on the applicant, a teacher, due to sharing a social media post in support of a political party, explicitly instigating people to vote for the political party in the upcoming parliamentary elections. The applicant challenged the disciplinary penalty but the courts dismissed his request for annulment.

-The Court considered that the applicant, as a public officer, had failed to demonstrate that he had not aimed to give publicity to the statement, or that he had acted within his obligation to exercise due diligence to prevent its public dissemination.

-In addition, the Court found proportionate the measure of imposing the deferment of promotion, which is considered as more lenient measure compared to the measure of dismissal from the public office and which will not impede the individual from sustaining his/her life with income.

- Consequently, the Court found no violation of the freedom of expression.

Press Release

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
I. Individual Application
Kadir Toprak 2022/2407 9 October 2024 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of defence safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the said right due to rejection of defence counsel’s health-related excuse. - The applicant was indicted for inflicting minor bodily harm while the COVID-19 pandemic had been ongoing. In the subsequent proceedings, the applicant’s defence counsel was unable to attend the second hearing for his health problems, which he specified in a letter of excuse. - However, the aforementioned letter of the applicant’s defence counsel was rejected, and the applicant was imposed a judicial fine based on the final opinion of the public prosecutor on the merits. - Presentation of the public prosecutor’s final opinion was undoubtedly a procedure that might have affected the outcome of the proceedings. - In similar cases, the Court of Cassation has considered the rejection of the letter of excuse submitted by the applicant or her/his defence counsel as a restriction on the right to defence. - It should be noted that it was not possible for the applicant’s defence counsel to substantiate his excuse at the time of submission, as the test results required a specific process to be finished. - Considering the particular circumstances prevailing at the time of the proceedings, the court should have examined health-related excuses with a higher degree of scrutiny, without categorically dismissing them, regardless of they are substantiated or not. - However, the court, dismissing the excuse of the applicant’s defence counsel, rendered its decision without allowing the applicant and his defence counsel to exercise their right to defence. - Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of defence within the scope of the right to a fair trial.	Press Release
Kombassan Kağıt Matbaa Gıda ve Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. 2019/30300 18 July 2024 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to access to a court, under the right to a fair trial, safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right to access to a court due to the dismissal of the applicant’s request for an increase in the amount in dispute during the appellate proceedings within the scope of the full remedy action initiated with a specified claim. - The applicant company, sought reimbursement of overpaid default interest concerning its immovable property for the years 2003–2005, which had been judicially determined to be subject to limited taxation, but its request was dismissed. - Although the tax court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the reimbursement of TRY 500,000 along with accrued deferred interest, the applicant’s subsequent request to increase the amount in dispute was rejected by the Council of State, and the decision became final. - In the present case, the court issued an interlocutory decision requiring the defendant administration to provide information on the default interest collected. Referring to the principle of being bound by the claim, the court annulled the impugned administrative act and ordered the reimbursement of the overpaid amount to the applicant. -The administration’s response to the interlocutory decision, which contained critical information for the applicant’s claim, was not communicated to the applicant, who became aware of it only upon receiving the court’s judgment, thus preventing an earlier request for an increase in the impugned amount. -Despite promptly submitting a petition to increase the amount upon learning the actual figures from the court’s reasoned decision, the applicant’s appeal was dismissed on the grounds that such a request could only be made before the inferior court’s judgment, which imposed an excessive burden on the applicant and disproportionately interfered with the right to access to a court. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to access to a court under the right to a fair trial.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2024/114 5 November 2024 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision precluding the refund of organisation fee in case of termination of the savings finance contract after 14 days	- The contested provision, the second sentence of Article 39/A (4) of the Law no. 6361 on Financial Leasing, Factoring and Finance and Savings Finance Companies insofar as it concerns the phrase “… excluding the organisation fee…” thereof, stipulates that the organisation fee shall not be refunded if the customer terminates the savings finance contract after 14 days following the date of its signature. - It is argued that the contested provision significantly restricts the customer’s right to terminate the contract as well as its financial independence, which is in breach of the State’s obligation to protect customers. - The Court considers that the provision intends to take into consideration certain services provided by the company during the period set forth therein. - If the customer was entitled to a refund of the organisation fee for an indefinite period of time, the company would suffer commercial difficulties given the investments it has made, personnel it has employed and various expenses it has made to this end. - Therefore, imposition of a restriction on the customer’s ability to receive a refund of the organisation fee does not upset the fair balance between the interests of the parties. - It has been concluded that the aforementioned provision does not impose an excessive burden on the customer, and that a fair balance has been struck between the conflicting interests of the parties. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional and therefore the request for its annulment has been dismissed.
E.2021/78 5 November 2024 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provisions entrusting the administration with determining the principles and procedures regarding the transfer of pension commitment contracts to the private pension system	- The contested provisions grant the Insurance and Private Pension Regulation and Supervision Authority the power to determine the principles and procedures for the eligibility of members, including the age and duration requirements for obtaining pension rights, following the transfer of pension commitment contracts to the private pension system. - It was claimed that the contested provisions were unconstitutional as they delegated to the administration the regulation of essential aspects of social security rights which must be regulated by law, thereby violating the principle of legality and the right to social security. - The Court has observed that the contested provisions allowed the Authority to interfere with the contractual terms agreed upon between individuals and their institutions or employers by modifying the conditions for obtaining pension rights under the transferred contracts. This interference has been deemed as a restriction on the freedom of contract safeguarded by Article 48 of the Constitution. - Furthermore, the contested provisions grant the Authority a broad discretionary power to determine the conditions for pension eligibility without establishing a legal framework, thereby subjecting individuals’ pension rights subject to administrative changes. The lack of legislative safeguards has been found to be incompatible with the principle of legality. - The Court has concluded that the contested provisions violated constitutional safeguards, particularly regarding the freedom of contract and the principle of legality, and therefore annulled them. The annulment decision will enter into force nine months after its publication in the Official Gazette. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
I. Individual Application
Ayyıldız Maden Mermer İnşaat ve İnşaat Malzemeleri Sanayi Ticaret Ltd. Şti 2020/35644 28 March 2024 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to failure to provide relevant and sufficient reasoning in dismissing the allegations capable of affecting the outcome of the case - The applicant argued that his right to property had been violated due to the transfer of his immovable property to the State Treasury on the ground that the sale was a fictious transaction. - In the present case, the civil court found that the sale of immovable property was realised based on the real value. Contrary to the finding of the lower court, the regional court of appeal concluded that the sale transaction cannot be conducted on an instalment basis as to prevailing commercial custom. Later, this decision was upheld by the Court of cassation. - The Court considered that the regional court of appeal had failed to address the applicant’s claims during the proceedings that the liquidated company had performed no activities on the immovable property that could be construed as fictitious transaction; that the decisions of non-prosecution had been issued regarding the company partners; and that the process of purchasing the immovable property and the location of the payment, as well as instalment sale, were consistent with the requirements of business customs. Therefore, the Court concluded that the lower courts however failed to demonstrate, in its reasoned decision, how these commercial customs were ascertained. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to property.	Press Release
Burhan Yaz (3) 2021/7919 29 May 2024 (Plenary)	No violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the said right due to non-deduction of the entire period spent under house arrest from the prison sentence. - In accordance with the relevant amendment, 45 days —half of the 90 days spent by the applicant under house arrest— were deducted from his sentence, which was challenged by the applicant. - The Court notes that there is no statutory requirement entailing the deduction of the entire period spent under such a measure, and considering the effects and nature of the measure on the individual, different deduction ratio may be determined. - According to the Court, house arrest has a less severe impact on fundamental rights and freedoms than detention (remand in custody) in that while individuals are required to stay at home, there are no restrictions on maintaining their social life with other residents or visitors, nor on using all kinds of individual or mass communication tools. - Thus, counting two days spent under the impugned measure as one day for deduction purposes constitutes a proportionate approach. -Consequently, the Court has found no violation of the right to personal liberty and security.	Press Release
Bayram Altın 2021/32528 29 May 2024 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to a reasoned decision under the right to a fair trial, safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right to a reasoned decision due to the failure to address an allegation that could have affected the outcome of the proceedings. - The applicant, despite successfully passing the street wardenship examination, was not appointed due to a negative security clearance investigation. His annulment action and subsequent appellate requests were dismissed, with the court citing his sibling’s criminal convictions, including theft, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated robbery, and violation of the inviolability of domicile. - In appeals against non-appointment due to negative security clearance investigation, relevant courts are required to justify how the findings affect the applicant’s eligibility, assess direct or personal connections, and provide reasoned decisions to prevent arbitrariness. - In the present case, the court dismissed the applicant’s challenge against the denial of his appointment, referring to his sibling’s imprisonment sentences. However, it failed to analyse how the sibling’s acts would affect the applicant’s ability to perform warden duties. - Accordingly, it has been found that the incumbent court’s decision did not contain any reasoning in this respect, nor did the appellate authorities provide any evaluation based on the court’s decision. Considering the proceedings as a whole, it has been observed that the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision has been violated. - Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to a reasoned decision under the right to a fair trial.	Press Release
Eşref Bingöl 2021/10332 18 July 2024 (Second Section)	Violations of the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said principles due to the dismissal of the applicant’s request for the investigation of the facts that might mitigate or even set aside the criminal sentence imposed on him. - The applicant, a bank official calling the complainant and informing him that the deductions and insurance fees related to the loan received by the latter would be refunded, was indicted for aggravated fraud for allegedly deriving profit from the complainant through his fraudulent acts. - Both at the investigation and trial stage, the applicant requested the judicial authorities to obtain certain evidence to substantiate his allegation that he was not the perpetrator of the imputed act, but he was indeed a victim of fraud. - At the end of the proceedings, the trial court sentenced him to imprisonment for the imputed offence. On appeal, his conviction was upheld and became final. - In convicting the applicant, the trial court found his defence submissions “contrary to the ordinary course of life and intended to evade the criminal liability”. - In support of his claim that the perpetrator of the said offence was another person, the applicant submitted to the law enforcement officers certain information and documents. He also requested the authorities to obtain the camera footages having a potential to shed light on the exact circumstances of his case. - In consideration of the available evidence and requests, the incumbent chief public prosecutor’s office should have conducted sufficient inquiries into the identity and address of the alleged perpetrator at the investigation stage. Besides, the trial court dismissed the applicant’s requests on abstract grounds: thus, the applicant was put in a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis the prosecution. - Consequently, the Court found violations of the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2024/4 27 June 2024 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision stipulating the imposition of statutory interest on certain receivables within the scope of expropriation	- The contested provision, Provisional Article 19 § 1 (4) of Law no. 2942, stipulates that statutory interest, under Law no. 3095, shall be applied to the instalment-based payments for the costs and compensations regarding properties subject to incomplete expropriation proceedings or those that have been used through confiscation without expropriation. - It is argued that, despite the explicit constitutional provision requiring the application of highest interest rate to receivables related to expropriation, the disputed provision envisages that statutory interest shall apply to receivables concerning properties subject to incomplete expropriation proceedings or have been used through confiscation without formal expropriation. Therefore, the constitutional provision mandating the application of the highest interest rate for expropriation compensation applies uniformly, regardless of whether legal proceedings are still ongoing. -The Court considers that the contested provision mandates the application of statutory interest to such receivables, contrary to the explicit provision in Article 46 § 4 of the Constitution, which requires the blanket application of highest interest rate for receivables from public in cases of instalment-based expropriation payments or unpaid expropriation compensations for any reason. - In this respect, the Court has concluded that the contested provision violates Article 13 of the Constitution, which stipulates that any limitation must not contradict the provisions of the Constitution. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2023/74 23 July 2024 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision prescribing that the earthquake resistance of a building provided with a building registration certificate shall be within the legal responsibility of the owner	-The contested provision, Provisional Article 16 § 10 (3) of Law no. 3194, stipulates that the responsibility for the earthquake resistance of a building issued with a building registration certificate rests with the owner. -It is argued that the state has a positive obligation to create a healthy and balanced environment and there is no legal regulation prescribing inspections to investigate whether a building issued with a registration certificate meets a specific standard that guarantees life and property safety. It is further maintained that despite the lack of such legal regulation, the contested provision places responsibility for the building’s earthquake resistance solely on the owner, which allegedly contradicts with the state's positive obligations. - The Court considers that exempting the administration from liabilities arising from its failure to inspect whether buildings with a building registration certificate pose a danger to human life or are earthquake-resistant amounts to eliminating the administration’s constitutional obligations by a legislation. - The Court has concluded that the contested provision assigns responsibility for a building's earthquake resistance to its owner when the structure violates zoning regulations and that it shields the administration from compensation claims in a field where its inspection duties remain valid. - Therefore, the contested provision breaches the right to an effective remedy safeguarded under Article 40 in conjunction with the right to life safeguarded under Article 17. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2023/181 27 June 2024 (Plenary)	Annulment of the phrase “…not exceeding one year” in Article 10 § 1 of the Law no. 2860 on Collection of Aid	- The contested provision stipulates that the permitted period for aid collection may be extended on reasonable grounds by the relevant authorities for a period not exceeding one year. - It is maintained that the contested provision is unconstitutional since the time limit stipulated therein, which is allegedly disproportionate, is incompatible with the State’s obligations under the right to life as well as the right to protect and develop corporeal and spiritual existence. It is also claimed that the transfer to another organisation of the collected amount in case of a failure to reach the targeted amount within the given period is in breach of the right to life. - The Court has observed that the aid collection process may be futile if the targeted amount could not be collected within the period determined by law. Moreover, the impugned provision does not allow for a new application to collect further aid to supplement the previous one. - Therefore, the restriction imposed by the contested provision is disproportionate to the aim sought to be achieved. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2023/80 E.2024/96 23 July 2024 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provisions depriving those convicted of certain offences of practicing the professions of physician and veterinarian	- The contested provisions —Article 28 § 1 of the Law no. 1219 on the Practice of Medicine and Related Arts/Medicine Sciences, and Article 6 § 1 (a) of the Law no. 6343 on the Practice of Veterinarians and Organisation and Activities of the Turkish Veterinary Medical Association and its Chambers— envisage that those convicted of any offences committed against the constitutional order and its functioning shall be deprived of practicing the professions of physician and veterinarian. - It is maintained that the contested provisions, by indefinitely preventing physicians and veterinarians convicted of offences committed against the constitutional order from practicing their professions, constitute a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for private life, which is unconstitutional. - The Court has considered that although the individuals referred to in the contested provisions are deprived of the right to practice their professions, this deprivation is not indefinite, given the mechanism enabling the restitution of forfeited rights. According to this mechanism, the period during which an individual is deprived of a right is limited to three years, provided that other conditions are complied with. - It has therefore been concluded that the contested provisions do not impose an excessive burden on the individuals concerned. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for their annulment has been dismissed.
E.2024/71 23 July 2024 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision seeking the consent of the Ministry for certain regulations to be issued by the Union of Chambers of Certified Public Accountants of Türkiye	- The contested provision, Article 50 § 2 of the Law no. 3568 on Certified Public Accountancy of Türkiye, stipulates that the regulations to be issued by the Union of Chambers of Certified Public Accountants of Türkiye (“the Union”) on certain matters related to working procedures and principles shall be submitted to the Ministry of Treasury and Finance (“the Ministry”) for approval before their publication in the Official Gazette. - It is maintained that granting the Ministry the authority to approve the regulations to be issued by professional organisations is incompatible with the principle of autonomy of these organisations. - Referring to one of its previous decisions on a similar matter, the Court has pointed out the autonomy of the administrative and decision-making bodies of professional organisations, relying on Article 135 of the Constitution. - Considering that a professional organisation cannot issue a regulation unless the Ministry gives an approval in accordance with the contested provision, it has been concluded that the tutelage envisaged by the legislator renders the professional organisations’ authority to issue regulations —and thus their autonomy— ineffective. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2023/109 30 May 2024 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the phrase “…one year….” in the first sentence of Article 166 § 3 of the Turkish Civil Code no. 4721	- The contested provision envisages that in case of a joint request for divorce by the spouses or consent of either spouse to the other’s petition for divorce, the divorce may be granted only after one year of marriage, on the ground of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. - It is maintained that the contested provision is unconstitutional for setting aside the parties’ will; hampering the enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms and the application of the equality principle; and giving rise to de jure continuation of the parties’ marriage, which does not exist de facto. - The Court has observed that making the grant of divorce upon the parties’ consent contingent upon the expiry of at least one year after marriage aims at sustaining the institution of family, which is considered as the foundation of the Turkish society: pursuing a legitimate aim. - Given the constitutional significance of the institution of family, the legislator has a wide margin of appreciation to set out the principles and procedures regarding divorce. The Court has held that seeking the condition of expiry of one-year after marriage for granting a divorce falls within the legislator’s margin of appreciation ands satisfies the criterion of necessity. Besides, those seeking divorce can also rely on other grounds enumerated in the law. - The Court has accordingly concluded that the restriction imposed by the contested provision on the individuals’ right to respect for their private and family life does not place a disproportionate burden on them, thus being proportionate. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed.
E.2024/78 24 September 2024 (Plenary)	Annulment of the phrase “associations and foundations in the public interest…” in Article 334 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure no. 6100	- The contested provision stipulates that associations and foundations in the public interest may be afforded legal aid only if their allegations or defences are justified and they are unable to partially or fully cover the necessary expenses without experiencing financial hardship, thus categorically excluding other legal persons from the possibility of obtaining legal aid. - It is maintained that the provision is unconstitutional since it imposes a disproportionate restriction on the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial. - The Court considers that depriving legal persons other than foundations and associations in the public interest of legal aid, which would facilitate financially disadvantaged entities to raise their claims, submit their defence, initiate enforcement proceedings or request temporary legal protection, restricts their right of access to a court. - Therefore, the Court has concluded that denial of legal aid to private legal persons other than foundations and associations in the public interest does not pursue a legitimate aim, and that the restriction on the right of access to a court by the impugned provision is disproportionate. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.	Press Release

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
I. Individual Application
Erdal Sonduk 2020/23093 15 February 2024 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to a fair hearing under the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the right to a fair hearing, as the witnesses on whose statements the applicant’s conviction was based had not actually been heard by the court panel that delivered the judgment. - The applicant was convicted of the offence of usury, and the incumbent regional court of appeal dismissed his appeal on the merits. Consequently, his conviction became final. - The principle of immediacy entails that the judge has direct access to evidence suggested to shed light on the case and has full knowledge of the evidence without any intermediary. - In cases where a judge may not be able to conclude a trial for valid reasons, such as health issues, resignation, transfer, retirement, or assignment to another court, it is necessary to consider whether the replacement of the judge has undermined the overall fairness of the proceedings, and whether compensatory safeguards have been afforded in this sense. - In the present case, the applicant was convicted by the court panel that had not attended the hearings during which the witnesses were heard. The panel relied on the statements of witnesses by stating, inter alia, that the testimonies of the defence witnesses, being contrary to the ordinary course of life and intended to disguise the truth, were deemed unreliable. - In making its assessments, the court panel referred to such impressions/conviction that could be gained through direct observation of the witnesses during their testimonies. - The court panel, composition of which had been changed after hearing of the witnesses, convicted the applicant on the basis of impressions obtained merely by reading the transcripts, which fell foul of the principle of immediacy. -Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to a fair hearing under the right to a fair trial.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2023/200 9 May 2024 (Plenary)	Annulment of the phrase “…between the adoptive parent and the adoptee…” cited in sub-paragraph 1 of Article 278 § 3 (amended by Article 53 of Law no. 3494) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law no. 2004, as amended by Article 114 of Law no. 538.	- The contested provision stipulates that certain onerous transactions (transaction for consideration) between specified relatives shall be deemed as donations. The phrase “...between the adoptive parent and the adoptee...” cited in the said provision constitutes the contested provision. - It was maintained in brief that the contested provision was unconstitutional as it definitively classified onerous transactions between the adoptee and the adoptive parent as donations, without allowing the parties to present their claims, defences, or supporting evidence. It was further claimed that this imposed a disproportionate restriction on the rights to property and legal remedies. - In its previous annulment decisions regarding provisions regulating different kinship relations, the Court determined that the right to property and legal remedies had been restricted. It underlined that such rights may only be restricted by law, in line with constitutional grounds for limitation, and in compliance with the principle of proportionality - The relevant decisions concluded that the impugned phrases were precise and foreseeable regarding the nature, scope, and consequences of kinship relations. It was further determined that the provision aimed to prevent debtors from shielding assets from creditors and to facilitate debt collection, thereby pursuing a legitimate aim. - With regard to proportionality, the Court observed that the contested provision categorically presumed transactions between the debtor and certain close relatives to be donations without further conditions, establishing an irrefutable presumption that precluded any contrary claim or proof. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.	Press Release

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
I. Individual Application
Mohammad Atamleh 2020/9691 29 February 2024 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the said right on account of the administrative fine imposed on the applicant for his transporting gold coins overseas without fulfilling the notification and authorisation requirements. - The applicant, who is a foreign national, engages in gold trading. Upon arrival in the country, he declared, before the Customs Directorate, the amount of foreign currency in dollars that he brought into the country and informed that he would use this foreign currency to purchase gold coins. - When he was at the airport to leave the country, gold coins weighing 3,100 grams were found in his carry-on luggage. He was therefore subjected to an administrative fine corresponding to the value of 50 percent of the confiscated gold coins, which were ultimately returned to him. - His challenge to the impugned fine and subsequent appeal request were dismissed. - Despite the lack of proof that the gold coins in question were used in the commission of any offence or that their source was uncertain, the applicant was sentenced to an administrative fine amounting to 50 percent of the confiscated gold coins, since the relevant statutory provision stipulates a fixed rate. - The Court has therefore found that the impugned interference with the right to property placed an excessive burden on the applicant vis-à-vis the respective public-interest purpose: the upset of the fair balance between the legitimate aim sought to be protected and the said right. -Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to property.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2020/88 27 December 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain provisions of Presidential Decree no. 66 in terms of jurisdiction ratione materiae	- The contested provisions, Article 6/A (c) and (ç) of the Presidential Decree no. 14 on the Organisation of the Directorate of Communications added by Presidential Decree no. 66, stipulate that it is among the duties of the Department of Strategic Communication and Crisis Management, established within the Directorate of Communications (Directorate), to implement the necessary measures to ensure strategic communication and crisis management by analysing the factors of internal and external threats against the Republic of Türkiye, and to take actions against all kinds of manipulation and disinformation by determining psychological operations, propaganda and perception operations carried out against the Republic. - It is argued that the duties assigned to the Directorate by the aforementioned provisions should be regulated by law since they are related to the freedom of information and the press, that fundamental rights and freedoms cannot be regulated by Presidential decrees, and that the general framework and principles regarding the said measures have not been determined. - It is clear that the measures to be taken pursuant to the contested provisions are related to the freedom of expression and dissemination of thought as well as the freedom of the press, respectively safeguarded by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution. - In principle, the regulations laid down in the aforementioned provisions are not allowed to be made by Presidential decrees. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2024/45 22 February 2024 (Plenary)	No ground for a decision on the request for the revocation of an action regarding loss of membership of Parliament	- The impugned action is the reading out of the decision issued by the Court of Cassation regarding Şerafettin Can Atalay, member of Parliament, at the 54^th Session of the General Assembly of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye and the notification thereof to the General Assembly. - The aforementioned action is requested to be revoked on the grounds that it amounts to an amendment to the internal regulations. - Article 84 § 2 of the Constitution entails a final judicial sentence to acknowledge the loss of membership of Parliament. - It appears that following the Constitutional Court’s judgment finding a violation, dated 25 October 2023, there is no finalised judgment regarding Şerafettin Can Atalay. - The decision, subject of the said action, had no legal basis either in the Constitution or in the Turkish law. - Thus, the action cannot be regarded as a legislative act falling under the scope of Article 84 § 2 of the Constitution. - Consequently, there is no ground for the Court to render a decision on the matter.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
I. Individual Application
Gemak Gemi İnşaat Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. 2020/11509 29 February 2024 (Plenary)	Violation of the right of access to a court under the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the said right due to the dismissal, as being time-barred, of the action brought by the applicant company against the accrual of real-estate tax and the appraisal commission decision forming a basis for the impugned accrual. - For the immovable properties owned by the applicant company, the real-estate tax was calculated as 148,593.10 Turkish liras (TRY) for the tax year 2010, whereas the amount accrued in 2009 was TRY 18,519.72. Therefore, the applicant company filed an action against the appraisal commission decision whereby the real-estate tax-base for the tax year 2010 was determined. - However, this action was dismissed by the incumbent court on grounds of lack of capacity to sue as the applicant company was not, by the date of the said decision, among the parties who were entitled to bring an action against the appraisal commission decision. - In the meantime, conducting a constitutionality review of the respective provision forming a statutory basis for the dismissal of the applicant’s action, the Court annulled the contested provision in 2012, which did not, nevertheless, have a bearing on the applicant’s action regarding the 2010 tax year. - However, the actions brought by the applicant with respect to the tax-base rates for the tax years 2011, 2012 and 2013, which were determined on the basis of the real-estate tax rate of 2010, were also dismissed, as the tax-base rate for the 2010 tax year had already become final. - The Court has concluded that the interpretation made –as regards the time-limits for filing an action– by the inferior court on the basis of a situation which was not prevailing at the time when the applicant company filed its action and which could not be taken into consideration was unforeseeable in the particular circumstances of the present case and excessively hampered the applicant’s ability to access to a court, thus placing an excessive and disproportionate burden on it. -Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right of access to a court under the right to a fair trial.	Press Release
Yakup Güneş 2019/15907 19 March 2024 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the said right due to the applicant’s disciplinary detention for denying to fulfil his obligation to testify as a witness. - The applicant was already detained on remand for his alleged membership of a terrorist organisation, when he was requested to testify as a witness against two other persons suspected of the same offence. - The right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself, enshrined in Article 38 § 5 of the Constitution, ensures that no one is compelled to make self-incriminating statements or to submit such evidence. - In the present case, the applicant’s statement as a witness might have been used against him in the course of the ongoing proceedings and even relied on for a new criminal charge. -It is incompatible with the requirements of the right to remain silent and not to make self-incriminating statements that a witness is compelled to testify despite ongoing charges or trials against him/her or facing disciplinary detention. - Considering that there was no legal obligation likely to be imposed on the applicant to testify as a witness before the prosecutor’s office, the impugned interference with his right to personal liberty and security was devoid of a legal basis. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to personal liberty and security.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2023/127 9 May 2024 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision stipulating that the period spent in foreign service, exceeding three years regardless of the individual’s consent, shall not be taken into account for promotion	- The contested provision, Article 55 § 15 of the Police Organisation Law no. 3201, envisages that the period spent in foreign service -exceeding three years regardless of the individual’s consent- shall not be regarded as actual working time and shall not be taken into account for promotion to a higher rank. - It is argued that while the entire service period of the police officers assigned in domestic service is taken into account in the promotion of rank, it is not the case for the officers assigned in foreign service, insofar as it concerns the period exceeding three years regardless of their consent, thus resulting in the prolongation of the period for the latter to get promotion. - The Court considers that the impugned situation, caused by the contested provision, results in a delay in the promotion of the officers assigned in foreign service when compared to their peers, especially due to the reasons beyond the former’s control. - In this respect, to provision imposes an excessive burden on the police officers assigned in foreign service and is not proportionate. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
I. Individual Application
Fadime Kolutek and Others 2017/25008 31 January 2024 (Plenary)	Violations of the right to respect for private life and right to a fair trial, respectively safeguarded by Articles 20 and 36 of the Constitution	-Alleged violations of the said rights on respective grounds that the meeting of the applicant, a prisoner, with his lawyer had been monitored by the officers and that the appeal against the disciplinary punishment imposed relying on the minutes issued after the said meeting, had been dismissed. - The measure entailing the monitoring of the applicant’s meeting with his lawyer was taken during a period when a state of emergency was declared nationwide. - Considering the circumstances of the state of emergency, it may be reasonable to impose additional measures on the persons concerned, in accordance with the legitimate purposes, provided that there are objective and convincing grounds. - In the circumstances of the present case, it has been observed that the monitoring decision was not issued by the public prosecutor and lacked any specific reasoning as regards the applicant. - When considered from the standpoint of Article 15 of the Constitution, which allows for the suspension and limitation of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms during the state of emergency, the severity of the impugned measure was not found proportionate to the extent required by the exigencies of the situation. - Besides, the use of the minutes issued by the officers at the penitentiary institution as decisive evidence in the disciplinary proceedings undermined the overall fairness of proceedings. - Consequently, the Court has found violations of the right to respect for private life and right to a fair trial.	Press Release
Türkiye Devrimci Kara, Hava ve Demiryolu Taşımacılığı İşçileri Sendikası 2020/34550 15 February 2024 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to trade-union freedom safeguarded by Article 51 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to pending of the case despite legislative requirement for expeditious resolution. - The applicant union, requested a determination of competence from the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, asserting that it had attained the requisite number to negotiate a collective labour agreement (CLA). The Ministry ruled negatively on this request. Subsequently, the applicant appealed this negative ruling, while another set of proceedings regarding the issue had been ongoing. -The Court has concluded that the proceedings have been pending despite the statutory requirement for their expedient conclusion, and that this stance of the judicial authorities deprived, throughout the proceedings, the applicant and other employees of the opportunity to engage in union activities within the scope of CLA and of the union rights afforded by an agreement. - Additionally, the Court has recognized that the failure to resolve such cases within a reasonable time has become systematic, thereby constituting a structural problem. Thus, the Court has considered that systematic reforms must be introduced to prevent future violations arising from prolonged adjudication of appeals against the determination of competence before the courts of instance. -Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to trade-union freedom.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2022/21 14 March 2024 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain provisions of Law no. 7346, Law no. 7430 and Law no. 7439	A. Provision stipulating the continuation of the payment of pension to those working in certain institutions despite receiving retirement or old age pensions - The contested provision applies to certain institutions listed therein. - In consideration of the other institutions operating in similar fields but not listed in the provision, there appears difference in treatment in terms of the right to social security, in the absence of objective and reasonable grounds. - Hence there is a violation of the principle of equality within the scope of the right to social security. B. Provisions envisaging the determination by the board of trustees of the remuneration and allowances to be paid by the Foundation - It is at the discretion of the legislator to consider the social benefit in the activities to be carried out by foundations established by law and to envisage the transfer of certain amount of public funds to these foundations. - Besides, it is a requirement of the principle of democratic state to introduce statutory provisions safeguarding the use of the public funds, transferred on a regular basis, in the public interest. - According to the contested provisions, where no basic rules and principles are specified, it is at the discretion of the boards of trustees to determine the said remuneration and allowances, which is in breach of the principle of democratic state. C. Provision allowing for the transfer of funds from the municipal budget to a foundation to be used for the expenses of an institute that may carry out activities outside the territory of the Municipality - As a rule, the relevant funds to be transferred must be used for the activities within the territory of the Municipality. - In this sense, the contested provision is incompatible with the principle of financial autonomy of local governments. Consequently, the contested provisions have been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
I. Individual Application
Şeyhmus Yılma 2018/37995 11 January 2024 (Plenary)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violations of the right to property and right of access to a court respectively safeguarded by Articles 35 and 36 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the right to property due to the refusal to grant the applicant the salary which had accrued during the period between his dismissal from office and the rejection of his request for re-examination. -Alleged violation of the right of access to a court within the scope of right to a fair trial due to the award of litigation costs and counsel’s fees against the applicant. -In relation to the alleged violation of the right to property, the Court asserted that the applicant’s dismissal was part of an extraordinary measure prescribed by Decree-Law no. 667 and bore immediate legal consequences. Therefore, the Court concluded that the applicant had no legitimate expectation in this regard. - Consequently, the Court declared inadmissible the alleged violation of the right to property for being incompatible ratione materiae. - In relation to the alleged violation of the right of access to a court, the Court indicated that the possible obligation for the plaintiff to pay the other party’s litigation costs or counsel’s fees could, under certain circumstances, deter individuals from pursuing legal action or render this remedy ineffective. However, the contested amount in the present case did not prevent the applicant from bringing an action nor did it render the relevant legal remedy ineffective. - Consequently, the Court declared inadmissible the alleged violation of the right of access to a court for being manifestly ill-founded.	Press Release
Mehmethan Kamburoğlu 2019/27554 31 January 2024 (Plenary)	Violation of the presumption of innocence safeguarded by Articles 36 and 38 § 4 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the presumption of innocence on the grounds that the administrative court’s reasoned decision contained statements insinuating the applicant’s culpability by referring to criminal proceedings that had not resulted in a final conviction. - The applicant, a specialist sergeant trainee, successfully passed the gendarmerie recruitment examination. However, his contract was terminated due to security clearance concerns, which resulted in an administrative appeal for annulment. - In its annulment decision regarding the impugned act, the trial court noted that the applicant was accused of threat and intentional injury, resulting in a suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment (HAGB). - The trial court found the applicant’s actions lawful, recognizing his legitimate expectation to remain in his post due to successful recruitment and training. However, upon appeal by the Gendarmerie General Command, the Regional Administrative Court quashed the judgment and dismissed the action. The applicant’s subsequent appeal was dismissed with final effect. - The administrative court deemed the applicant guilty of the offences and convicted him, despite the issuance of the HAGB decision, due to the nature and gravity of the offences. This conclusion was reached even though the criminal proceedings had not led to a final conviction, and the termination of the applicant’s contract was not based on substantiated legal facts and circumstances. - The administrative court failed to examine the facts and circumstances of the criminal proceedings, attributing criminal liability to the applicant without a final conviction. Accordingly, such a conclusion undermined the applicant’s innocence and rendered ineffective the HAGB decisions. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the presumption of innocence.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2018/117 7 December 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain provisions of Decree-Law no. 703	- Law no. 7142 authorises the Council of Ministers to issue decree-laws to ensure compliance with the constitutional amendments made by Law no. 6771. - It is specified in the legislative intent of Law no. 7142 that since the parliamentary government system has been replaced by the Presidential government system through certain constitutional amendments, some arrangements are also required in the relevant laws. Thus, Decree-Law no. 703 has been issued in order to make amendments to certain laws and decree-laws to ensure compliance with constitutional amendments. -The constitutionality review of decree-laws is intended to examine their compliance with not only the Constitution but also the empowering act on which they are based in terms of their subject, purpose, scope and principles. - The repealed Article 91 of the Constitution prohibited the regulation of certain issues by decree-laws. Accordingly, the Turkish Grand National Assembly may empower the Council of Ministers to issue decree-laws on the matters that are not within the area prohibited to be regulated by decree-laws. - In terms of a constitutionality review, a decree-law shall be annulled, in accordance with the aforementioned Article 91, if it is found not to comply with the empowering act or it concerns an issue that falls within a prohibited area. - In its review of the contested provisions of Decree-Law no. 703, the Court has discovered that the said provisions are not covered by Law no. 7142, that some of them are incompatible with the purpose of Law no. 7142, and that some of them contain regulations on rights and freedoms falling outside the sphere of decree-laws. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2023/110 1 February 2024 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision discharging asset management companies from the liability to pay certain fees indefinitely	- The contested provision stipulates that the transactions carried out by asset management companies and the papers issued in relation thereto shall be exempt from the fees to be paid in accordance with the Law no. 492 on Fees. - It is argued that fee exemption granted to asset management companies for an indefinite period of time amounts to granting privileges to these companies, which is in breach of the principle of equality before the law as well as the rule of law. - The Court has analysed whether there is an objective and reasonable ground for the said difference in procedure implemented in favour of asset management companies. - Such a significant advantage in favour of asset management companies results in a situation to the detriment of other enterprises. Hence an increase in the profit rates of the former by reducing their expenses. - The Court has concluded that the persistent difference between asset management companies and other enterprises is not proportionate. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2024/10 4 April 2024 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision necessitating the consent of the board of creditors for authorising certain transactions of the debtor in the concordat process	- The contested provision stipulates that if the debtor, who has been granted a delay during the concordat process, requests the incumbent court’s authorisation to carry out the relevant transactions in order to make certain disposals, the court would need the consent of the board of creditors. - The provision is claimed to be incompatible with the principle of the independence of the courts. - The Court considers that according to the contested provision, the courts enjoy no discretion to assess whether the creditors’ refusal to give consent is the most appropriate solution in the interests of the parties. - It should be borne in mind that a fair balance between the parties can only be struck by ensuring the review of the decision issued by the board of creditors as well as granting the judge discretion. - Depriving the courts of discretionary power would be incompatible with the positive obligations of the State. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case

Decision

Case-Law Development

Related

Constitutionality Review

Ahmet Özgan and Şule Özgan

2020/21347

İsmail Tuncel

2019/8609

21 December 2023

(Plenary)

Violation of the right of access to a court safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution

-Alleged violation of the said right due to the authorities’ failure to rely on the additional expert reports which calculated higher amounts of damages as well as the authorities’ failure to compensate the applicants’ actual damages in the respective proceedings in relation to traffic and work accidents.

As regards the applicants Ahmet Özgan and Şule Özgan

- Following the death of their relative in a traffic accident, the applicants brought an action for compensation against the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle.

- In the course of the proceedings, an expert report was issued to calculate the amount of pecuniary compensation to be awarded to the applicants.

- In the additional report issued upon the request of the defendant, the loss of financial support suffered by the applicants was calculated higher than the amount specified in the first report, and therefore, the applicants claimed the excess amount by bringing an additional action.

- The court refused to rely on the additional report and dismissed the applicants’ compensation claims, considering that the applicants’ failure to contest the first expert report constituted a procedurally vested right in favour of the other party.

- The failure to compensate the applicants’ actual damages on solely procedural grounds resulted in the deprivation of the rights afforded to them under the substantive law.

- Accordingly, the relevant procedural practice rendered ineffective the action brought by the applicants, thereby imposing a heavy and disproportionate burden on them.

-The impugned interference with the right of access to a court was disproportionate.

- Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right of access to a court.

As regards the applicants Ahmet Özgan and Şule Özgan

- The applicant was injured in a mining accident, as a result of which he suffered a ruptured tendon in his left foot and an incision in his right hand.

- In the course of the proceedings, the first medical report issued in respect of the applicant determined the applicant’s degree of permanent incapacity for work as 14%.

- Another report that was subsequently issued upon the objection of the defendant employer determined the applicant’s disability rate as 19%.

- Despite the higher amount of the loss of financial support calculated in the additional report and the applicant's claims for the excess amounts through an additional action, the court refused to rely on the additional report and based its decision on the first report on solely procedural grounds.

- The impugned procedural practice rendered ineffective the action brought by the applicant to avail himself of the said right, thereby imposing a heavy and disproportionate burden on him.

- The interference with the right of access to a court was disproportionate.

- The determination of the rate of disability on the part of the persons in cases whereby compensation is sought for the damages arising from the loss of capacity for work due to work accidents is a technical issue requiring expertise.

- Therefore, in such a technical issue, an individual cannot be expected to precisely foresee the actual disability rate while bringing an action and to formulate/limit his claims accordingly.

- Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right of access to a court.

Press Release

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
Constitutionality Review
E.2018/95 27 December 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of the third paragraph added to Article 28 of Law no. 1219 on the Practice of Medicine and Related Arts/Medicine Sciences	- The contested provision envisages that the medical officers studying at medical faculties for and on behalf of the Ministry of National Defence and the Gendarmerie and Coast Guard Academy, who have been dismissed on the basis of a court decision or disciplinary board decision without completing the envisaged period of compulsory service, cannot perform the practice of medicine during the remaining period of compulsory service. - It is argued that the ban on the exercise of the practice of medicine for a long period of time by military doctors, who have been dismissed from the military forces, lacked any reasonable ground, and that their inability to engage in professional activity for a long period may amount to a disproportionate punishment. - The legislator has the discretion to prescribe a sanction –in case of military doctor’s failure to fulfil the obligation to perform compulsory service– and to indicate the respective terms and conditions. However, a reasonable balance must be struck between the right to labour and the legitimate aim sought to be attained. - The contested provision precludes military doctors, who have been dismissed from military forces, from performing their profession as a freelancer or in private or public institutions. The ban is contingent upon the existence of a court decision or disciplinary board decision. - The medical officers serving at the Turkish Armed Forces are under an obligation of performing compulsory service for a period of 15 years. - Therefore, those who have been dismissed shortly after being recruited cannot perform their profession for a long period of time: thus placing an excessive burden on such officers. - The contested provision was found to be not proportionate to the aim of maintaining public order. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2018/96 27 December 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of the first sentence of Additional Article 1 § 1 of Law no. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Preventive Measures and Additional Article 21 of Decree-law no. 375	- The contested provisions, namely the first sentence of Additional Article 1 § 1 of Law no. no. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Preventive Measures and Additional Article 21 of Decree-law no. 375, were added to the legislative texts respectively by Articles 97 and 117 of Law no. 7079. *A. Provision requiring persons detained or convicted of terrorist offenses to attend hearings with specific clothing* - The contested provision provides for that in cases where those who are detained or convicted of offences falling under the scope of Anti-Terror Law no. 3713 are taken out of the penitentiary institution to attend the hearings, they shall be obliged to wear the clothes provided by the administration of the penitentiary institution: intended to ensure the order of the hearing. - It is already stipulated in Articles 203 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure no. 5271 that the presiding judge or the judge may order the removal of a detainee/convict disrupting the order of the hearing, on condition of not precluding the exercise of the right to defence. - As is seen, Articles 203 and 204 of Code no. 5271 will apply to the cases where a detainee/convict wears clothing with symbols or writings intended to disrupt the order of the hearing: thus, the contested provision failed to fulfil the necessity criterion. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled. *B. Provision entailing the exemption of the public officer who prevents the reinstated public employee from resuming work from paying public damage* - The contested provision stipulates that if the employment contract terminated by the public officer acting on behalf of the administration is found to have no valid reason or the employee whose reinstatement is decided is not reinstated by the public officer acting on behalf of the administration, the public officer refusing to carry out the reinstatement shall be exempted from public damage, if incurred. - Such an exemption may lead to arbitrary practices by the public officers. - Therefore, holding accountable the public officers who cause public damage due to their own negligence would have a deterrent effect against arbitrary and unlawful actions. - The contested provision contravenes the principle of rule of law. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2023/116 22 February 2024 (Plenary)	Annulment of Article 166 § 4 of the Turkish Civil Code no. 4721	- The contested provision envisages that in cases where upon the elapse of three years following the finalisation of a decision whereby the action for divorce was dismissed, family unity cannot be ensured for any reason whatsoever, the divorce request of one of the spouses may be granted due to the complete breakdown of marriage. - It is argued that the period sought for the grant of divorce request is not fair in that the divorce can be carried out after a long period of time; and that such period leads to individuals to have an extramarital relationship, which is in breach of the right to improve and protect the individual’s corporeal and spiritual existence as well as the State’s obligation to protect the family. - It has been observed that the contested provision, stipulating the elapse of three years for the possibility of obtaining divorce, is intended to protect and maintain the family institution, as the foundation of the Turkish society. - It is within the legislator’s discretion to determine the conditions for deeming the marriage as completely breakdown due to the spouses’ failure to re-establish a common life. However, such conditions should not make it significantly difficult to obtain a divorce and should not force the parties to continue the marriage union for an unreasonable period of time. - It should be also considered that the first condition, dismissal of a divorce action, also takes a certain period of time, as is also the case for the finalisation of the dismissal decision. - Therefore, it has been concluded that in cases where the common life cannot be re-established, it is not possible for spouses to obtain a divorce decision within a reasonable period of time: placing an unbearable burden on those concerned. - No reasonable and proportionate balance was struck between the right to respect for private life and the aim to protect the family. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2023/78 22 February 2024 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain amended provisions of Article 54 of Law no. 2547 and amended Article 7 § 5 of Law no. 7034	*A. Provision Restricting Certain Activities such as distributing leaflets, hanging posters or banners inside the higher education institutions* - The contested provision stipulates that activities such as distributing leaflets, hanging posters or banners without permission in the higher education institutions shall be punished with a reprimand, imposing a restriction on the students’ freedom of expression. - It is undoubted that actions such as distributing leaflets, hanging posters or banners are preferred for purposes of attracting attention and forming public opinion, as such methods allow individuals to reach large masses in a more striking way with less burden. - However, making such actions subject to a disciplinary sanction in the absence of permission amounts to a categorical restriction of the freedom of expression and does not correspond to any pressing social need. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled. *B. Provision imposing a disciplinary sanction for holding meetings at higher education institutions without permission* - The contested provision envisages that the holding of meetings at closed or open spaces within the higher education institutions without obtaining permission from the authorities shall be subject to disciplinary punishment of suspension from the higher education institution for a period of one week to one month. - Article 34 § 1 of the Constitution, which reads “Everyone has the right to hold unarmed and peaceful meetings and demonstration marches without prior permission”, clearly sets forth that the holding of meetings and demonstration marches cannot be subject to the condition of obtaining permission. - It has been thus observed that the contested provision contravenes Article 13 of the Constitution, which provides for that the restrictions cannot be contrary to the letter of the Constitution. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled. *C. Provision imposing a disciplinary sanction on university students for their criminal actions in the absence of a court decision* - The contested provision envisages that a student who has allegedly carried out activities on behalf of an organization or aided the organization without being a member of it shall be subjected to disciplinary sanction without any need for a final court decision. - In cases where it is found out that a student has performed aforementioned activities, he/she shall be expelled from the higher education institution. These acts are already classified as offence in the legislation. - However, the question of whether the student who will be subjected to a disciplinary sanction has indeed committed the said acts is ascertained not through a final decision to be issued by a court, but through an administrative act: in breach of the presumption of innocence. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled. *D. Provision allowing a particular university to use forests free of charge* - The Turkish-Japanese University of Science and Technology (University) is a state university established by Law no. 7034. - The contested provision stipulates that the University will not be charged any fee, including rent, for its use of forest land. - The allocation of a forest land to a University explicitly pursues an aim in the public interest. However, such an allocation must be justified also by a “state of necessity”. - As set forth in Article 169 § 1 of the Constitution, the State is obliged to enact the necessary legislation and take the measures required for the protection and extension of forests. - Thus, it is not possible to allocate forests lands free of charge. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
Constitutionality Review
E.2021/28 18 January 2024 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain provisions of Law no. 7262 on the Prevention of Financing of the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction	*A. Provision restricting the right to protection of personal data* - The contested provision envisages that the persons, institutions or organisations, from whom/which the Inspection and Cooperation Commission (“Commission”) seeks any information or document with respect to the implementation of Law no. 7262, cannot abstain from submitting such information and document by virtue of any other laws. - It has been observed that the contested provision necessitates the submission of information and documents -in the form of personal data- to the Commission, without the relevant safeguards and basic principles as to the collection, use, and process of personal data being prescribed by law: thus, imposing a restriction on the right to protection of personal data and contravening Articles 13 and 20 of the Constitution. - Nor does the contested provision contain any safeguard with respect to the protection of trade secret or any information acquired in the performance of certain professions entailing trust and confidentiality, which are also to be submitted to the Commission when requested, without any exception. *B. Provision entailing the unauthorised seizure of goods and property collected for charity and their subsequent transfer to the public treasury* - It should be, in the first place, ensured that in case of any irregularity in the charity process, any goods or money collected during this process be returned to the original possessor. - However, if it is not possible to do so, then such goods or money may be transferred to public treasury, as a last resort. - Accordingly, the Court has concluded that the contested provision imposes an unnecessary restriction on the right to property in the context of the principle of proportionality. *C. Provision empowering the Ministry of Interior and the local authorities to give instructions to other Ministries and Institutions* - It is envisaged in the contested provision that, reserving the provisions in the lex specialis laws, the associations and any form of facility or establishment operating under the associations shall be inspected by the respective ministries and institutions, upon any order by the Ministry of Interior (“Ministry”) or local authorities. - Pursuant to Article 106 of the Constitution, there is no hierarchical order/relation or superiority/subordination among ministers and ministries. Therefore, the ministers and ministries are not entitled to give orders or instructions to one another. - The Court has thus concluded that the contested provision, creating a hierarchical relationship between the Ministry/local authorities and the other ministries/institutions, contravenes Article 123 of the Constitution. *D. Provisions on the suspension from office of the persons holding office in the associations and their replacement* 1. Provision on the suspension from office of those who are holding in any organ of the associations, other than the general assembly, as well as of these organs - The contested provision envisages that in case of any prosecution initiated against persons holding office in any organ of an association, other than the general assembly, for certain offences laid down in Law no. 6415 and Code no. 5237, these persons or the organs where they hold office may be suspended from office by the Minister of Interior as a temporary precaution. - The provision provides no time-limit for the duration of this precaution. - Besides, the contested provision, enabling the suspension of the respective organs where such persons hold office, leads to the suspension from office of other officials against whom there is, indeed, no prosecution. - The Court has thus concluded that the provision imposes a disproportionate restriction on the right to freedom of association. 2. Provision allowing for the replacement of the organs/officials suspended from office through a court decision - It is prescribed that in case of suspension from office of the officials having being subjected to criminal prosecution for committing any offence under Article 32 of Law no. 5523, a trustee shall be appointed to replace them through a court decision. - The Court has recently noted in its decision no. E.2005/8 K. 2006/2 that if any member or official holding office in any organ of the association resigns for any reason, the procedure according to which the election/assignment process will be conducted shall be indicated in the charter of every association, as a natural requirement of the right to freedom of association. - Thus, the replacement of the suspended organs/officials through appointment by a court decision is not a more lenient means of interference to be applied as a last resort. - Thus, the Court has concluded that the restriction imposed by the contested provision on the right to freedom of association does not meet a pressing social need. *E. Provision having a potential effect on the confidentiality between lawyer and client* - Professional secrets and information acquired during the exercise of the profession of lawyer are afforded privileged protection within the meaning of the right to respect for private life. - The contested provision requires the self-employed lawyers to disclose professional secrets and information obtained during the exercise of their profession to the administration, without any additional safeguard or mechanism being prescribed. - Thus, the Court has found that the contested provision imposes an excessive burden on the self-employed lawyers, and that the restriction on the right to respect for private life is disproportionate and incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society. * Consequently, the above-cited provisions have been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2023/100 1 February 2024 (Plenary)	Annulment of the third sentence of Article 5 § 2 of Law no. 6237 on Ports Construction	- The contested provision provides that the organisations operating the facilities, the substantial repair of which will be undertaken by the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure, shall be obliged to transfer an amount corresponding to 10% of their annual gross revenue to the state treasury, in return for the substantial repair. - It is argued that the contested provision imposes a restriction on the right to property, that the notions “substantial repair” and “gross revenue” cited therein are vague in nature, and that no definite method for the calculation of the amount to be transferred to the state treasury is indicated. - The Court has noted that, the contested provision intended for attaining the aim of ensuring the continued performance of the activities of the facilities transferred to the local administrations, necessitates an annual payment of 10% of the gross revenue so as to secure the cost of substantial repairs envisaged to be undertaken by the central administration. - However, it is not taken into consideration that the substantial repair may not be necessary every year, and that the real cost of substantial repair may be less than the indicated rate. - Nor does the contested provision provides any opportunity for sett-off in case of an overpayment. - The Court has thus found that the contested provision imposes a disproportionate interference with the fiscal autonomy of local administrations, thus in breach of Article 127 of the Constitution. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2023/163 22 February 2024 (Plenary)	Annulment of Article 226 § 4 of Code of Criminal Procedure no. 5271	- The contested provision, where the procedures regarding the steps to be taken in case of any change in the characterisation of an offence during the proceedings are laid down, sets forth that the written notifications shall be made to defence counsel, if any, and that the defence counsel shall exercise the rights afforded to the accused person in the same way and to the same extent as the latter himself. - It is argued that although the notion “written notification” is cited in the contested provision, there is no such indication in the paragraphs referred to in the provision; that there is no definite and precise explanation as to the scope of the rights afforded to the accused person, that the failure to ascertain the rights to be exercised by the defence counsel is contrary to the principle of legal certainty, and that the contested provision leads to the substitution of the legal assistance by the defence counsel with the accused person’s defence submissions. - The trial court may change the legal characterisation of the offence, formerly attributed by the investigation authority, which is also entitled to make a subsequent change in the characterisation thereof during the proceedings. - As a requirement of the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings, the accused person is to be informed of such change for reformulating his defence submissions according to the recent classification of the offence. - However, pursuant to the contested provision, the accused person’s case may be concluded even with a conviction decision through the defence made by the defence counsel upon a notification, without informing the accused person of the change in the legal characterisation of the offence he committed and the sentence imposed on him. - This procedure deprives the accused person of the opportunity to affect the outcome of the proceedings. - The Court has accordingly concluded that the provision imposes a disproportionate restriction on the right to a fair trial. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
I. Individual Application
Fatih Özaltın and İbrahim Esinler 2019/17374 29 November 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to respect for private life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the right to respect for private life by imposing a five-year restriction on income-generating professional activities as a condition for professorial promotion. -The applicants, Fatih Özaltın and İbrahim Esinler, associate professors at Hacettepe University, challenged the condition after facing obstacles in their promotion to professor due to their engagement in private medical practices. -Initially, the Constitutional Court annulled a legal provision requiring medical academics to cease private practice, thus allowing the applicants to continue their professional activities. However, their promotion was blocked by another requirement. -The Court ruled that imposing a five-year cessation of income-generating activities does not improve academic quality and has no legal basis under Law no. 2547 on Higher Education, thus violating the right to respect for private life. -The Court found that the absence of a specific legislative provision regulating such a condition invalidates the interference with private professional activities and constitutes a violation of constitutional rights. -Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to respect for private life.	Press Release
Ahmet Kardam and Others 2019/29604 13 December 2023 (First Section)	Violation of the right to respect for private life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the right to respect for private life due to failure of public authorities to fulfil their positive obligations. -The applicants alleged that their right to respect for private life had been violated due to the dismissal of their action for annulment against the EIA decision in favour of a power plant project. -The Court observed that the subject matter of the dispute was related to the waste landfill area of the power plant and the surrounding olive grove. -In relation to the waste landfill area of the plant, the inferior courts merely found that it had not been used and that the contracts had been concluded for the sale or the storage of the existing waste, but they failed to inquire into alternative ways of re-purposing waste and the environmental impact of manners of waste storage and whether measures and obligations had been regulated in this regard. -In relation to the olive grove surrounding the plants, the trial court reached two different and contradicting conclusions, nor did it provide any grounds to eliminate this contradiction. -Accordingly, the Court concluded that the incumbent public authorities failed to act with due diligence, to assess public and individual interests as required and to fulfil their positive obligations under the right to respect for private life. -Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to respect for private life.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2020/52 27 December 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain provisions of the Presidential Decree no. 1, regulating the authority of the Ministry of Industry and Technology	A. Provision enabling the Ministry of Industry and Technology to have third parties inspect the conformity of industrial products with relevant regulations - The contested provision stipulates that the Ministry may have third parties inspect industrial products for compliance with administrative and technical regulations and Turkish standards. - While it is laid down in Article 47 of the Constitution that real persons or legal entities may be involved in the provision of public services through private law contracts, the type of public services to be provided through such contracts must be determined by law. Thus, the said regulation cannot be made by a presidential decree. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled. B. Provision authorizing the Ministry to establish revolving fund enterprises - The contested provision, in addition to authorising the Ministry to establish revolving fund enterprises, regulates the determination of the amount of the revolving fund, the addition of the profits to the capital, and the recording of these profits as income to the general budget. - It has been observed that the revolving fund enterprises specified in the provision are directly related to public revenues and expenditures and that the incomes to be obtained are classified as public revenues. - Considering that the income to be obtained as a result of the activities of the revolving fund enterprises is public revenue, the regulations regarding the establishment, capital structure and income-generating activities of the said enterprises should be made exclusively by law. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
I. Individual Application
Ayşe Durucan Saygı and Others 2020/17478 29 November 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to access to a court under the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right to access to a court due to the failure to notify the action for annulment concerning the entire oral examination in which the applicants had passed successfully. - The Trade Union of Office Civil Servants lodged an appeal for the annulment of the entire oral examination, which was dismissed by the administrative court. The Union’s appeal against the dismissal was rejected by the regional administrative court, which annulled the examination, and the Council of State dismissed defendant administration’s appellate request without examining it, on the grounds that the decision was final. - In the present case, the applicants were deprived of the possibility of presenting their arguments on the merits of the dispute, on the matters which they considered to be capable of affecting the outcome of the case, as well as of submitting evidence to substantiate their claims. - Accordingly, the Court has found that the burden of the failure to resolve the matters which can be remedied by legal provisions on the implementation of the notification procedure is entirely placed on the applicants and that the impugned interference with the applicants’ right to access to a court has been disproportionate. - Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial.	Press Release
Serdar Güzelçay and Others 2022/66987 21 December 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the freedom of expression due to denial to deliver the books posted to certain persons in penitentiary institutions. -The applicants, who were detainees or convicts in different penitentiary institutions, claimed that their freedom of expression had been violated due to denial to deliver the books posted to them. -The Court assessed that the practice of preventing the delivery of non-periodical publications in prisons under the current system constitutes a structural problem. -The Court found it essential to take administrative and legal measures in respect of the delivery of the non-periodicals to the prisoners and to establish effective procedures in order to ensure that the non-periodicals are provided to the prisoners through the use of uniform and fair mechanisms in compliance with the criteria set out by the Court. -Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the freedom of expression.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2022/129 8 November 2023 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of Article 217/A added to the Turkish Criminal Code no. 5237 by Article 29 of Law no. 7418	- It is envisaged in the contested provision that those who publicly disclose incorrect information regarding the internal and external security of the country, public order and public health, which potentially damages public welfare, for merely creating panic, fear or anxiety among the public shall be sentenced to imprisonment. - It is argued that the contested provision amounts to manifest interference with the freedom of expression; that the term “incorrect information” is vague and may lead to unforeseeable consequences in the interpretation of the provision; and that besides, the Turkish legal system has other means capable of combatting misinformation. - The Court has observed that the contested provision has been formulated in a sufficiently clear and precise manner, which excludes any doubts as to the nature and circumstances of the offence and the prescribed sanction: thus, the provision has been found to satisfy the requirement of lawfulness. - Prescribing imprisonment for the imputed act would undoubtedly serve the purpose of preserving public welfare, thus preventing the disturbance of public order: it has a legitimate aim of maintaining public order and safety. - Besides, those sentenced to imprisonment by virtue of that provision have the opportunity to lodge an appeal against the sentence. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed.
E.2019/72 28 December 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of the Presidential Decree –as a whole– no. 34 on the Justice Academy of Türkiye	- The contested Presidential Decree no. 34 lays down the principles and procedures as to the establishment, duties and powers of the Justice Academy of Türkiye. - It is argued that the main objective of the Presidential Decree no. 34 concerns the training of the candidate judges and prosecutors as well as the in-service training of judges and candidates, which should have been regulated by law; and that these issues are not a matter falling under the realm of executive power and cannot be, therefore, regulated through a presidential decree. - The Justice Academy established through Presidential Decree no. 34 is empowered to arrange in-service training of judges and prosecutors. As it is set forth in Article 140 of the Constitution that “in-service training” of judges and prosecutors shall be regulated by law, this matter can in no way be regulated by law. - As to the prevocational training of candidate judges and prosecutors, it should be acknowledged that “qualifications of judges and prosecutors” laid down in Article 140 of the Constitution also cover the admission to the profession and candidacy period. Therefore, all processes regarding candidate judges and prosecutors are to be regulated by law pursuant to the independence of courts and tenure of judges. - Besides, the judges and prosecutors who may be assigned or appointed to the Academy as an academic or rapporteur-judge are subject to the provisions laid down in Article 140 of the Constitution, despite undertaking an administrative duty. Therefore, such issues should have been also regulated by law. - Consequently, taken as a whole, the Presidential Decree no. 34 has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2022/93 18 January 2024 (Plenary)	Annulment of paragraph 3 added to Article 3 of the Presidential Decree no. 14 on the Organisation of the Directorate of Communications, Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye	- The contested provision envisages the establishment of the Presidential Communication Centre (CİMER), an official platform founded to enable Turkish citizens to contact the public institutions and organisations for submitting their requests, considerations and suggestions and to obtain result in an effective and rapid manner. The provision also sets forth that the principles and procedures as to the functioning of CİMER be determined through a regulation to be issued by the Presidency. - It is argued that the contested provision falling within the realm of the right to legal remedies and the rights to petition and to information pertains to an issue that cannot be regulated through a presidential decree, as the statutory arrangements restricting fundamental rights and freedoms are to be introduced exclusively by law. - The Court has noted that the rights to petition and to information are enshrined in Article 74 of the Constitution, thus afforded constitutional safeguard. - As set forth in Article 104 of the Constitution, the fundamental rights, individual rights and duties included in the first and second chapters and the political rights and duties listed in the fourth chapter of the second part of the Constitution shall not be regulated by a presidential decree. - The Court has observed that the duties and activities performed by CİMER falls into the scope of the rights to petition and to information enshrined in Article 74 of the Constitution: a matter that cannot be regulated through a presidential decree, but exclusively by law. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
I. Individual Application
M.S. 2020/15221 5 October 2023 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the said right due to the judicial review of detention without a hearing. - The trial court held a hearing ex officio where it adjourned the future hearings for an indefinite period of time within the scope of the measures taken against the pandemic. During the subsequent proceedings, the court reviewed the applicant’s detention over the case file on different dates and insisted on the continuation of the applicant’s detention on remand. - In the examination of the complaints regarding the duration of protection measures, the Court should not only take into consideration the periods specified by law, but it should also make a constitutional assessment as to whether the periods specified by law or the period in a given case is reasonable. - During the impugned period, the applicant could not verbally raise, before the judge/court, his objections to challenge his detention on remand, his claims regarding the content or characterization of the evidence adduced against him, his statements against the opinions and assessments in favour of or against him, as well as his requests for release. - Therefore, it has been concluded that the review of the applicant’s detention on remand for more than 2 months without holding a hearing did not comply with the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to personal liberty and security.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2020/55 28 December 2023 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of certain provisions added to the Higher Education Law no. 2547; whereas annulment of certain provisions thereof	A. Provisions regulating the sanction of reprimand for lecturers *1. Provision regarding the imposition of reprimand on lecturers who verbally disrespects their supervisors* - The contested provision imposes a restriction on the freedom of expression. It is laid down in Article 26 of the Constitution that the said freedom may be restricted for certain purposes such as maintaining public order. - It has been observed that the provision aims to ensure the order of the institution. Therefore, it pursues the legitimate aim of ensuring public order, which is a pressing social need in a democratic society. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed. *2. Provision regarding the imposition of reprimand on lecturers who act contrary to the duty of care required by the nature of their profession* - Considering that lecturers may disrupt the order and negatively affect the functioning of higher education institutions, which aim to contribute to social development through scientific research and to train qualified workforce, it can be said that the restriction imposed by the contested provision meets a pressing social need. - However, the provision also allows for a disciplinary sanction to be imposed for behaviours that are not related to the professional life of lecturers. In this regard, it has been concluded that the impugned restriction on the right to respect for private life is not compatible with the requirements of the democratic social order. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled. B. Provisions regulating the temporary suspension and revocation of the operating licence of foundation universities - The contested provision stipulates that where it is determined, in accordance with the opinion of the Ministry of Treasury and Finance and the decision of the Council of Higher Education, that a foundation university cannot afford to pay its due and short-term debts with its annual education revenues or its assets, its operating license shall be suspended temporarily. - The contested provision imposes such a heavy measure that it jeopardizes the future of the educational and training activities of these institutions. Besides, the aim pursued by the aforementioned provision may also be achieved through gradual measures. Therefore, the measure stipulated therein is unnecessary and disproportionate. - Another contested provision stipulates that if it is determined by the guarantor university and approved by the Council of Higher Education that a foundation university, whose operating license has been temporarily suspended, does not own sufficient property for educational and training activities or will not be able to continue its activities with its existing assets, its operating license shall be revoked upon the decision of the President. - Revocation of the operating license is an irreversible administrative act. - A foundation university may be closed down only by law. In this sense, the impugned administrative act is in breach of constitutional safeguards. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2023/104 11 October 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of the first sentence of Additional Article 106 § 6 of the Law no. 2802 on Judges and Prosecutors	- The contested provision stipulates that members of the Court of Cassation and the Council of State shall be paid monthly additional compensation in an amount to be calculated on the basis of the indicator value of 40,000, while it is to be calculated on the basis of the indicator value of 15,000 for other judges and prosecutors. - It is argued that the impugned provision may disrupt the working peace and harmonious and efficient work environment in the judicial institutions, thus precluding the independence of the judiciary. - The members of the Court of Cassation and the Council of State do not differ from the judges and prosecutors holding office in the courts of first instance and courts of appeal in the common judicial branch in terms of the “tenure of judges” enshrined in the Constitution. - Such a difference must be based on objective, reasonable and compelling reasons and must not disrupt the collaboration between judicial and administrative courts, which is a pre-requisite for ensuring the rule of law and effective functioning of the judicial service. - As a matter of fact, in exercising its discretionary power, the legislator is bound by the principle of proportionality, which is also a requirement of the rule of law. - The difference envisaged by the contested provision is both unreasonable and disproportionate. - Therefore, the provision is contrary to the principle of equality in terms of the rule of law and right to property. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2022/90 30 November 2023 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of Additional Article 18 § 3 of the Fundamental Law on Healthcare Services no. 3359, taken in conjunction with Article 18 § 2 thereof, insofar as it concerns the phrase “Public institutions and organisations…”; whereas annulment of the same provision, insofar as it concerns the phrase “…state universities…”.	- It is envisaged in the contested provision that the Personal Liability Board (“the Board”) shall be authorised to decide, within one year, whether to recourse to the relevant person for the compensation already paid by the administration due to the medical procedures and practices related to the examination, diagnosis and treatment performed by physicians, dentists and other healthcare professionals serving in public institutions and organisations and state universities as well as determining the amount of recourse, taking into account whether the relevant person engaged in malpractice. - It is maintained that the Board cannot be impartial, given its appointment procedure and composition, which is in breach of the right to a fair trial and right to an effective remedy of physicians and other healthcare professionals as well as aggrieved parties. *A. As regards the phrase “Public institutions and organisations…”* - The Constitution does not specify the authority to decide on recourse in terms of compensation liability on account of the negligent and wrongful acts on the part of public officials in the performance of their duties. Besides, it is laid down in Article 40 of the Constitution that the authority to decide on recourse shall be conferred upon the state. - There is no constitutional barrier to authorise another authority to decide on recourse. - In addition, the decisions of the Board shall be subject to judicial review. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed. *B. As regards the phrase “…state universities…”* - As specified in Article 130 of the Constitution, the administrative autonomy shall not grant unlimited administrative authority to universities. It is also explicitly envisaged therein that the central administration shall supervise and inspect universities. - The budget of universities shall be prepared by the universities themselves, and thus, the authority to take decisions on financial matters within constitutional boundaries rests with the universities. In the same vein, the state universities shall also be authorised to decide on the recourse of the compensation paid out of their own budget. - Accordingly, the establishment of a Board authorised to take decisions that may have a bearing on the budget preparation authority of the universities that enjoy administrative and financial autonomy is incompatible with the limits of the tutelage of the central government. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Halkın Kurtuluş Partisi (3) 2019/30833 27 September 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the freedom of political organisation safeguarded by Article 68 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the freedom of political organisation due to the decision finding ipso facto dissolution of political party organisation. - The applicant, a political party, claimed that its freedom of political organisation had been violated due to the decision ruling that the relevant organisations of the party had been ipso facto dissolved due to their failure to hold provincial and district congresses within the prescribed period. -The Court has assessed that according to the Turkish Civil Code no. 4721, merely the legal representatives of political parties bearing legal and financial responsibility and the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Cassation were entitled to seek, before a court, the ipso facto dissolution of a political party. However, in the present case the district governorships and provincial governorships made such a request. -The Court has also indicated that the authorities failed to consider political parties as a whole together with their organisations. -Accordingly, the decisions on the determination of the ipso facto dissolution in the present case failed to meet the criteria of lawfulness. -Consequently, the Court found a violation of the freedom of political organisation.	Press Release
Nuriye Ayhan Altıner 2020/1327 4 October 2023 (First Section)	Violation of the right to protect and improve one’s corporeal and spiritual existence safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right to protect and improve one’s corporeal and spiritual existence due to dismissal of a preventive measure request. - The applicant complained that while she was serving as a neighbourhood representative during the organisation of a political party congress, she had been threatened in absentia by M.K. and R.T., members of the same political party. Upon the request of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office for the adoption of a preventive measure pursuant to Law no. 6284, the family court indicated a measure ordering M.K. and R.T. to refrain from threatening the applicant. - Having examined the appeal, the Family Court (appeal authority) held that the court’s decision be quashed with final effect. -In the present case, the family court failed to provide any concrete explanation, assessment or grounds as to whether the threats made by the male persons against the applicant, who was a woman, were due to her sex and whether the act constituted a violence against women. - Accordingly, it is evident that the approach of the family court, which leads to the conclusion that circumstances other than domestic violence and stalking, or all acts of violence against women committed in the non-domestic context, should be excluded from the scope of Law no. 6284, is in breach of constitutional safeguards. - The Court has concluded that the final decision failed to provide relevant and sufficient grounds as regards the applicant’s right to the protection of her corporeal and spiritual existence and the incumbent court had not acted in accordance with its positive obligations to adopt certain measures to protect the applicant as a victim of violence. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to protect and improve one’s corporeal and spiritual existence.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2020/76 11 October 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain provisions of the Law on regulations regarding publications on the internet and crimes committed through these publications	*A. As regards the amendment of certain phrases included in Article 8 of Law no. 5651 by Article 4 of Law no. 7253* - It is laid down in the contested provisions that the phrase “…blocking of access…” included in the first sentence of Article 8 § 4 of Law no. 5651 shall be replaced by the phrase “…removal of the content and/or blocking of access…”; and the phrase “…to the access provider…” included in the first sentence of Article 8 § 11 thereof shall be replaced by the phrase “…to the relevant content, hosting and access provider…”. - There is no constitutional barrier to taking various judicial or administrative measures regarding a criminal suspect, provided that the relevant measure is temporary and taken in connection with ongoing criminal proceedings. - It has been observed that the measure envisaged by the contested provisions, which is “…removal of the content…”, has no connection with criminal proceedings and is of final nature. Therefore, it is in breach of the presumption of innocence. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been found unconstitutional and thus annulled. *B. As regards the amendments to Article 9 of Law no. 5651 by Article 5 of Law no. 7253* - It is laid down in the contested provisions that the phrase “…blocking of access…” included in Article 9 § 5 of Law no. 5651 shall be replaced by the phrase “…removal or content and/or blocking of access…”; the phrase “…blocking of access…” included in the first sentence of Article 9 § 9 thereof shall be replaced by the phrase “…removal or content and/or blocking of access…”, and Article 9 § 8 shall be amended; and the phrase “…the concerned …” included in Article 9 § 11 thereof shall be replaced by the phrase “…those responsible for content, hosting and service providers…”, and Article 9 § 10 shall be amended. - The contested provisions impose a restriction on the freedom of expression by allowing for removal of the content of the publications on the internet and/or blocking of access to these publications, as well as a restriction on the freedom of the press in consideration of the fact that such a publication may fall under the scope of internet journalism. - The impugned provisions do not propose a gradual interference regarding the restriction of the said contents, but impose a hindrance for an indefinite period of time that should be the last resort. - Thus, the provisions do not provide procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary actions on the part of the public authorities. Nor do they contain the safeguards to ensure a proportionate decision-making process in accordance with the requirements of the democratic social order. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2023/134 30 November 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision stipulating that damage assessment reports can only be challenged in conjunction with main procedures	- The contested provision stipulates that damage assessment reports prepared as a result of the examination of the state of the land where the disaster occurred as well as all structures and public facilities can only be challenged in conjunction with the main procedures. - It is argued that the inability to bring a direct action against the damage assessment process is in breach of the right to property since the owner’s right on the impugned property would be restricted after the aforementioned process; and that since it is hardly possible to carry out the procedures of demolition and ownership for undamaged and slightly damaged structures, waiting for such procedures will not provide a legal benefit, which renders the right of access to a court ineffective. - With the damage assessment reports, the structures on a given land is labelled regarding their technical compliance and earthquake resistance. Such reports, which function as a means of labelling in terms of the construction quality of the structures, affect the right to property of the owners. - Besides, there is no legal remedy allowing for the examination of the lawfulness of damage assessment reports which might affect the economic value of the structure due to the damage status determined. - Accordingly, inability to bring a direct action to challenge an administrative act affecting the value of the immovable property is unconstitutional. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2023/101 30 November 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of Article 326 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedures no. 6100 in so far as it concerns the phrase “…action for compensation on the ground of seizure without expropriation”	- The contested provision sets forth that in the actions for compensation on the ground of seizure without expropriation, if both parties are found partially successful at the end of the proceedings, the court shall order the payment of litigation costs on a percentage basis. - It is argued that the provision infringes on the very essence of the right to property and renders this right dysfunctional. - In the actions for compensation filed on the ground of seizure without expropriation, the finding of the complainant partially unsuccessful does not change the fact that the relevant administration manifestly acted in breach of the Constitution. - In this sense, even in cases where such action for compensation filed by the complainant is partially dismissed, the complainant should be provided with the constitutional safeguard entailing the payment of actual compensation price for the seized property. - However, as the complainant is held liable, pursuant to the contested provision, for the payment of certain ratio of the litigation costs in the actions partially accepted, he cannot obtain the actual compensation price for the seized property: contrary to the wording of Article 46 of the Constitution. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2023/129 30 November 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of Article 144 § 4 of the Turkish Civil Aviation Code no. 2920, which was amended by Article 29 of Law no. 6758	- The contested provision sets forth that those who fail to obey the rules set by the Directorate General for Civil Aviation (administration) concerning the unmanned aerial vehicles as well as the measures to be taken by the administration so as to regulate the civil aviation shall be sentenced to an administrative fine. - It is argued that the power to designate the elements of the acts, which are subject to an administrative fine, is indeed exercised by the legislative body, but the contested provision grants this power to the administration, which is in breach of the nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege principle. - The Court has observed that the provision does not exhaustively enumerate the rules to be imposed concerning the unmanned aerial aviation vehicles and the measures to be taken in this sense. Nor is there any such provision in Law no. 2920 or any other legislation. - Involving no explanation as to the scope and nature of the acts envisaged to be subject to a sanction, the contested provision merely refers to rules and measures to be designated by an administrative authority and to the competent authority empowered to impose the sanction. - Thus, this provision enables the introduction of rules by the administration, through secondary legislation, in the sphere of fundamental rights and freedoms. - The Court has accordingly concluded that the contested provision offering no preventive measure against possible arbitrary practices by the administration contravenes the nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege principle. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Ali Kömürcü and Others 2019/2890 25 October 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the right to property due to the ineffectiveness of the decision annulling the urgent expropriation procedure. -The applicants claimed that their right to property had been violated due to the refusal to annul the decision on public-interest grounds and the expropriation decision, as well as to the registration of the immovable properties under the name of the administration despite the annulment of the Council of Ministers’ decision as to the application of the urgent expropriation procedure. -The Court assessed that the failure of judicial courts to consider the decisions on the stay of execution rendered by the administrative courts against the urgent expropriation decisions as preliminary issue and the prolongation of the administrative proceedings deprived the institution of the stay of execution of the prospect of providing an effective redress. The Court also observed a structural problem in this matter. -Therefore, the Court concluded that the interference with the right to property by way of the urgent expropriation procedure, which resulted in the deprivation of the property, did not meet the lawfulness criteria. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to property.	Press Release
Şerafettin Can Atalay 2023/99744 21 December 2023 (Plenary)	Violations of the right to individual application, right to stand for election and engage in political activities, and right to personal liberty and security, respectively safeguarded by Articles 148, 67 and 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right to individual application due to denial of enforcement of the Court’s judgment finding a violation. - The applicant, one of the defendants in the criminal case known to the public as the Gezi Park trial, had requested his release, since he had been elected as an MP, thereby being entitled to legislative immunity. The applicant’s request had been dismissed pending further examination on the merits. Upon the individual application lodged by him, the Court found violations of the applicant’s right to stand for election and engage in political activities, as well as his right to personal liberty and security. - However, the Court of Cassation rendered a novel decision, which did not have a basis in Turkish law, stating that “the Court’s judgment would not be complied with”. - According to the Court, failure to enforce its judgments contravenes Article 153 § 6 of the Constitution, which provides that the judgments of the Court shall be binding on the legislative, executive, and judicial organs, on the administrative authorities, and on persons and corporate bodies. - Failure to enforce the Court’s judgments amounts to a flagrant and grave violation of the right to individual application which constitutes a special form of the right to an effective remedy. Such a failure would render the individual application mechanism ineffective. - The Court is exclusively vested with the authority to adjudicate, in a final and binding manner, the cases regarding the constitutionality of the acts, actions and omissions of the public authorities. In this sense, once the Court concludes in a given individual application that a fundamental right or freedom has been violated, no other authority may examine or supervise whether the Court’s judgment complies with the Constitution or the law. - Consequently, the Court found violations of the applicant’s right to individual application, right to stand for election and engage in political activities, as well as right to personal liberty and security.	Press Release

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Mehmet Demircioğlu 2020/35797 14 September 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to stand for election safeguarded by Article 67 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the right to stand for election due to non-reappointment after resigning for parliamentary candidacy. -The applicant, a former department head in the Ministry of Health and appointed to a personal adviser position following the enactment of Decree-Law no. 663 in 2011, resigned for parliamentary candidacy but wasn’t nominated. His personal rights as an employee were protected through differential compensation. Despite seeking reinstatement to his former position, he was appointed to an engineering role. -Following the abolition of personal advisory positions by Decree-Law no. 703, the applicant filed a lawsuit. The administrative court initially ruled in his favour, but the regional administrative court later quashed this decision. -The applicant claimed violation of his right to stand for election due to not being reappointed to his former adviser position. -In the present case, the Court identified a manifest error in the regional administrative court’s decision, amounting to undue interference with the right to stand for election. The decision failed to acknowledge the specific circumstances of the resignation and its impact on the right to stand for election and did not adequately justify the negative impact on the applicant’s situation as addressing a pressing social need. -The regional administrative court’s decision was deemed an impediment to political participation, constituting an interference with the right to stand for election. -Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to stand for election.	Press Release
Hakan Bilal Kutlualp 2019/19597 14 September 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right to property due to the dismissal of the action for annulment of the expropriation process. - The area where the applicant's immovable property is also located is classified as an industrial area in the master plan and urban development plan. - In the letter addressed by the Anatolian Industrialists Collective Workplace Building Society (ASKOOP) to the Housing Development Administration of Türkiye (TOKİ), it was requested that the area covering the applicant's immovable property be expropriated, provided that all relevant expenses be covered by the ASKOOP. On this request, an order was issued for the expropriation of the area also covering the applicant's immovable property. - Accordingly, the immovable properties were sold and transferred to ASKOOP after the relevant area covering that of the applicant had been registered in the title deed in the name of the TOKİ. Upon the expropriation order, the TOKİ filed an action before the civil court against the applicant for the determination of expropriation price. - The decision whereby the expropriation price was determined was quashed by the Court of Cassation as the determined price was high. - On the other hand, the applicant’s action for the annulment of the expropriation process was dismissed by the incumbent court. - In the present case, it is apparent that the expropriation process was conducted through the TOKİ for the ASKOOP that is a private-law legal entity, as it was agreed before the expropriation process that the immovable properties to be expropriated would be transferred to the ASKOOP. - Although it appears that the expropriation process was conducted by the TOKİ, the impugned expropriation process revealed to be conducted for the ASKOOP falls foul of the safeguard inherent in Article 46 of the Constitution, according to which the State and public legal entities shall be empowered to expropriate in cases where the public interest so requires and in accordance with the principles and procedures prescribed by law. - Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to property.	Press Release
Türkiye Devrimci İşçi Sendikaları Konfederasyonu (DİSK) and Others 2016/14517 2016/14518 12 October 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches and the prohibition of ill-treatment due to the prevention of the demonstration march intended to be organised in Taksim Square on the occasion of the Labour Day. - In 2014 and 2015, on two different occasions, the applicants wished to organise a gathering in Taksim Square, İstanbul, on the occasion of the Labour Day, but the Governor’s Office rejected the applicants’ requests for reasons of public order and security. - The applicants, who had staged a march so as to observe the Labour Day, filed a criminal complaint alleging that they were injured by tear gas grenades, rubber bullets and pressurised water. - In the present case, it has been concluded that since Taksim Square is one of the constituent elements of the labour and trade union culture, any limitation imposed with respect thereto may also lead to the restriction of ideas and thoughts intended to be expressed. - In view of the importance attached to the gathering area in the particular circumstances of the case, the categorical prohibition of the freedom to choose a gathering area was considered constitutionally unacceptable. - Accordingly, the Court has found that that no relevant and sufficient reasons were adduced to demonstrate that the interference with the applicant’s right to hold meetings and demonstration marches, which is in the form of dispersing by use of force to the applicants wishing to observe Labour Day in 2014 and 2015 in Taksim Square, met a pressing social need and was necessary in a democratic society. - Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2020/73 26 October 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision restricting the principle of public trial, whereas dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision entailing the appointment of a mediator before bringing an action in consumer-related disputes	*A. As regards the provision allowing for the restriction of the principle of public trial for reasons other than those specified in the Constitution* - Article 141 of the Constitution allows for the restriction of the principle of public trial only in cases absolutely necessitated by public morals or public security or in the trial of minors. - Pursuant to the contested provision, which is Article 28 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure no. 6100, the existence of a superior interest worthy of protection may entail the restriction of the principle of public trial, which is not laid down in the Constitution as a special reason for restriction. Thus, the provision is contrary to the constitutional principle indicating that fundamental rights and freedoms can only be restricted for the reasons specified in the Constitution. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled. *B. As regards the provision entailing the appointment of a mediator before bringing an action in consumer-related disputes* - It is clear that the contested provision, which is the first sentence of Article 73 § A (1) of the Consumer Protection Law no. 6502, imposes a restriction on the right of access to a court. The impugned restriction serves the resolution of the disputes in a shorter period as well as conclusion of the judicial proceedings within a reasonable time, by reducing the workload of the judicial authorities. - Besides, the parties are allowed to terminate the mediation process any time, and they are entitled to apply to the court if the dispute cannot be resolved. - Considering that the mediation process shall be completed within a maximum of four weeks, the period spent in mediation cannot be said to make it significantly difficult for consumers to obtain their rights and receivables. In addition, the time to elapse until the said rights and receivables may be obtained is not unreasonably prolonged. - Accordingly, given the contested provision, the balance between the individuals and the public interest is struck, and the impugned restriction on the right of access to a court does not impose a disproportionate burden on individuals. - Consequently, the provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Ahmet Baş 2019/42746 17 May 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the award of unreasonably high amount of litigation costs against the applicant at the end of the proceedings he had initiated. - The applicant, requesting the dissolution of joint ownership with his father-in-law, claimed compensation for the part subsequently registered in his name but had been occupied by his father-in-law for years. Upon the death of the latter, five heirs intervened in the proceedings, some of whom proceeded with the assistance of their respective lawyers. At the end of the proceedings, the applicant was ordered to pay unreasonably high litigation costs. - Considering the economic situation of the applicant, the nature of the case, the judicial proceedings, and the scope of the impugned interference, it was concluded that the application bore both constitutional and personal importance. - It is set forth in the Minimum Attorneyship Fee Tariff as well as in the relevant judgments of the Court of Cassation that in cases regarding disputes involving more than one defendant, if the case is dismissed on common grounds, a single attorney’s fee shall be awarded, even if the parties are represented by separate lawyers. It is also stipulated therein that the relative attorney’s fee to be determined cannot exceed the value of the case that has been accepted or rejected. - It is also laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure no. 6100 that if either party is partially justified in the case, the litigation costs shall be allocated between the parties according to the percentage method. In the present case, it remains obscure whether the impugned litigation costs were allocated on the basis of this method. - Therefore, it was concluded that the trial court failed to demonstrate the legal basis for an interference with the applicant’s right of access to a court. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right of access to a court.	Press Release
Ozan Güven 2021/8967 27 September 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the freedom of expression due to the award of compensation against the applicant on account of his social media post. - In 2016, a national newspaper reported that ten students in a dormitory had been molested by a teacher. This led to claims for financial support between a telecommunications company and a foundation. The applicant shared a post on social media about the matter, and the plaintiff company brought an action for non-pecuniary compensation. The court ordered the applicant to pay TRY 500 as compensation. The applicant’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by the regional court of appeal. - In the present case, it has been concluded that the statements were intended to put pressure on the plaintiff by addressing the foundation's financial support relationship rather than the plaintiff's commercial reputation. The plaintiff, operating in the telecommunications field, is also better equipped to respond to allegations made against it due to its favourable position in protecting its commercial reputation, making it more obligated to endure such criticisms. - Accordingly, the Court has found that incumbent courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient grounds for concluding that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression met a pressing social need and was compatible with the requirements of a democratic society. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the freedom of expression.	Press Release
Özgür Boğatekin 2020/23730 14 June 2023 (Plenary)	Violations of freedoms of expression and the press respectively safeguarded by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution	-Alleged violations of the freedoms of expression and the press due to imprisonment for the offence of defamation on the account of the statements made in the column. -The applicant published articles calling into question the lawfulness of the powers exercised by the authorities in district and of the behaviours of the district governor. The first instance court found that the allegations published on the newspaper were incorrect and the applicant’s lack of knowledge could not be regarded as a valid justification. Therefore, it sentenced the applicant to imprisonment. -The Court indicated that in order for the offence of defamation to be constituted, the perpetrator must accuse somebody knowing with certainty that the accused was innocent and must aim to initiate the commencement of investigation and prosecution or imposition of administrative sanctions against the accused person despite of his/her innocence. -In the same vein, the Court considered that the applicant cannot be expected to prove the existence of rumours about the projects in the same way as a prosecutor proves the veracity of a statement. -Therefore, the applicant, in his capacity as a journalist, did not aim to initiate an investigation against the district governor, but to call his particular acts and behaviours into question in the eyes of the public. In addition, the first instance court also failed to demonstrate with conclusive evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that the applicant accused the claimant, knowing that the latter had not committed the alleged unlawful act. Thus, the impugned interference did not satisfy the lawfulness requirement laid down in Article 13 of the Constitution. - Consequently, the Court found violations of the freedom of expression and the press.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2022/3 28 September 2023 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for issuance of a warning decision against the Sağduyu (Common Sense) Party	- The subject-matter of the request for the warning decision is paragraph 4, which was added to Article 1, entitled “Organisation”, of Annex (2) of the Party’s regulation. - It is argued that those who wish to become a member of a political party shall go through the membership registration process conducted before the district organisation of the political party, where the members concerned reside; that therefore, those who do not have any district organisation at their residence address cannot be registered as members before any other district organisation or central organisation of the party; and that the amendment in the Party’s regulation is contrary to the imperative provisions of the Political Parties Act (Law no. 2820). - In Article 1 § 4 of Annex (2) of the regulation of the Sağduyu Party, it is set forth that those wishing to become a party member may be registered in the central organisation until the establishment of the relevant district organisations; and that when the establishment process is completed, the membership registration shall be transferred to the relevant district organisation. - It is enshrined in Articles 42 and 60 of Law no. 2820 that when district organisations of political parties are established, the membership procedures shall be performed by these organisations. However, these provisions do not indicate that political parties cannot receive any membership registration until the establishment of district organisations: there is no clear, precise and foreseeable rule that precludes the registration of members by the political party until the establishment of their district organisations. - Besides, becoming a member of a political party is a right laid down in Article 68 § 1 of the Constitution. Therefore, the acknowledgment that the membership registration process may be conducted merely before the relevant district organisation falls foul of this constitutional provision. - Consequently, the Court dismissed the request for issuance of a warning decision.
E.2018/120 11 October 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain phrases in the Presidential Decree no. 3	- It is set forth in the contested provision that appointments may be made to the positions and offices, which are indicated in the List no. (II) of the Presidential Decree no. 3, upon the approval by the President. - It is maintained that it must be ascertained whether the positions and offices indicated in the List no. (II) are high-level public officials; that is because, if so, they should be directly appointed by the President, whereas the contested provision allows for such appointment by other authorities; and that the President’s power to appoint high-level public officials cannot be dependent on the recommendation of any other authority. *A. As regards “Legal Advisors (Institutions Affiliated or Related to the Ministry)” and “Sports Advisors” in the List no. (II) of the Presidential Decree* - Article 30 of Law no. 3289 on Youth and Sports Services explicitly points to those who are eligible for being appointed as a sport advisor. Therefore, in the absence of the contested provision, Law no. 3289 will apply as regards the authority to appoint the sports advisors and the appointment procedure: an issue explicitly regulated by law. - The appointment of legal advisors is already regulated in the Decree-law no. 399: an issue explicitly regulated by a decree-law. - No Presidential decree may be issued as to the matters that have been explicitly regulated by law. - Consequently, the provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled. *B. As regards the Remaining Part of the List (II) of the Presidential Decree* 1. As regards the Competence Ratione Materiae - It has been observed that the contested provision does not embody any regulation with respect to the rights and duties that cannot be regulated through a Presidential decree. Nor does it concern a matter which has been explicitly regulated by law. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional insofar as it relates to the competence ratione materiae. 2. As regards the Content - One of the basic principles adopted in the presidential government system is the direct appointment of high-level public officials by the President himself. - However, the Presidential Decree no. 3 covers the principles and procedures of the appointment of not only high-level public officials but also of all public institutions and organisations. The constitution-maker empowers the President to determine the principles and procedures as to the appointment of merely high-level public officials. With respect to the appointment procedure regarding public institutions and organisations in general, the appointment principles enshrined in Article 128 of the Constitution apply. - Besides, the President is solely authorised to appoint high-level public officials. Therefore, this appointment power cannot be made subject to the approval of any authority. Nor can it be dependent on the recommendation of any other authority. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional by its content and thus annulled.
E.2023/71 26 October 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of the amendment to the phrase “…one-fourth….” as “…two-fifth…” included in Law no. 5362	- The contested provision sets forth that the general assemblies of the tradesmen and craftsmen professional organisations shall be convoked for extraordinary meetings by the board of directors upon the request by two-fifths of the members of the general assembly. - It is argued that the procedure for convoking the tradesmen and craftsmen professional organisations for extraordinary general assembly meetings has been made difficult, which hampers the members of professional organisations to participate in the management and freely express their views; and that the contested provision renders dysfunctional the principle of the administrative autonomy of institutions. - The capacity of the members of tradesmen and craftsmen professional organisations to convoke the general assembly for extraordinary meeting is a requisite of democratic State. - It is, of course, within the law-maker’s discretion to determine the ratio of quorum to convoke a meeting. However, the minimum ratio to be determined should not hamper the decision-making and supervision functions of the members of general assembly. - However, the contested provision renders dysfunctional the said functions of the general assembly members in case of divergence of opinion among those who are in the minority. - Consequently, the provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Ayhan Deniz and Others. 2019/10975 14 June 2023 (Plenary)	Violations of the right to respect for private life and freedom of expression, respectively safeguarded by Articles 20 and 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of the right to respect for private life and freedom of expression due to the termination of employment contracts. -The applicants, who were employed in a company, shared some social media posts and inquiry reports were produced based on these reports. - The applicants brought separate declaratory actions, seeking their re-employment, which were dismissed by the labour court. Upon appeal by the applicants, the regional court of appeal annulled the first instance decisions and ordered the issuance of a fresh decision. The appeals against the impugned decisions were rejected by the Court of Cassation, which ultimately upheld them. - In the present case, it has been concluded that the incumbent courts failed to strike a balance of interests and did not examine sufficiently and comprehensively the nature of the disputed content and the context in which it had been used. - Accordingly, the Court has found that the inferior courts that ruled on the case had not exercised due diligence in respect of the constitutional safeguards on freedom of expression, that the State had not fulfilled its obligations with regard to the protection of constitutional safeguards, and that Article 18 of Law no. 4857 had been subjected to a broad interpretation. - Consequently, the Court found violations of the right to respect for private life and the freedom of expression.	Press Release
Şerife Alp 2018/25163 27 September 2023 (Plenary)	No violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right in question due to the reliance by the inferior courts on the applicant’s certain activities as evidence for her conviction for the offence of membership of a terrorist organisation. - The applicant, acting mayor of a municipality, was sentenced for aiding a terrorist organisation. The Court of Cassation quashed the first instance decision, stating that the applicant’s activities taken as a whole constituted membership of a terrorist organisation. At the end of the proceedings, she was convicted for membership of the terrorist organisation. - According to the findings, the applicant involved in various activities whereby a terrorist organisation was supported and its violent acts were glorified for at least 21 times in a short period less than one year. Her position as the acting mayor at the relevant time did not automatically justify her support for the acts and activities referred to. - The first instance court explained in a plausible manner that the applicant’s activities had verified and validated the findings that she had intentionally and knowingly involved in the hierarchical structure of the said organisation. - Given the severe effects and outcomes of terrorist offences on individuals, the society and the State, the Court has considered that the sentence imposed on the applicant aimed to strike the requisite fair balance between the society’s right to live in an environment, free from any form of terrorism, and the applicant’s right to hold meetings and demonstration marches. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2023/113 26 July 2023 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the decision of the GNAT envisaging the exclusion of the Speaker from the total number of members of the Bureau	- The contested decision excludes the Speaker of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (GNAT) from the total number of members of the Bureau of the GNAT. - It is argued that the said decision may be characterised as an amendment to the Rules of Procedure, and that it violates the principles of administrative independence and allocation of powers. - The Court has reviewed the request from the standpoint of the independence of the Speaker of the Parliament. - Article 94 § 6 of the Constitution stipulates that the Speaker and vice-speakers of the GNAT cannot participate, within or outside the Assembly, in the activities of the political party or party group in which they are a member; nor in parliamentary debates, except in cases required by their duties; the Speaker and the vice-speaker who is presiding over the session shall not vote. - The aforementioned provision distinguishes the Speaker and vice-speakers from the members of the Bureau. The Speaker shall never vote, while the vice-speaker shall not vote only in the session she/he presides over. In this respect, a stricter constitutional regulation is already envisaged for the impartiality of the Speaker. - Consequently, the impugned decision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed.
E.2022/96 11 October 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision stipulating the ex officio appointment of the secretary general and deputy secretaries general of the exporters’ associations and the Turkish Exporters Assembly by the Ministry of Trade	- The contested provision stipulates that the Ministry of Trade may appoint the secretary general and deputy secretaries general of the exporters’ associations and the Turkish Exporters Assembly ex officio in certain circumstances. - It is argued that according to the impugned provision, the Ministry can appoint anyone it wishes ex officio, which may lead to arbitrariness; the qualifications of the person to be appointed are indefinite; there are no clear and objective criteria, prescribed by law, regarding the ex officio appointment procedure; and there may be discrimination among those who aspire to be the secretary general or deputy secretaries general, which impairs the essence of the right to elect and stand for election. - The appointment of the secretary general and deputy secretaries general by the Ministry instead of the exporters’ associations and the Turkish Exporters Assembly may be regarded as exercising the power of tutelage. Such a situation is acceptable only in exceptional cases of absolute necessity. The vacancies in executive positions does not constitute an absolute necessity requiring the Ministry to substitute itself for the professional organisations. - The provision amounts to a disproportionate interference with the autonomy of the professional organisations. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Mohamma Salem Pashto and Nazı Salem & Kemtaş Tekstil İnşaat Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. 2019/26339 2020/22192 17 May 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right of access to a court due to the dismissal of the request for legal aid. -The applicants, citizens of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, requested legal aid with regard to the legal action they initiated following the death of their son in a stabbing attack. Their request was dismissed on the grounds that there was no agreement on legal aid between Afghanistan and Türkiye. - The housing estate built by the applicant, Kemtaş Tekstil İnşaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi, was demolished upon decisions taken by the relevant municipalities. The applicant lodged a pecuniary compensation action after demolition and sought rectification. He requested legal aid by declaring that he couldn't afford the fee for rectification. The court dismissed his request. *1. Application no. 2019/26339* - The condition of reciprocity laid down in Article 334 of Code no. 6100 categorically restricts the access of foreign nationals to legal aid and does not afford the judge any discretion to assess whether the foreign nationals who intend to bring an action are in fact unable to pay. This may lead to deprivation of the right to bring an action due to non-compliance with the condition of reciprocity. - In the present case, the court also did not examine whether the State was party to a treaty imposing an obligation on foreign nationals to benefit from legal aid. *2. Application no. 2020/22192* - Insolvent commercial companies are not entitled to bring actions without legal aid institutions. Individual assessments are therefore crucial to ensure that the legal system strikes a balance between benefits and burdens for all, as there is no regulation or practice for this purpose. - In the present case, it has been concluded that the said interference rendered the applicant’s access to the court extremely limited, and that the impugned interference, which imposed an excessive burden on the applicant, was not proportionate. - Accordingly, as regards both cases, the Court has found that the violation arose from the law and ruled that a copy of the judgment be communicated to the legislative branch so that similar violations can be prevented. -Article 90 of the Constitution provides that in case of a conflict between international agreements concerning fundamental rights and freedoms, the provisions of international agreements shall prevail. Therefore, it has been determined that there is legal interest in holding a retrial, and accordingly, the judgment has been remitted to the first instance court. - Consequently, the Court found violations of the right of access to a court in the applicants’ cases.	Press Release
Aziz Bankur and Others 2018/25145 14 June 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to a reasoned decision under the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the right to a reasoned decision under the right to a fair trial due to the lack of relevant and sufficient reasoning. -The applicants sought recognition from the Social Security Institution for their testators (C.B. and S.S.) as duty-disabled under the Anti-Terror Law no. 3713, given that they were martyred during an operation to prevent terrorism. Initially, the Institution dismissed these requests. Subsequently, the applicants’ separate legal actions were annulled by the administrative courts for being unlawful. However, the regional administrative court, upon appeals by the Social Security Institution, dismissed the actions with final effect. -Following its review of the allegation, the Court has highlighted the importance of instance courts presenting their inquiry findings in their decisions. It has added that this practice ensures legal security and certainty, prevents arbitrary actions, and goes beyond mere formal reasoning. It has stressed that the reasons provided in the decision should be both relevant and sufficient. Additionally, courts should elaborate on their assessment of evidence, interpretation and application of the law, the conclusions they draw, and the rationale behind their discretion when explaining their decisions. -In the present case, the Court has observed that the regional administrative court’s decision lacked reasoning as to why the incident was not covered by Law no. 3713. The regional administrative court did not assess the purpose of the testators’ assignment or offer its own evaluation of why the accident did not serve the purpose of preventing terrorist acts. -Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to a reasoned decision under the right to a fair trial.	Press Release
Kenan Yıldırım 2017/28711 14 September 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to an effective remedy safeguarded by Article 40 of the Constitution, in conjunction with the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to deprival of the opportunity to employ legal mechanisms. - The applicant was unable to receive his receivables under the participation account agreement as the relevant Company was in the process of liquidation. - It is one of the positive obligations incumbent on the State to establish appropriate legal mechanisms enabling the collection of the creditor’s receivables and to ensure the effectiveness of these legal remedies and mechanisms. - In the present case, there was uncertainty as to when the ongoing liquidation process would end, and the commercial court carried out neither an inspection nor an examination regarding the liquidation process. - The said liquidation process, which had been in place more than twenty years, was unbearable and unforeseeable for the applicant. - Thus, although the applicant resorted to the enforcement proceedings as well as bringing an action to collect his receivables, he was deprived of the opportunity to employ legal mechanisms due to the uncompleted liquidation process ongoing for a considerable period of time. Thus, the relevant legal remedy, which was considered to be effective in theory, did not provide an effective solution in the present case. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to an effective remedy in conjunction with the right to property.	Press Release
Artı Media Gmbh 2019/40078 14 September 2023 (Plenary)	Violations of the freedom of expression and the press respectively safeguarded by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution	-Alleged violations of the freedom of expression and the press due to a decision to block access to a website. -The applicant claimed that there had been violations of freedom of expression and the press due to the court’s decision to block access to a news article published on his website named Artı Gerçek under Article 8 § A of Law no. 5651. - The Court has drawn similarities between previous cases where it assessed whether the impugned interference under Article 9 of Law no. 5651, based on the need to protect personal rights in a prompt and effective manner, satisfied the lawfulness criteria and complied with the requirements of a democratic society, as well as the proportionality principle. In this judgment, the Court has also found that the public authorities failed to act diligently in their assessments in order to prevent arbitrary use of the term of terrorism and concluded that the restriction did not meet a pressing social need, that the impugned interference did not fulfil the requirements of democratic social order and rely on reasonable grounds. -Accordingly, in the present case, the Court has assessed that there were no grounds in the present case to depart from the assessments and the conclusion reached in its Keskin Kalem Yayıncılık ve Ticaret A.Ş. and Others judgment. It has concluded that the freedoms of expression and the press were violated, and that the impugned violations stemmed directly from the law, on the grounds that Article 8 § A of Law no. 5651 did not provide fundamental safeguards capable of preventing arbitrary acts of public authorities and of striking a fair balance between the freedom of expression and the legitimate interest in protecting the democratic society against the acts of terrorist organisations. - Consequently, the Court found violations of the freedom of expression and the press.	Press Release
Ö.K. 2018/27526 14 September 2023 (Plenary)	No violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the right to property due to the decisions on seizure of the company and appointment of a trustee. - The applicant and his brother took over registered share certificates of a company, of which founders were subject to an investigation for their alleged involvement in a terrorist organisation. - Subsequently, a precautionary seizure was ordered on all rights and claims as well as all other movable properties of the company. Besides, the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (“Fund”) was appointed as trustee to the company. The challenge by the applicant and his brother to these measures was dismissed. - The Court has noted that the measures in the form of precautionary seizure and appointment of trustee become justified when concrete evidence demonstrates that the impugned revenues were derived from an offence related to the terrorist organisation’s activities or are intended for use in the commission of a terror-related offence: thus, the impugned measures were found necessary. - The Court has concluded that the public authorities did not make an error of judgment, nor did they act arbitrarily in deeming the transfer of the company’s shares by the applicant to be a sham. It has also noted that the impugned measures did not place an excessive burden on the applicant, nor did they upset the fair balance between the personal interest in protecting the right to property and the public interest in employing these measures, to the detriment of the applicant. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the right to property.	Press Release
Nesrin Çetinkaya and Serhat Çetinkaya 2019/8563 8 June 2023 (Second Section)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to imposition of a warning as a disciplinary punishment for the expressions uttered by the applicants, lawyers, in the petition of complaint drafted by them on behalf of their clients and submitted to the TMA against a doctor who examined their client allegedly battered by police officers and issued a false medical report. - The applicants submitted the relevant petition on behalf of their clients, which fell under the scope of their duties as defence lawyers. In this regard, it should be noted that the statements uttered by the applicants were part of the arguments they put forward to protect their client’s interests. - The inferior courts failed to analyse the impugned expressions in the context they had been uttered. - The authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the applicants’ freedom of expression and the protection of the ethical principles of the legal profession and the right to protection of the doctor’s honour and dignity. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the freedom of expression.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2020/33 28 September 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of Article 4 § 3 of Law no. 7198 on the Final Central Administration Accounts Act of 2018	- The contested provision envisages the grant of complementary subsidy for the expenditures of the administrations in the Lists (I), (II), and (III) enclosed with Law no. 5018, which exceed the initial subsidies granted in the Central Administration Budget Act of 2018. - It is argued that the contested provision renders inapplicable the provision of Act no. 5018 for the year 2018 and hinders the exercise of budgetary powers of the Parliament. - As set forth in Article 161 of the Constitution, the expenditure of the State and of public corporations, other than state economic enterprises, shall be determined by annual budgets. On the other hand, the central administration final accounts bills are intended to elucidate the use of subsidies granted in budget bills. Any issue to be regulated through acts or budget bills can, in no way, be regulated by final accounts bills. Nor can final accounts bills make any amendment to, or annulment in, any acts. - However, the contested provision grants budgetary rights to the public authorities. -Therefore, the Court has concluded that the grant of complementary subsidy through final accounts bills falls foul of the budgetary right enshrined in Article 161 of the Constitution. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Yıldız Ceylan Var 2020/10490 25 July 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to respect for family life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the right to respect for family life due to the absence of statutory regulations to protect individuals under exceptional circumstances. -The applicant requested to establish a legal parent-child relationship with B.V. who was married to her mother and has taken care of the applicant as a father for several years. The instance courts later dismissed the adoption decision of the incumbent family court on the grounds that the statutory requirement stipulating that the child should be at least eighteen years younger than the adoptive parent had not been met. -Having assessed the said provision, the Court found that this statutory regulation had envisaged a definite and blanket condition and lacked a statutory regulation prescribed for exceptional cases and that no margin of appreciation had been afforded to the implementers in cases of necessity. -The Court decided that the definitive nature of the statutory age difference required for the adoption procedures and the absence of exceptional circumstances provided in the legal regulations in this regard were in contravention of the positive obligations incumbent on the State to enact legal provisions within the framework of the right to respect for family life. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to respect for family life.	Press Release
Şerafettin Can Atalay (2) 2023/53898 25 October 2023 (Plenary)	Violations of the right to stand for elections and engage in political activities as well as the right to personal liberty and security	- Alleged violations of the right to stand for elections and engage in political activities due to dismissal of the applicant’s request for a stay of proceedings, as well as of the right to personal liberty and security due to the dismissal of his request for release. - The applicant applied to the Court of Cassation for his release, citing his entitlement to parliamentary immunity by virtue of his election as an MP. While the individual application was under review, the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction. - With regard to Article 14 of the Constitution and Article 67 § 3, it has been determined that ensuring certainty and foreseeability regarding which offences are encompassed by the phrase “cases subject to Article 14 of the Constitution” referred to in Article 83 § 2 of the Constitution is not achievable through interpretations by judicial authorities but requires regulation by the legislature. - In the present case, the constitutional provisions have not been interpreted by courts in favour of freedoms, nor does there exist a legal system with substantive and procedural safeguards that would encourage such an interpretation. -Accordingly, it has been concluded that there is no constitutional or legal framework that provides certainty, foreseeability, and fundamental safeguards for the protection of the right to stand for elections and engage in political activities. -Following his election as an MP, the applicant began to enjoy the protection of parliamentary immunity and, consequently, it has been concluded that the applicant’s continued detention despite his request for release is in breach of Article 83 of the Constitution. - Consequently, the Court has found violations of the right to stand for elections and engage in political activities, as well as the right to personal liberty and security.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2021/5 1 June 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain provisions in Law no. 7256	A. Provision envisaging that an employee shall be deemed to have waived certain rights, which he became entitled to during the period of his informal employment - The contested provision envisages that the employees who have been employed informally shall be deemed to have waived their rights that they have gained during the period of their informal employment, save for the wages and wage-related rights. - This provision thus enables employers to relieve themselves of the previously incurred obligations that have not been performed yet. - Arrangements may be introduced in favour of the employer so as to promote and ensure the formal employment of employees, but employees must not be subject to a burden. - Employee receivables also fall into the scope of the right to property. Therefore, the depriving of employees of their certain rights will prevent the State from fulfilling its positive obligations to protect the right to property and to ensure the employees to be socially insured. - Besides, this would upset the fair balance to be struck between the employer’s interests and those of the employee, to the detriment of the latter. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled. B. Provisions involving arrangements concerning the allocation academic staff at the University of Health Sciences (University) and the contracts to be signed by the academics with hospitals *1. Provision on the determination of the qualifications and allocation of academic staff* - The contested provision envisages that the qualifications and allocation of academic staff to be employed at the University of Health Sciences shall be, in accordance with the affiliation protocol, determined jointly by the University and the Ministry of Health, in consideration of the needs and qualifications of the training units of training and research hospitals that are jointly used. - The administrative autonomy attached to the universities entails that the universities themselves shall determine the qualifications and allocation of their academic staff. The joint determination by the University and the Ministry with respect to academic staff is in breach of the constitutional safeguards as to the administrative autonomy of universities. - By virtue of the contested provision, the Ministry has undertaken an effective and decisive role in the decision-making process of the University, which is in breach of both administrative autonomy and scientific autonomy. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled. *2. Provisions placing an obligation on the academics to make contracts with hospitals* - The contested fourth sentence places an obligation on the academics of the University to sign a contract with the hospitals covered by the affiliation protocol signed between the University and the Ministry. - The contested provision entails the academics of the University to make a contract with another public agency other than their own universities. The academics, staff taking office at universities with a separate legal personality, are thus included within the hierarchy of central administration. This is contrary to scientific autonomy. - Besides, the provision does not contain any comprehensive information about the contract to be signed between the hospital and the academic, save for its duration, the nature of the service to be provided thereunder, performance-related traits and duration: lack of sufficient certainty and foreseeability regarding the tasks to be performed by the academics at the hospital. - The contested fifth sentence provides for that in case of termination or expiry of the contract, the academic may sign a new contract with the other hospitals covered by the affiliation protocol or be employed at units to be determined by the University. It does not however clearly indicate the situations under which the contract may be terminated: lack of legal certainty. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2023/37 26 July 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of Article 286 § 1 of the Turkish Civil Code no. 4721, which precludes the mother from initiating civil proceedings for denial of paternity	- The contested provision grants not the mother, but only the father and the child the opportunity to initiate civil proceedings for denial of paternity. - It is argued that the provision, which enables merely the father and the child to raise a claim for denial of paternity and deprives the mother of such right, contravenes the rule of law and principle of equality, as well as the right to legal remedies. - Those who are entitled to initiate civil proceedings for denial of paternity are exhaustively listed in Articles 286 and 291 of Law no. 4721. Accordingly, the mother is not among such persons. Thus, the mother is not entitled to resort to legal remedies for claiming that the father is not the biological father of her child. - Therefore, the contested provision, which precludes the mother from initiating civil proceedings for denial of paternity as the father is not her child’s biological father, is in breach of the right to legal remedies in conjunction with the right to respect of private life. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2023/3 26 July 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of Article 314 § 4 of the Turkish Civil Code no. 4721	- The contested provision stipulates that in cases where the minors lacking of discernment are adopted by the spouses together, the names of the adoptive parents shall be indicated in the civil registry. - It is argued that in respect of the paternity established through adoption, the adults and minors are not subject to an equal treatment, as in the cases where the spouses adopt an adult or any of the spouses adopt the other’s child or foster child, who is not a minor, the names of the adoptive parents shall not be indicated in the civil registry. - The contested provision, which allows for the indication of parental relation -a requisite of family ties established between the adopted child and adoptive parents- also in the civil registry only in limited circumstances is directly related to the right to respect for family and private life of both the adopted child and the adoptive parents. - The inability to indicate the names of adoptive parents in the civil registry precludes the concealment, from the third parties, of sentimental family ties established through adoption. - In this sense, the adoptive process may thus become known to the others in social circles where personal identifying information may be shared. It may impair the confidentiality of family ties established trough adoption process. - Nor is there any effective remedy whereby those concerned may raise a claim for the indication of the names of adoptive parents in their civil registry. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2023/43 26 July 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of the phrase “In case of a reconciliation between the parties, no action for compensation may be brought for the very same offence, subject-matter of the investigation …” included in the fifth sentence of amended Article 253 § 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure no. 5271	- The contested provision stipulates that in case of a reconciliation between the parties, no action for compensation may be brought for the very same offence, which is subject-matter of the criminal investigation. - It is argued that although the aggrieved party, who has withdrawn his complaint, is still entitled to bring an action for compensation unless he clearly waives his personal rights, the contested provision sets aside the right to bring an action for compensation in case of a reconciliation, which is in breach of the principle of equality. Besides, no balance has been struck between the public interest of reconciliation and personal interest of the aggrieved party. - Pursuant to 253 § 5 of the Code no. 5271, the nature of reconciliation and legal consequences of accepting or rejecting this process shall be notified to the person concerned: a safeguard for preventing the parties from reconciling without their informed consent about the subsequent inability to bring an action for compensation. - In cases where all consequences of a given offence may be foreseen and real damage may be determined during the reconciliation process, the inability of the person to bring an action for compensation would not lead to a problem in constitutional terms. - However, it is not always possible to know and foresee, during the reconciliation process, the damage sustained on account of the criminal act. Thus, for making no distinction with respect to actions to be brought in relation to the damages that cannot be reasonably determined or foreseen during the reconciliation process, the contested provision places an excessive burden on the parties concerned. - Accordingly, the Court has concluded that no reasonable balance has been struck between the aim of reducing the workload of the judiciary and the restriction imposed on the right to access to a court, being in breach of the principle of proportionality. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Keser Altıntaş 2023/18536 25 July 2023 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the case regarding the alleged violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time	- Alleged violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time due to the prolongation of the land title cancellation and registration proceedings. - The applicant brought an action requesting that the immovable property, which was classified as an undeclared road during the cadastral survey, be registered in his name. - Provisional Article 2 of Law no. 6384 specifies that individual applications pending before the Court as of 31 July 2018, when Provisional Article 2 entered into force, may be examined by the Compensation Commission. - Following the issuance of the Nevriye Kuruç judgment, Provisional Article 2 of Law no. 6384 was amended by Article 40 of Law no. 7445. However, this amendment has not established any administrative or judicial mechanism to be resorted to before filing an application with the Constitutional Court, and relevant applications remain subject to direct review by the Constitutional Court. - It has been concluded that these applications can be examined once an effective remedy has been established for applications alleging a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. - Consequently, the Court has dismissed the case, as there has been no justification for continuing with its examination.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2020/42 18 May 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of the phrase “… the entire increased value …” included in the first sentence of Additional Article 8 § 4 of the Turkish Development Law no. 3194	- The contested provision entails the collection of the entire increased value of the land the value of which has increased as a result of the amendment made to a given development plan upon the request of the property owners. - It is argued that there is no public interest in the collection of the aforementioned entire amount as the share of increase in value, which allegedly limits the right to property. - As regards development activities and planning, a fair balance should be struck between the public interest and the individual interest. - In this sense, the impugned provision upsets the fair balance sought between the public interest and the property owner’s right to property to the detriment of the latter, thus constituting a disproportionate limitation on the right to property. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2020/79 22 June 2023 (Plenary)	Decision on certain provisions regulating the simplified trial procedure	*A. As regards the provision preventing the conduct of simple trial procedure after the date of hearing has been set* - The impugned provision aims to ensure the expeditious adjudication of the cases regarding the disputes that may be resolved without holding a hearing. In this sense, it serves the public interest in preventing unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed. *B. As regards the provision entailing the reduction by one-fourth of the final sentence imposed through the simplified trial procedure* - The impugned reduction, which is at the discretion of the law-maker, is appropriate and necessary so as to achieve the purpose of expediting the proceedings. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed. *C. As regards the provision stipulating that the court issuing the decision shall hold a hearing in cases of objection to the decisions rendered in accordance with the simple trial procedure* - Assignment of the same judge, who has already expressed his opinions during the initial proceedings, for the subsequent proceedings to be carried out by means of holding a hearing would render the latter unnecessary. Moreover, such a situation may call into question the impartiality of the court as well as the independence of the judge. - The contested provision also entails a hearing to be held in any cases, regardless of the grounds for objection, which will adversely affect the expeditious conclusion of the proceedings that is the primary purpose of the simplified trial procedure. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2023/36 26 July 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of the phrase “… the cases regarding the amounts exceeding one hundred Turkish liras …” included in Article 46 § 1 (b) of the Procedure of Administrative Justice Act no. 2577	- The contested provision stipulates that the decisions rendered by the regional administrative courts, the subject matter of which concerns the amounts exceeding 581,000 Turkish liras shall be subject to appellate review. - The contested provision is claimed to be unconstitutional in that the situation referred to therein does not comply with the right of access to a court, right to appellate review, principle of proportionality and principle of natural judge. - The provision falls foul of the legality requirement since it does not contain clear and precise information on the date to be taken as a basis for the applicable monetary limit to enable the appellate remedy. Besides, the cases the subject matter of which is below the monetary limit are not allowed to be appealed. Therefore, the provision imposes a disproportionate restriction on the right to appeal. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2023/32 26 July 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of the phrase “… shall be suspended …” included in Article 8 § 8 of the Law no. 4733 on the Market of Tobacco, Tobacco Products and Alcohol	- The contested provision stipulates that the certificates pertaining to the activities carried out under Law no. 4733 previously issued for those found to have committed certain acts under the Tax Procedure Law no. 213 and the Anti-Smuggling Law no. 5607 shall be suspended until the finalisation of the decision of non-prosecution or the court decision. - It is argued that the impugned suspension imposes a disproportionate restriction on the freedom of enterprise, and that the relevant sanction covering a long period of time in the absence of a court decision is disproportionate as well, which may be in breach of the presumption of innocence. - The Court considers that application of the said measure in the absence of a court decision runs contrary to the presumption of innocence. - In addition, the impugned suspension measure imposes a restriction on the freedom of enterprise since it prevents the ability to perform transactions regarding commercial and professional activities for a certain period of time. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Fuat Fettahoğlu 2019/33972 17 May 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege principle safeguarded by Article 38 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said principle due to the broad interpretation of a criminal norm relied on against the applicant. - The applicant, chairman of a company engaging in foreign trade, was subject to criminal proceedings on the basis of intelligence reports indicating that some of the imported products were genetically modified organisms. At the end of the proceedings, the applicant was convicted and the said products were confiscated. - It has been considered that the evaluation of the paddy product contaminated with genetically modified organisms as genetically modified organisms and their products was an expansive and unpredictable interpretation that deviated from the very essence of the legal regulation. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege principle.	Press Release
Çetin Sağır and Others 2021/8864 24 May 2023 (Second Section)	No violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the freedom of expression due to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions on the applicants -detained for or convicted of terrorist offences- since they had gone on hunger strike in the penitentiary institution to protest the holding in isolation of the leader of the terrorist organisation. -According to the Court, the applicants’ act had constituted the offence of propagating on behalf of the terrorist organization; therefore, the disciplinary sanctions were lawful and reasonable for restoring order in the penitentiary institution. - The Court also considered that the impugned sanctions met a pressing social need, were proportionate and the impugned interference was not contrary to the requirements of the order of a democratic society. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the freedom of expression.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2022/100 22 February 2023 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the amended first sentence of Article 177 § 2 of Law no. 1136 on Attorneys, whereas annulment of the phrase “…40% …. equally among the bar associations operating in a given province, and the remaining part…” in the sixth sentence added to Article 180 § 4 of Law no. 1136	A. Provision on the execution of legal aid services in provinces with more than one bar association by the number of bar associations instead of a single office - Article 77 of the Law no. 1136 allows for the establishment of more than one bar association in a province with more than five thousand lawyers on condition of the registration of a minimum of two thousand attorneys. - There is no statutory provision that requires the legal aid services to be provided by a single office in provinces with more than one bar association. Accordingly, in provinces with several bar associations, it is at the discretion of the legislator to provide legal aid services by a single office or by the offices established by each bar association: no conflict with Article 135 of the Constitution. - Besides, in Article 181 § 1 of the Law, it is stated that the offices shall report their activities to the board of directors with a report to be prepared at the end of each year, and a copy of the report shall be sent to the Union of Turkish Bar Association by the bar association: the existence of necessary mechanisms to prevent the offices from engaging in practices that may cause uncertainty in the provision of legal aid services. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed. B. Provision regarding the equal distribution of forty percent of the point calculated on the basis of population in provinces with several bar associations among the bar associations in that province - The current expenses of the offices regarding legal aid services are not directly related to the number of members of the bar association to which they are affiliated. Accordingly, it is at the discretion of the legislator to stipulate provisions that allow such expenses to be met in provinces where there is more than one bar association. - The equal distribution of forty percent of the points calculated according to the population of the province (following the allocation of five basic points equally to the bar associations in provinces with several bar associations as a basis for the distribution of the legal aid allowance) may cause the bar associations with more members to face financial difficulties in providing legal aid services. - Accordingly, the Court has concluded that in provinces with several bar associations, a reasonable balance cannot be achieved in terms of the distribution of legal aid allowance between the bar associations with fewer members and the bar associations with more members. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2022/36 4 May 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of the Presidential Decree provision as regards the creation of positions within the Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors	- The contested provision stipulates that the positions of Board inspector and rapporteur judge shall be created for the central organisation of the Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors (CJP) and that these positions shall be added to the CJP Section of the Schedule (II) annexed to the Presidential Decree no. (2). - It is argued that the provisions regarding the creation of positions of public officials should be regulated by law, that the said Presidential decree has been issued on a matter that should be regulated exclusively by law, that the authority to issue a Presidential decree has been exercised unconstitutionally, and that the executive has been vested with a general, unlimited and indefinite regulatory power, which are incompatible with the principles of inalienability of the legislative power, the binding nature and supremacy of the Constitution and the separation of powers. - The creation and cancellation of the positions of public officials exercising judicial power have a bearing upon the exercise of judicial power. Given that the impugned issue does not solely concern the executive power, it cannot be regulated by Presidential decrees. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2022/110 22 June 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of the amendment to Provisional Article 3 of Law no. 5378 on Persons with Disabilities	- The contested provision envisages the granting, of additional period for a maximum of 8 years upon the expiry of the period set out in the first paragraph, to the relevant municipalities and public institutions and organisations as well as owners of any facilities rendering public service, open areas and public transport vehicles so as to remedy the deficiencies found during the inspection. - It is argued that the extension of the period specified in the relevant provision is contrary to the State’s positive obligation to take measures for the protection and ensuring the social integration of the disabled persons, infringes the principles of social state and equality; and that such an extension is also in breach, inter alia, of the right to life and the right to protect and improve one’s corporeal and spiritual existence. - Articles 2 and 3 of Law no. 5378 entail that any public and open areas and public transport vehicles be revised to be accessible to the disabled persons and accordingly indicate a certain time-limit for the completion of such revisions. This time-limit, which was primarily determined as “2 years”, was then changed as “3 years” and subsequently as “4 years”. It was ultimately extended from 4 to 8 years through the contested provision. - The Court has noted that the extension, for several times, of the time-limit allocated to customise the relevant facilities with the needs of disabled persons would have an unfavourable bearing on the disabled persons in so far as it relates to the opportunity to participate in social life and take part in working life. - It has thus considered that the impugned extension of the time-limit is in breach of the State’s positive obligation to protect the disabled persons and to take the necessary measures for ensuring their social integration. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2022/109 13 July 2023 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of certain provisions of the Law no. 6563 on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce	*A. As regards the first sentence and sub-paragraph (a) of Additional Article 2 § 1 of Law no. 6563* - The contested provisions impose a limitation on the freedom of enterprise by restricting electronic commerce intermediary service providers engaging in economic and commercial activities in terms of carrying out certain activities in electronic commerce marketplaces where they provide intermediary services. - The impugned restriction entails that these goods cannot be put up in the electronic commerce marketplace under the control of the electronic commerce intermediary service provider. - It has been considered that although the impugned provisions have constituted a restriction on the freedom of private enterprise, this situation has not imposed an unreasonable burden on those concerned, and therefore a reasonable balance has been struck between the public interest pursued by the impugned provision and the individual interest as regards the freedom of private enterprise. - Consequently, the impugned provisions have been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for their annulment has been dismissed. *B. As regards the phrase “… net trading volume” included in the first and third sentences of Additional Article 4 § 4 of Law no. 6563* - The contested provision clearly lays down the conditions under which electronic commerce intermediary service providers shall pay the license fee, the period when the fee shall be collected, as well as the calculation procedures regarding the fee. - It has been considered that the concept “… net trading volume” has been defined precisely, and its general framework as well as the relevant basic principles have been determined. Thus, the impugned provisions are clear, accessible and foreseeable, avoiding any arbitrariness and fulfilling the legality criterion. - Consequently, the impugned provisions have been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for their annulment has been dismissed.
E.2022/47 13 July 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain provisions of the Teaching Profession Law no. 7354, whereas dismissal of the request for annulment of some other provisions included therein	*A. As regards Article 3 § 4 of Law no. 7354 and the phrase “… by the Ministry of National Education …” included in Article 4 § 1 thereof* - The aforementioned Article 3 § 4 regulates the career steps for the teaching profession clearly and explicitly. In this sense, the contested provision cannot be claimed to be ambiguous and unforeseeable; therefore, it does not run contrary to the legality criterion. It also serves the public interest. - The aforementioned Article 4 § 1, including the phrase “… by the Ministry of National Education”, shall grant the administration the regulatory power. Thus, in consideration of the fact that the legislator, drawing a legal framework regarding the qualifications to be sought in teacher candidates, grants the administration the authority to regulate the courses to be taught by teacher candidates with respective qualifications, there appears no contradiction with the principles of certainty and inalienability of legislative power. - Consequently, the impugned provisions have been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for their annulment has been dismissed. *B. As regards Article 5 § 6 of Law no. 7354* - The contested provision envisages that a regulation shall be issued to determine the procedures and principles regarding teacher candidates. - It has been concluded that the provision is incompatible with the principle entailing the restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms by law. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled. *C. As regards Article 6 § 1 (b), the first sentence of Article 6 § 2, and Article 6 § 8 of Law no. 7354* - The contested provisions do not include clear and precise phrases on the basic principles, scope and nature of the minimum studies required in regard to the professional development areas, which are among the conditions for advancing in terms of the teaching career steps. - It is set forth in the Constitution that any matter related to the personal affairs of public officials shall be regulated exclusively by law. - It has been observed that according to the contested provisions, an unlimited, indefinite and wide area shall be arranged by a regulation, in the absence of a legal framework and of basic principles determined on a matter regarding the personal affairs of public officials. - Thus, the impugned provisions are incompatible with the principle envisaging the limitation of fundamental rights and freedoms by law. - Consequently, the impugned provisions have been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Ford Otomotiv Sanayi Anonim Şirketi 2019/40991 20 June 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to respect for home, safeguarded by Article 21 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to a search conducted at the workplace without an order by a judge. - The applicant is a joint-stock company operating in the automotive market. The Competition Board (the Board) decided to conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether the applicant had violated the Act no. 4054 on the Protection of Competition. - The authorised competition experts carried out an on-site inspection in the applicant's premises. The Board conducted an investigation against undertakings, including the applicant, following a preliminary report. The Competition Authority's rapporteurs concluded that entrepreneurs, including the applicant, committed acts contrary to Article 4 of Act no. 4054. The report of the Competition Authority recommended that administrative fines be imposed on the impugned entrepreneurs. - The Board decided that an administrative fine be imposed on the applicant. - The applicant brought an action before the 13^th Chamber of the Council of State (the Chamber) for annulment of the administrative fine and of the regulation under which the impugned fine was prescribed. The Chamber dismissed the impugned action. - The applicant’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Plenary Session of the Chambers for Administrative Cases of the Council of State (İDDK), on the grounds that the Chamber’s decision was in compliance with the procedure and the law. - Areas such as the workplace are considered as home. The inspection conducted at the applicant's workplace is in breach of the right to respect for home, as documents were obtained from the computers of company officials. - Article 15 of Act no. 4054 allows for on-site inspections by competition experts regardless of a court decision. However, inspections carried out by an order of the Board is not limited to cases where delay is prejudicial. Article 21 § 1 of the Constitution stipulates that a written order of an authorised agency may be sufficient only in cases where delay is prejudicial. This provision is contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution, as it does not restrict the possibility of carrying out on-site inspections upon an order of the Board to cases where delay is prejudicial. -The on-site inspection was carried out without a judicial decision, as the applicant did not seek to prevent it. However, this procedure violated the safeguard stipulated in Article 21 § 1 (2) of the Constitution. - It has been concluded that the violation occurred due to the lack of provisions in Law no. 4054 regarding the authority to conduct on-site inspections, as required by the safeguards established in Article 21 § 1 of the Constitution. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to respect for home.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2023/5 9 March 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of Article 29 § 4 of Law no. 7068 on the Adoption of Decree-Law on General Disciplinary Provisions of Law Enforcement Officers	- The contested provision stipulates that in case of the revocation of a disciplinary sanction through a court decision, the competent disciplinary board or the authorised officer shall make a re-assessment of the case following the notification of the revocation decision. - It is argued that the contested provision, which allows for the imposition anew of a disciplinary sanction upon a revocation decision issued due to the erroneous classification of a disciplinary offence or a formal defect, does not prescribe a definite period of time for the imposition of such a sanction. - In terms of disciplinary law, the statutory period of limitation for imposing a disciplinary sanction covers the period running from the date when a disciplinary offence is committed until the imposition of a sanction. In cases where the disciplinary sanction is revoked through a court decision, a new disciplinary sanction shall be imposed which must be subject to a separate period of limitation. - However, the contested provision does not prescribe a definite period of time in allowing for imposition anew of a disciplinary sanction so as to prevent impunity of the officials committing disciplinary offences, which leads to the risk of being sanctioned for an indefinite period of time. - The Court has therefore concluded that the contested provision, which fails to entail measures so as to prevent public authorities from acting arbitrarily and falls foul of the legal foreseeability and certainty principles, is in breach of principle of the rule of law. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2022/152 5 April 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of Article 6 § 4 (a) of Law no. 6191 on Contracted Sergeants and Privates	- The contested provision stipulates that the contracted sergeants and privates, who are found to no longer be eligible -through a report to be issued by their hierarchical superiors on the basis of any kind of information and documents- for holding office at the Turkish Armed Forces for lack of discipline and immoral behaviour. - It is argued that the contested provision is unconstitutional as the Law no. 6191 allows for the termination of the contracts of these officers in the absence of the procedural safeguards laid down in Law no. 6413, where the acts and behaviours that entail disciplinary sanctions are listed and where the principles pertaining to the investigatory procedure, defence submissions and sanctions are set forth. - The contracted sergeants and privates are classified as other public officers who undertake tasks and duties of primary and permanent nature but are not public officers or workers. The Court has thus considered that the contested provision falls under the right to hold a public service safeguarded by Article 70 of the Constitution. - In this sense, any statutory arrangement limiting this right must be precise, accessible and foreseeable to the extent that would not lead to any arbitrariness. - However, the phrase “lack of discipline” is not definite enough to certainly deduce which acts and circumstances would fall thereunder. Therefore, the Court has observed that the acts constituting lack of discipline, which lead to the termination of the contract, are not objective and have no definite boundaries and framework. - On the other hand, the immoral behaviours giving rise to such termination must be of nature and severity that would preclude the performance of any service in the Turkish Armed Forces. Hence, the phrase “immoral behaviours” cannot be said to be completely ambiguous and uncertain. - Therefore, the contested provision, save for the phrase “lack of discipline”, is found to be certain, accessible and foreseeable, thus meeting the lawfulness requirement. - Besides, the contested provision does not necessitate the taking of defence submissions, thus the conduct of an investigation, before the termination of the contracts of the private sergeants and privates. - Consequently, it has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Tayfun Cengiz (2) 2018/466 27 October 2022 (Plenary)	Violations of the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings under the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of the said principles by reason of the weakening of procedural safeguards in the applicant’s action for compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the terrorist attack. - Some non-governmental organisations decided to hold a rally for peace, labour and democracy in Ankara on Saturday, 10 October 2015, between 12 pm and 4 pm, after obtaining the necessary legal permits. On that day, as the crowd gathered in front of Ankara Railway Station to prepare for the rally, two explosions occurred one after the other at around 10:04 am, killing many people and injuring many others. - The applicant claimed that the administration was guilty of dereliction of duty by failing to take sufficient measures on the day of the incident, despite the information received prior to the bombing, and that his mental integrity had been destroyed by his presence at the scene of the incident and the events he had witnessed, and brought a full remedy action for non-pecuniary damages. - The court dismissed the case, and the applicant’s subsequent appeal was rejected by the Regional Administrative Court. - In the present case, the Court made some enquiries as to whether the applicant had been present at the scene of the incident and reached a conclusion based on the information provided by the administrative authorities. - The Court also asked the administration to determine whether the applicant had been present at the scene of the incident by analysing data such as photographs, videos, official minutes, hospital, police and prosecution records, footage from MOBESE surveillance cameras and HTS records, but the administration indicated that there was no record of the applicant’s name and injury in the investigation initiated into the incident. - In this context, it has been considered that the public authorities failed to sufficiently investigate whether the applicant had been present at the scene of the incident. - The overall assessment of the judicial process reveals certain shortcomings. In particular, it has been observed that the judicial authorities did not thoroughly investigate and examine the claims of the applicant seeking compensation. In addition, relevant evidence that could have influenced the outcome of the case was disregarded during the assessment. The court’s failure to investigate and examine the applicant’s allegations, which could have influenced the final judgment, and its prioritisation of the administration’s version of events, placed the applicant at a disadvantage in relation to the respondent administration. The Regional Administrative Court, to which the applicant appealed, was unable to remedy this procedural defect. As a result, the overall fairness of the judicial process was compromised. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings.	Press Release
Ziynet Benli 2019/23977 15 February 2023 (Plenary)	Violations of right of access to a court and the right to a trial within a reasonable time falling under the right to a fair trial	- Alleged violation of the said rights due to the dismissal of the applicant’s request for rectification of the claim for compensation and the unreasonable length of the proceedings. - The applicant’s spouse, O.B., died as a result of a fire breaking out at the shopping mall where he had been working. The action for compensation brought by the applicant was joined to that of O.B.’s next-of-kin. - The labour court dismissed the claim for pecuniary damages, on the basis of the expert reports obtained, since the pecuniary damages had been reimbursed by the relevant institution, but accepted the claim for non-pecuniary damages. - On appeal, the decision of the labour court was ultimately quashed by the Court of Cassation due to the discrepancy between the expert reports. - In the meantime, the applicant submitted a petition to the court, seeking a rectification for an increase in the amount of claim for pecuniary damages. Her request was accepted by the labour court. - This decision was, however, quashed by the Court of Cassation in accordance with the decision of the Court of Cassation General Assembly on the Unification of Case Law, on the ground that a claim could not be rectified following a quashing decision. - Thereupon, the labour court awarded compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, taking into consideration the amounts originally claimed before the request for rectification. This decision, which was appealed, was ultimately upheld by the Court of Cassation. *A. Alleged violation of the right of access to a court* - There is no explicit or implicit provision in the relevant legislation that excludes the possibility of rectification upon quashing. The general provisions excluding the possibility of rectification after quashing are established through jurisprudence. - Despite the existence of no explicit obstacle in the legislation to the submission of a request for rectification in cases where an investigation is conducted upon a quashing decision pursuant to the very same decision, the categorical interpretations excluding the rectification following a quashing decision in every case without any exception are unforeseeable, and these interpretations fall contrary to the requirement of legality in constitutional terms. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right of access to a court falling under the right to a fair trial. *B. Alleged violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time* - In assessing whether the overall duration of proceedings before the labour courts is reasonable, the courts take into account various factors such as the complexity of the proceedings, the number of levels of jurisdiction involved, the attitude of the parties and relevant authorities during the proceedings, as well as the applicant’s interest in the speedy conclusion of the proceedings. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time falling under the right to a fair trial.	Press Release
Deniz Yavuncu and Others 2018/5126 23 February 2023 (Plenary)	Violations of the freedom of expression and right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Articles 26 and 34 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of freedom of expression and the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches due to the applicant’s conviction for committing an offense on behalf of a terrorist organization without being a member of it on grounds of their participation in a demonstration march and statements of opinion. - The applicants were tried in different criminal proceedings for statements of opinions. As a result, they received sanctions of varying severity for committing offenses on behalf of the terrorist organization. -Referring to Hamit Yakut application, a similar application, the Court reiterated its finding that Article 220 § (6) of Law no. 5237 was not, in its content, purpose, and scope, certain, and it failed to afford protection to the applicants against arbitrary interferences. It considered this provision unlawful as well. -Applying a pilot judgment procedure to resolve structural problems, the Court previously had decided to suspend the examinations of similar applications such as the present one. However, during the prescribed period, there has been no statutory amendment to the said provision. -In this respect, the Court did not depart from the principles set out and the conclusion reached in its Hamit Yakut judgment. -Accordingly, the Court has concluded that the interference with the freedom of expression and the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches, which stemmed from the implementation of Article 220 § (6) of Law no. 5237 did not comply with the lawfulness requirement. -Consequently, the Court found violations of the freedom of expression and the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches.	Press Release
Meltem Radyo ve Televizyon Yayıncılık A.Ş. 2018/13551 23 February 2023 (Plenary)	No violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to sanction imposed on publications inciting attitudes endangering general health and involving covert commercial communication. -An inspection against the applicant’s television channel with Meltem TV logo was initiated by the Radio and Television High Council (RTÜK) due to Dr. M.E.’s various statements in relation to the treatment of diseases with plant-based supplement products. -The report of the inspection found that statements also were of nature undermining public trust in doctors and hospitals and had the potential effects of alienating people from real treatment methods and negatively impacting general health. The report also considered that the program had included covert commercial communication. -As a result, the applicant was issued a warning and sentenced to an administrative fine. After exhausting legal remedies, the applicant applied to the Court. -The Court found the interference of warning sanction issued for acts endangering the general health appropriate. In relation to covert commercial communication, the Court referred to a similar application and reiterated its finding that it was neither arbitrary nor unsubstantiated for the instance court to reach the conclusion that there had been an advertisement in the said program. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the freedom of expression.	Press Release
Ayhan Orhanlı 2019/7991 23 February 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the right of access to a court under the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right of access to a court by reason of the dismissal of the applicant’s action challenging the cancellation by Decree-Law no. 675 on the Measures to Be Taken under the State of Emergency (Decree-Law no. 675) of the recruitment activities of officer candidates whose appointment had not been approved, instead of referring it to the Inquiry Commission on the State of Emergency Measures (“the Inquiry Commission”). - The applicant, who was a contracted staff member, did not hold any position in the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) prior to the training for “Basic Military Service for Officers and Gaining an Understanding of Being an Officer”. - Following the attempted coup of 15 July 2016, the applicant was sent on leave with an order that appeared to cover all those in a similar situation. He was dismissed from the TAF by Decree-Law no. 675. - On learning that he would not be appointed under Decree-Law no. 675, the applicant brought an action for annulment. - The administrative court dismissed the case without examining it, on the grounds that there was in fact no action that could be the subject of administrative proceedings. - The Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of facts and law. The Council of State also dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. - The applicant requested that the case be referred to the Inquiry Commission. - In the present case, since the action against the applicant was taken directly by Decree-Law no. 675, the applicant did not have the opportunity to have the legality of that action directly reviewed by the administrative courts. Indeed, the court dismissed the case without examining it on that ground. However, it appears that there was no examination of whether the action was within the competence of the Inquiry Commission. However, it is imperative that individuals enjoy procedural safeguards that allow them to challenge any disproportionate or arbitrary interference, even during a state of emergency. - Pursuant to Article 2 2 of the Law no. 7075, the actions (procedures) concerning the legal status of natural persons, which are directly regulated by the emergency decree-laws and which are not covered by the first paragraph of the same Article, shall fall within the competence of the Inquiry Commission. - It has been therefore concluded that the interference in the form of the dismissal of the applicant’s complaint following the cancellation of his recruitment by virtue of the Emergency Decree-Law and the non-reinstatement of his appointment without examination and subsequent referral to the Inquiry Commission was not to the extent required by the situation provided for in Article 15 of the Constitution, which governs the suspension and limitation of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms during a state of emergency. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right of access to a court under the right to a fair trial.	Press Release
Murat Albayrak 2020/16168 8 March 2023 (Plenary)	No violation of the right to a fair hearing within the scope of the right to a fair trial, safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the method employed to obtain the records relating to the interception of telecommunications. - The chief public prosecutor’s office launched an investigation to identify the members of the clandestine military structure of the Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation/Parallel State Structure (“FETÖ/PDY”), at the end of which it concluded that the applicant had committed the imputed offence, as he had been positioned within the said structure. - In the present case, the conclusion reached by the judicial authorities that the applicant had been positioned in the said structure of the FETÖ/PDY was based primarily on the HTS records relating to payphones, as well as on the analyses and evaluations carried out by the law enforcement authorities. - It has been evaluated that the obtaining of the HTS records relating to the communications via payphones from the Information Technologies and Communication Authority, in accordance with the judge’s decision, and the technical analysis of these records by the law enforcement authorities so as to identify persons likely to be suspects, did not constitute a practice involving a manifest error of judgment or manifest arbitrariness. - The judicial authorities have carried out the necessary investigations, analyses and assessments regarding the authenticity or reliability of the HTS data obtained. - There was no violation with regard to the allegedly unlawful method by which the HTS data relating to the GSM line used by the applicant, which had been accessed in accordance with the decisions on the interception of telecommunications, was obtained. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found no violation of the right to a fair hearing within the scope of the right to a fair trial.	Press Release
Ayşe Fahriye Tosun 2021/17663 Cihangir Akyol 2021/33759 30 May 2023 (Plenary)	No violation of the right to a fair hearing within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to dismissal of the action the applicants had brought for the annulment of their request to carry out their profession freely after their work shifts. - The applicants, university professors, applied for a licence to practise in order to be able to freely exercise their profession after their work shifts. The Directorate of Health dismissed the impugned application on the grounds that the applicants were faculty members and were subject to the Higher Education Law no. 2547. -The actions brought by the applicants were dismissed by the inferior courts. The applicants’ appeal on points of law and fact and subsequent appeal on points of law were also dismissed. - The working principles and procedures of faculty members are laid down in Article entitled “Working principles” of Law no. 2547, and this provision constitutes the ground for dismissal of the applicants’ request for issuance of a license. - The same provision also stipulates that Article 28 of the Civil Servants Law no. 657, which prohibits civil servants from engaging in commercial and other gainful occupations, shall prevail in cases where there is no applicable provision laid down in Law no. 2547. - With reference to Law no. 2547 and the annulment decision of the Constitutional Court dated 7 November 2014, the inferior courts held that it was in compliance with the law to dismiss the requests of the applicants who held the title of associate professor or professor on 18 January 2014, when Law no. 6514 entered into force, but who were not included among those who had been practising privately prior to that date. - In the present case, it was understood that the administration complied with the Law on Practice of Medicine and Medical Sciences no. 1219, the Law on Healthcare Services no. 3359, and other relevant legal regulations when determining the procedure to be followed. - No manifest arbitrariness or manifest error of judgment in the view of the inferior courts was found on the basis of the provisions of Law no. 2547 and the grounds stated in the Constitutional Court's judgment. - Therefore, the fact that the request of the applicants was dismissed pursuant to Law no. 2547, and Article 28 of Law No. 657 referred to therein, did not prejudice the fairness of the proceedings. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the right to a fair hearing.	Press Release
Mutia Canan Karatay (3) 2020/4999 1 June 2023 (First Section)	Violation of freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on account of her medical statements presented in a television programme. - The applicant, a physician and one of the most renowned academics and scientists in Türkiye, stated during a television broadcast that pharmaceutical companies were acting in pursuance of commercial interests and that happiness could be achieved not with medications, but with a healthy diet. - As a consequence of the impugned statements, the applicant was subjected to a disciplinary investigation, at the end of which a disciplinary fine was imposed on her by the decision rendered by the Honour Board of the Istanbul Medical Chamber. - The High Board of Discipline of the Turkish Medical Association (TMA) upheld the impugned decision. The appeal lodged by the applicant against this decision was dismissed, with final effect, by the administrative court. - The requirement to prove having pertinent expertise in order to express an opinion restricts freedom of expression to the extent that would render it meaningless. Moreover, it is not for the judicial authorities to substitute themselves for a scientist and determine the form of expression to be used in a particular situation. - The consideration that the reference made by the applicant, to her books, in which she provides more technical explanations and attempts to ground her views, is a self-advertisement amounts to an indirect restriction of freedom of expression, since it goes beyond the aim pursued by the prohibition on advertising for physicians. - It has been thus concluded that the interference with the freedom of expression safeguarded by the Constitution by imposing a disciplinary sanction on the applicant did not correspond to a pressing social need and was not proportionate. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of freedom of expression.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2020/59 23 March 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain provisions of the Bazaar and Neighbourhood Guards Law no. 7245	*A. Article 6 § 1 (b), (ç) and (g) of the Law, regulating the Duties and Authorities of the Bazaar and Neighbourhood Guards* - The contested provisions stipulate that the bazaar and neighbourhood guards shall have the duty and authority to have the owners of properties such as residences, workplaces and vehicles within their duty areas complete the measures regarding the protection of the said properties, to take preventive measures until the arrival of the law enforcement officers in order to prevent demonstrations, marches and disturbances that may disrupt the public order, as well as to prevent those who disturb the peace of the public. - It is argued that the contested provisions contain vague expressions. - It has been observed that the phrases included therein such as the measures to be completed; the nature, severity and limits of the acts and situations that may disturb the public order; and the scope of the duties and authorities regarding preventive measures, are not clear. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been found unconstitutional and thus annulled. *B. The First Sentence of Article 7 § 6 of the Law, Enabling the Bazaar and Neighbourhood Guards to Take the Necessary Measures Including External Search by Hand* - The contested provision stipulates that in case of a reasonable suspicion that the person stopped by the bazaar and neighbourhood guard carries a weapon or other dangerous items, the guard may take the necessary measures, including external search by hand, in order to prevent any harm likely to occur. - It is argued that the criteria required for the restriction of the right to privacy are not laid down in the contested provision. - It has been considered that the external search of persons and their belongings by hand must not be conceived as body search, and its limits must be determined based on the objective criteria. In this regard, the impugned provision is indefinite. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled. *C. The Second Sentence of Article 12 § 1 of the Law, Enabling the Extension of the Working Hours of the Bazaar and Neighbourhood Guards* - The contested provision stipulates that the working hours of the bazaar and neighbourhood guards, which is determined as forty hours per week, can be increased in cases necessitated by the security and public order. - It is argued that the phrase “… in cases necessitated by the security and public order …” is vague. - The impugned provision imposes a restriction on the right to rest. Besides, the upper limit of the working hours is not specified. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2023/44 5 April 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of the phrase “…the administrative fines that have been already collected are non-refundable” laid down in the second sentence of Provisional Article 4 of Law no. 7420 Amending the Income Tax Law and Certain Laws and Decree-Laws	- The contested provision sets forth that the administrative fines, which have been imposed from 11 March 2020 to the effective date of Provisional Article 4 so as to prevent the spread of Covid-19 in the country but have not been served on the addressees yet, shall not be served; that administrative fines which have been already served on the addressees shall not be collected; and that no administrative fine shall be imposed on account of such misdemeanours committed before the effective date of the said provision. The contested provision also lays down that “…administrative fines that have been already collected are non-refundable”. - It is argued that the contested provision is contrary to the principles of legal security and foreseeability; and that it is also in breach of equality principle for causing difference in treatment among those who have been subjected to an administrative fine for the very same reason. - It appears that those who have been subjected to an administrative fine are in a relatively similar situation. Therefore, any statutory arrangement that is more favourable merely to some of the individuals who are in a relatively similar situation must have an objective and reasonable ground, as well as must be proportionate: however, there is no objective and reasonable ground to justify the difference in treatment. - Besides, the Court has also taken into account its previous judgment in the case of Mustafa Karakuş (no. 2020/34781, 17 January 2023) in which it held that the administrative fines imposed under Law no. 1593 with a view to preventing the spread of Covid-19 in the country had run contrary to the principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Wısam Sulaıman Dawood Eaqadah 2021/2831 15 February 2023 (Plenary)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violations of prohibition of ill-treatment and right to an effective remedy	- Alleged violations of the said prohibition due to the deportation order issued against him, as well as of the right to an effective remedy, in conjunction with his freedom of residence, as the deportation order fell contrary to the procedural safeguards. - The applicant, who is a citizen of Iraq, began to live in Türkiye with his family after obtaining a residence permit. - Following an investigation against a number of individuals including the applicant for membership of an armed terrorist organization, the governor’s office ordered the applicant’s deportation as well as his administrative detention. His residence permit was revoked due to the restriction (tahdit kaydı) and deportation orders issued in respect of him. - The applicant then brought an action before the administrative court, seeking the annulment of the deportation order. His action was, however, dismissed by the administrative court with no right of appeal. *A. Alleged Violation of the Prohibition of Ill-Treatment* - In case of an allegation that the foreigner will be subjected to ill-treatment in the receiving country, the administrative and judicial authorities must scrutinize whether a real risk of violation exists in relation to the said country. Nevertheless, the State does not have a duty to scrutinize each deportation procedure. In order for such an obligation to emerge, there must be an arguable claim raised by the applicant. - In the present case, the applicant failed to substantiate his alleged risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in case of his deportation to his home country. Nor were his allegations severe and sufficient for an examination. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court declared the alleged violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded. *B. Alleged Violation of the Right to an Effective Remedy in conjunction with the Freedom of Residence* - Following the finding of the applicant’s name in the list concerning the terrorist organization members, it was not inappropriate or unsubstantiated for public authorities to establish a link between the applicant and the terrorist organization. Therefore, the impugned deportation had a legal basis. - In this sense, the allegations put forward by the applicant before the administrative court were confined to the fact that he had not committed an illegal act and there had been no evidence put forward against him during the criminal investigation process. - The administrative court, finding lawful the assessment of the public authorities to the effect that the applicant had posed a threat to public security, did not act in breach of the safeguard of a review of the impugned situation. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the alleged violation of the right to an effective remedy, in conjunction with freedom of residence, for being manifestly ill-founded.	Press Release
Ümran Özkan 2019/13338 8 March 2023 (Plenary)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial	- Alleged violation of the said right with regard to the action for annulment brought by the applicant for her not being appointed due to the unfavourable outcome of the security investigation and archive research conducted with respect to her. - The applicant, who was entitled to be employed as a computer engineer, could not be appointed since the security clearance investigation carried out against her yielded negative results. The action for annulment brought by her was dismissed by the administrative court. Her subsequent appeal was also dismissed by the regional administrative court with no right of appeal. - The applicant, represented by a lawyer, had herself become aware of the reasoning of the final judgment through the National Judiciary Informatics System (UYAP). The said judgment was served on her lawyer on a subsequent date. - Her lawyer lodged an individual application with the Court, taking the date when the judgment had been served on him as a basis for the prescribed period of 30 days to lodge an individual application. - In the present case, the time-limit prescribed for individual application started to run from the date when the applicant herself become aware of the reasoning of the final judgment through the UYAP. Therefore, she failed to lodge her application within the prescribed period. Nor did she submit any excuse in this regard. - Consequently, the Court found the application inadmissible as time-barred.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2019/88 13 December 2022 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of Article 6 § 2 of Law no. 7174 on Cappadocia Area in so far as it relates to “special provincial administration” and “public vocational organisations”, whereas annulment of Article 8 § 3 of the same Law.	*A. As regards Article 6 § 2* - The contested provision stipulates that the power to increase the contribution rate to be deducted from the budgets of municipalities and certain other organisations laid down in the Law, which will be appropriated as revenue to the administration, from one-hundredth to two-hundredth shall be exercised by the President. - It is argued that the power entrusted to the President is in breach of the financial autonomy of the municipalities operating in Cappadocia Area; that allowing for an increase up to one hundred percent is not proportionate and is contrary to international law. - The Chairman’s Office of Cappadocia Area (Chairman’s Office), which is entrusted with duties and powers pursuant to Article 4 of the Presidential Decree-Law no. 38, has duties and powers overlapping with those of the municipalities and organisations. In other words, the Chairman’s Office authorised with respect to Cappadocia Area is empowered to meet several local needs. - Besides, the Chairman’s Office will clearly increase the significance of the activities in the Area in the tourism sector, thus facilitating the activities of the relevant chambers of commerce and industry as well as their members, and increasing their income. - Therefore, the contested provision allowing for an increase by the President up to one hundred percent has a legitimate purpose, in consideration of the contribution to be made by the Chairman’s Office in meeting needs of local and common needs of the Area and in conducting the occupational activities. - It cannot be also said that such an increase in the deduction of the budgets of these municipalities and organisations will significantly hamper the exercise of their duties and powers. The contested provision is not therefore in breach of the principle of financial autonomy. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed. *B. As regards Article 8 § 3* - The contested provision stipulates that the acts and actions contrary to the measures intended for the protection and maintenance of historical, cultural and natural assets of Cappadocia, as well as the amount of administrative fines to be imposed in case of any breach shall be determined through a regulation to be issued by the administration. - It is argued that the acts and actions that are subject to a sanction must be determined through not regulations, but laws. - The Court has observed that the relevant law does not embody any provision regarding such acts and actions. Nor does it have any provision concerning the administrative fines to be imposed in case of commission of these acts and actions. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Sina Aziz Manastırı ve Başpiskoposluğu (Tur-u Sina Manastırı) 2018/26955 14 December 2022 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the rejection of the request for return of the church premises, granted with the status of fused foundation, to the Foundation. - It is claimed that the immovable property in dispute, which was found to have been used by the community until 1977, was granted with the status of fused foundation as a result of the unilateral action taken by the administration, and that the applicant’s request for return of the said property was rejected based on the impugned administrative action. - The judicial authorities failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons regarding the lawfulness of the said interference. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to property.
Çetin Doğan (3) 2021/30714 15 February 2023 (Plenary) Ahmet Çörekçi 2021/30753 Cevat Temel Özkaynak 2021/32082 26 January 2023 (Plenary)	No violations of the nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege principle safeguarded by Article 38 of the Constitution, and right to a fair hearing, principle of natural judge and non bis in idem principle safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of the said rights and principles for grounds such as being punished for an act that did not constitute an offence, use of unlawfully obtained evidence as a basis for conviction, and not being brought before the Supreme Criminal Tribunal. - An investigation was launched against the applicants, retired military officers, by the chief public prosecutor’s office in 2011 for the acts they had committed during the 28 February period. At the end of the proceedings, the applicants were sentenced to imprisonment with no right of appeal. *A. Alleged violation of the nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege principle* - It is for the first instance courts to determine the scope of criminal responsibilities and, accordingly, to assess whether the constituent elements of the offence were made out, and to define the corresponding punishment. - The Court found it established, in the particular circumstances of the case, that the constituent elements of the offence had been made out. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found no violation of the nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege principle. *B. Alleged violation of the right to a fair hearing* - The applicants, relying on an expert report, substantiated their allegation that the CD no. 5 was forged. - The first instance court had specified that the documents that had been undoubtedly authentic and reliable shall be used as evidence. - The said CD had not been the sole and decisive evidence relied on for the applicants’ imprisonment. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found no violation of the right to a fair hearing. *C. Alleged violation of the principle of natural judge* - It is laid down in Article 148 § 7 of the Constitution that the Chief of General Staff, the commanders of the Land, Naval and Air Forces shall be tried as well in the Supreme Criminal Tribunal for offences regarding their duties. This provision also embodies the principle of natural judge. - The trial court stated that in order for an offence to be defined as the one committed regarding duty, there must be a causal link between the imputed act and the duty, the said act must be related to the duty and must be committed by taking advantage of the opportunities provided by the duty. - It was observed that the interpretation made by the trial courts and the Court of Cassation, which stated that the imputed offence was not related to the duty, did not violate the principle of natural judge. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found no violation of the principle of natural judge. *D. Alleged violation of the non bis in idem principle* - In the present case, the statements of witnesses and complainants, as well as, documents received from relevant institutions and digital documents, which were obtained following the decision of non-prosecution were new evidence. - It was considered that the second set of proceedings initiated for the acts subject to the decision of non-prosecution was based on the discovery of new evidence, which constituted an exception to the aforementioned principle. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found no violation of the non bis in idem principle.
Muharrem Çimen 2016/5002 23 March 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to union safeguarded by Article 51 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the termination of the applicant’s employment contract for his participation in a slowdown strike. - The strike was a short and peaceful activity aimed at expressing disputes regarding the collective labour agreement. - Besides, the employer failed to demonstrate that the applicant’s conduct went beyond the purpose of seeking his democratic rights. In addition, the applicant was imposed an extremely heavy sanction as a result of which he lost his job. - Hence, the interference with the applicant’s right to union would have a chilling effect on the exercise of the right to union. - The State did not fulfil its positive obligations, since the incumbent courts failed to conduct an effective judicial review. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to union.
İlyas Bulcay 2020/24527 9 February 2023 (Second Section)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom for imposition of an administrative fine due to social media posting that may incite violence in sports competitions. - The incumbent public authorities failed to demonstrate that the applicant’s posting had encouraged the fans to take to the streets, incited violence or posed a threat to the security and order in sports competitions. - Therefore, the authorities failed to rely on relevant and sufficient grounds to prove that the administrative fine imposed on the applicant regarding his social media posting corresponded to a pressing social need. - The interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Thus, it did not comply with the requirements of a democratic social order. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the freedom of expression.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2018/83 30 November 2022 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of Article 6 of the Law no. 7089 on the Adoption of the Decree-Law on Taking Certain Measures under State of Emergency	- The contested provision stipulates that the medals awarded, under the Law no. 2933 on Medals and Orders, to those found to have connections and relations with terrorist organizations or structures, formations or groups decided by the National Security Council (MGK) to carry out activities against the national security of the State, who are listed in Annex 7, shall be withdrawn. - It is argued that the contested provision is unconstitutional since it envisages a disciplinary sanction, which is one of the transactions that should be regulated by law. - It has been concluded that Article 40 of the Constitution affords effective, reasonable and accessible administrative and judicial remedies to challenge the measure envisaged in the contested provision. Therefore, the State has fulfilled its obligation to provide effective administrative and judicial remedies to those subjected to the said measure. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed.
E.2022/97 25 January 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of the second sentence of Additional Article 33 § 3 of the Law no. 657 on Civil Servants	- The contested provision stipulates that those who perform on-call duty shall be made payment for only up to 120 hours per month for the on-call duty, and that if the personnel are required to perform on-call duty beyond this period, no payment shall be made. Thus, no limit is set for the length of the on-call duty. - While it is important that emergency health services are provided without interruption, these services should not preclude the health professionals’ right to rest. - In cases where on-call duty is strictly necessary, redress of the consequences of the violation of the right to rest by making a payment will strike the balance between the public interest in the uninterrupted continuation of health services and the health professionals’ interest in the enjoyment of the right to rest. - As such, it has been considered that the contested provision imposes a disproportionate burden on healthcare professionals. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2022/142 16 February 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of the second sentence of Article 50 § 2 of Law no. 3568 on Certified Public Accountancy and Sworn-in Certified Public Accountancy	- The contested provision stipulates that the approval of the Ministry of Treasury and Finance (the Ministry) shall be required for the disciplinary regulations to be issued by the Union of Chambers of Certified Public Accountants and Sworn-in Certified Public Accountants of Türkiye. - It is argued that the granting of approval authority to the Ministry is incompatible with the principle of autonomy of professional organizations, which is unconstitutional. - According to the Court, in consideration of the fact that the relevant professional organisation cannot issue a regulation in the absence of the Ministry’s approval, the contested provision renders the former’s authority to issue regulations and thus its autonomy meaningless. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2022/155 22 February 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of the first sentence of Article 187 of the Turkish Civil Code no. 4721 and dated 22 November 2001	- The contested provision stipulates that the married woman cannot bear her maiden name alone after marriage. - It is argued that whereas the married man is entitled to bear his surname acquired by birth during his lifetime, the married woman cannot enjoy the very same right, which is in breach of the equality principle. In spite of the Court’s judgments finding a violation in this regard, the contested provision is still applied by the administration for not being amended yet, which falls foul of the binding nature of the Court’s decisions and judgments. - The Court has concluded that woman and man are in a comparably similar situation as regards their entitlement to bear the surname prior to marriage also after getting married; and that although man is entitled to bear his own surname alone after getting married, the contested provision stipulates that woman shall be allowed to bear her maiden name after marriage only in front of her husband’s surname: difference in treatment on ground of sex between spouses who are in a comparably similar situation. - It has also observed that the aims of ensuring order and convenience in records of civil registry as well as of maintaining and strengthening family ties cannot be considered as a reasonable justification for the difference in treatment resulting from the contested provision. - It has accordingly concluded that the impugned difference in treatment between woman and man as regards their entitlement to bear their own surname prior to marriage alone also after marriage falls foul of the equality principle. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.	Press Release
E.2022/145 22 March 2023 (Plenary)	Annulment of Article 247 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedures no. 5271, whereas dismissal of the request for annulment of Article 248 § 5 thereof.	*A. As regards Article 247 § 3* - The contested provision stipulates that the investigation and prosecution stages, from the acceptance of indictment and finalisation of the verdict rendered, may be conducted against an accused person being a fugitive. The only exception to this provision is that the fugitive accused person, who has not been interrogated yet, cannot be convicted. - It is argued that the conduct of proceedings in the absence of the accused person restricts the right to be present at the hearing and thus the right to a fair trial; and that the contested provision allows for issuing a decision of no need for imposing a penalty or a decision on the application of security measure in respect of the fugitive accused person who has not been interrogated, which imposes a disproportionate restriction on the right to a fair trial and also falls foul of the presumption of innocence. - The Court has noted that the aim pursued by the contested provision which enables the conduct of the proceedings in the absence of the accused person –including the cases at the end of which any verdict other than conviction is reached without the accused person being interrogated- is to conclude the proceedings with the least cost and within the shortest time possible. - The Court has also observed that as set forth in the contested person, in the absence of the accused person being a fugitive, it is found established that he has committed the impugned act specified in the indictment; but no penalty is imposed at the end of proceedings: he is no longer innocent; and that in cases where a security measure is ordered pursuant to the contested provision, the accused person is also subject to a sanction. - It has accordingly concluded that the conclusion of the proceedings with respect to an accused person being a fugitive without being interrogated constituted a disproportionate restriction on the right to a fair trial, in the absence of an opportunity to raise a challenge before the first-instance, appeal or cassation courts. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled. *B. As regards Article 248 § 5* - The contested provision allows for issuing of a decision ordering detention in absentia of the fugitives who are abroad. - It is argued that the contested provision impairs the very essence of the right to personal liberty and security and cannot be considered proportionate to the aim of making the fugitive be present at the trial. - The Court has noted that the provision is intended for preventing the fugitives from obscuring or altering the evidence or making them be present at the trial: thus, the provision pursues the legitimate aim of conducting the judicial process in a sounder manner. - Besides, the contested provision clearly and precisely sets forth the conditions and circumstances in which the personal liberty and security of fugitives may be restricted; thus, it is precise, accessible and foreseeable. - It is also laid down in the provision that the fugitive whose detention is ordered in absentia shall be brought before a competent judge: it does not place an excessive burden on the right to personal liberty and security. - Consequently, the Court has found the contested provision constitutional and thus dismissed the request for its annulment.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Yunis Karataş 2021/34231 26 January 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege principle safeguarded by Article 38 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said principle due to the applicant’s conviction without eligibility for parole. - The applicant, convicted of the offence of having attempted to alter the constitutional order, was sentenced to capital punishment, which was ultimately commuted to aggravated life imprisonment. - Arguing that he had not committed any offence on behalf of an organisation, the applicant raised an objection before the incumbent magistrate judge and claimed that the provisions related to parole should have been applied in his case. However, his objection was dismissed. - The matter in the present case is whether the provisions on parole can be applied in case of an aggravated life imprisonment to which the applicant was sentenced. - The Court has noted that in ascertaining whether these provisions may be applied in such cases, what is important is not whether the act committed is a terrorist act, but whether the perpetrator is a terror offender. - A person may be considered as a terror offender when he is a member of the organisations defined in the relevant legislation or commits offences on behalf of these organisations even if he is not a member thereof. - In the present case, it reveals from the decision convicting the applicant that he was not a member of any organisation or he did not commit any offence on behalf of them. - For the existence of an organisation, there must be also a hierarchical structure, and the acts performed on behalf of the organisation must be of continuing nature. In the present case, no hierarchical link could be established among the applicant’s co-offenders. Besides, they had conspired to commit merely a single criminal act. - In dismissing the applicant’s objection, the magistrate judge failed to make such assessments and to make any explanations in this regard. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege principle.
Yaman Akdeniz (2) 2016/6815 15 February 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to refusal of the applicant’s request to obtain information on the statistics with respect to the court orders issued to block access to websites. - The applicant, an academic at the faculty of law, is also the founder of a non-governmental organisation and a website. - He applied to the Information and Communication Authority (Authority) for being provided with statistical information on the court orders issued to block access to websites. His request was dismissed by the Authority. His subsequent objection against this dismissal was also rejected by the incumbent Council. - His action for annulment of the impugned dismissal was also rejected by the incumbent administrative court. On appeal, the Council of State upheld the administrative court’s decision. - The Court has noted that in consideration of the applicant’s position as an academic holding office in the fields of internet law and human rights, his acts and activities must be afforded protection comparable to that provided by the freedom of the press. - In the present case, the applicant’s request to obtain certain information did not cause a significant workload for the relevant Authority. Nor could it be argued that the requested information was not even in the possession of the Authority. - The Court has concluded that the information, which was likely to contribute to the public debate on the court orders issued to block access to websites, was necessary for the studies and activities conducted by the applicant with respect to the violations of freedom of expression in online space. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the freedom of expression.
Emre Kunt 2019/5577 8 March 2023 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to legal assistance under the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the applicant’s inability to communicate and consult with his legal counsel appointed ex officio. - The applicant was detained on remand for, and ultimately convicted of, his membership of the Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation / Parallel State Structure (FETÖ/PDY). - During his trial, the applicant maintained that despite his being held in the penitentiary institutions located in Uşak and İzmir provinces, the incumbent chief public prosecutor’s office and court appointed defence counsels registered in the bar association of another province. - Despite his request for appointment of a new defence counsel registered in the bar association in close proximity to the penitentiary institution where he was held, the incumbent court neither took into consideration this request nor resorted to an alternative method to eliminate the setback resulting from the applicant’s inability to properly communicate and consult with his legal counsel. - The Court has thus observed that the applicant was not provided with the opportunity to effectively avail himself of legal assistance. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to legal assistance.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
İdris Taniş (2) 2018/21866 14 December 2022 (Plenary)	Violations of the right to respect for private life and the nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege principle respectively safeguarded by Articles 20 and 38 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of the said right and principle for imposition of an administrative fine due to the applicant’s, a lawyer, not passing his bag through the X-Ray device at the entrance of the courthouse. *1. Alleged violation of the right to respect for private life* - It is laid down in Article 32 of the Misdemeanour Law no. 5326 that administrative sanctions shall be imposed by administrative units authorised by law. However, there is no statutory regulation authorising the chief public prosecutor's office to impose an administrative sanction in case of failure to obey an order. - Besides, in the present case, the elements sought for the committal of the said misdemeanour were not identified. - Hence, the imposition of the said fine based on the interpretation of the public authorities did not meet the requirement of legality. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to respect for private life. *2. Alleged violation of the nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege principle* - The findings reached by the Court, which resulted in the violation of the right to respect for private life, also apply to the nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege principle. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege principle.
Kenan Kalkan 2018/36174 15 February 2023 (Plenary)	No violation of the right to a fair hearing within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right for the elimination of the ongoing disagreement between the chambers of the Court of Cassation on the determination of the number of workers. - In the present case, the impugned matter arose from the determination of whether the defendant employer employed thirty or more workers as of the date of termination of the applicant’s contract of employment. However, in this regard there was a disagreement between the chambers of the Court of Cassation. - The contested difference in the case-law applicable when the applicant’s contract of employment had been terminated was then eliminated by unification of the conflicting case-law and adoption of the one that was against the applicant. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found no violation of the right to a fair hearing within the scope of the right to a fair trial.
Şerafettin Can Atalay 2021/9387 19 January 2023 (First Section)	Violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to denial of the permission to use the venue preferred for the meeting on the grounds that it was not one of the venues designated by the local authority. - According to the Court, any restriction imposed by public authorities in this regard must comply with the requirements of the democratic social order in the particular circumstances of the case. - Pursuant to Article 6 of the Law no. 2911 on Meetings and Demonstrations, meetings and demonstration marches can be held anywhere. Accordingly, all public spaces must be open and available for meetings. The predetermination, by the administration, of the places where meetings and demonstration marches can be held cannot be interpreted as the denial of such events in other places. - The governor failed to make an assessment considering the content, manner, purpose, duration, number of participants, whether the impugned meeting posed a security risk, whether it would make daily life extremely and unbearably difficult, and whether an alternative venue would render the right to assembly ineffective. - It was therefore concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right to hold meetings and demonstration marches did not serve a pressing social need, nor did it comply with the requirements of the democratic social order. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2018/123 9 November 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain provisions of the Presidential decree no. (4), whereas dismissal of the request for annulment of the remaining provisions	*A. Provision stipulating the determination of the duties and authorities of the personnel of the Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD) by a regulation to be issued by the latter* - The Presidential decree embodying the contested provision does not include any regulation on the duties and authorities, appointment, working procedures and principles of the personnel and other issues related to them. Thus, the general framework and basic provisions in respect thereof were not determined by the Presidential decree, but through a regulation. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional, and therefore annulled. *B. Provision regulating the qualifications of the personnel to be assigned in organizations abroad* - It is laid down in Article 128 § 2 of the Constitution that the qualifications, appointment, duties and authorities, rights and responsibilities, salaries and allowances of public servants and other public officials, and other matters related to their status shall be regulated by law. - From this standpoint, it has been observed that the contested provision concerns an issue to be regulated by law. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional, and therefore annulled. *C. Provision authorising the Department of Application and Data Management to collect any information, data and statistics* - It is clear that the information and data to be collected shall also cover the personal data of taxpayers. No regulation can be made by Presidential decrees regarding the right to protection of personal data enshrined in Article 20 of the Constitution In this respect, the contested provision concerns a regulation regarding personal data and cannot be regulated by Presidential decrees. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional, and therefore annulled. *D. Provision on the broadcasting of the President's statements and activities* - According to the provisions determining the procedures and principles regarding the broadcasting of presidential declarations, TRT (Turkish Radio and Television Association) shall be obliged to make this broadcast. - Regulations regarding the duties and powers of TRT, which was established by a Presidential decree, may also be made by Presidential decrees. Thus, the contested provision is not related to an issue to be exclusively regulated by law. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed. *E. Provision entailing periodic performance evaluation in determining rights and obligations as well as personal rights of public officials* - The contested provision stipulates that the contracted personnel shall be subjected to performance evaluation annually, as a result of which, it shall be decided whether to extend or terminate their contracts. In this regard, the provision imposes a restriction on the freedom of labour and contract. - It appears that the impugned provision introduces a regulation regarding the restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms, which must be regulated exclusively by law in accordance with Article 13 of the Constitution. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional, and therefore annulled. F. Provision enabling the President to receive information directly from the Chief of General Staff, Force Commanders and their subsidiaries as well as to give them orders, and ensuring their fulfilment - The contested provision pertains to the issues as regards the President’s duty and power to determine the defence policy and take the necessary measures, and therefore, falls within the scope of the issues to be regulated by Presidential decrees under Article 106 of the Constitution. - The provision concerns an issue regarding executive power within the scope of Article 104 of the Constitution, and contains no regulation on rights and duties that cannot be regulated by Presidential decrees. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Narin Kurt 2018/2540 1 December 2022 (Plenary)	Violations of both substantive and procedural aspects of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right for the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the death of the applicant’s husband due to the use of force by the police. - The incumbent assize court concluded that the use of weapon had been in breach of the right to life enshrined in Article 17 of the Constitution. Thus, the necessity and proportionality of the impugned use of force needed no examination by the Court. - The accused had been sentenced to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment, which was later converted to fine. - The relevant imprisonment sentence, which was later converted to fine, imposed for the death caused by the use of weapon by a police officer was neither relevant nor sufficient in terms of the protection of life by preventing similar violations. - As a result, the applicant still had the victim status, and the impugned punishment had no chilling effect on further similar violations. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found violations of both substantive and procedural aspects of the right to life.
Asya Göres and Others 2018/15851 1 December 2022 (Plenary)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right for the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the death of the applicants’ relative. - The deceased had been killed by a commander. The applicants filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), pending the domestic investigation process. The latter found violations of both substantive and procedural aspects of the right to life. - The applicants submitted the relevant ECHR judgment to the trial court that acquitted the accused at the end of the proceedings, which was subsequently upheld by the Court of Cassation. - In consideration of the ECHR judgment, there is no legal interest in re-examining the alleged violation of the substantive aspect as well as the procedural aspect of the right to life as far as it concerns the proceedings before the ECHR judgment. Therefore, the examination has been confined to the procedural aspect of the right to life regarding the obligation to conduct an effective investigation in terms of the proceedings after the ECHR judgment. - In spite of the deficiencies specified in the relevant judgment concerning the investigation process, the incumbent authorities failed to take the necessary actions such as taking statements of all witnesses and carrying out examinations on the equipment used during the incident as well as on the remains found at the scene. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life.
İ.D. and Others 2016/14513 28 December 2022 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to an effective remedy safeguarded by Article 40 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 17 thereof	- Alleged violation of the said right for denial of the request for blocking access to the internet content. - The applicants claimed that the impugned content was in breach of their personal rights; therefore, the rejection of their request violated their right to protection of honour and dignity within the context of their right to an effective remedy. - In addition to the opportunities provided by the internet in the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms, it may also create interference with fundamental rights and freedoms, as well as individuals’ private lives and moral integrity. - The Court has emphasized that although the State does not have a positive obligation to carry out adversarial proceedings in all cases due to the difficulties inherent in the internet environment, it must put into practice a judicial system and an effective judicial review mechanism enabling the individuals to make their defence, to adduce evidence substantiating their defence, to be heard by a court and to be subject to adversarial proceedings. - The statutory instruments in force failed to afford an effective protection mechanism against the violations of personal rights. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to an effective remedy in conjunction with the right to protection of honour and dignity.
Senem Esen 2020/14769 19 January 2023 (First Section)	Violation of the right to legal assistance within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right for the failure to appoint a lawyer during the criminal proceedings. - The applicant was not explicitly reminded of his right to legal assistance during the proceedings. - Although the applicant defended himself at the hearings in the absence of a lawyer, he stated after the conviction that he could not financially afford a lawyer and claimed that he should have been provided with legal assistance. Therefore, it is obvious that the applicant did not waive his right to legal assistance. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to legal assistance within the scope of the right to a fair trial.
Elkin Turizm Tarım Temizlik İnşaat Gıda Yemek Hayvancılık Otomotiv İthalat İhracat Ltd. Şti. 2020/6926 31 January 2023 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the prolonged issuance of the reasoned decision in an action for annulment of objection arising from the commercial service contract. - One of the most important conditions to be fulfilled in order for the applicant to benefit from the consequences of the action it had brought was the issuance of the reasoned decision, which was incumbent on the trial court, regardless of the applicant’s request, conduct and responsibility. - In the present case, it took the authorities more than one year to issue the reasoned decision. Hence, the impugned delay in the issuance of the reasoned decision resulted in the prolongation of the proceedings. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2022/59 28 September 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of the first paragraph of the Provisional Article 34 added to the Tax Procedural Law no. 213 insofar as it relates to the phrases “…execution…” and “….prosecution…”	- The contested provision enables those having committed tax evasion to be entitled to a remission of sentence conditional upon the payment of taxes and other debts accrued, and the bringing of no action before tax courts or a waiver from action if already brought, and no recourse to legal remedies or a waiver therefrom. - Those who have committed tax evasion are also subjected to criminal investigation and prosecution at the end of which they may be sentenced to imprisonment. - The contested provision enables those to avail themselves of effective remorse during the investigation and prosecution stages, as well as of a pardon during the execution stage. - It is argued that the contested provision goes beyond the scope and purpose of the effective remorse institution and leads to discrimination between those having brought an action and those having brought no action; and that in case where a person having waived of his right to bring an action against taxes and penalties is acquitted at the end of the proceedings, he shall no longer bring an action on the basis of his acquittal. - On account of the condition of bringing no action in terms of the taxes and other amounts that have been already paid for taking advantage of the effective remorse and pardon; in case of an acquittal granted -as it has been found established that the imputed act has not been committed by the accused-, it becomes evident that the tax offence has not been committed by the respective person, the taxes considered to have accrued did not indeed accrue; and that therefore, the respective person has paid the relevant taxes and amounts that should not have been paid by him. - This places an excessive burden on individuals. On the other hand, the public interest sought to be pursued is to reduce the workload of the judiciary: upset of the fair balance between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved. - Besides, an acquittal granted by a criminal court, at the end of the proceedings concerning tax evasion, -as it has been found established that the imputed act has not been committed by the accused- must be taken into consideration by the public authorities. Otherwise, it will be in breach of the presumption of innocence set forth in Article 38 of the Constitution. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2018/85 26 October 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of the phrase “…and the spouses and children of the persons…”, whereas dismissal of the request for annulment of the phrase “…including the collection of data through telecommunication…”, which are included in the Law no. 7091 on the Adoption of the Decree-Law on Taking Certain Measures under State of Emergency	-The contested provisions stipulate that any kind of information and documents, including data collected through telecommunication but save for those considered as secret information under Banking Law no. 5411, related to the spouse and children of the persons who are subjected to an inquiry and investigation within the framework of the Decree-Law no. 667, as well as the data collected through telecommunication, with respect to those subjected to an inquiry and investigation under Articles 3 and 4 of the same Decree-Law, shall be delivered to the competent board, commission and other relevant authorities. - It is argued that the provisions are unconstitutional as they entail the disclosure of information regarding not only those against whom an investigation is conducted but also their spouses and children; such information may contain several personal data; and it may lead to delivery of any kind of information regarding the data collected through telecommunication to the investigation authorities in the absence of an order issued by the judge. *1. The phrase “…and the spouses and children of the persons…”* - The data collected through telecommunication are in the nature of personal data. The contested provision allows for the disclosure of not only such kind of data but also any kind of information and documents concerning the spouses and children of the respective persons. - It amounts to a restriction of the right to the protection of personal data and freedom of communication, which may be wholly or partially suspended and even derogated under state of emergency. However, the measures to be taken in this regard must be to the extent required by the exigencies of the situation. - The Court notes that there is no inquiry or investigation conducted with respect to the persons whose information shall be disclosed to the competent authorities. They are only the spouses or children of those who are subjected to an inquiry or investigation. This mere fact cannot justify the disclosure of their data, almost all of which are personal nature, to the authorities. - Therefore, the restriction imposed through the contested provision goes beyond the extent required by the exigencies of the situation. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled. *2. The phrase “…including the collection of data through telecommunication…”* - It is possible to impose certain restrictions, which go beyond the exigencies of the ordinary period, on the freedom of communication and the right to protection of personal data for the purpose of punishing the members of terrorist organisations and lustrating those who are not a member of any terrorist organisation but have a relation therewith from public office. - Therefore, the collection of data through telecommunication with respect those who are subjected to an inquiry and investigation and the disclosure of such data to the competent authorities are among the measures that may be taken under the state of emergency. - Besides, the disclosure of such data to the competent authorities is not conditional upon the issuance of an order by a judge, which is not in breach of the special safeguard laid down in Article 22 of the Constitution. That is because, such data are limited to the telephone numbers (calling and called parties), duration of calls, HTS records and etc. and do not include interception and recording of communication. - Therefore, the impugned measure does not go beyond the extent required by the exigencies of the situation. - Consequently, the Court has found the contested provision constitutional and thus dismissed the request for its annulment.
E.2020/72 13 December 2022 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision setting aside the power of the Chief of General Staff to conduct disciplinary proceedings	- Article 7 § 3 of the Disciplinary Act of the Turkish Armed Forces no. 6413 was abolished. The contested provision thus set aside the power conferred upon the Chief of General Staff to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the staff of the Turkish Armed Forces, if he deems necessary. - It is argued that the removal of the power of the Chief of General Staff, who is a disciplinary superior, concerning disciplinary proceedings will prevent him from using the statutory power conferred upon him, which will tarnish the hierarchical structure of the Turkish Armed Force. - As there is no constitutional provision concerning the position, duties and powers of the Chief of General Staff within the disciplinary order of the Turkish Armed Forces, it is for the law-maker to ascertain such issues on condition of being in conformity with the constitutional provisions. - The Chief of General Staff was entitled to conduct disciplinary proceedings with respect to all staff of the Military Service Commands and their subordinate units. The contested provision set aside this power. However, he is still entitled to conduct disciplinary proceedings with respect to the staff operating under the General Staff. - The impugned severance results from the procedure envisaging that the General Staff and all Military Service Commands shall independently and directly operate under the Ministry of National Defence. Therefore, the Chief of General Staff is no longer the highest and common hierarchical superior of the Armed Forces. - The Court has accordingly observed that the contested provision does not prevent the Chief of General Staff from giving orders and instructions to the forces in his command and thus duly performing his mission as a commander. Nor does it tarnish the title of the Chief of General Staff, set forth in the Constitution, as the commander of the Armed Forces. - Consequently, the Court has found the contested provision constitutional and thus dismissed the request for its annulment.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Umut Deniz Yorulmaz 2019/19019 20 December 2022 (First Section)	Violation of the right to education safeguarded by Article 42 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right for imposition of a disciplinary punishment for the applicant’s words and behaviours towards the rector of the university where he was a student, which resulted in his suspension from school. - The applicant’s statements were related to the issues of public interest, and they cannot be said to be offensive or indecent. - However, the inferior court concluded that the impugned expressions were of a nature that damaged the honour and dignity of individuals, but it did not specify which words were of the said nature and for which reasons the applicant would not be able to be covered by the protection of freedom of expression. - Imposing disciplinary punishments on university students, the incumbent administration and courts are strictly required to indicate the possible and actual negative effects of the alleged action on the order of the educational institution. - In the present case, the incumbent authorities failed to demonstrate which pressing social need the disciplinary punishment served. Besides, the grounds relied on by the courts were neither relevant nor sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to education. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to education.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2018/78 13 October 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain provisions of the Law no. 7083 on Adoption of the Decree Law on Taking of Certain Measures under State of Emergency for being unconstitutional, whereas dismissal of the request for annulment of the remaining provisions	*A. Provisions concerning the Institutions Closed due to Activities against National Security and the Transfer of Their Immovables to the Treasury* - The contested provisions stipulate that the associations and media outlets found to have connections and relations with terrorist organizations or structures, formations or groups decided by the National Security Council (MGK) to carry out activities against the national security of the state, have been closed. It is also specified therein that the immovables in their possession shall be transferred to the Treasury; and that no claim shall be made to the Treasury to cover any debts of the closed institutions and organisations. - It is argued that the contested provisions are not necessary and proportionate for the purpose of eliminating the threat to public order, nor are they compatible with the requirements of the state of emergency; that the said measures may be characterised as individual administrative actions; that the sanctions stated therein have been imposed on institutions and organizations in the absence of an administrative or judicial investigation and of a final court decision; that the closure of media outlets are in breach of the freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right of publication and the protection of press equipment; that the closure of associations violates the freedom of association; and that the transfer of the assets of associations and media outlets to the Treasury is in breach of the right to property and the prohibition of confiscation. *1. Provisions concerning the Closure of Certain Institutions* - Any restriction on fundamental rights and freedoms should be to the extent required by the exigencies of the situation within the scope of Article 15 of the Constitution. In this sense, any arbitrary interference shall be prevented. - The Court has concluded that the impugned provisions do not impose any restriction on the freedom of association and freedom of expression and the press, exceeding the extent required by the exigencies of the situation for the purpose of protecting national security and the democratic constitutional order. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been found constitutional, and thus the request for their annulment has been dismissed. *2. Provisions concerning the Transfer of the Immovables of the Closed Institutions to the Treasury* - The Court has concluded that the contested provisions do not impose an excessive restriction on the right to property for the purpose of protecting national security and democratic constitutional order, considering the conditions leading to the state of emergency. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been found constitutional, and thus the request for their annulment has been dismissed. *3. Provisions Envisaging that No Claim shall be Made to the Treasury to Cover Debts of the Closed Institutions and Organisations* - The Court has concluded that the regulation, which precludes the right to claim the rights and receivables acquired in accordance with the legislation in force at the material time, imposes a disproportionate restriction on the right to property. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been found unconstitutional, and thus annulled. *B. Provision Hindering the Right to Claim Compensation by the Closed Institutions* - The contested provision stipulates that the institutions and organizations closed in accordance with the decree laws issued during the state of emergency cannot claim compensation for the said closure under any circumstances. - It is argued that the contested provision is unconstitutional since it precludes the right to legal remedies, which is in breach of the principle of the rule of law, and that it also violates the right to a fair trial. - According to the Court, the contested provision precludes the right of access to a court as well as the right to an effective remedy. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional, and thus annulled.
E.2018/76 26 October 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain provisions of the Law no. 7081 on Adoption of the Decree Law on Taking of Certain Measures under State of Emergency for being unconstitutional, whereas dismissal of the request for annulment of the remaining provisions	*A. Provisions concerning Those Studying Abroad* - The contested provision stipulates that out of the students subject to Law no. 1416, those who have been found to be a member of, have connection or relation with, the FETÖ/PDY and are enumerated in List no. 2 annexed to the Law shall be deemed to lose their status as students. This measure shall also cover the discontinuation of the scholarship awarded to those studying abroad. It shall prevent the recognition of equivalence of their study within the country and the utilisation of the rights inherent in the academic titles and degrees they have acquired within the scope of their study abroad. - It is argued that these provisions are neither compulsory for nor proportionate to the aim of eliminating the threat against public order; that they are in the nature of an individual administrative act and cause to impose sanction on the relevant persons without any administrative or judicial investigation being performed and in the absence of a court decision. *1. Provision Envisaging the Discontinuation of Student Status* - The Court has concluded that the discontinuation of the student status of those enumerated in the List no. 2 as well as of the scholarship granted to them -through an extraordinary method with a view to combating the FETÖ/PDY, a clear and immediate threat to the democratic order of the State,- does not constitute a restriction going beyond the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, notably in consideration of the conditions leading to the declaration of the state of emergency and the administrative and judicial remedies made available for the individualisation of the impugned sanctions. - Therefore, the Constitutional Court has found constitutional and thus dismissed the request for annulment of the contested provision. *2. Provisions Preventing the Equivalency Process and Use of the Academic Titles* - The recognition of the study of those who are studying abroad by the state bodies is necessary for these students to take advantage of their study within the country. - The Court has therefore assessed that the non-recognition of the equivalency and the use of academic titles and degrees they have acquired while studying abroad constitutes a restriction on their right to education and right to respect for private life, which goes beyond the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. - Therefore, the Court has annulled the contested provisions for being unconstitutional. *B. Provision Prohibiting the Re-Employment or Re-Appointment of the Relevant Employees in the Public Sector* - The contested provision envisages the employees whose employment contracts have been terminated for having shown disloyalty to the State shall, in no way, be re-employed or directly or indirectly re-appointed in the public sector. - It is argued that the contested provision is of a permanent nature and will not be applied only during the state of emergency; and that such a comprehensive prohibition will infringe the freedom of labour and enterprise as well as the right to hold a public office. - The Court has observed that the contested provision covers not only the enterprises and associations where the State or public legal entities have a direct or indirect involvement, but also incorporated companies which are subject to private law and in which the public only has a share. Therefore, it does not make any distinction between the companies operating in strategically important sectors and the other ones and introduces a blanket prohibition with respect to all legal entities with a public share. - The Court has therefore concluded that it does not meet the requirement of necessity in so far it relates to the maintenance of national security and public order as well as the continued performance of the public service. - Therefore, the Court has annulled the contested provisions for being unconstitutional. *C. Provision Envisaging the Annulment of the Authorisation Certificate of Persons Operating in the Area of Occupational Health and Safety* - The contested provision envisages the annulment of the authorisation certificates of all relevant persons, institutions or organisations operating in the area of occupational health and safety. -It is argued that the contested provision is a statutory arrangement going beyond the extent strictly required by the state of emergency and constitutes a disproportionate restriction on the right to labour and freedom of contract. - The Court has observed that the contested provision does not make any distinction with respect to the works and workplaces that have strategic importance for the maintenance of national security and public order but covers all persons, institutions and organisations. - The Court has therefore concluded that it does not therefore meet the requirement of necessity in so far it relates to the maintenance of national security and public order and also constitutes a disproportionate restriction on the right to labour and freedom of contract. - Therefore, the Court has annulled the contested provision for being unconstitutional.
E.2022/125 13 December 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision added to Article 10 § 2 of Law no. 5766 and preventing the disclaimer and return of stamp duty imposed for the period when the relevant contract is no longer enforceable	- The contested provision stipulates that even in cases where the public procurement contract becomes unenforceable due to -upon the signing of the contract- the cancellation of the tender or any change in the bidder undertaking the contract, the stamp duty incurred in relation to the contract shall not be disclaimed or returned. - It is argued that the contested provision imposes a disproportionate restriction on the right to property and is not precise and foreseeable. - The Court has observed that the said provision stipulates, in a clear and precise manner, in which circumstances and what kind of taxes cannot be disclaimed or returned. Therefore, it is precise, accessible and foreseeable. - The contested provision imposes financial obligations on the persons for the funding of public services. It thus purses a legitimate aim in the public interest. - However, as set forth in Article 19 of the Tax Procedural Law no. 213, any tax may accrue only when the relevant act or procedure, which is subject to taxation, is completed. - The contested provision allows for the accrual of stamp duty even the relevant contract is no longer enforceable. It also leads to the re-imposition of stamp duty with respect to the same work when a new contract is signed for the continued performance of the relevant work. - Therefore, the Court has concluded that the provision preventing any disclaimer or return of stamp duty imposes an excessive burden on the persons and disproportionate. - Therefore, the Court annulled the contested provision for being unconstitutional.
E.2022/98 13 December 2022 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the Presidential Decree no. 104	- It is argued that in a state of law, it is one of the general principles of law that any official act, such as Presidential decrees, shall be reasoned. Otherwise, Presidential decrees issued without justification shall be in breach of the principles of legal certainty and security. In this sense, the contested Presidential decree is claimed to be in breach of Article 2 of the Constitution in form. - Reviewing the constitutionality of Presidential decrees in form, it should be examined whether the Presidential decree has been issued by the President. From this standpoint, it has been observed that the contested Presidential decree was issued by the President. - The Court’s authority to review the constitutionality of Presidential decrees in form does not cover the review of its being reasoned or not. - Consequently, the Court has found the impugned Presidential decree constitutional, and thus dismissed the request for its annulment.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
E.Y. 2018/10482 14 December 2022 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right for the unlawfulness of the conditional bail measure. - The applicant had been detained on remand for allegedly attending an illegal demonstration. At the end of the proceedings, he was released under an undertaking not to leave his place of residence. - Pursuant to Article 19 of the Constitution, detention on remand can be ordered on the condition that there is a risk of fleeing or tampering with evidence. Likewise, the measure obligating the suspect not to leave his residence, which is an alternative measure to detention, can be imposed only on the said conditions. - In the present case, it was stated by the first instance court that there was no suspicion of fleeing. Nor was there a risk of tampering with evidence. - Therefore, it was concluded that the conditional bail measure imposed had not pursued a legitimate aim. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to personal liberty and security.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2021/82 29 December 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provisions regulating the principles regarding the calculation of the amount of compensations for loss of value, deprivation of support and permanent disability.	- The contested provisions regulate the principles regarding the calculation of the amount of compensations for deprivation of support, for permanent disability and for loss of value of the motor vehicle to be covered by the compulsory financial liability insurance. - It is claimed that the principles regarding the determination of relevant compensations are far from covering the actual damages sustained by third parties within the scope of their rights to life and property, and that a balance should be struck between the interests of the person operating the motor vehicle arising from operating it and the interests of third parties in the compensation of their damages sustained due to the operation of the motor vehicle. - In cases where parties suffer loss of value, deprivation of support and/or permanent disability due to the operation of a motor vehicle, the scope of the financial liability of the operator and other persons likely to be responsible for the accident shall be determined in accordance with the Turkish Code of Obligations no. 6098 (Law no. 6098). Th7 actual amount of the damage suffered shall be calculated through court decisions on the basis of the aforementioned Law. - On the other hand, the compensations to be paid within the scope of the compulsory financial liability insurance shall be determined in accordance with the contested provisions. - Thus, the scope of the financial liability of the operator and others likely to be responsible, which is calculated under Law no. 6098, and that of the insurance company calculated according to the contested provisions may differ. Hence, there will be a risk that the actual amount of the damage may not be compensated. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been found unconstitutional, and therefore annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Demet Demirel and Others 2019/12998 1 December 2022 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right for the authorities’ failure to compensate the financial losses incurred due to the unlawful delay in the applicants’ appointment as labour inspectors despite their having passed the inspector qualification exams. - The incumbent administrative courts already found it established that the unlawful delay in the applicants’ appointment had been in breach of the latter’s right to property. However, such a finding failed to fully redress the applicants’ losses. - In order for the applicants not to have victim status any longer, their financial losses should have been redressed. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to property.
Esra Saraç Arslan 2019/10514 Özlem Yıldırım 2022/73725 28 December 2022 (Plenary)	Violations of the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution Inadmissibility as manifestly ill-founded	- Alleged violation of the right to a fair trial for imprisonment based on ByLock evidence. *As regards the applicant Esra Saraç Arslan* - The sole evidence relied on for the applicant’s conviction of membership of a terrorist organisation, namely FETÖ/PDY, was her allegedly being a ByLock application user. - Although the applicant had claimed that she had not used the said application and requested that the relevant technical data be examined by an expert, her request was dismissed by the judicial authorities. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found violations of the principles of equality of arms as well as adversarial proceedings. *As regards the applicant Özlem Yıldırım* - The trial court relied, inter alia, on the applicant’s having used the ByLock application for internal communication within the terrorist organisation, as the decisive evidence. - Considering the contents of the messages and e-mails exchanged through the ByLock application that was exclusively used by the members of the FETÖ/PDY for the purposes of internal communication to ensure privacy, the judicial authorities’ decision was not arbitrary. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found the application inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.
Hatice Deniz Aktaş and Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası 2019/18481 23 November 2022 (Second Section)	No violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to imposition of disciplinary punishment for the posts shared on social media. - The posts shared by the applicant, a public teacher, called for resistance against security forces during the anti-terrorism security operations, which incited violence. Therefore, she was dismissed from public office. - A teacher is not only a public official working in schools, but she/he is also expected to be a good model with her/his actions and discourses within the society, so she/he must pay more attention to her/his behaviours and expressions. - Accordingly, given the applicant’s status as a teacher, the potential impact of her statements, and their nature inciting and legitimising violence, it was concluded that the disciplinary punishment imposed on her met a pressing social need and was proportionate. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found no violation of the freedom of expression.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2022/87 13 October 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain provisions of the Higher Education Law, regarding disciplinary proceedings.	- The contested provisions regulate the principles regarding the right of defence during disciplinary proceedings. - It is claimed that the impugned provisions unconstitutionally restricted the right of defence. - It is laid down in Article 129 § 2 of the Constitution that public servants, other public officials and members of public professional organisations or their higher bodies shall not be subjected to disciplinary punishments without being granted the right of defence. - The contested provisions fail to ensure the provision of sufficient information on the charges underlying the disciplinary proceedings, and they also leave it to the discretion of the incumbent authorities whether the proceedings may be renewed. - In consideration of Article 129 § 2 of the Constitution whereby no discretion is granted in terms of ensuring the exercise of right of defence, the contested provisions do not ensure the exercise of the relevant right before the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional, and therefore annulled.
E.2022/75 26 October 2022 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision stipulating that the provisions regarding witnesses shall apply when the victim is heard as a witness	- The contested provision entails the application of witness-related provisions in cases where the victim is heard as a witness. Accordingly, where the witness is a relative of the accused, he may refrain from testifying. - It is claimed that the impugned provision may impede the discovery of the material fact, which is unconstitutional. - It is set forth in Article 38 of the Constitution that no one shall be compelled to make a statement that would incriminate himself or his legal next of kin, or to present such incriminating evidence. - Thus, pursuant to Article 38, the kinship of the witness overrides the public interest even if the material fact is at stake. Besides, refraining from testifying is not necessitated by law and may be waived. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Osman Baydemir 2 2018/1878 27 October 2022 (Plenary)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the freedom of expression for lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the disciplinary punishment imposed on account of the expressions uttered by the applicant, an MP. - The impugned disciplinary punishment was imposed by the Plenary of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (the Parliament) by a majority vote. Thus, it was a parliamentary decision. - Parliamentary decisions are legislative acts of the Parliament other than laws. Judicial review of the said legislative acts are regulated separately in the Constitution, and the Constitutional Court is exclusively vested with the authority to perform such review. In other words, the constitution-maker has determined which legislative acts may be subject to judicial review, and has also authorized the body to perform the review. - It is set forth in Article 45 § 3 of the Code no. 6216 on Establishment and Rules of Procedures of the Constitutional Court that the acts, which have been excluded from judicial review by the Constitution, cannot be subject to individual application. - The contested disciplinary punishment was not one of the parliamentary decisions that could be constitutionally subject to judicial review; therefore, it has been concluded that the present application concerns an action excluded from judicial review. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found inadmissible the alleged violation of the freedom of expression for lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae.
Hulusi Yılmaz 2017/17428 1 December 2022 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to an effective remedy safeguarded by Article 40 of the Convention in conjunction with the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 thereof	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the authorities’ failure to compensate for the damage caused to the applicant’s building and its annexes as a result of mining activities. - The relevant statutory provision has been found to have precluded the examination of the merits of the alleged violation of the right to property as well as an award of redress, which has resulted in the violation of the right to an effective remedy in conjunction with the right to property. - In order for all consequences of the violation to be fully redressed, the statutory provision leading to the violation should be annulled, or it should be amended in a way preventing new violations, or the ambiguity therein should be removed. - In the present case, the situation existing before the breach should be restored, to the fullest extent possible, with a view to making reparation for the violation’s consequences. - In consideration of the particular circumstances of the case, application to the Court seeking the annulment of the unconstitutional provision might be an effective remedy. - Consequently, the Court has concluded that there is a legal interest in retrial, considering that it may redress the violation of the right to an effective remedy in conjunction with the right to property, as well as its consequences.
Ali Ocak and Saime Sebla Arcan Tatlav 2019/18583 19 October 2022 (Second Section)	Violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the ineffectiveness of the investigation conducted into the incident where several persons were injured as a result of the use of force by the law enforcement officers. *As regards the applicant Ali Ocak* - Although the applicant claimed that he had been injured by the disproportionate use of force by the law enforcement officers, he had not received a medical report on the date of incident, and he applied to the prosecutor’s office 16 days later. - The applicant failed to adduce plausible evidence to substantiate his allegations, thus they were not arguable. - Consequently, the Court found inadmissible the alleged violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment. *As regards the applicant Saime Sebla Arcan Tatlav* - The applicant had been injured severely and it could not be treated with a simple medical intervention. In such cases where the use of force was not strictly necessary and proportionate, the treatment inflicted upon the individual would amount to torture. - There had also been certain deficiencies during the investigation process. - The footages submitted by the applicant were not examined by the prosecutor’s office. - Stating that there was no evidence or indication requiring the initiation of criminal proceedings, the authorities issued a decision of non-prosecution. - Consequently, the Court found violations of both substantive and procedural aspects of the prohibition of ill-treatment.
Dilan Dursun 2015/18831 2 November 2022 (Second Section)	Violations of the right to life (both substantive and procedural aspects) and the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches, respectively safeguarded by Articles 17 and 34 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of the said rights for the injury caused by the tear gas canister fired by the law enforcement officers. - The use of force by the law enforcement officers was not absolutely necessary in the particular circumstances of the case. Moreover, the severity of the injury sustained by the applicant clearly indicated that the public force used had been disproportionate. Therefore, the substantive aspect of the right to life was violated. - The incumbent authorities’ failure to conclude the proceedings despite 9 years having elapsed and their failure to identify the perpetrator did not comply with their obligation to conduct an effective investigation. Therefore, the procedural aspect of the right to life was also violated. - The applicant’s being subject to disproportionate use of force had a chilling effect on the exercise of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches. - Consequently, the Court found violations of the right to life and the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches.
R.E. 2018/36513 23 November 2022 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to protect and improve one’s corporeal and spiritual existence safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right for the expressions used in the performance assessment report issued in respect of the applicant, which allegedly tarnished the applicant’s honour and dignity. - Despite the applicant’s allegations to that end, the incumbent courts failed to examine the impugned expressions and they also failed to provide reasons addressing these allegations in their decisions, which was in breach of the judicial authorities’ positive obligations. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to protect and improve one’s corporeal and spiritual existence.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2022/103 30 November 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision stipulating that a certain part of the revenues from sports competitions shall be allocated to the provincial directorates of sports	- The contested provision stipulates that the practices, procedures and principles regarding the allocation of the revenues from sports competitions to the provincial directorates of sports and the competing clubs shall be determined by a regulation. - It is claimed that the impugned revenues fall into the scope of the right to property since they concern a financial obligation; therefore, the relevant procedures and principles should be determined by law. However, according to the contested provision, such issues shall be set forth by a regulation, which is unconstitutional. - The statutory framework regarding the calculation of the share to be taken from the competition revenues has not been established. Besides, the lower and upper limits of the share to be allocated to the administration have not been determined. Thus, all details have been envisaged to be set forth by a regulation, which is neither clear nor foreseeable. Accordingly, the principle of legality has not been respected. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional, and therefore annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
B.A.Y. 2019/19788 5 July 2022 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to respect for private life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the rejection of the applicant’s request for being registered with the bar as a lawyer. - The applicant, a former judge of the Council of State, had been dismissed from office for his relation with the Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation. Thereupon, he requested to be registered with the bar as a lawyer, which was accepted by the Turkish Bar Association (Association), but rejected by the administrative court with final effect. - According to the Court’s assessment, the applicant’s request could be rejected by neither the bar nor the Association on the ground that there was an ongoing investigation against him. Any decision to the contrary would be devoid of legal basis. - At the date when the Association accepted the applicant’s request, no prosecution had been initiated against him; however, the court disregarded this situation and made its decision relying on a subsequent one, which hindered the discretionary power afforded to the professional organisations. - Hence, the court’s making a direct decision on a matter falling within the discretionary power of professional organizations lacked a legal basis. - In the absence of a finalised conviction of or a criminal prosecution for the offences preventing the applicant from practising as a lawyer, it was unlawful for the court to dismiss the impugned administrative act relying on a criminal investigation as well as a subsequent prosecution process. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to respect for private life.
Gökhan Yiğit Koç and Others 2019/25727 28 July 2022 (Plenary)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the fatal injury sustained as a result of the police’s failure to respond to the call for immediate help on time as well as the authorities’ failure to conduct a rigorous examination within the scope of the subsequent full remedy action. - The inferior courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient justification regarding the police officers’ alleged failure to arrive at the scene as soon as possible in order to prevent the knife attack and to ensure that the necessary measures were taken to protect the right to life. Thus, they could not sufficiently clarify the incident. - Considering the above finding regarding the procedural aspect of the right to life, the alleged violation of the substantive aspect of the right to life could not be examined at this stage. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life.
Kemal Kılıç 2019/16400 28 July 2022 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the discontinuation of the permanent financial assistance provided by the Mehmetçik Foundation (the Foundation). - While the applicant had been performing his compulsory military service, the military hospital issued a report stating that he was "unfit for military service". Afterwards, upon his application, the applicant was entitled to a financial assistance provided by the Foundation to disabled veterans and other military disabled persons, which he received for 16 years. Then, as a result of the re-evaluation made by the Foundation, the financial assistance provided to the applicant was discontinued. - In the course of the subsequent proceedings, it was argued that no causal link could be established between the applicant's disorder and his military service. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the judicial decision against him. - The Foundation was not a public legal entity. In this sense, it should be noted that its financial resources consisted of donations and the revenues of its own properties and enterprises. Thus, it would receive no resource from the public. Given these explanations, the private law provisions shall be applicable to the dispute between two private persons. Accordingly, the State’s positive obligations under the right to property were at stake. - In the present case, the discontinuation of the impugned financial assistance after 16 years had elapsed prejudiced the principle of legal certainty. As a matter of fact, the requirements prescribed for entitlement to such assistance had been available at the very beginning, and the applicant was evaluated to have met these requirements, thereby being entitled to the said assistance. However, the discontinuation of the assistance on the ground that it had been an erroneous evaluation might damage the confidence in the Foundation’s transactions. - The civil court’s dismissal of the applicant’s case by relying on a report containing ambiguous statements run counter to principle of legal certainty as well as the State’s positive obligations. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to property.
Şaban Kurt 2018/25857 14 September 2022 (First Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the allegedly unlawful publication of a processed work. - The applicant had taken over the printing, reproduction and distribution rights of the work created by processing the poems of Mehmet Akif Ersoy, a famous poet, for a period of 99 years starting from 1997. A bookstore holding the financial rights of another work consisting of some poems of Mehmet Akif Ersoy since 1943 brought an action for compensation against the applicant, which was concluded with a decision ordering the latter to pay a sum of compensation. - In the present case, the impugned work was created by processing the poems of Mehmet Akif Ersoy after the expiration of the 50-year protection period in accordance with the law which was in force in 1987. The main issue to be examined was whether the said work would be considered illegal for the reason that the protection period of the work was in fact increased to 70 in accordance with a law that entered into force in 1995. - The impugned work was created in 1987 and made available to the public as of the said date. Therefore, it was lawfully made public before 1995. In this case, it is clear that the impugned work fell within the scope of the protection of the previous law dated 1952 whereby the financial rights set thereforth were characterised as property for the author or the person who had taken over it. - Although the protection period of Mehmet Akif Ersoy's poems was extended until 2007 as a result of the amendment made by the law dated 1995, this did not automatically exclude the works from the protection of the law dated 1952. - Thus, the interpretation to the effect that the applicant's rights had expired was not compatible with the principle of rule of law. Therefore, it was obvious that the statutory provisions applied to the dispute were not interpreted in the light of the principle of rule of law and respecting the principle of foreseeability. - Hence, an excessive and extraordinary burden was imposed on the applicant. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to property.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Leyla Güven 2018/26689 7 April 2022 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the applicant’s second detention order issued following her being elected as an MP. - The applicant, an MP at the relevant time, was detained on remand for establishing and managing an armed terrorist organisation. - The other legal actions that had been already brought against the applicant were also joined. - Pending her detention on remand, the applicant was elected as an MP during the general elections. Her release was then ordered on her request; however, her detention was once again ordered upon the objection by the incumbent chief public prosecutor’s office. - The applicant was released by the court on 25 January 2019. - She lost her status as an MP after the final conviction decision whereby she was sentenced to 6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment was read out at the Plenary of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. - She was ultimately convicted of the offences of establishing or managing an armed terrorist organisation and disseminating its propaganda while acquitted of the other imputed offences. * The First Detention Order - The applicant’s impugned expressions, which were uttered during a time when intense terrorist events were taking place in one part of the country, namely the trench events, and which were upholding the acts and attacks of the PKK terrorist organisation, were considered by the inferior courts as a strong indication of criminal guilt in connection with terrorism. The inferior courts’ consideration cannot be said to be unfounded. - The grounds relied on to justify the applicant’s first detention had factual basis. Besides, the inferior courts’ assessments that detention was a proportionate measure and the conditional bail would remain insufficient in the applicant’s case were neither arbitrary nor unfounded. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the right to liberty and security in so far it concerned the first detention order. * The Second Detention Order Issued After the Applicant’s Election as an MP - The parliamentary immunity is a temporary guarantee applied merely during the term of office of an MP, which is enshrined in Article 83 of the Constitution. - There are certain exceptions to the parliamentary immunity: The Parliament may lift the parliamentary immunity of an MP on the allegation that he/she committed an office prior to or subsequent to the elections. Besides, the case of discovery in flagrante delicto, as well as the cases subject to Article 14 of the Constitution (as long as an investigation has been initiated before the election) are exceptions to the parliamentary immunity. - In the applicant’s case, the offence imputed to the applicant, being a head of the terrorist organisation, was considered to fall into the scope of the cases subject to Article 14. - However, Article 14 of the Constitution does not make an exhaustive definition of these cases. Nor has the law-maker made any regulation so as to exactly specify these offences. - The inferior courts in the present case failed to interpret both Articles 83 and 14 of the Constitution in pursuance of democracy and through a rights-based approach. - Therefore, the applicant’s detention ordered for the second time despite her being elected as an MP was incompatible with Article 83 of the Constitution regulating the parliamentary immunity. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to liberty and security in so far it concerned the second detention order.
Kübra Yıldız and Others 2018/32734 28 July 2022 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the award of an inadequate easement compensation for the instalment of a power line through the applicants’ lands without expropriation, as well as the award of litigation costs and attorney’s fees against the applicants. - A power line was installed through the immovable possessed by the applicants for two times without an expropriation and easement being performed. The applicants brought an action for compensation against the Turkish Electricity Distribution Corporation. - On appeal, the regional court of appeal awarded compensation in favour of the applicants whereas awarded attorney’s fee and litigation costs against them. - The applicants claimed that the easement compensation awarded to them was inadequate and did not correspond to the real amount of the loss in value of their property. - The regional court of appeal failed to provide relevant sufficient grounds to demonstrate that the awarded compensation corresponded to the real amount of the loss in value of the applicants’ property. - Besides, in Article 29 of Law no. 2942 on Expropriation, it is set forth that the litigation costs in the actions for determination of the expropriation amount shall be covered by the administration performing the expropriation. - As a matter of fact, the awarding of the attorney’s fee and litigation costs against the applicants also rendered dysfunctional the compensation awarded in favour of them. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to property.
Burcu Demirkaya and Yücel Demirkaya (2) 2020/8844 26 July 2022 (First Section)	Violation of the substantive and procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the deaths resulting from a train accident. - In 2004, 38 people lost their lives and over 80 people got injured due to the accident during which a passenger train derailed. Among those losing their lives is the applicants’ mother, F.Y.. - Following the accident, a criminal investigation was initiated against the head and assistant drivers and chief conductor of the train. At the end of the proceedings, the drivers were convicted and the chief conductor was acquitted. - At the end of all stages before the inferior courts lasting for approximately 15 years and 5 months, the Court of Cassation ordered the discontinuation of the criminal cases against the drivers for being time-barred. - Making legal and administrative arrangements of deterrent nature against the threats and dangers that may be directed towards the right to life is one of the significant elements of the State’s positive obligation. - In the present case, the competent authorities failed to take the necessary and sufficient measures so as to eliminate any possible risks to the individuals’ lives and physical integrity: violation of the substantive aspect of the right to life. - In the present case, no criminal case was filed against the public officials considered to be at fault for failing to taking the necessary steps and conducting the inspections for the safe drive of the train. Besides, the proceedings conducted with respect to two drivers, whose fault and responsibility were found established by all courts that involved in the proceedings, was discontinued for being time-barred. - The judicial system failed to play a deterrent effect for the prevention of violations of the right to life: violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to life under its substantive and procedural aspect.
Zülküf Kılıç 2018/27032 14 September 2022 (First Section)	Violation of the right to protect and improve one’s corporeal and spiritual existence safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right for being subjected to psychological harassment. - The applicant was an academic at a public university at the relevant time. Between 2011 and 2013, 9 different disciplinary penalties were imposed on him. These disciplinary penalties were revoked either by the Higher Education Council or the inferior courts. He was also subjected to several other attitudes of such nature. - During that period, the applicant was diagnosed to suffer from some psychological disorders. - The applicant brought an action for compensation against those responsible. However, it was dismissed by the incumbent court. - The public authorities should not only reveal the circumstances leading to psychological harassment but also rapidly take the effective measures so as to prevent its occurrence or afford redress. - The inferior court’s decision to dismiss the applicant’s action for compensation did not provide the relevant and sufficient grounds in a way that would entail the safeguards inherent in the right to protect and improve one’s corporeal and spiritual existence and afford redress for the damage sustained by the applicant. - Thus, the public authorities failed to fulfil their positive obligations. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to protect and improve one’s corporeal and spiritual existence.
Ali Karakılıç and Others 2019/2549 21 September 2022 (First Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the failure to afford the necessary protection during the medical intervention with respect to the children who had been wounded during a fire and subsequently lost their lives. - A fire broke out when two siblings were alone at home. Their initial treatment was made at a public hospital. For their further treatment, they had to be transferred to another hospital with appropriate equipment. However, there was no such hospital in the relevant province. - Then, the family ensured the transfer of two siblings to another province where there was a private hospital providing hyperbaric oxygen therapy. - The siblings unfortunately lost their lives. - The applicants then brought a full remedy action against the health-care staff involving in their relatives’ treatment, including the Ministry of Health, maintaining inter alia that their relatives died as they had not been provided with the necessary treatment, as well as the faulty/improper/negligent medical service provided to them and the conditions of their transfer by an ambulance to another province also had a bearing on their death. - The incumbent inferior court obtained an expert report issued by the Forensic Medicine Institute. - It appears that this report found sufficient and relied on by the inferior court indeed makes an assessment merely with respect to one of the siblings and also merely the treatment process conducted in the first province. - Therefore, the relevant public authorities failed to conduct an in-depth, diligent and rapid examination to the extent required by Article 17 of the Constitution. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2022/61 8 September 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of the first sentence of Article 28 § 1 (a) and the first sentence of Article 32 of Law no. 492 on Fees in so far as it relates to the phrase “actions for compensation which are brought on account of seizure without expropriation and complainant of which is exempted from fee”	- The contested provisions envisage that as regards the actions for compensation brought due to the seizure without expropriation, the one-fourth of the relative decision fee shall be paid in advance, and the remaining amount shall be paid within one month as from the communication of the decision; and that unless the relevant amounts are paid, the subsequent procedures shall not be performed. - It is inter alia maintained that with respect to actions where the complainant is exempted from fees, the collection of relative fees in advance is not related to any matter of public interest; and that the return of the fee already paid in the same amount and the adjudication of the actions within a long period of time are also in breach of the right to property. - In principle, in the actions for compensation lodged due to the seizure without expropriation, the complainant is to pay the relative decision fee. The exemption of the complainant from fee is not a ground to absolve him from paying the relative decision fee. - In cases where the action is dismissed, the complainant is liable to pay the fixed decision fee. But in cases where the action is accepted partially or wholly, the complainant is entitled to a refund of the complete amount he has already paid. - The contested provisions are sufficiently clear, precise and foreseeable: thus, meeting the legality condition. - The collection of decision fees in every action is intended to prevent the judicial authorities from dealing with unnecessary and unfounded claims: in pursuance of the aim of public interest. - However, the seizure without expropriation, cannot be regarded, in the constitutional context, as a substitute for the expropriation. Therefore, when a person -whose immovable has been seized by the administration in breach of all principles and procedures laid down in the Constitution- brings an action against the administration for being paid the value of his immovable, he must not face with any further liabilities that aggravate the situation. - Consequently, the impugned provisions have been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2021/118 8 September 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of Article 193 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure no. 5271, which was added by Article 28 of Law no. 5353	- The contested provision envisages that in cases where it is concluded that a decision, other than conviction, will be issued on the basis of the evidence collected, the proceedings may be discontinued without his being heard and in his absentia. - It is maintained that the contested provision enables the issuance of decisions finding no ground to impose a sentence; ordering the application of a security measure; dismissing, or ordering the discontinuation of, the case; and that the decisions finding no ground to impose a sentence or ordering the application of a security measure are decisions issued when it is certainly established that the criminal act or offence has been committed. Therefore, the discontinuation of the proceedings in the absence of the accused is contrary to the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. - The provision aims at concluding the cases with the minimum cost and in a swift manner. It does not make any distinction with respect to the decisions, other than conviction, and makes a regulation covering all types of the decisions. - It should be noted that in order for the decisions finding no ground to impose a sentence or ordering the application of a security measure to be taken, it must be proven that the imputed offence has been committed by the accused. - Therefore, despite not bearing the same consequence with that of the conviction, these two types of decisions also place a legal responsibility on the accused. - Thus, the contested provision, enabling the discontinuation of the proceedings without the accused being heard, places a disproportionate restriction on the right to a fair trial. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Tevfik Ayhan 2019/17968 29 June 2022 (First Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the imposition, of taxes and fines incurred for the infringement of tax liabilities of a company that was closed down by virtue of a decree-law during the state of emergency, on the legal representative of the company. - The applicant was the chairman of the board of directors of the company under which educational institutions, student dormitories and private teaching institutions were operating. The institutions affiliated to the company were all closed down by Article 2 of the Decree-law no. 667 adopted under the state of emergency. All assets and properties of these institutions were transferred to the State Treasury free of charge. Legal-entity status of the company was also terminated. - The taxes and fines, which were incurred by the company before the date it was closed down, were imposed on the applicant, in his capacity as the legal representative of that company, due to the termination of the legal-entity status of the company. - The actions brought by the applicant against the impugned transaction were partially rejected, and partially concluded in his favour, by the incumbent tax courts. His subsequent appellate requests were rejected with final effect. - The principle of legality of taxation entails that the tax-payer be explicitly indicated in the law. However, there is no statutory provision as to the tax-payer who shall be subject to any taxes and fines to be imposed in case of any infringement of tax-related obligation of a company that has been removed from the trade registry. Nor is there any statutory arrangement indicating that in such case, it shall be the legal representative of the given company who will be subject to such taxes and fines: thus, no legal basis for the imposition of the taxes and fines on the applicant. - In the judicial practice, there was, at the relevant time, a divergence on the matter between the case-law of two chambers of the Council of State. This divergence was then eliminated through a statutory amendment, which enables the imposition, on the company’s legal representative, of any taxes and fines -pertaining to the period before the termination of the legal-entity status- of the companies of which legal-entity status has been terminated on any grounds other than liquidation. - However, this amendment was enacted on 21 Mart 2018 and can in no way be applied to the practices performed before that date pursuant to the rule of law principle. - It has been thus concluded that the impugned interference with the right to property was not based on a law that was sufficiently clear, precise and foreseeable. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to property.
Emin Koramaz 2019/1112 29 June 2022 (First Section)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the imposition of an administrative fine on the applicant on account of his views and opinions published on a web-site. - The applicant, the then chairman of the board of directors of the Union of Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects (TMMOB), was subject to an administrative fine due to certain contents published on the TMMOB’s web-site and including views and opinions on the elections. - His challenge to the administrative fine was rejected, with final effect, by the incumbent magistrate judge. -The decision imposing administrative fine on the applicant referred to Article 1/D of the Supreme Election Board’s Resolution no. 109, which sets forth that election propaganda may be disseminated by political parties through press and internet. - The magistrate judge examining the applicant’s challenge provide no further explanation in this respect and confined its assessment to the finding that the administrative sanction imposed on the applicant was compatible with the procedure and the law. - It has been considered that the Resolution no. 109, forming a basis for the impugned administrative fine, concerns the principles and procedures to be followed by the political parties, main actors of elections, and does not contain any restraining provision with respect to any persons and entities other than political parties. - Therefore, the impugned interference was not prescribed by law. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the freedom of expression.
Hasan Mor 2019/20996 25 May 2022 (Second Section)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on the applicant, a lecturer at a university, for discussing political issues during the course. - The applicant, a lecturer at a faculty of law at the relevant time, was subject to a disciplinary sanction as he had breached the pre-determined principles and procedures as to the teaching of the course due to his certain expressions concerning political issues. - The disciplinary sanction, to which the applicant challenged, was initially annulled by the first instance court. However, upon appeal, the regional administrative court revoked the first instance decision and rejected, with final effect, the applicant’s case. - The State has an obligation to abstain from any unnecessary interference with the freedom of expression of those engaging in teaching activities. - In case of any such interference, the State must demonstrate that the impugned measure met a pressing need and was proportionate. - According to the Court, the course of international law is closely associated with political issues, and in this sense, it is extremely difficult to exclude the course from expressions related to politics. However, it should be noted that the close link between international law and politics will not automatically render every comments of political nature as a part of the given course. - In the present case, the applicant’s impugned expressions were not clearly and precisely cited, and the finding that these expressions had been unrelated to the given course was reached on the basis of certain students’ statements which were of highly general nature. - Therefore, the impugned interference was found not to meet an overriding social need and be proportionate. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the freedom of expression.
Cebrail Padak 2019/41543 15 June 2022 (Second Section)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on the applicant for his hanging a banner up, without permission, at the university campus. - The applicant, a university student, was subject to warning, as a disciplinary sanction, by the university administration as he had hanged a banner up without permission. - The disciplinary sanction, to which the applicant challenged, was initially annulled by the first instance court. However, upon appeal by the university, the regional administrative court revoked the first instance decision and rejected, with final effect, the applicant’s case. - The punishment of the students at universities merely on the ground that their conducts in contravention of certain statutory provisions may pose an abstract threat entails a risk of exerting pressure on several constitutional rights and freedoms notably the freedom of expression. - Therefore, in imposing a sanction due to an expression of thought at a university, it should be demonstrated that the impugned expression has caused, to a certain extent, risk or damage under the particular circumstances of the given case. - However, in the present case, the relevant administration and inferior courts confined their examination to the ascertainment of whether the impugned act had been performed by the applicant. No sufficient and relevant justification was provided to demonstrate that the imposition of a disciplinary sanction met a pressing social need. - Therefore, the impugned interference was found to be incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the freedom of expression.
Emrullah Yılmaz 2019/37252 15 June 2022 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to an effective remedy safeguarded by Article 40 of the Constitution in conjunction with the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 thereof	- Alleged violation of the said right for the dismissal of the applicant’s administrative application for the redress of the losses he had incurred due to his inability to make use of his immovable as the alleged damage amounted to a possible loss. - At the district where the applicant’s house was located, a curfew was declared in 2015 by the District Governor’s Office on account of the “trench events” taking place in the region. The curfew was ultimately lifted in 2019. - The applicant applied to the Governor’s Office, seeking the redress, with a reference to Law no. 5233 on Compensation of Losses Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Measures Taken against Terrorism, of the loss of income he had incurred as he could not rent out his house. The Damage Assessment Commission rejected his request as the damage and loss of income underlying his compensation request were in the form of possible damage. His action, dismissed by the incumbent administrative court, was also dismissed, with final effect, by the regional administrative court, upon appeal. - There is no dispute that the applicant could not make use of his immovable during the curfew. The administrative court dismissed the case as the alleged damage was in the form of possible damage and could not be redressed under Law no. 5233. - In the present case, there was in theory an effective remedy whereby the applicant could raise the alleged violation of the right to property and obtain compensation in this respect. - It was then examined whether this remedy available in theory offered a prospect of success also in practice. - The dismissal of the request for compensation does not per se constitute a violation of the right to an effective remedy. The duty incumbent on the relevant administrative and judicial bodies is to deal with the merits of the complaint in question and conclude the process with relevant and sufficient ground. - In the applicant’s case, the compensation remedy provided under Article Law no. 5233 had no prospect of success due to its interpretation by the administrative court in an unforeseeable manner and based on a manifest error of assessment. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to an effective remedy in conjunction with the right to property.
Özgür Uyanık and Ruşen Bayar 2020/9524 2020/33709 15 June 2022 (Second Section)	Violations of the right to legal assistance in conjunction with the right to a fair hearing under the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of the right to legal assistance due to the dismissal of the request for retrial filed on the basis of the ECHR’s judgments finding a violation. - The applicants were sentenced to life imprisonment for having attempted to overthrow the constitutional order by force (Özgür Uyanık) and having attempted to separate a certain part of the State’s territory from the State administration. Their sentences became final upon the appellate examination of the Court of Cassation. - The applicants lodged applications with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which found violations of the right to legal assistance under the right to a fair trial in the applicants’ cases. - Their subsequent requests for retrial on the basis of the ECHR’s judgment were dismissed. Their challenges were also rejected by the incumbent court. - It should be examined whether the violations of the right to legal assistance have been eliminated in the applicants’ cases. *1. Application no. 2020/9524* - In the present case, the applicant’s confessions obtained at the investigation stage in the absence of a defence counsel were, inter alia, relied on as evidence in his conviction. - The applicant’s request for retrial was dismissed by the incumbent court following an examination based on the case file. The court ordered the extraction of the applicant’s confessions from the reasoning of the conviction decision and concluded that the remaining evidence was already sufficient to prove the offence. *2. Application no. 2020/33709* - In the present case, in convicting the applicant, the incumbent court made a reference to his statements taken by the police officers at the investigation stage in the absence of a defence counsel. - The applicant’s request for retrial was dismissed by the relevant court following an examination based on the case file. The court ordered the extraction of the applicant’s statements from the reasoning of the conviction decision and stated that there was no need to make a change in the conviction decision. - Accordingly, as regards both cases, the Court has found that the inferior courts’ assessments were not compatible with the ECHR’s judgment and did not involve an examination to the extent required by Article 36 of the Constitution; and that the violations found by the ECHR and also acknowledged by the Government through the unilateral declaration could not be eliminated. - Consequently, the Court found violations of the right to legal assistance in the applicants’ cases.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Yeni Gün Haber Ajansı Basın ve Yayıncılık A.Ş. and Others 2016/5903 10 March 2022 (Plenary)	Violations of the freedoms of expression and the press safeguarded respectively by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedoms due to the suspension of the applicants’ right to publish official announcements and advertisements for various periods of time. - The applicants, publishers of the relevant national newspapers at the material time, were imposed the sanction whereby their right to publish official announcements and advertisements was suspended for various periods of time. Their challenge to this sanction was rejected. - It is beyond doubt that the impugned sanction amount to an interference with their freedoms of expression and the press. - The Court has concluded that the relevant national authorities should have strictly applied the balancing criteria and considered the impugned interference as a measure of last resort. However, the authorities adjudicated the cases without conducting any such assessment. - It has been further considered that as such decisions imposing a sanction in the absence of any relevant and sufficient grounds had a chilling effect on those concerned, the impugned interference with the freedoms of expression and the press cannot be regarded as proportionate. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found violations of the freedoms of expression and the press and decided on the application of the pilot judgment procedure so as to solve this systematic problem.	Press Release
Binali Camgöz and Others 2019/36978 26 May 2022 (First Section)	Violation of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the unnecessary and disproportionate use of force by the law enforcement officers, which resulted in the death of the applicants’ relative, and the denial of permission for investigation into the incident. - On the date of the incident, it was reported to the police that the applicants’ relative, who was 14 years old, had been using drugs in a park. Thereupon, two police officers arriving at the park sprayed pepper gas on the former. Unfortunately, the applicant’s relative affected by the tear gas lost his life at the hospital where he was taken immediately. - The child, being in a vulnerable position, should have been neutralised through less strict intervention means. Hence, the use of tear gas by the police officers amounted to a disproportionate use of force. - The district governorship refused to grant permission for investigation. The applicants unsuccessfully challenged the relevant decision before the regional administrative court. the latter provided no reasons for dismissing the applicants’ claim. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found violations of both substantive and procedural aspects of the right to life.
Şehap Korkmaz and Others 2017/7592 26 May 2022 (First Section)	Violation of the prohibition of torture safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the prohibition of torture for a demonstrator’s being battered to death by police officers and civilians. - The applicants are the parents and siblings of Ali İsmail Korkmaz, a university student who had lost his life due to brain haemorrhage during the Gezi Park events that occurred in 2013, as a result of the intervention by the police and a number of civilians. - Recourse to force may be considered legitimate so long as it is inevitable, its limits are definite and it is proportionate. Otherwise, it will amount to ill-treatment. - In the present case, it was acknowledged by the trial court that the accused police officer had committed the offence of intentional injury by abusing the power granted to him by virtue of his public office. However, the pronouncement of the judgment rendered in respect of the accused was suspended. - According to the Court, the provisions governing the criminal sanctions must be proportionate and fair. The principle of proportionality requires the existence of a reasonable relationship between the protection of the victim and the punishment of the perpetrator. - The suspension of the pronouncement of judgment may result in the perpetrators of ill-treatment being completely exempted from punishment. Therefore, such an institution remains incapable of ensuring deterrence in terms of the prevention of similar violations. - The competent authorities should not enjoy their discretion to mitigate the consequences of the act of ill-treatment when determining the imposable sanctions. - The suspension of the pronouncement of judgment may also give the impression that public officials involved in the acts of ill-treatment are tolerated, thus undermining the trust and confidence in the rule of law and justice. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the prohibition of torture.
Deniz Şah (2) 2018/29836 14 April 2022 (Second Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment for the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the alleged exposure to violence by the prison officers. - The applicant, a prisoner, was allegedly subjected to physical violence by the prison officers. Thereupon, he claimed that the footages be examined and a medical report be issued in respect of him. After the prison administration informed the chief public prosecutor’s office that no evidence or findings were reached substantiating the applicant’s allegations, the latter issued a decision of non-prosecution. - Although the chief public prosecutor’s office launched an investigation upon the applicant’s complaint, it failed to take his detailed statements, refused to hear the witnesses and made no efforts to receive a medical report in respect of the applicant. - In addition, the chief public prosecutor’s office did not conduct the investigation by itself, but merely relied on the inquiry conducted by the prison administration, which run counter to the principle entailing the conduct of investigation by impartial and independent authorities. - Thus, the public authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation to clarify the incident. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment.
Kadri Eroğul 2019/976 11 May 2022 (Second Section)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the termination of the applicant’s employment contract for sharing a post on social media concerning the oppression faced by subcontracted workers and targeting the managers. - The applicant is also the president of an association operating on behalf of subcontracted workers employed in public institutions. In this sense, the applicant may express his opinions, not only in his capacity as a subcontracted worker but also as the president of an association, thus covering also the public issues. - The applicant’s expressions were not targeted at a specific person. - Besides, the Court has many times acknowledged that freedom of expression also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation. Thus, it is unnecessary to depart from the Court’s previous considerations. - The inferior courts failed to provide objective and convincing justifications for termination of the applicant’s employment contract, which constituted an extremely heavy interference that should be the last resort. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the freedom of expression.
Şükran İzgi 2018/32994 25 May 2022 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to respect for private life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right for the establishment of a wholesale market for fish and fishery products in the adjacent area. - Pursuant to Article 20 of the Constitution whereby the right to respect for private life is safeguarded, it is incumbent on the public authorities to protect and improve the environment and to take the necessary measures in this regard. - It should be demonstrated on the basis of objective and scientific data that the applicant has reasonable worries in terms of the environmental disturbance. The extent of its effects should also be elaborated. - The applicant’s claim for an environmental impact assessment report to be issued was disregarded by the courts. The latter also failed to make an assessment as to the necessity of such a report despite the statutory provisions. Thus, the applicant’s allegations regarding the environmental disturbance were not dealt with diligently. - Hence, the public authorities failed to fulfil their positive obligations within the scope of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to respect for private life.
Bilal Güvendi and Şevket Güvendi 2018/1571 4 July 2022 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to protect and improve one’s corporeal and spiritual existence safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right for medical negligence. - The first applicant is a baby diagnosed with a congenital disorder who subsequently underwent a medical operation. After the operation, the baby was unable to use his right hand well due to an act of medical malpractice. - The full remedy action brought by the second applicant, the father, against the Ministry of Health for the alleged medical malpractice and gross negligence was dismissed. In consequence of the applicants’ subsequent appeal, the regional administrative court awarded the applicants 50,000 Turkish liras (TRY) for non-pecuniary damages. The applicants’ other claims regarding pecuniary damages were rejected. - Given the inferior court’s findings and considerations that the impugned negligence had occurred due to the administration’s failure to take the necessary measures, the mere award of non-pecuniary damages was not sufficient for redressing the violation and its consequences. - The state failed to fulfil its positive obligations in the present case. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to protect and improve one’s corporeal and spiritual existence.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2021/85 and E.2020/94 1 June 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of the Presidential decree provisions concerning the Price Stability Committee and the Industrialisation Executive Committee	- The contested provisions, included in two separate Presidential decrees, regulate procedures and principles regarding the issues such as establishment, duties and powers of the Price Stability Committee and the Industrialisation Executive Committee. - It is claimed that the impugned provisions concern the matters explicitly regulated by law, and that the aforementioned issues shall not be regulated by Presidential decrees. - It is laid down in Article 104 of the Constitution that no Presidential decree shall be issued on the matters which are stipulated in the Constitution to be regulated exclusively by law. - The issues covered by the contested provisions are not among those prescribed by the Constitution to be regulated by Presidential decrees. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been found unconstitutional ratione materiae, and therefore annulled.
E.2021/123 1 June 2022 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the third sentence of Article 67 § 2 of Highway Traffic Law no. 2918	- The contested provision envisages the disqualification from traffic for a term of 60 days in case of steering of the vehicle, intentionally and knowingly in the absence of any necessity, contrary to the turning rules by way of setting the parking brake or through any other methods. - It is maintained inter alia that the sanctions prescribed for this act are not proportionate, and that as the disqualification of the vehicle from traffic precludes its use, the contested provision is also in breach of the right to property. - It is apparent that the relevant unlawful acts and corresponding sanctions are set forth in a clear and precise manner in the contested provision. - The contested provision is intended for ensuring a safer traffic flow by way of precluding the driving of the vehicle contrary to manoeuvre rules. Given the chilling effect of this sanction on the driver breaching the manoeuvre rules shall be disqualified from traffic for 60 days, it has been considered that the contested provision is suitable and necessary for the aim sought to be attained. - It has been also concluded that the sanction laid down in the provision is proportionate as the balance needed to be struck between the interest pursued –that is to say, the decrease in life losses and in the loss to the country’s economy by way of ensuring traffic safety and reducing traffic accidents– and the nature and gravity of the sanctions prescribed in the contested provision. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed.
E.2022/62 20 July 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain notions included in the second sentence of amended subparagraph 6 of Article 13/A of Law no. 2803 on the Organization, Duties and Powers of the Gendarmerie	- The contested provision envisages that the academics and the military staff at the Gendarmerie General Command and Coast Guard Command be subject to the same statutory regulations in terms of disciplinary affairs. - It is maintained that the contested provision is unconstitutional as the disciplinary provisions applied with respect to the military staff would not be applicable in respect of academics as the positions held by these persons are of different nature. - The contested provision enables the application of the disciplinary provisions embodied in Law no. 657 on Civil Servants also with respect to the civilian academics holding office at the Academies of Gendarmerie General Command and Coast Guard Command. - However, as the acts laid down in the contested provision address the military staff serving at the Security Command organisations as well as the civil servants, some of these acts are not in keeping with the scope and nature of the profession of academics both in terms of the content as well as the notions and wording thereof. - It is clearly uncertain how the contested provision intended to apply with respect to military officers, who serve under working conditions based on hierarchy and with definite boundaries, will be applied with respect to the civilian academics, who are regulated in the Constitution under a separate heading by the very nature of their profession and considered to be in a different position in view of the autonomy in science. - Accordingly, rendering the academics and military staff at the Gendarmerie General Command and Coast Guard Command subject to the same statutory regulations in terms of disciplinary affairs is found to fall foul of the autonomy in science, principle enshrined in the Constitution for higher education institution. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled in so far as it relates to the notions “…discipline…” and “…and…”.
E.2022/48 20 July 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provisions envisaging that the decision rendered by the regional administrative courts dismissing the appellate request due to the statute of limitation shall be final.	- The contested provisions envisage that in case of a failure to submit an appellate request within the statutory time limit, the decision rendered by the regional administrative courts dismissing the appellate request shall be final. - It is claimed that denial to examine the case file may result in a situation whereby the applicant is deprived of the chance to submit his reasonable claims and evidence to justify the impugned delay, such as the irregularities within the communication process or force majeure. - In cases where a decision on fundamental rights and freedoms is rendered by the highest court having jurisdiction in the relevant branch of judiciary, the inability to appeal it may not constitute a constitutional matter in terms of the right to an effective remedy. However, if the said decision is not rendered by the highest court, the lack of an effective remedy to challenge it shall not be put into this category. - Otherwise, the individuals would be imposed an excessive burden on account of the restriction on their right of access to a court. - Hence, the contested provisions hinder the legal remedies to challenge the decisions which have not been rendered by the highest court operating in the relevant branch of judiciary (Council of State). Thus, they fall foul of the right to an effective remedy, safeguarded by Article 40 of the Constitution, in conjunction with the right of access to a court safeguarded by Article 36 thereof. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been found unconstitutional, and therefore annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Hüseyin El and Nazlı Şirin El 2014/15345 7 April 2022 (Plenary)	Violation of the parents’ right to respect for their religious and philosophical beliefs in education and training safeguarded by Article 24 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the lack of an opportunity for an exemption from attendance at religious culture and ethics classes. - The applicant (Hüseyin El) requested the exemption of her daughter (Nazlı Şirin El), a student at the 4^th grade of a primary school at the relevant time, from attendance at religious culture and ethics classes, which was, however, rejected by the school with reference to the relevant letter issued by the Ministry of National Education, Directorate General for Primary Education. - The applicant, having the word “Islam” removed from their identity cards, brought an action for the stay of execution of the rejection of his request. However, his action was ultimately dismissed. - The Court confined its assessment in this case to the curriculum of religious culture and ethics classes, which came into effect in 2011-2012 school year and thus in force when the applicant’s daughter was studying at primary and secondary schools, as well as which was also dealt with by the ECHR in its judgment Mansur Yalçın and Others v. Türkiye. - In this sense, the Court noted that until the 2018-2019 school year, the Turkish educational system had not offered the parents an opportunity for the exemption of their children from religious culture and ethics classes or an alternative in this sense. - Consequently, the curriculum of religious culture and ethics classes until the 2018-2019 school year was found to be in keeping with the standards of the mandatory religious culture and ethics classes, which should include impartial and introductory information on religions, but to go beyond the extent of the teaching of religious culture and amount to the teaching of merely the Islamic religion and a specific interpretation thereof. - Besides, the educational system did not, at the relevant time, offer any appropriate alternatives for the applicant, who did not wish her daughter to attend at the religious culture and ethics classes. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for religious and philosophical beliefs in education and training.
Seyid Narin 2018/20156 18 May 2022 (Plenary)	No violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to conviction of membership of a terrorist organisation for attending a press release as an audience. - The applicant, a mayor, had attended a press release announcing the self-governance of a terrorist organisation, namely PKK. Besides, the relevant statement had been issued during a period when the clashes between the security forces and PKK had accelerated. The violent acts also increased immediately after the press release, which resulted in the death of many security forces and civilians. - In view of all the considerations, it was found established that the impugned press release had incited to violence. - Although the applicant, as a politician, should have considered that his participation in the press release would increase the impact of it on the society, he acted in accordance with the instructions of a terrorist organisation. -Thus, the applicant had attended and supported the press release even though he was aware of the results of the press release that clearly defended the terrorist organisation’s methods containing force, violence or threats. - Accordingly, the applicant’s conviction served a pressing social need as well as being proportionate, and it complied with the requirements of a democratic social order. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the freedom of expression.
Samet Çelikçapa 2018/14878 26 May 2022 (First Section)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on the applicant for his expressions in the petition he submitted to the administration. - The applicant, a public officer who had been temporarily assigned to the relevant district security directorate, submitted a petition to the governor’s office, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages that he had sustained due to his temporary assignment. - He was then subject to a disciplinary sanction by the administration due to his certain expressions in the petition. His action for the revocation of the disciplinary sanction and subsequent appellate requests were all rejected. - The Court considered whether the expressions used in, and the wording of, the impugned petition had impaired institutional discipline. - The applicant used the impugned expressions merely in support of his compensation claim. Besides, he used these expressions only in the petition and did not make public them. - The disciplinary sanction was not found to be necessary in a democratic society. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the freedom of expression.
Abdulcebbar Tekin and Others 2018/561 14 April 2022 (Second Section)	No violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the applicants who had explained the significance of native language during the course upon the call of their trade union. - The applicants, who were a teacher, attended the activity of “discussing a subject so as to stress the meaning and significance of native language during the course” in line with the decision taken by the relevant trade union of which they were a member. - They were then imposed disciplinary sanctions under the Civil Servants Law as the impugned activity could not be regarded as part of trade-union activity but amounted to a protest of educational activities. - They brought actions for the revocation of the disciplinary sanctions; however, their actions were dismissed with final effect at the appellate stage. - As is the case for the other public officials, teachers are free to express their thoughts and opinions. However, by the very nature of their duty, they are capable of influencing minors and directly transferring information to them. - Therefore, States set, through a curriculum designated for the educational policies, a framework regarding the information, understanding and thoughts to be conveyed to the students. - In the present case, the applicants discussed an issue, which was not indeed included in the curriculum, in breach of the policies and principles adopted by the State in this field. - Moreover, the disciplinary sanctions imposed on them did not impede or make difficult, to a significant extent, the applicants’ participation in democracy and right to freely express their opinions. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found no violation of the freedom of expression.
İlknur Uyan 2019/14617 14 April 2022 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to education safeguarded by Article 42 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right for suspension from school as a disciplinary sanction for using expressions tarnishing the honour and reputation of the rector. - The degree of the admissible interference with students’ freedom of expression shall be less as the degree of education increases. Therefore, the applicant, a university student, should be subject to less interference in terms of her freedom of expression. - In universities, which are considered as the cradle of free thoughts and critical minds, more tolerance should be shown to university students who have different ideas. Such thoughts should enjoy the strict protection of freedom of expression. - Social and political pluralism shall be ensured through the peaceful and free expression of ideas. - It should be borne in mind that the limits of the acceptable criticism raised against public authorities are much wider than those of private individuals. - Public authorities may use different means to respond and react to criticisms directed at them, such as refuting the allegations against them, providing correct information in challenge of the expressions they consider to be incorrect, and submitting counter evidence to defend themselves. - The Court, in its many judgments, has affirmed that offensive expressions against state officials or a part of society are among the requirements of pluralism, tolerance and open-mindedness, which are essential for a democratic society. - It should be acknowledged that freedom of expression should be interpreted broadly, allowing for, to a certain extent, exaggeration and even incitement. - In the present case, the trial courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to education. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to education.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2021/119 21 April 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of Article 58 § 5 of Law no. 6183 on the Collection of Debts due to the State	- The contested provision envisages that in cases where the debtor raises an objection to his debt to the State and his objection is rejected, the amount of debt in question shall be collected plus an additional 10%. - It is maintained inter alia that the contested provision placed an excessive burden on the debtors, which constituted a disproportionate interference with the right to legal remedies. - As the contested provision clearly and precisely sets the necessary framework regarding the collection of public debts, it is found to be sufficiently precise, accessible and foreseeable, thus meeting the lawfulness requirement. - It is inferred that the contested provision is intended for preventing the procrastination of the collection of public debts by way of making difficult to bring unjustifiable actions. - However, unless a decision ordering the stay of execution is issued, to bring an action against a payment order will not cease the collection processes: therefore, such an action does not indeed have a delaying and impeding effect on the collection of public debts. - Therefore, the contested provision is not appropriate to attain the purpose of preventing any procrastination in the collection of public debts. - It thus imposes a disproportionate restriction on the right to property as well as the right to legal remedies. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2021/19 21 April 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of Article 1 of Law no. 221 on the Real Estates Allocated for Public Service by the Public Legal Persons or Institutions, as well as of the remaining relevant provisions	- The contested Articles 1 and 2 of Law no. 221 envisage that the private immovable properties, on which certain facilities and structures were built and thus allocated to public service before 9 October 1956 but which were not subject to any legal process for the purpose of expropriation, shall be deemed to have been expropriated ex lege, without seeking any further requirement. - It was maintained that the de facto allocation of private properties to public services would not set aside the right to property, and that the de facto allocation process amounted to the seizure of an immovable property without completion of expropriation procedures. - In the Turkish legal system, the administrations may make use of the immovable properties in private ownership, which are necessary for the performance of public services, by way of expropriation. However, this process, which terminates the individuals’ right to property unilaterally, must be constitutional and thus comply with the principles set forth in Article 46 of the Constitution. - The contested provisions are found to pursue a legitimate aim in the constitutional context. - It has been, however, observed that the property owners are enabled to claim the value of their immovable property within 2 years as from 13 January 1961 the effective date of the Law; and that the value that the owner may claim is designated as the market value of the immovable property at the time when it was allocated to public services, that is to say, corresponding to a date prior to 9 October 1956. - Therefore, the contested provision, Article 1, fails to meet the necessary constitutional requirements. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled. - The remaining provisions, which could no longer be applicable due to the annulment of Article 1, have been automatically annulled without being subject to constitutionality review.
E.2021/128 1 June 2022 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision setting the oil sales price	- The contested provision, Article 10 of the Petroleum Market Law no. 5015, envisages that the oil sales price shall be determined on the basis of transportation costs, tolls and the quality of the crude oil. - It is argued that the factors envisaged for determining the oil sales price has caused an increase in costs, that such issues which should be freely agreed between the contracting parties have been determined by law, and that therefore, the balance of interests between the parties has been upset in favour of the producer and to the detriment of the refinery. - The contested provision aims at ensuring the sound and proper functioning of the oil market as well as supporting domestic production. Thus, the impugned restriction on the right to property and freedom of contract pursues a legitimate aim, and is proportionate. - A fair balance has been struck between the public interest and the right to property and freedom of contract. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed.
E.2022/43 21 June 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision stipulating that the reasons for termination of the contracts of family physicians and family health professionals shall be set forth by a regulation	- The contested provision stipulates that the reasons for termination of the contracts of family physicians and family health professionals shall be set forth by a regulation to be issued by the President. - It is claimed that family physicians and family health professionals have the status of public officials; therefore, their rights and obligations should be regulated by law, and the details relating thereto should be laid down in a regulation. However, according to the contested provision, all the issues shall be set forth by a regulation, which is unconstitutional. - The provision does not provide a clear and certain information on which acts of those concerned will result in the termination of their contracts. Hence, it is not certain, accessible or foreseeable, and therefore, fails to comply with the lawfulness requirement within the scope of Articles 70 and 49 of the Constitution. - As for the examination from the standpoint of the principle of nondelegation of legislative power enshrined in Article 7 of the Constitution, it has been observed that the contested provision, containing no general principles, granted the executive an unlimited, indefinite and wide regulatory power. Thus, it also falls foul of the aforementioned principle. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional, and thus annulled. The relevant decision will be effective after nine months as from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
E.2021/127 30 June 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provisions stipulating that the decisions rendered in cases of confiscation without expropriation shall not be executed, unless they are finalised.	- The contested provision stipulates that the decisions delivered in cases regarding price and compensation which have been brought by the right holders due to confiscation without expropriation shall not be executed, unless they are finalised. - It is argued that the requirement that the decisions shall be final in order for them to be executed results in a delay in the collection of receivables, imposes an excessive burden on the owner, is not proportionate, and upsets the fair balance to be struck between the public interest and the individual interest to the detriment of the owner. - The impugned requirement delays and obstructs the redress of the damages sustained by the right holders due to unlawful transactions. The delay in the payment of receivables and compensation to the owners, whose property rights have already been unlawfully interfered with, imposes an excessive burden on them. - The failure to strike the fair balance between public interest and individual interest causes a disproportionate limitation on the right to property and the right to a fair trial. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.
E.2022/22 20 July 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of Provisional Article 30 § 1 added to Law no. 4046 on Privatisation Practices by Article 1 of Law no. 7350, as well as of the remaining relevant provisions	- The contested Provisional Article envisages that the contract term of the harbours that have been subject to privatisation for a period not longer than 49 years shall be extended without a tender. - It was maintained that the extension of contract terms without a tender would cause economic damage to the State and deprive the other persons, who are not already a party to these contracts, of the opportunity to participate in a tender and enter into a contract. - The contested provision falls foul of the principles of free competition and equality. - It has been thus found to place a disproportionate restriction on the freedom of contract. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled. - The remaining provisions, which could no longer be applicable due to the annulment of the Provisional Article, have been automatically annulled without being subject to constitutionality review.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Nevriye Kuruç 2021/58970 5 July 2022 (Plenary)	Violations of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and right to an effective remedy, respectively safeguarded by Articles 36 and 40 of the Constitution (Pilot Judgment)	- Alleged violations of the right to a trial within a reasonable time for the lengthy proceedings regarding the personal action brought by the applicant based on her labour contract, and of the right to an effective legal remedy for the lack of an effective legal remedy enabling her to challenge the allegedly unreasonable length of the proceedings. *1. Alleged violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time* - In consideration of the criteria such as the complexity of the case, the difficulty in collecting the evidence and the number of parties involved in the proceedings, it has been concluded that the case has not been of a complex nature. Thus, the length of the proceedings which lasted more than 7 years has not been reasonable. - Hence, the Court found a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. *2. Alleged violation of the right to an effective legal remedy* - Right to an effective legal remedy guaranteed under Article 40 of the Constitution does not afford an independent protection and is one of the complementary rights safeguarding the exercise of the fundamental rights and freedoms as well as the legal remedies. In the present case, the impugned right is taken in conjunction with the right to a trial within a reasonable time safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution. - A legal remedy to be available under Article 40 should, in both theory and practice, be capable of preventing the violation, ending the violation if it continues, and affording a reasonable redress for the violation ended. - It is requisite that in order for redressing the damages caused by the violation, an appropriate remedy of redress should be put into practice. - Given the number of applications received and the violation judgments rendered by the Court, it has been concluded that there has been a structural problem leading to the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. In order for redressing the damages that may arise due to the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, in spite of all the measures taken to overcome this structural problem, an effective legal remedy to be exhausted before lodging an individual application should established, pursuant to Article 40 of the Constitution. - Thus, a copy of the judgment would be sent to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey for resolution of the impugned problem. - It has been concluded that the examination of the applications concerning the alleged violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time be suspended for four months from the publication of the judgment in the Official Gazette. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to an effective legal remedy and ordered that the pilot judgment procedure would be initiated.
Özcan Zengin 2020/4244 23 February 2022 (Second Section)	No violation of the right to education safeguarded by Article 42 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right for denial of the request for equivalence of a bachelor's degree obtained from a university abroad and recognized by the Council of Higher Education. - The Council of Higher Education concluded that the period when the applicant stayed in the country where he graduated from the faculty of law, which was 69 days, was insufficient in terms of being considered to have studied law. - The program attended by the applicant was a formal education program, and it is stipulated in the applicable Regulation that the passports used during the education may be requested. Therefore, the relevant statutory regulation was foreseeable. - It has been concluded that the denial of the applicant’s request was proportionate. The grounds relied on by the inferior court were relevant and sufficient for the interference with the applicant’s right to education. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the right to education.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2022/3 (Miscellaneous) 1 June 2022 (Plenary)	Review of the request for stopping the use of the expression “nation (millet)” that is included in a political party’s name by an alliance of political parties	- It is claimed that the use of the expression “nation (millet)” included in the name of a political party, called the Nation Party (Millet Partisi), also by an alliance of political parties, has caused misunderstandings and confusion among the people. For fear of misleading the voters, it is requested that the use of the relevant expression by the alliance not be allowed. - It is set forth in the Law no. 2820 on Political Parties that the name of a political party as listed in its record file shall not be used by another political party; however, it may be used in a way not leading to any confusion. - Besides, pursuant to the applicable statutory provisions, if the political parties that decide to participate in the elections by forming an alliance determine an alliance title within seven days at the latest before the election, then their title shall be legally valid. - Since there has not been an election process yet, as well as the title of “Nation Alliance” does not exist in legal terms, the present application cannot be examined. - Consequently, the Court has concluded that there has been no ground for a decision.
E.2022/19 1 June 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision hindering the payment of attorney fee to the personnel covered by Decree-law no. 375	- The contested provision stipulates that the personnel covered by Decree-law no. 375 shall not receive attorney fee. - It is claimed that the provision includes a regulation concerning financial rights, and that therefore, it does not fall within the scope of the empowering act and is contrary to the repealed Article 91 of the Constitution. - Decree-laws must comply with both the empowering act on which they are based and the Constitution, by their subject, purpose, scope and principles. - The impugned provision cannot be regarded to fall within the scope of the power to issue decree-laws under the repealed Article 91 of the Constitution. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional, and therefore annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*II. Constitutionality Review*
E.2021/42 21 April 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision entailing a favourable result of the security clearance investigation for recruitment as a private security guard	- The contested provision stipulates that the security clearance investigation to be conducted in respect of those willing to be a private security guard shall be concluded in a favourable manner. - The contested provision is claimed to be unconstitutional in that certain issues related to the security investigation process as well as the basic principles and the guarantees to be provided as regards the processing of the collected data are not stipulated by law, but rather set forth in a regulation. - It contains no specific information on such issues as the type and extent of the data to be collected, the manner in which it shall be processed, and the authorities to conduct the relevant processes. - It is laid down in Article 20 of the Constitution that personal data can be processed only in cases envisaged by law or by the person’s explicit consent. It is also prescribed by Article 13 thereof that fundamental rights and freedoms may be restricted only by law. In accordance with these constitutional provisions, a statutory regulation on the limitation of the right to protection of personal data shall not exist only in form, but it shall also be clear, assessible and foreseeable, avoiding any arbitrariness. - The lack of a provision containing the guarantees and basic principles regarding the collection, use and processing of the personal data obtained as a result of security clearance investigation runs counter to Articles 13 and 20 of the Constitution. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled.
E.2022/13 1 June 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision obligating the owner of the vehicle to reimburse the total of administrative fines in case of a failure to identify the shipper	- It is stipulated in the contested provision that in cases where the maximum load capacity for vehicles is exceeded, the total of the administrative fines to be imposed on the owner of the vehicle and the shipper respectively shall be collected from the owner. - It is claimed that the provision is in breach of the principle of not to be tried or punished twice for the same offence (ne bis in idem) and upsets the fair balance to be struck between the public interest and the individual’s rights and freedoms, thus also falling foul of the principle of proportionality. - Pursuant to Article 38 § 7 of the Constitution, criminal liability shall be personal. Therefore, no one shall be punished for an act not committed by himself. - Hence, the provision does not comply with the principle of personality of criminal liability. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled.
E.2022/14 1 June 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision stipulating that the stay of execution shall not be ordered in tax refund cases unless a certain amount is deposited as security	- The contested provision stipulates that the stay of execution shall not be granted in tax refund cases unless 50% of the actual tax amount in dispute is deposited as security. - The provision is claimed to be unconstitutional since it eliminates the discretionary power vested upon the courts, and it also deprives those who are unable to afford such a deposit of the opportunity to benefit from a stay of execution, which is in breach of the right to legal remedies. - It is set forth in Article 125 § 1 of the Constitution that recourse to judicial review shall be available against all acts of the administration. Otherwise, an effective judicial review would be at stake. - Stay of execution is an institution that is not only a constituent element of the right to legal remedies as a means promoting the effectiveness of judicial review, but it also ensures the public interest and public order. - It is further indicated in Article 125 § 5 of the Constitution that “a justified decision regarding the stay of execution of an administrative act may be issued, should its implementation result in damages which are difficult or impossible to compensate for and, at the same time, the act is clearly unlawful”. - In cases where the claimant cannot afford to deposit 50% of the actual tax amount as security, and thus being deprived of the opportunity to avail of a stay of execution, the notion “… should its implementation result in damages which are difficult or impossible to compensate for …” would be rendered ineffective. - Obviously, the contested provision impairs the effectiveness of the institution of stay of execution. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional, and therefore annulled.
E.2022/15 1 June 2022 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provisions stipulating that the spouse of the employer, who works unpaid in the latter’s workplace, shall not be insured	- It is set forth in the contested provisions that the spouse of the employer, who works unpaid in the latter’s workplace, shall not be covered by an insurance policy. - It is argued that while another person working unpaid is entitled to insurance, the spouse of the employer working unpaid is not entitled to it, which allegedly constitutes an inequal treatment. - In the Court’s view, the impugned provisions are clear, assessible and foreseeable, which therefore avoid any arbitrariness. - No grounds for restriction are laid down in Article 60 of the Constitution regarding the right to social security. However, it should necessarily be accepted that restrictions may be inherent in any right by its very nature. - Pursuant to Article 185 of the Turkish Civil Code no. 4721, those married have to, inter alia, live together and help each other. From this standpoint, a person’s working unpaid in her/his spouse’s workplace may be regarded as an aspect of the obligation to help each other within the union of marriage. Therefore, there is a reasonable ground for the difference in treatment vis a vis the other unpaid employees. - On the other hand, the spouse working unpaid may be subject to voluntary insurance, thereby receiving health benefits. In this sense, the contested provisions are proportionate. - Consequently, the impugned provisions have been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for their annulment has been dismissed.
E.2022/7 21 June 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision prescribing 10 years for retrial, in so far as it relates to the finalised violation judgments of the ECHR	- The contested provision envisages that regardless of whether the retrial has been ordered on the basis of the European Court of Human Right’s finalised violation judgment, the time-limit prescribed for retrial shall not exceed 10 years starting from the finalisation of the judgment subject to the request for a retrial. - The impugned provision is claimed to be unconstitutional for infringing upon the right to a fair trial, since the grounds for retrial such as the ECHR’s violation judgment vis a vis the other grounds should be separated. It is further maintained that the ground for retrial based on the ECHR’s violation judgment is aware of on the relevant date, while the other grounds are already available during the domestic proceedings. Thus, the applicability of 10-year time limit in both cases is not fair. - Effective protection of fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights is conditional upon, inter alia, the duly execution of the violation judgments rendered by the ECHR. In cases of a violation found by the ECHR, the aim is to redress the violation and its consequences and restore the situation prevailing prior to the breach. In this sense, one of the means for restoration is retrial. - In consideration of the fact that the time-limit prescribed in the impugned provision may be exceeded due to the reasons beyond the relevant authorities’ control, such as the requirement to lodge an individual application with the Constitutional Court before applying to the ECHR and the increased workload of the latter, the retrial as a remedy may be rendered ineffective. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional, and therefore annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Müyesser Uğur 2020/18546 7 April 2022 (Plenary)	No violations of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution and the freedoms of expression and the press safeguarded respectively by Articles 26 and 28 thereof	- Alleged violation of the said right and freedoms due to the applicant’s detention on remand. - The applicant, a journalist, was found to be in touch with a military officer who provided the former with certain classified information about the State’s security and political interests, as well as to subsequently make public such information. - The applicant was then detained on remand not for obtaining such classified information but for disclosing it. - She was then sentenced, for the acquisition of classified information, to imprisonment of one year, one month and ten days -which was suspended- and also to imprisonment of two years and six months for the disclosure of such information. - She was not detained on remand for her acquisition of the classified information. - The applicant is an experienced journalist writing articles regarding the Turkish Armed Forces. Therefore, she is in a position to realise that the information obtained by her was confidential and that the acquisition or disclosure of such information will lead to imposition of a criminal sanction under the Turkish Criminal Code no. 5237. - The information obtained and disclosed by the applicant might pose a threat to national security, which overrides the values inherent in the freedom of the press: her detention was found proportionate. - There was plausible evidence that she had committed the imputed offences. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found no violations of the right to personal liberty and security, as well as of the freedoms of expression and the press.
A.S. 2018/31431 3 March 2022 (First Section)	- Violation of the right to respect for private life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the refusal of the applicant’s request for acquiring Turkish citizenship. - The applicant, a foreign national, applied to the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“Administration”) for acquiring Turkish citizenship. It was however dismissed by the Administration in line with the investigation report issued by the Provincial Security Directorate, stating that the applicant’s life style was not in keeping with the Turkish customary rules. - The applicant’s action for annulment of the refusal was dismissed by the administrative court. His subsequent appeal was also dismissed before the Regional Administrative Court. - The statutory condition of not committing any act offending good morals, which is among the requirements to be fulfilled for becoming a Turkish citizen, is of an abstract nature and must be therefore assessed under the particular circumstances of a given case. - The investigation report issued regarding the applicant referred to his extramarital affair with a married Turkish woman for 13 years, which was found -by the relevant judicial authorities- contrary to the national and moral values of the Turkish society. - The relevant authorities only took into consideration the applicant’s extramarital affair but failed to inquire whether he had performed any act disturbing the public order. - The interference with the applicant’s right to respect for private life lacked relevant and sufficient justification and was contrary to the requirements of a democratic society. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to respect for private life.
Nihat Hançeroğlu 2018/17821 10 May 2022 (First Section)	Violation of the right to respect for private life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to lack of a holistic environmental assessment regarding a hydroelectric power plant project. - Upon the request of a company engaging in electricity generation for the conduct of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) concerning a regulator and hydroelectric power plant, the Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation (Administration) issued an EIA-favourable decision. - The applicant brought an action for annulment of, inter alia, the EIA-favourable decision and certain administrative acts regarding the project. However, the incumbent administrative court did not annul the EIA-favourable decision while ordering the annulment of certain administrative acts. The applicant’s appeal was also dismissed by the Council of State. - He maintained that the pond planned to be built was not cited in the EIA-report, which was not also addressed by the inferior courts. - EIA is intended to preserve environment and environmental assets. It offers options as to a given project to be implemented and demonstrates the favourable and unfavourable aspects thereof so as to ensure the decision-makers to give a sound and reasonable decision in this sense. - The applicant’s substantial allegations were disregarded by the inferior courts. - Public authorities’ failures to handle the disputed matter with due diligence, to make an assessment as to the public and individual interests in the light of the particular circumstances of the present case, and to fulfil their positive obligations inherent in the right to respect for private life. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to respect for private life.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2022/10 1 June 2022 (Plenary)	Annulment of the phrases “…warning…” and “…and to perform additional service” in the amended Article 1 of the Turkish Armed Forces Disciplinary Law no. 6413	- The contested provisions envisage that no action for annulment may be filed against the disciplinary sanctions, namely warning and performing additional services, which are imposed on military officers. - It is maintained that the exclusion from judicial review of these disciplinary sanctions, which may give rise to the termination of the contracts of the relevant military officers, was contrary to the rule of law principle, the right to legal remedies, as well as to the principles that administrative acts cannot be excluded from judicial review and that an effective remedy must be provided against disciplinary sanctions through judicial review. - It is set forth in Article 129 §§ 3 and 4 of the Constitution that disciplinary decisions shall not be exempt from judicial review, and that provisions concerning the members of the armed forces, judges and prosecutors are reserved. - It is concluded that the contested provisions are intended for instilling and maintaining discipline in the Turkish Armed Forces: they pursue a legitimate aim. - They are found both appropriate and necessary for attaining the pursued aim of instilling and maintaining discipline as they will increase the efficiency of the disciplinary sanctions. - Although there is no obstacle to bringing a legal action against the dismissal from Turkish Armed Forces or the termination of contract, which may result from such disciplinary sanctions, this judicial review indeed becomes a formality. - It has been therefore concluded that the contested provisions place an excessive burden on the military officers and upset the fair balance required to be struck between the public interest of instilling and maintaining discipline and the right to legal remedies. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court annulled the contested provisions for being unconstitutional.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Hicret Aksoy 2021/2107 13 April 2022 (First Section)	Violation of the right to compensation safeguarded by Article 19 § 9 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 19 § 3 thereof.	- Alleged violation of the right to personal liberty and security due to insufficient amount of compensation awarded to the applicant for her unjust custody and detention. - The applicant’s husband was taken into custody and subsequently detained on remand within the scope of the investigations conducted against the Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation / Parallel State Structure (FETÖ/PDY). Upon the order for a home search and the seizure of digital materials of the households, the applicant’s cell phone and SIM card were seized. - An investigation was then initiated against the applicant for having allegedly downloaded and used ByLock application. Her placement in custody was ordered for 7 days. - Although she contested the order as she had a 14-month baby in need of her care, her continued placement in custody was ordered. - The applicant was detained on remand for her membership of the said terrorist organisation. She unsuccessfully challenged her detention. - At the end of the proceedings, she was acquitted of the imputed offence. Upon the finalisation of her acquittal, she brought an action for pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation due to her unjust placement in custody and detention as well as the seizure of her digital materials. - The applicant finding the awarded amounts insufficient filed an appeal, which was dismissed on the merits with final effect. - The applicant’s placement in custody and her detention ordered within the scope of a criminal investigation had a legal basis. - The Court has on many occasions acknowledged that the download and use of ByLock application could be considered, by investigation authorities, as a strong indication of criminal guilt. - Given the characteristics of the said terrorist organisation, it is apparent that the impugned investigation was more complicated than the other criminal investigations: the applicant’s placement in custody pursued a legitimate aim in constitutional terms. - The applicant’s statements that she had a baby in need of her care and as her husband was detained on remand, there was no other person to whom she could entrust her baby were not taken into consideration: her placement in custody was therefore disproportionate. - Despite the unlawfulness of her placement in custody and detention, the inferior court failed to award an appropriate amount in compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage she had sustained. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to compensation in conjunction with the right to personal liberty and security.
Nazila Adıgozalzade and Ferid Adıgozalzade 2019/8334 16 March 2022 (Second Section)	Violation of the prohibition of discrimination safeguarded by Article 10 of the Constitution in conjunction with the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 thereof	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the applicants’ inability to receive severance payment for being subject to different treatment on the basis of their nationality. - The applicants, citizens of Azerbaijan Republic, started to hold office at a university as a foreign non-tenured lecturer in 1996 and 1992 respectively. However, their contracts were terminated in 2017 as there was no longer any need for their service. - The university did not make any severance payment to the applicants. Upon the actions brought by the applicants, the administrative courts awarded them severance payment. - Upon appeal by the relevant university, the regional administrative court dismissed the applicants’ actions as the decree of the Council of Ministers no. 83/7148 -where the monetary issues regarding these lecturers are regulated- did not include any provision enabling the foreign lecturers to receive severance payment. - It is undoubted that the applicants were deprived of severance payment merely on account of their being foreign citizens. - The inferior courts’ failure to justify the impugned different treatment. -In the absence of an explicit statutory provision which precludes the applicants’ entitlement to severance payment, the inferior courts’ failure to interpret the provisions of a secondary legislation (the decree of the Council of Ministers in the present case) in consideration of the constitutional safeguards. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the prohibition of discrimination in conjunction with the right to property.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Ali Oğuz (2) 2019/2285 15 March 2022 (First Section)	Violation of the right to a fair hearing in conjunction with the right to legal counsel falling under the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right to a fair hearing in conjunction with the right to legal counsel due to the non-execution of the violation judgment rendered by the Court. - The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for having attempted to overthrow the constitutional order through force in his capacity as a head of an armed terrorist organisation. This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation. - Lodging an individual application, the applicant maintained that his trial was not fair and that he was convicted on the basis of his statements which had been taken under pressure and in the absence of a lawyer. In his case, the Court found a violation of the right to a fair hearing. - The incumbent assize court, upon the violation judgment, dismissed the request for a retrial without holding a hearing. - The applicant’s challenge to this dismissal was also rejected with final effect. - The interpretation by the assize court was at odds with the Court’s previous violation judgment. - Despite the necessity to hold a hearing given the nature of the violation found by the Court, the request for a retrial was dismissed over the case-file. - The inferior courts’ failure to redress the violation previously found by the Court in the applicant’s case and the consequences thereof. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to a fair hearing.
Necla Kara and Others 2018/5075 15 March 2022 (First Section)	Violations of both the substantive and procedural aspects of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the discontinuation of the proceedings and the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment ordered in respect of the public officers found to have responsibility in an explosion taking place at a building. - The explosion taking place at an apartment where explosive substances (squib, torch and etc.) were generated led to the death of 21 persons including the applicants’ relatives, injury of 115 persons as well as resulted in extensive material damage. - The workplace where the explosion took place had been inspected shortly before the explosion by the municipal officers, who issued a warning for the workplace to obtain a licence. Thus, it is apparent that the relevant authorities knew the existence of the real and imminent risk, which could lead to severe consequences endangering human lives. - The authorities’ failure to take any step to cease the activities performed at the workplace without a license and to eliminate the probable risks: violation of the substantive aspect of the right to life. - The procedural aspect of the positive obligations incumbent on the State within the meaning of the right to life entails the clarification of the circumstances surrounding an impugned death, the conduct of an effective investigation capable of identifying those who are responsible, and the imposition of appropriate punishments commensurate with the criminal acts committed. - The suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment ordered in respect of the accused officers was contrary to the requirement that those responsible be imposed appropriate punishments commensurate with the acts they had committed, thus resulting in impunity: violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to life under both its substantive and procedural aspects.
Mutia Canan Karatay (2) 2018/6707 31 March 2022 (First Section)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the disciplinary penalty whereby the applicant was suspended from her professional activity for 15 days on account of her explanations regarding a medical issue. - The applicant, a cardiologist and internist as well as a well-known academic and scientist in Turkey, was imposed a disciplinary penalty requiring her temporary suspension from professional activity due to her certain statements regarding a medical issue as she had inter alia made medical assessments on issues outside of her field of specialisation and caused damage to public health through her statements that were of unscientific nature. - Her action for annulment of the disciplinary penalty and subsequent appeal request were dismissed by the incumbent courts. - It cannot be said that every statement of scientists and academics are absolutely true. However, it should be acknowledged that the wide range of alternative opinions and thoughts on a particular issue is extremely important for both individuals and the society. - The inferior courts’ failure to demonstrate the risk posed by the applicant’s statements to maternal and child health. - The impugned interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression did not meet a pressing social need. Nor was it proportionate. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the freedom of expression.
İbrahim Yaşar 2016/9350 19 October 2021 (Second Section)	No violations of both procedural and substantive aspects of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the alleged use of disproportionate force resulting in the death of the applicant’s sons in the course of a terrorist operation. - The police, having been reported that there would be a terrorist bombing, launched a terrorist operation. During the operation, the security forces had to resort to the use of armed force, which resulted in the death of three persons, two of whom were the applicant’s sons. - At the end of the investigation launched into the incident, a decision of non-prosecution was issued. - While the applicant claimed that the security forces had fired at his sons without a warning, the incident report proved to the otherwise. It was found established that the suspects had opened fire on the security forces despite the latter’s warning. - Hence, the security forces had to use force for legitimate self-defence. In addition, they had to protect the lives of third persons against the bombing allegedly planned by the suspects. - In the circumstances of the case, the investigation launched immediately after the incident by the chief public prosecutor’s office was conducted independently, rigorously and expeditiously, and the applicant was provided with the opportunity to actively participate in the proceedings from the very beginning. Thus, the investigation was effective. - Consequently, the Court found no violations of both procedural and substantive aspects of the right to life.
İbrahim Manav 2019/2755 29 December 2021 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the use of immovable properties, which were abandoned by the applicants free of charge for being assigned as a public green space and road, beyond the intended purpose. - The applicants donated their immovables for public use. As the immovables were not used for the intended purpose, the applicants brought an action for compensation, which was dismissed by the incumbent court. Their appellate request was also dismissed by the Court of Cassation, which also rejected their request for rectification of the decision. - Whether the impugned interference was proportionate; whether a fair balance was struck between the public interest and the individuals’ rights and freedoms; and whether the impugned measure placed an excessive and disproportionate burden on the applicants. - It is clear that the immovables were not used for intended purpose, which was also found established by the expert reports obtained by the inferior courts. - The inferior courts’ decisions did not involve sufficient and relevant grounds that would address the applicants’ claims and objections likely to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. - The procedural safeguards inherent in the right to property were not fulfilled in the applicants’ case. - The fair balance to be struck between the applicants’ right to property and the public interest was upset to the detriment of the applicants. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to property.
Mehmet Salim Erdal 2019/11893 2 March 2022 (Second Section)	Violation of the freedom of organisation safeguarded by Article 33 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the imposition of administrative fine for operating as a travel agency without a licence. - Members of an association, among which was the applicant, organised a tour for sportive purposes. However, in the course of an inspection carried out during the said activity, it was found out that the association did not have a travel agency operation licence. Therefore, it was imposed an administrative fine, which was unsuccessfully appealed by the applicant. - Any restriction on the right to organisation should correspond to a pressing social need such as the maintenance of public order as well as being an exception. - In the present case, the said tour organised by the association was considered as a commercial activity by the public authorities. However, the latter failed to make a plausible explanation as regards the grounds underlying the administrative fine. - In the Court’s view, the impugned measure did not correspond to a pressing social need, nor did it comply with the requirements of the democratic social order. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the freedom of organisation.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2019/96 24 February 2022 (Plenary)	Review of Presidential Decree provisions regulating personal data and the Treasury’s being a shareholder of companies	A. Provision authorising the Financial Crimes Investigating Board (the MASAK) to request from public institutions and organisations as well as real and legal persons and unincorporated institutions any data and document - It is claimed that granting the MASAK such an authorisation, regardless of certain statutory rules, are in breach of the principles of rule of law and foreseeability. It is further maintained that the issues related to personal data within the scope of Article 20 of the Constitution shall not be regulated by Presidential Decrees. - The Court acknowledges that the right to protection of personal data is safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution. It is also stipulated thereof that no regulation in this regard shall be made through Presidential Decrees. - The phrase “any data and document” included in the contested provision also covers the personal data; therefore, it is of a nature that cannot be regulated by Presidential Decrees. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found unconstitutional ratione materiae, and thus annulled; the relevant decision will be effective after nine months as from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. *B. Provision enabling the Ministry of Treasury and Finance to become a shareholder of domestic and foreign companies* - It is maintained that the issues relating to the right to property shall not be regulated by Presidential Decrees. It is further argued that the impugned provision enables nationalisation through the decision of the President, and that it is neither definite nor foreseeable for its not embodying basic principles for being a shareholder of companies. - The contested provision is not related to a matter that is stipulated in the Constitution to be regulated exclusively by law; thus, it is constitutional ratione materiae. - In addition, the provision, which provides that the said procedure set forth therein shall be performed in accordance with the domestic private law in cases of domestic companies and the international private law as well as the legislation of a given country in cases of foreign companies, has been formulated in a definite and explicit manner. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed. *C. Provision regulating the duties and powers of public officials* - It is claimed that Presidential Decrees cannot be issued as regards the issues that should be regulated exclusively by law; that the contested provision regulates an issue falling within the authority of the legislature; and that it enables an arrangement through a Regulation without the general principles and framework being determined, which falls foul of the principle of legal certainty. - The contested provision contains a regulation on an issue to be regulated exclusively by law under Article 128 of the Constitution, thus is in breach of Article 104 § 17 of the Constitution. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Ümmügülsüm Şalgar 2016/12847 21 October 2021 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to a reasoned decision within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to dismissal of the appellate request without any reason being stated. - Having successfully passed the exam for being a police officer, the applicant the vocational training. - As a result of the security clearance investigation conducted against the applicant during the training period, it was found that her husband had been imposed a punishment the pronouncement of which was suspended. - Thereupon, the applicant’s right to be a candidate student was terminated. - The applicant’s challenge before the administrative court was rejected, and the decision was upheld by the Council of State. - The action taken against the applicant, namely her dismissal from the police vocational training centre, was based on a provision included in the repealed Regulation. - In its many judgments, the Court has considered that suspension of the pronouncement of judgment should not necessarily be interpreted as a final conviction. - The alleged unlawfulness as well as unconstitutionality of the aforementioned provision amounted to an arguable claim. - Neither the incumbent inferior courts nor the appellate court provided plausible explanation in their decisions regarding the applicant’s claims, which rendered the proceedings unfair. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to a reasoned decision within the scope of the right to a fair trial.
Cüneyt Durmaz (2) 2016/35468 15 December 2021 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to an effective remedy safeguarded by Article 40 of the Constitution in conjunction with the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 thereof	- Alleged violation of the said right in conjunction with the prohibition of ill-treatment due to insufficient conditions of detention on remand. - The applicant, a former commissioner of audits, was dismissed and taken into custody for 9 days within the scope investigations conducted into the FETÖ/PDY terrorist organisation; afterwards, he was detained and sent to the closed prison. - Complaining about the inadequate conditions while remanded in custody, the applicant brought an action for full-remedy against the Ministry of Interior, which was dismissed by the administrative court for lack of jurisdiction. The applicant’s subsequent appeal was rejected, and the decision became final. - According to the pertinent case-law of the Court, the complaints regarding inadequate conditions of detention fall into the jurisdiction of administrative jurisdiction authorities. - In the present case, the administrative court failed to comply with the Court’s case-law. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to an effective remedy.
Göksal Çetin and İsmail Temel 2018/13305 15 December 2021 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the exercise of the pre-emption right by the Municipality regarding the property of which it became a shareholder after the court decision rendered following de jure confiscation. - The objective in granting the right of pre-emption to the joint owners is to provide the shareholders with the opportunity to exclude foreigners from the joint ownership, to avoid being a shareholder with people they do not want, and also to liquidate the no longer effective relationship of joint ownership. - In the present case, however, on the date when the Municipality was entitled to pre-emption, the property in question was qualified as public area in the zoning plan. Thus, the aforementioned objectives were not applicable on the relevant date. - Since the Municipality was registered as a shareholder one day after the sale of property, the applicants were not able to foresee that the former would be entitled to pre-emption. - In addition, the Municipality gained a great advantage through its entitlement to pre-emption by exercising its authority to make a change in the zoning plan, which was to the detriment of the applicants. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to property.
Burcu Reis 2016/5824 28 December 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the prohibition of discrimination safeguarded by Article 10 of the Constitution in conjunction with the right to respect for family life safeguarded by Article 20 thereof	- Alleged violation the prohibition of discrimination for provision of only a certain part of the women working in the same workplace with nursery service. - Pursuant to the relevant legislation applicable at the material time, nursery services must be provided in workplaces where more than 150 women were employed. Thus, the women employers were legally entitled to such opportunity. - Apparently, the applicant had not been provided with nursery service, thereby being subject to discrimination by her employer. - The protection afforded through the prohibition of discrimination aims at preventing any different treatment among the individuals on arbitrary and unreasonable grounds. Any different treatment based on the aforesaid grounds automatically amounts to discrimination. - In the present case, the employer failed to provide an objective and reasonable ground for the impugned difference in treatment. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the prohibition of discrimination.
Rabia Aydın and Şerife Aksu 2018/37136 28 December 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the non-enforcement of a court decision ordering the registration of an immovable property based on the pre-emption right. - The applicants are the co-owners of the immovable property (parcel no. 434). Upon the sale of the adjacent immovable (parcel no. 435), the applicants and the owner of the other adjacent immovable (parcel no. 436) brought an action, seeking the revocation of title deed and registration of the sold immovable property in their names. - Pending the action brought by A.S., owner of the other immovable property, the civil court indicated an interim measure on 7 September 2016 so as to preclude the sale and transfer of the said immovable to any third party. - At the end of the applicants’ action adjudicated on 7 March 2017 before the same court but by another judge, registration of the immovable in the applicants’ names was ordered. - The applicants requested the land registry office to register the immovable in their names. However, this request was dismissed as the civil court instructed the land registry office not to do so on account of the interim measure previously indicated on behalf of A.S.. - The pending action brought by A.S. was adjudicated by the civil court, which ultimately ordered the registration of the immovable in the name of A.S.. - The applicants’ action for revocation of the registration and subsequent appeal were dismissed. - Despite the land registry office’s hesitation in enforcing the decision ordering registration in the applicants’ names due to the interim measure previously indicated by the civil court, interim measures are intended for the preclusion of sale and transfer of an immovable but do not pose an obstacle to the enforcement of court decisions. - Besides, a judicial body cannot instruct any administration not to enforce a decision issued by that judicial body itself or another judicial body in the absence of any legal ground. - Any court decision, if considered unlawful, may not be enforced only through methods specified in the relevant procedural laws. Any other interference in this sense falls foul of Article 138 of the Constitution pointing to the binding nature of court decisions and the necessity requiring their enforcement without delay. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to property.
Meral Danış Beştaş (5) 2014/1474 16 November 2021 (Second Section)	No violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the decision suspending the proceedings conducted against the applicant for having attended an event. - The applicant was the member of the Central Executive Board of the Democratic Society Party, which was operating at the material time. - A criminal case was initiated against the applicant as she had attended a tree planting ceremony held within the scope of the festival of Lice Municipality for committing an offence on behalf of a terrorist organisation and disseminating its propaganda. - At the end of the trial, the assize court decided not to sentence the applicant for committing an offence on behalf of the said terrorist organisation without being a member of it but suspended the proceedings on probation for 3 years for the offence of disseminating terrorist propaganda. The applicant’s challenge was dismissed. - The applicant’s assertions that she had not known the meaning attributed to the place and date of the tree planting event (the place was the home where the organisation’s initial foundation was declared, and the date was the anniversary of its foundation) were disregarded by the assize court for her being a political actor. - The Court considers that the applicant’s impugned act amounts to praise of terrorism through historical and spatial symbols. - Despite the deterrence effect that the suspension of proceedings may have on the applicant, it is indeed a sanction which is more lenient than imprisonment or fine. - The interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression was found to meet a pressing social need and proportionate. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the freedom of expression.
D.D.T. 2019/5735 24 November 2021 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the seizure of the applicant’s mobile phone which could not be proven to have been used in the commission of an offence. - B.M.D. was taken into police custody while delivering narcotic substance to a police informer. A search was conducted at his home where there were also B.B. and the applicant. - The applicant’s mobile phone and SIM card were seized. The incumbent judge ordered an inspection on the phone and SIM card. - The applicant was sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment for possession of narcotic substances but the pronouncement of her sentence was suspended. The assize court also ordered the seizure of the material that was the evidence of the said offence as well as the applicant’s mobile phone. - The applicant’s challenge was dismissed. - The statutory provision relied on by the court in ordering the impugned seizure indeed allows for the seizure of any material which has been used in the commission of an offence, or allocated for its commission, or obtained from the offence. - The court failed to provide an explanation as to whether an inspection had been conducted on the applicant’s phone and if conducted, as to the consequences thereof. - Nor was there any assessment that the applicant’s mobile phone had been used in the commission of the said offence. - Therefore, the interference with her right to property lacked any legal basis. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to property.
Gazi Muhammed 2018/37732 24 November 2021 (Second Section)	Violations of the rights to property and to an effective remedy safeguarded respectively by Articles 35 and 40 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of the said rights due to the prolonged return by the authorities of the applicant’s vehicle to him in breach of the principle of lawfulness. - The applicant’s vehicle was stopped and searched by the law enforcement officers upon a denunciation concerning a suspect of terrorist offence. - As it was revealed that the vehicle had been rented and its owner was not within the vehicle, the prosecutor instructed the law enforcement officers to identity the owner and deliver the vehicle to him. - The vehicle, taken to the depository parking lot, was returned to the applicant 89 days later. - The applicant’s action for damage as well as subsequent full-remedy action were dismissed due to the absence of any fault, omission or negligence attributable to the administration. Alleged Violation of the Right to Property - The applicant’s vehicle was taken to the depository parking lot in the absence of any seizure decision issued by the competent authorities. - The unreasonable delay in the identification of the owner of the vehicle, which was not used in the commission of, or obtained from, an offence, constituted an interference with the right to property falling foul of the principle of lawfulness. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to property. Alleged Violation of the Right to an Effective Remedy in conjunction with the Right to Property - It is the administration that is responsible for the identification of the real owner of the vehicle. Delays in certain cases may be considered reasonable; however, in the present case, it is evident that the owner should have been identified easily through the vehicle registration document showing the owner’s identifying information. - The public authorities’ passive conduct placed an excessive burden on the applicant. He had been also deprived of an effective remedy affording minimum guarantees for the redress of the damage sustained. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to effective remedies.
Mehmet Arslan 2019/791 24 November 2021 (Second Section)	No violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment due to the allegedly unlawful use of force during the body search performed before admission to the penitentiary institution. - The applicant claimed that he had been subject to strip search, without submitting any detail in this regard. - It has been found established that the applicant had resisted the officers during the impugned search process. Therefore, the latter had had to resort to the use of force to break the applicant’s resistance. In the meantime, the applicant had been slightly injured. The said process had been conducted while the applicant had been partially undressed. - Considering as a whole, the use of force by the officers had been proportionate. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2018/81 24 June 2021 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain provisions of the Law no. 7086 on Adoption of the Decree Law on Taking of Certain Measures under State of Emergency, whereas dismissal of the request for annulment of another provision included therein	- The contested provisions envisage that those who are found to have membership, relation or link with terrorist organisations or any structure, formation or group decided to commit acts against the national security of the State and whose names are indicated in the List no. 1 be dismissed from public office without any further action, that they be deprived of their status as a public officer, and that their passports be revoked. - It is maintained inter alia that such measures are applied in the absence of an objective, impartial and transparent investigation, that such persons are dismissed from public office without being afforded the opportunity to exercise their right to defence, that the notions “membership, relation or link” are vague and unforeseeable, that imposing a sanction on these persons for their alleged membership, relation or link with such organisations and formations, in the absence of a finalised court decision, is in breach of the presumption of innocence, and that the Inquiry Commission on the State of Emergency Measures, subsequently established to supervise the expediency of such measures, failed to afford an effective supervisory mechanism. As regards the notions “membership, relation or …” included in the first sentence of Article 1 § 1 of Law no. 7086 - Pursuant to the contested provisions, those included in the List no.1 have been dismissed from public office for their membership, relation or link with the said organisations, structures and formations. - The contested provision was examined under Article 15 of the Constitution for regarding a measure taken under state of emergency. - As the provision contains notions which may declare persons guilty in the absence of a finalised court decision, it is found to be in breach of the presumption of innocence which is, as set forth in the Constitution, among the inviolable rights and freedoms even under a state of emergency. - Consequently, the Court found the contested provision unconstitutional and thus annulled it. As regards the remaining part of Article 1 § 1 of the same Law, the notion “… and/or status as a public officer…” and the List no. 1 attached thereto - It is evident that the measures allowing for the dismissal from public office or deprival of status as a public officer are intended for eliminating the threats or dangers underlying the declaration of state of emergency. - The measures have been applied merely with respect to those whose names are indicated in the List. Therefore, they do not have a general impact binding on everyone. - The contested provisions were examined under Article 15 of the Constitution for regarding a measure taken under state of emergency. - In ordinary times, these provisions restrict the right to respect for private life for allowing for dismissal from public office. However, this right is not among the core rights that cannot be restricted or suspended, partially or wholly, even during a state of emergency. - Besides, this right is not restricted beyond the extent that is necessary for attaining the aims of maintaining national security and democratic constitutional order. - Consequently, the impugned provisions have been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for their annulment has been dismissed. As regards the fourth and fifth sentences of Article 1 § 2 of the same Law -The contested provisions impose a restriction on the relevant persons’ freedom to go abroad through an administrative act whereby their passports may be revoked in the absence of a court decision. - The contested provisions were examined under Article 15 of the Constitution for regarding a measure taken under state of emergency. - In ordinary periods, these provisions run contrary to the safeguards inherent in the freedom of movement enshrined in Article 23 § 3 of the Constitution. - However, this freedom is not among the core rights that cannot be restricted or suspended, partially or wholly, even during a state of emergency. - It was examined whether the impugned restriction was to the extent required by the exigencies of the situation. - Those who have been dismissed from public office and whose passports have been revoked on the basis of the contested provisions are not provided with an effective supervisory mechanism to apply against the impugned measure. - Therefore, the contested provisions introduce a restriction going beyond the extent required by the exigencies of the situation. - Consequently, the Court found the contested provisions unconstitutional and thus annulled them.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Ömer Kılınç 2018/30695 29 September 2021 (Plenary)	No violation of the right of access to a court safeguarded by Article 36 the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the revocation of the appointment of non-commissioned officer candidates by decree law issued under the state of emergency. - Apparently, there was no ordinary judicial remedy to be used for the annulment of the action performed in accordance with a decree law. Therefore, the applicant was completely deprived of any prospect of having access to a court, which rendered the impugned interference disproportionate. - However, the said interference was also examined from the standpoint of Article 15 of the Constitution, whereby the suspension and restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms was allowed during the state of emergency. - In the circumstances of the case, the aim pursued by the impugned measure had been to eliminate threats and risks. - Besides, no discrimination had been made among the individuals in the same situation with the applicant and the impugned measure was applied in respect of all candidates. In addition, the applicant had not been deprived of the relevant opportunity forever, and he was appointed as a non-commissioned officer after approximately one year. - Accordingly, the alleged interference had constituted a proportionate measure in the particular circumstances of the case. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the right of access to a court.
Fatma Akın and Mehmet Eren 2017/26636 10 November 2021 (Plenary)	Violations of both substantive and procedural aspects of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to ineffectiveness of the criminal proceedings conducted into death and bodily harm caused by security forces. - The first applicant’s husband and the second applicant had been wounded by soldiers who had fired at them for considering that they had been terrorists. The first applicant’s husband had lost his life at the hospital. - At the end of the criminal proceedings conducted against the accused for reckless death and injury, no sentence was imposed. The applicants’ subsequent appeals were rejected with final effect. - The security forces had failed to take the necessary measures to protect the life of third parties. - The judicial authorities failed to receive additional reports, nor did they conduct a crime scene investigation. Thus, there were certain deficiencies hindering the effectiveness of criminal proceedings. - Furthermore, the proceedings lasted 5 years and 3 months, which was not justified in the circumstances of the case. - Consequently, the Court found violations of both substantive and procedural aspects of the prohibition of ill-treatment.
Yahya Çevik 2018/15454 17 November 2021 (First Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violations of the right to a fair trial and the freedom of movement for incompetence ratione materiae	- Alleged violations of the right to a fair trial as well as the freedom of movement respectively for dismissal of the applicant’s claim for compensation and granting of conditional bail. - The applicant, having been taken into custody within the scope of a criminal investigation, was then released on conditional bail by the magistrate judge. At the end of the subsequent proceedings, the conditional bail was lifted, and the applicant was acquitted. - Thereupon, the applicant claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation for his having been taken into custody as well as for the granting of conditional bail. However, the amount requested by the applicant was not awarded to him. - The pertinent law contains no regulation prescribing compensation in cases related to the granting of conditional bail. - As for the freedom of movement, it is safeguarded by both Article 23 of the Constitution and Article 2 of Protocol no. 4 to the European Convention of Human Rights; however, Turkey has not ratified the Protocol no. 4. - In order for a right or freedom to be examined through individual application, it must fall under the joint protection realm of the Constitution and the Convention, which is accordingly not a case for the freedom of movement. - Consequently, the Court found inadmissible the alleged violations of the right to a fair trial and the freedom of movement, for incompetence ratione materiae.
Abeer Ahmed Nasser Al Radaei 2018/15219 16 November 2021 (Second Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violations of the right to education and the principle of equality as being manifestly ill-founded	- Alleged violations of the right to education as well as the principle of equality due to deportation of a foreign student for his having acted against the national security. - The applicant, a Yemeni national, was a university student in Turkey. While he was a 3^rd grade student, he applied to the Immigration Authority, requesting the extension of his residence permit. In the meantime, it was found out that there was a record against him indicating that he had been involved in activities against the national security. - At the end of the proceedings, the applicant’s university registration was deleted, and his deportation was ordered. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against the said measures. - It is enshrined in Article 42 of the Constitution that regardless of being a citizen or a foreigner, everyone enjoys the right to education. Nevertheless, it should not necessarily be interpreted as not allowing the deportation of foreigners during the term of education. - Deportation of a foreigner, in pursuance of a legitimate aim, does not constitute a direct interference with the right to education. - As for the applicant’s allegation that he had been subjected do discrimination when compared with the Turkish citizens, it should be borne in mind that deportation is a measure that is applicable only to foreigners, not Turkish citizens. - Consequently, the Court found inadmissible the alleged violations of the right to education and the principle of equality as being manifestly ill-founded.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Keskin Kalem Yayıncılık ve Ticaret A.Ş. and Others 2018/14884 27 October 2021 (Plenary)	Violations of the freedoms of expression and the press as well as right to an effective remedy, respectively safeguarded by Articles 26, 28 and 40 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of the freedoms of expression and the press as well as right to an effective remedy due to denial of access to a series of news published on online news portals. - The applicants challenged the court decision on blocking access to 129 news published on a number of news portals. Upon rejection of their appeals at all stages, they respectively lodged individual applications with the Court. *1. Alleged violations of the freedoms of expression and the press* - Apparently, blocking of access to the said news constituted an interference with the freedoms of expression and the press, safeguarded by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution. - The news had been blocked for an indefinite period. Due to the application of such measures for an indefinite period in the absence of relevant and sufficient grounds, the impugned interference had been disproportionate. - The inferior courts failed to comply with the constitutional principles. - The relevant law underlying their decisions lacked basic guarantees regarding the protection of the freedoms of expression and the press. Thus, the violation in the present case resulted from the law. - In a democratic state of law, regardless of the aim pursued, the restrictions imposed cannot be to the extent that will disproportionately prevent the exercise of freedom. Therefore, an applicable provision must contain certain safeguards against arbitrary and disproportionate interventions. - Considering the fact that the inferior courts’ decisions point to the existence of a systematic problem directly caused by a statutory provision, it is obvious that the current system in our country needs to be reconsidered in order to prevent similar violations. - Considering as a whole, the interference with the freedoms of expression and the press through the decisions on blocking access to the said news did not meet a pressing social need. - Consequently, the Court found violations of the freedoms of expression and the press and held that the pilot judgment procedure be applied. *2. Alleged violation of the right to an effective remedy* - The fact that the ability of appealing against the decisions on blocking access is embodied in the law is not necessarily sufficient, and such a remedy should also offer a prospect of success in practice. - Although the applicants were able to apply to the appeal authorities to challenge the court decisions, the relevant authorities failed to consider the claims raised and evidence adduced by the applicants. They also failed to balance the competing interests and did not evaluate whether the impugned interference had complied with the requirements of a democratic social as well as being proportionate - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to an effective remedy and held that the pilot judgment procedure be applied.
Onur Can Taştan 2018/32475 Yağmur Erşan 2018/36451 27 October 2021 (Plenary)	Violation/No violation of the right to respect for private life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right for cancellation of the applicants’ passports. - Pursuant to the legislative arrangements made during the state of emergency period, which prescribed that the passports possessed by those who were considered to have relation and connection with the terrorist organisation would be cancelled, the applicants’ passports were cancelled. - The applicants’ respective challenges against the cancellation of their passports were rejected. - The impugned interference would be in breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives in ordinary period; however, whether it had been a proportionate measure during the state of emergency period should be considered. - Article 15 of the Constitution, regulating the measures to be taken in times of emergency, allows -under certain circumstances- to take measures contrary to the safeguards enshrined in other constitutional provisions during such periods. However, this provision should not necessarily be interpreted as granting limitless powers to the public authorities. - Accordingly, in the present cases, it should be determined whether the cancellation of the applicants’ passports had been a measure to the extent required by the exigencies of the situation. *1. As regards the applicant Onur Can Taştan* - There had been no criminal investigation or prosecution conducted against the applicant, nor had been there a court decision banning his travel abroad. Thus, the impugned measure was solely an administrative act. - The grounds relied on by the administration cancelling the applicant’s passport had not been elaborated taking into account the applicant’s particular circumstances. - The impugned interference had not been necessary or proportionate. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to respect for private life. *2. As regards the applicant Yağmur Erşan* - The measure applied with respect to the applicant had been based on the ongoing criminal investigation conducted against her, and it served the purpose of conducting the investigation process effectively. - Such a measure that intended to prevent the applicant’s fleeing abroad should be considered legitimate under the state of emergency, since it had been required by the exigencies of the situation. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the right to respect for private life.
Muzaffer Düzenli 2017/31996 10 November 2021 (Plenary)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 § 3 of the Constitution for being manifestly ill-founded	- Alleged violation of the said prohibition due to being placed in a single-occupancy cell and being allowed access to open air alone and for an hour daily. - The applicant, detained on remand for attempting to overthrow the constitutional order following the coup attempt of 15 July 2016, was placed in an F Type High Security Closed Prison. - At a subsequent date, he was taken from a cell accommodating three inmates to a single-occupancy cell within the scope of the measures taken with respect to him by the prison administration. His challenges to these measures were dismissed by the incumbent judicial bodies. - The individual application with a request for an interim measure lodged by the applicant was dismissed by the Court as his placement in a single-occupancy cell did not pose a severe threat to his life or his physical or mental integrity. - The single-occupancy cell where the applicant was placed is not in the form of a solitary confinement cell. The cell is compatible with the standards set out in the European Prison Rules issued by the Council of Europe. - The applicant was also ensured to have several meetings with his family and lawyer. It cannot be therefore said that the applicant, who could always maintain contact with the family, outside world and the other inmates, was kept in isolation in any sense. - The condition and length of his detention did not attain the minimum level of severity required to constitute an ill-treatment. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment.
Alper Tunga Kuru and Özcan Kaya Güvenç 2016/2486 17 November 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 § 3 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment due to the lack of an effective investigation into the incident where the applicants had been injured as a result of the use of force by police officers. - At the material time when a press statement was being issued, the applicants were sitting in a cafe where they were subjected to the physical and verbal violence by the police officers entering the cafe. - At the end of the investigation, a decision of non-prosecution was issued. - In the Court’s view, existence of an arguable claim is a pre-requisite for conducting an effective investigation. In the circumstances of the case, given the letters of complaint as well as the medical reports submitted by the applicants, the alleged violation of ill-treatment constituted an arguable claim. - The incumbent chief public prosecutor’s office failed to conduct a rigorous investigation into the incident, disregarding the points such as obtainment of footages or hearing witnesses; thus, failed to clarify the facts surrounding the incident. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment.
Ahmet Gödeoğlu 2018/28616 17 November 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to respect for private life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the applicant’s being banned for life from rights and powers granted to him by virtue of his profession as a doctor. - A criminal complaint had been filed against the applicant, a doctor working in a private hospital, on the ground that he had not paid for the medical devices he had acquired through a financial leasing contract. At the end of the proceedings, he was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment as well as imposition of an administrative fine of 80 Turkish liras. His imprisonment sentence was then suspended, and it was later held that there was no ground for its execution. The decision became final with no appeal. - Subsequently, the applicant’s employment certificate was annulled by the health directorate. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this administrative act. - The applicant lost his life after the individual application. - The grounds relied on the by the inferior courts were neither relevant nor sufficient to justify the impugned interference which did not meet a pressing social need. - Accordingly, it failed to comply with the requirements of a democratic society. - Banning the applicant from performing his profession for life even in private sector imposed an excessive burden on the applicant. Thus, the impugned interference was disproportionate. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to respect for private life.
Hilmi Kocabey and Others 2018/27686 17 November 2021 (First Section)	Violations of the right to a reasoned decision and the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of the said rights due to award of litigation costs and counsel fee against the applicants and the failure to address the alleged unconstitutionality that had a bearing on the merits of the case. - Valuation Commissions appraised the unit values for lands on the basis of square-meter for the period of 2018. - However, legal actions were brought for the revocation of the appraisal by these Commissions as the determined unit values were excessively high compared to those appraised in 2017. - Pending the actions, Provisional Article 23 was added to the Real Estate Tax Law, which stipulated that the increase in values considered to be so excessive cannot be over a certain ratio. - The tax courts found it unnecessary to adjudicate the pending cases, taking into consideration the already-introduced statutory arrangement. The litigation costs and counsel fees were ordered to be covered by the parties. - The applicants’ appellate requests were dismissed, with final effect, by the regional administrative court. *Alleged Violation of the Right to a Reasoned Decision* - The complaint as to the alleged unconstitutionality of a provision applied to the pending disputes as soon as being put into force and leaving no margin of appreciation to administrative authorities and courts should be regarded as a substantive claim, which may give rise to the violation of the right to a reasoned decision. - Although the inferior courts do not necessarily bring every alleged unconstitutionality before the Court for a review, they are to substantiate why they have not found it necessary to bring it before the Court. - In the present case, the inferior courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient grounds in not addressing the alleged unconstitutionality of Provisional Article 23. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to a reasoned decision. *Alleged Violation of the Right of Access to a Court* - The tax courts ordered that the litigation costs and counsel fees be covered by the applicants, as their actions became devoid of subject-matter upon the introduction of the statutory provision in question and therefore no assessment could be made as to the rightfulness of the parties to the actions. -In the present case, it must be acknowledged that the introduction of Provisional Article 23 pointed out that the public authorities were unjust in so far as it concerned the increase of value over 50% of the unit values determined for 2017. - Therefore, the award of litigation costs and counsel fees against the applicants had no legal basis. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right of access to a court.
Serap Sivri 2019/6198 23 October 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the ineffectiveness of the investigation conducted against public officials for a railway accident resulting in the death of many persons. - Among those who had lost their lives in the said accident were the applicant’s husband H.T., the latter’s sibling A.T. and A.T.’s children N.T. and M.T. - At the end of the criminal proceedings, the machinists were convicted, while the chief conductor was acquitted. Following the subsequent complicated appeal process, the machinists were imposed judicial fine which was split into instalments and then suspended. Upon appeal, the Court of Cassation dropped the case due to expiry of the statute of limitations. - Conducting an effective investigation is not an obligation of result but of means. Thus, the state is not necessarily obliged to complete any proceedings with a decision on conviction. - The issue to be examined in the present case was whether the proceedings had been conducted with reasonable diligence and expedition. - In the particular circumstances of the case, such a condition did not seem to have been fulfilled. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life in so far as it related to H.T.
Sevda Ülger 2019/4821 23 November 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to expropriation of the property replaced through unlawful parcelling. - Undoubtedly, the expropriation of the property owned by the applicant constituted a violation of her right to property. - The applicant’s deprival of her property lacked legal basis in that the zoning plan relating to her property had been revoked, and the amendments to the zoning plan had been annulled. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to property.
Yasemin Tekin 2019/25326 23 November 2021 (First Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to education safeguarded by Article 42 of the Constitution as being manifestly ill-founded	- Alleged violation of the said right due to requirement of internship as a precondition for recognition of master’s degree received abroad. - The legislator is vested with a wide margin of appreciation in restricting the right to education, and the interference with the applicant’s right to education served the legitimate aim of maintaining the quality of education at national scale. - The impugned internship condition stipulated for accreditation was a proportionate measure. Besides, the applicant was provided access to the institution where she would be able to fulfil the relevant condition. - Hence, the grounds relied on by the inferior courts were relevant and sufficient. - The Court found inadmissible the alleged violation of the right to education as being manifestly ill-founded.
Cemal Azmi Kalyoncu 2018/5316 8 September 2021 (Second Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to personal liberty and security as being manifestly ill-founded	- Alleged violation of the said right due to unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention on remand. - In the aftermath of the coup attempt of July 15^th, a number of investigations were launched against many suspects on account of their alleged relationship with the media organisation of the FETÖ/PDY terrorist organisation. - At the end of the criminal proceedings, the applicant was sentenced to 6 years’ and 3 months’ imprisonment for membership of a terrorist organisation, in addition to the continuation of his detention on remand. - Upon appeal, the Court of Cassation quashed the first instance decision. - The incumbent court released the applicant, while deciding on further examination. - Given the particular circumstances of the case, there was a strong indication of guilt on the part of the applicant. - Thus, his detention on remand had had factual basis and had not been arbitrary. - Regard being had to the difficult and complicated nature of the investigations related to the FETÖ/PDY terrorist organisation, as well as to the severity of the imputed offence, the applicant’s detention on remand had been a proportionate measure, and the mere application of conditional bail would remain insufficient. - Consequently, the Court found inadmissible the alleged violation of the right to personal liberty and security.
Süleyman Çamur 2017/36487 8 September 2021 (Second Section)	No violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the seizure measure imposed on the applicant’s assets for forcing him to appear before judicial authorities. - The applicant resides in Brussels, Belgium. - Within the scope of the investigation conducted, following the coup attempt of 15 July 2016, against certain person for their alleged membership of a terrorist organisation, the applicant’s detention in absentia was ordered, and a seizure measure was imposed on his assets as well as his claims in Turkey. His challenge was dismissed. - It appears that the aim of the seizure measure was to ensure his appearance before the investigation and prosecution authorities. There was a public interest in ensuring a suspect or accused, who is a fugitive, to be brought before judicial authorities. - The applicant did not raise a claim that any of his relatives was dependent on, and therefore deprived of, the seized assets: The impugned interference did not place an excessive burden on him, was proportionate and did not upset the fair balance between the public interest and the applicant’s personal interest. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the right to property.
Gülbiz Alkan 2018/33476 7 October 2021 (Second Section)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the termination of the applicant’s employment contract on account of her expressions towards the mayor’s spouse. - A shelter where the applicant, a sociologist in the relevant municipality, was serving as a coordinator was closed down by the decision of the same municipality. - The applicant sent an e-mail to the respondent mayor and also sent a letter to the mayor’s spouse who was a manager at the same municipality, asking for help for the revocation of the impugned decision. - Her employment contract was thereafter terminated by the municipality. The action brought for her reinstatement was ultimately dismissed. - It is obvious that the impugned expressions were not targeted at the addressee for insult, but were in the form of criticism towards a public activity being performed. - The appeal court, ultimately dismissing the action, failed to demonstrate that the impugned expressions were capable of justifying the termination of the employment contract. - Thus, it also failed to demonstrate that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had met a pressing social need in a democratic society. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the freedom of expression.	Press Release
Elif Güneysu 2017/31733 7 October 2021 (Second Section)	No violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the applicant’s appointment to another province on account of certain expressions posted via social media. - The applicant holding office as a teacher was subjected to a disciplinary investigation for having posted certain expressions in favour of a terrorist organisation via her social media account. At the end of the investigation, she was appointed to another province. - The applicant’s action for revocation of the impugned appointment was dismissed with no right of appeal. - The applicant’s expressions should be assessed also in view of the qualifications of the profession of a teacher. - One of the posts shared by the applicant explicitly glorified a member of the terrorist organisation who had been killed. - Many of her other posts were related to the trench events and shared on the date when the events were taking place. Although these posts did not include any expression explicitly and directly justifying or glorifying terrorism and violence, the applicant as a public officer was expected to act meticulously while criticising the State’s counter-terrorism policies. - In dismissing the applicant’s action, the inferior courts held that the continued performance of her profession in the same province might cause public unrest and adversely affect the performance of public service. - Her appointment thus met a pressing social need in a democratic society, and the inferior courts provided relevant and sufficient grounds in their dismissal decisions. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the freedom of expression.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2017/17 22 September 2021 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision restricting the ability of imprisoners held for certain offences to go outside the penitentiary institution	- The impugned provision, additional sentence of Article 92 § 1 of Law no. 5275 on Execution of Sentences and Security Measures, provides that the chief public prosecutor’s office may restrict, on some grounds, the ability of imprisoners held for certain offences to go outside the penitentiary institution. - It was argued that the impugned provision constituted a disproportionate and arbitrary interference, thus violating the right to education. - Pursuant to the contested provision, in order for such a restriction to be effective, there must be written order issued by the competent authority. - The provision may lead to a situation that may be interpreted as restricting as a whole the chance of going outside the penitentiary institution for any reason. - Given this indefinite nature of the provision, it may be interpreted so broadly that it may even cover the cases of illness, natural disaster, fire, and etc., which would thus be in contravention of the state’s obligation to protect life as well as physical and spiritual existence of individuals. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found unconstitutional, and thus annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Umut Çongar 2017/36905 21 October 2021 (Plenary)	Violation of the presumption of innocence safeguarded by Articles 36 and 38 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the presumption of innocence due to the reliance on the offence, which was previously committed by the applicant and sentence of which was already served, by the inferior courts in convicting him for another offence. - The applicant had been sentenced to imprisonment for being a member of a terrorist organisation before the date of the incident giving rise to the present application. - He had served his imprisonment sentence until being released conditionally. - At a subsequent date, he was sentenced to imprisonment for having attended a meeting and demonstration march held upon a call by a terrorist organisation and distributed flags illustrated with a photo of the terrorist organisation leader to those attending the meeting, which amounted to the offences of disseminating propaganda of the terrorist organisation and committing an offence on behalf of the organisation without being a member of it. - On appeal, the Court of Cassation quashed the conviction due to the restriction of the applicant’s right to defence. - At the end of the retrial, he was sentenced to imprisonment for his membership of the terrorist organisation. On appeal, the Court of Cassation upheld the conviction with a reduction in the length of the imprisonment sentence. - It has been observed that the first instance court relied, as evidence, not only on the applicant’s attendance at a meeting of an illegal nature but also on his previous conviction for being a member of the said terrorist organisation. - Such approach will lead to the punishment of those -who were convicted of membership of a terrorist organisation- automatically and anew for membership due to a new act already committed, regardless of whether it has indeed constituted an offence. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the presumption of innocence.
Mustafa Altın 2018/10018 27 October 2021 (Plenary)	Violations of the right to a fair trial and the right to property respectively safeguarded by Articles 36 and 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said rights due to the revocation of a final judgment in favour of the applicant, which was upheld by the Court of Cassation, in a personal action and re-examination of the dispute on the merits. - The applicant, working at a public bank on the basis of an employment contract, brought a personal action against the bank, seeking an extra payment (premium). In line with the finalised decision, the relevant amount was paid to the applicant. - However, on the request by the defendant bank for an examination of an error of fact, the Court of Cassation quashed the finalised decision, which had been previously reviewed by it, so as to reveal whether the applicant had been already paid premium, as raised by the defendant bank. - Upon the quashing of the decision by the Court of Cassation, the applicant was ordered, at the end of the retrial, to return the already-paid amount. - However, according to the legislation in force at the material time, it was not possible to have a finalised court decision subject to an appellate review to the extent that would change the merits of the decision. - Besides, the defendant bank had failed to assert during the proceedings that it had already paid the impugned premium and to submit the evidence in support thereof. Nor had it raised this consideration during the appellate examination before the Court of Cassation. - The final and binding decision in favour of the applicant was quashed in the absence of any compelling and exceptional reason. - Consequently, the Court found violations of the right to a fair trial and the right to property.
Hayat Abdulbari and Muhanned Ferdusi 2018/35788 6 October 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to dismissal of the full remedy action concerning death incident, as time-barred. - The relative of the applicants had died after the falling of a goalpost on his head on the public beach. - At the end of the investigation launched into the incident, a decision of non-prosecution was issued in respect of those responsible for placing the goalpost. - The applicants’ subsequent claims for compensation were rejected, and the applicants brought a full remedy action before the administrative court which dismissed the case as time-barred. - In cases where the damage caused on account of the administrative nature of the said act or the causal link between them were established long after the act, the time-limit prescribed for bringing an action shall start to run after that date. - Considering as a whole the circumstances, including the fact that the failure of the prosecutor’s office to communicate the decision of non-prosecution to the applicants had resulted in a delay in their being aware of the administrative nature of the impugned act, the Court evaluated that the acknowledgement to the effect that the statutory time-limit for bringing an action had started to run from the date of the impugned death made it extremely difficult for the applicants to bring an action. - Such an interpretation resulted in the dismissal of the case as time-barred, thus constituting a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right of access to a court. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right of access to a court.	Press Release
Mehmet Al 2021/6664 6 October 2021 (First Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to education as being manifestly ill-founded	- Alleged violation of the said right due to rejection of a detainee’s request for attending online university classes and exams. - The applicant, a detainee in relation for the offence of attempting to overthrow the government or preventing it from performing its duties, was also a university student. - Since the courses and exams were started to be conducted online due to the COVID-19 pandemic, he unsuccessfully submitted a request to the prison administration to attend his courses online. - Pursuant to the applicable law, allowing the detainees to use internet for the sole purposes such as education and development is at the discretion of the administration. - Thus, there is no positive obligation incumbent on the administration or the state to ensure the continuation of prisoners’ formal education. - The conduct of online courses is among the temporary measures taken due to COVID-19. - Besides, it would be difficult for the prison administration to provide appropriate places for each prisoner demanding to attend online courses, a special attention being paid to the risks posed by the ongoing pandemic. - Hence, in the present case, there was no positive obligation to impose on the state. - Consequently, the Court declared the alleged violation inadmissible as being manifestly ill founded.
Mahmut Alkan 2018/7436 20 October 2021 (First Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution as being manifestly ill-founded	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the failure of the authorities to take the necessary measures to prevent a prisoner’s suicide. - The applicant’s son had been detained within the scope of a criminal investigation. The latter committed suicide with a shoelace in his ward in the penitentiary institution. - At the end of the investigation conducted into the incident, a decision of non-prosecution was issued. The applicant’s subsequent challenges were rejected. - Within the scope of the State’s obligations under the right to life, it must prevent the individuals under its supervision against the risks likely to result from the acts of public authorities, other individuals and even the individual himself. - Thus, the first issue to be examined was to establish whether the prison authorities had known or should have known the existence of a real risk that the applicant’s son might commit suicide. - The deceased, who had been held in the institution for 25 hours, did not act in a way harming himself; therefore, the authorities could not be considered to have known or should have known the existence of such risk. - In addition, within the scope of the investigation, the steps taken (such as examination of the decease, conducting an autopsy, crime scene investigation and taking the statements of witnesses) were capable of clarifying the incident and identifying those responsible. - Accordingly, there had been no case endangering the independence and impartiality of the investigation. - Consequently, the Court declared the alleged violation of the right to life inadmissible as being manifestly ill founded.
Aydın Keskin 2019/4746 17 November 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 § 1 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the lack of an effective investigation into the traffic accident leading to the death of the applicant’s spouse. - The applicant’s spouse lost her life on account of a traffic accident. At the end of the ex-officio and immediate investigation into the accident, her cause of death was revealed to be head trauma and extensive loss of blood due to the injury to the right leg. - The driver of the first car, M.E.N., hitting the deceased noted that he had hit her with the left mirror of his car, and another X-branded, white car with plate number 34 had subsequently passed over her. - The law enforcement officers found established that during the said hours, 3 cars with the defined properties were at the accident scene; but as these persons were residing in another provinces and could not be reached, they could not be heard as a suspect. - The applicant filed a criminal complaint against the drivers of both the first and second cars. Therefore, he requested the identification of the driver of the second car who had fled the accident scene. - Relying on the report issued by the Forensic Medicine Institute where it was indicated that the main responsibility was on the part of the deceased, and M.E.N. had no fault in the accident, the chief public prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-prosecution with respect to M.E.N. for causing death by gross negligence. - However, the prosecutor’s office did not conduct an investigation to identify the driver of the second car, stating that it had been the deceased bearing main responsibility for the accident and it was a futile attempt to identify the driver who had passed over the deceased’s legs. - The prosecutor’s office disregarded the finding that one of the causes giving rise to the impugned death was the severe loss of blood due to the injury to the right leg. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life.
Muhammet Serkan Şener 2016/13501 17 November 2021 (First Section)	No violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the applicant’s appointment on account of his expressions in his social media account. - The applicant, holding office as a teacher, shared certain posts through his social media account during the period when the Gezi Park events were taking place. - Taking a screenshot of the impugned posts, the administration of the school where the applicant was serving initiated a disciplinary investigation. - Imposed a disciplinary and administrative sanctions, the applicant was appointed to another school within the same province. - He successfully brought an action for annulment of his appointment. However, on appeal, the regional administrative court quashed the first instance court and dismissed the action, with final effect, stating that the applicant’s appointment to another school had been in pursuance of public interest and requirements of the public service. - It should be acknowledged that in case of any unfavourable bearings on the public service they provide, public officers may be subjected to certain restrictions not only in the professional sphere but also in the sphere of private life. - They may be accordingly imposed a proportionate disciplinary sanction, provided that the administrative and judicial authorities submit relevant and sufficient grounds to demonstrate that a given act of the public officer has a bearing on his public service. - Besides, the appointment of public officers for any reason whatsoever cannot be considered as an automatic punishment or does not automatically give rise to a violation of the constitutional rights. - Nor did the Court observe that the impugned appointment had been performed in a way that would cause a punitive effect on the applicant’s life. - As a matter of fact, the incumbent courts relied on the ground that his continued performance at the same school might have unfavourable bearings on both the applicant himself and his workmates. - The impugned act was found to meet a pressing social need and be proportionate. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the freedom of expression.
Barış İnan (2) 2018/38006 17 November 2021 (First Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the freedom of expression for being manifestly ill-founded	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to being imposed a disciplinary sanction for chanting slogans at a penitentiary institution. - The applicant, serving his imprisonment sentence as a convict for having committed a terrorist offence, was imposed a disciplinary sanction as 28 prisoners including him had chanted slogans at the penitentiary institution to protest a statutory arrangement that had been already introduced. - His challenges were dismissed by the incumbent courts. - Freedom of expression, which is of vital importance for the functioning of democracy, is not, however, an absolute right and may be subject to certain restrictions. - In the present case, the impugned interference aimed at maintaining security and order at the penitentiary institution. - Besides, as those chanting slogans were the prisoners convicted of terrorist offences, the impugned act could be qualified as a collective and systematic action that would contribute to the maintenance of allegiance to the terrorist organisation in question. - The impugned disciplinary sanction was found to meet a pressing need and be proportionate. - Consequently, the Court declared inadmissible the alleged violation of the freedom of expression.
Adem Erdem 2018/13415 29 June 2021 (Second Section)	Violation of the principle of equality of arms within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said principle due to dismissal of the reinstatement case upon the witness’ refusal to testify. - The applicant had been forced to resign for his alleged membership of a terrorist organisation. - One of his colleagues had witnessed the resignation process; thus, the applicant requested that he be heard as a witness during the reinstatement proceedings before the court. However, the latter then refused to testify by submitting a petition to the court, fearing that it would negatively affect his interests in the workplace. - Thereupon, the trial court dismissed the applicant’s case without making any assessment on the witness’ refusal to testify. The applicant’s subsequent challenges were also rejected. - According to the Court, the trial court should have examined whether the witness relied on justified grounds. - The applicant was put into disadvantageous situation vis a vis the defendant employer. - The incumbent courts’ failure to strike a balance impaired the fairness of the proceedings as a whole. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the principle of equality of arms within the scope of the right to a fair trial.
Kadir Kudin 2018/14509 8 September 2021 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution in so far as concerns the obligation to conduct an effective investigation	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the death of the applicant’s relative on account of use of force by police officers and lack of an effective investigation. - The applicant’s son, A.K., lost his life at a hospital after being exposed to extensive tear gas by police officers who were intervening in the demonstrations held to protest the events taking place in the Syrian town of Kobani. - The chief public prosecutor’s office initiated an investigation into the incident at the end of which a decision of non-prosecution was rendered. The applicant’s challenge to this decision was also dismissed. - There were various omissions during the investigation: the autopsy report was issued about 1,5 years after the incident; statements of the doctors, who -as asserted by the applicants- had stated that “the tear gas might affect the deceased’s heart and brain”- were not taken; the discrepancies between the two police reports were not elucidated; and the police officers involved in the incidents were not heard as either a witness or suspect. - The investigation conducted into A.K.’s death was not capable of elucidating the circumstances surrounding the impugned death and identifying those responsible. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to life in so far as concerns the obligation to conduct an effective investigation.
Necla Yaşar 2020/35444 14 September 2021 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to a reasoned decision under the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the appellate authority’s failure to separately and explicitly address the claims that might change the outcome of the decision. - The applicant was imposed an administrative fine by the district security directorate for breaching the social distancing rule set within the scope of coronavirus pandemic. - Asserting that it was not the security directorate authorised to impose an administrative fine pursuant to the relevant legislation, the applicant challenged the fine. It was, however, dismissed. Her subsequent appeal was also dismissed by the magistrate judge. - The judicial authorities failed to provide, in their decisions, separate and explicit explanations as to the applicant’s substantial claims that might have a bearing on the outcome of the proceedings. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to a reasoned decision under the right to a fair trial.
Cahide Demir 2018/25663 14 September 2021 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the refusal to revoke the mortgage placed on the immovable as a security of third person’s claim. - A mortgage was placed on E.K.’s immovable as a security of the home loan he had received from a bank. - Following the full payment of the loan by E.K., he requested the bank to lift the mortgage. It was not, however, lifted by the bank due to another debt to a third party which was secured against the same bank’s cheque. - The applicant’s action for lifting of the mortgage was concluded in her favour. However, the regional court of appeal quashed the first instance decision and dismissed the action. - Although, there were discrepancies, as to the scope of the mortgage, in the first and second pages of the relevant mortgage bond, it could not be construed to cover all debts to third parties. The scope of the mortgage was thereby extended. - The applicant was therefore placed a disproportionate burden in breach of the positive obligations inherent in Article 35 of the Constitution. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to property.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2018/93 10 October 2021 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision precluding the liability of those appointed as trustee arising from their duties and acts	- The impugned provision, amending second sentence of Article 20 § 1 of Law no. 6758, provides that those appointed as trustee shall not be held liable in legal, administrative, financial or criminal terms for their assigned duties and acts. - It was argued that the relevant provision might lead to irresponsible acts on the part of the trustees concerned by providing them immunity in terms of their potential illegal acts, and that the state of emergency regime should not be interpreted as suspending the rule of law. Thus, the provision was claimed to be unconstitutional. - According to the Court, it is undisputed that the contested provision does not cover unlawful, tortious or criminal acts, as well as that it does not prevent the conduct of judicial proceedings against those committing such acts. - Hence, the provision falls within the discretion of the legislator and does not run contrary to the principle of rule of law. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed.
E.2018/135 13 October 2021 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision allowing for the return of a certain part of the value added tax paid by SporToto Organisation to a special account opened in the name of the same Organisation	- The request concerns the statutory provision added to Law Regulating Taxes, Funds and Shares on the Proceeds from Games of Chance. - It is maintained that the return of a certain part of value added tax (VAT), already paid by the Organisation, to its special account for being used in the Organisation’s investment and management costs hinders the exercise of the budgetary right belonging to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. - VAT is among the taxes subject to principles enshrined in the Constitution. - In principle, any tax cannot be allocated for the financing of public services from which the society does not collectively benefit. - However, in the contested provision, a certain part of VAT paid by a tax-payer is envisaged to be returned to the same tax-payer for the financing of its expenses, which is in breach of the principle that taxes must be used for expenses incurred by all public. - Consequently, the Court found the contested provision unconstitutional and thus annulled it.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
T.A. 2017/32972 29 September 2021 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution in so far as concerns the obligations to afford protection and to conduct an effective investigation	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the death of the applicant’s daughter for the public authorities’ failure to effectively implement the protective and preventive measures ordered so as to prevent the violence against women and lack of a criminal investigation against the public officers being negligent in the incident. - The applicant’s daughter S.E., divorced from her husband V.A. in 2013, was subjected to insults and threats several times by V.A. after divorce. - S.E. reported these incidents to law enforcement officers and filed criminal complaints against V.A. as a result of which an interim measure was ordered. - The last interim measure ordered against V.A., in the form of a restraining order, was not however served on him. - S.E.’s request for the termination of V.A.’s relation with their joint child as she had been in fear of her life was disregarded. - On the day when the last interim measure expired, S.E. was killed by V.A. during the delivery of the joint child to the latter. - V.A. was sentenced to imprisonment. No leave to initiate a criminal investigation against the public officers being allegedly negligent was granted. The applicant’s complaint was dismissed by the public authorities and the regional court of appeal. - It is obvious that Law no. 6284 sets forth relevant principles and procedures with respect to measures to be taken for the protection of women, children and family members exposed to or potentially exposed to violence: the established legal system is sufficient. - The public authorities were indeed aware of the imminent and real risk to S.E.’s life but failed to take and implement necessary measures to protect her. - The procedure whereby leave is sought for an investigation against the responsible public officers should not be applied in a way that would give the impression that it would hinder the effective conduct of investigation or the public officers are exempted from criminal investigation. -Accordingly, the Court found a violation of the right to life in so far as concerns the obligations to afford protection and to conduct an effective investigation.
Mehmet Alanç and Others 2017/15462 29 September 2021 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution as regards the applicant Mehmet Alanç; but no violation as regards the other applicants	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on the applicants for attending a meeting. - The applicants, public officers and members of a union, attended a meeting where slogans were changed in favour of the terrorist organisation, PKK; banners with photos of members of the terrorist organisation were unfurled; and security officers were attacked. - The applicants were imposed a disciplinary sanction of warning for having acted in breach of the dignity and reputation of public officers. - The administrative and inferior courts dismissed the applicants’ action for revocation of the said sanction. - The impugned meeting which was initially of a peaceful nature then turned into an activity involving violence where propaganda of the terrorist organisation was disseminated. - In case of terrorism, all public officers are expected to act in compliance with the gravity of their profession and their duty to be loyal to the Constitution. - The impugned meeting was an explicit attack and defiance against the Turkish Constitution, human rights, basic constitutional principles and fundamental values of the Turkish Republic. - The disciplinary sanction imposed on Mehmet Alanç was found to be compatible with the requirements of a democratic society as he did not leave the meeting after it had turned to a terrorist propaganda. - However, the sanctions imposed on three other applicants were found not to be compatible with the requirements of a democratic society and meet a pressing social need as they had left the meeting before it became devoid of its peaceful nature.
Vedat Oğuz 2018/35120 15 September 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said prohibition due to the withdrawal of a vehicle, sold by tender by enforcement office, without any refund for being a stolen property. - The applicant brought an action before the civil court against the relevant department of the Ministry of Justice, seeking the redress of the damage sustained by him as the vehicle he had purchased from the enforcement office was revealed to have been stolen, as well as the deletion of the record of his ownership. - The civil court ordered the defendants to reimburse to the applicant the sale price and the incurred costs. - On appeal, the regional court of appeal quashed the first instance decision and dismissed the case with final effect, on the ground that any change in vehicle chassis number could be noticed only by experts and therefore, the enforcement office had no responsibility. - Compulsory enforcement offices must take certain measures to protect the interests of all parties, namely creditor, debtor and those purchasing seized properties, as well as to protect the properties subject to execution. - The public authorities failed to make every effort to protect the applicant’s right to property, and the relevant administration acted in breach of its “obligation to inspect and control”. - The impugned measure placed an excessive burden on the applicant and was disproportionate. - Accordingly, the Court found a violation of the right to property.
Hilal Erdaş 2018/27658 6 October 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to respect for family life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right on account of the court decision ordering the joint exercise of the custody of the child in common by the parents. - In the present case, the parents divorced by mutual consent, and the custody of the child was entrusted to the father. At the end of the proceedings initiated by the applicant seeking the change of custody, it was held that the custody would be exercised jointly by the parents. - The procedures and principles regarding the joint exercise of custody by the parents or the termination of such practice were not separately and explicitly regulated in the relevant legislation. - The primary objective in cases related to custody and establishment of personal relationship is to determine what serves the best interest of the child by considering the claims of the parties as well as the available evidence. Indeed, a fair balance is to be struck between the parents’ interests and the child’s interests, in pursuance of the best interest of the child. - Considering the proceedings as a whole, it has been observed that the applicant did not consent to the implementation of the joint custody procedure and explicitly raised an objection in this regard, and that the father did not apparently request the joint exercise of custody. - It has been concluded that the judicial authorities failed to carry out the proceedings with due diligence paying regard to the guarantees set forth in the Constitution concerning the right to respect for family life as well as the principle of the best interest of the child. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to respect for family life.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2021/43 13 October 2021 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for the declaration null and void of the Law on Security Clearance Investigation and Archive Inquiry as well as of the request for its annulment as not being unconstitutional in form	- The request concerns the Law no. 7315 on Security Clearance Investigation and Archive Inquiry. - It was maintained that Law no. 7315 was null and void and unconstitutional in form. - Laws may be considered to be null and void only when there exist no compulsory conditions for their existence. - On other hand, unlawfulness means that any given norm is not compatible with the principles and procedures prescribed by law. - Therefore, in cases where any law or provision is found to be unconstitutional, it is not declared null and void but annulled. - The constitutionality review of laws in form is confined merely to the question whether the requisite majority was obtained in the last ballot, as explicitly set forth in Article 148 of the Constitution. - The Law no. 7315 was adopted in the Parliament by obtaining the requisite majority. - Accordingly, the Court dismissed the request for declaration of Law no. 7315 null and void as well as the request for its annulment as not being unconstitutional in form.
E.2020/91 13 October 2021 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for the annulment of the contested provisions allowing for an increase in sentences prescribed for offences committed against health-care professionals and hindering the suspension of imprisonment sentence in case of such offences	- The contested provisions set forth that in case of intentional injury and insult committed against health-care professionals, the penalty to be imposed shall be increased by half, and that the suspension of imprisonment sentence, as envisaged in Article 51 of the Turkish Criminal Code, shall not apply to the offences of intentional injury, threat and insult committed against these professionals. - It was maintained that the increase of penalty by half amounted to a repeated punishment; granting such a privilege to health-care professionals was contrary to the principle of equality before the law; and the denial of suspension of imprisonment sentence would give rise to inequality between the health-care professionals and the officers in the same legal position with them. - On condition of being bound by the Constitution, the law-maker has discretionary power to determine, inter alia, which acts would be criminalised and the aggravating and mitigating factors. However, in exercising this discretionary power, the law-maker must also observe the proportionality principle. - The contested provisions aim at preventing the commission of such offences against health-care professionals. - They do not make any distinction between the health-care professionals of private institutions and those of public institutions. - However, it is obvious that they introduce arrangements merely in favour of the health-care professions although other public officers are in the same status with them. - Whether there are any objective and reasonable basis to justify this privilege: the increase in the number of offences committed against health-care professionals was considered as an objective and reasonable basis. - Accordingly, the Court found the contested provisions constitutional and thus dismissed the request for their annulment.
E.2021/37 13 October 2021 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provisions regulating the procedure for sending notice to the residential address	- The impugned provisions, namely Article 102 § 5 (3-5) of the Tax Procedure Law no. 213, stipulates that in cases where the taxpayer cannot be found in his residential address twice to receive the official notification, the postal officer places a note on the former’s door, stating that the notification document has been returned to the incumbent administration. Thus, if the notification was received on any day by the taxpayer within fifteen days, it would be deemed to have been made on that day, while if he did not receive the notification within the prescribed period, he would be considered to have received the notification on the fifteenth day. - It is maintained that the contested provisions do not comply with the principles of legal security, certainty and foreseeability, infringing the Constitution. - The Court considers otherwise, since the procedure to be followed so as to send notice has been regulated precisely and clearly beyond any doubt, thus making them certain, accessible and foreseeable. - The impugned provisions pursue a legitimate aim within the scope of the Constitution. - Besides, the disputes likely to arise from the application of the impugned provisions may be brought before the courts. - Considering as a whole, a fair balance is struck between the public interest in the legitimate aim sought to be achieved through the provisions and the personal interest in terms of the right of access to a court. - Consequently, the impugned provisions have been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for their annulment has been dismissed.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Erol Eşrefoğlu 2018/23111 Behzet Çakar and Others (2) 2019/2333 1 July 2021 (Plenary)	No Violation and Violation, in respective applications, of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due the failure to enforce the Constitutional Court’s judgment finding a violation. - The applicants, upon the finalisation of their sentences, applied to the Court. The latter, finding a violation, ordered retrial with regard to both applicants. However, the assize court dismissed the applicants’ request, thus finalising their sentences. Thereupon, they lodged an individual application again. *As regards the applicant Erol Eşrefoğlu* - The Court’s judgment finding a violation ordered retrial but contained no other type of redress or action, such as revocation of the trial court’s judgment. - It is at the discretion of the inferior courts to suspend the execution of the imprisonment sentence during retrial. - Accordingly, within the scope of Article 19 § 2 of the Constitution, the continued execution of the applicant’s sentence did not contravene the law. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the right to personal liberty and security. *As regards the applicant Behzet Çakar* - The Court’s judgment finding a violation ordered retrial as well as revoked the trial court’s judgment. - In this regard, the inferior court should have complied with the Court’s judgment, thus revoking its previous judgment. - However, it failed to stay the execution of the applicant’s sentence. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to personal liberty and security.
Ahmet Devlethan 2018/11772 20 October 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to respect for private life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the applicant’s appointment by the administration. - The applicant, a public officer at a Municipality, requested to be appointed as a director for having successfully passed the exam for promotion of the officers. However, it was dismissed. At the end of the proceedings he initiated, the court annulled the administration’s act. Thereafter, the applicant was appointed to the Development and Urban Planning Directorate. - Six day after his appointment, he was appointed as a civil work director by the administration. The court, handling the applicant’s request for annulment of the administration’s act, decided in his favour. However, despite the court’s decision annulling the impugned appointment, he continued to serve as a civil work director until his temporary appointment to another position by the administration. - The applicant then brought an action for annulment of his temporary appointment, which was annulled by the first instance court. On appeal by the administration, the appellate court revoked the first instance decision and dismissed the action with final effect, referring to the broader margin of appreciation afforded to the mayors in appointment of directors/managers. - The administration failed to demonstrate concrete issues necessitating the applicant’s temporary appointment. - Besides, the appellate authority, dismissing the applicant’s action, made no assessment as to the grounds relied on by the first instance court and the applicant’s claims and objections. It merely referred to the broad margin of appreciation afforded to the administration in this respect. - The impugned interference was not compatible with the requirements of a democratic society. - Accordingly, the Court found a violation of the right to respect for private life.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Nuriye Gülmen and Semih Özakça 2017/27678 15 September 2021 (First Section)	No violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the alleged unlawfulness of detention ordered on the basis of the evidence previously examined. - The applicants, an academic and a teacher, were dismissed from public service in accordance with a Decree Law issued during the state of emergency period declared in the aftermath of the coup attempt of July 15. - Thereupon, the applicants first staged a sit-in for their reinstatement, and then went on hunger strike in protest against their dismissal. - Having been taken into custody, they were released on conditional bail within the scope of the investigation launched. At the end of the investigation, the applicants were indicted for membership of a terrorist organisation as well as disseminating terrorist propaganda. - Meanwhile, another investigation was launched against the applicants, and they were taken into custody again. Afterwards, they were detained on remand for membership of a terrorist organisation as well as contravening the Law no. 2911 on Meetings and Demonstration Marches. Another criminal case was initiated against the applicant, which was joined with the previous one. At the end of the proceedings, while the second applicant was acquitted, the first applicant was detained on remand. Appeal proceedings have been still pending. - According to the Court, as regards the lawfulness of detention, there was a strong indication of the applicants’ having committed an offence in relation with the terrorist organisation. - Subject matter the investigations and the offence underlying the applicants’ detention was their alleged membership of the terrorist organisation. - Obviously, the second indictment was based on the applicants’ activities which they had performed after the first indictment had been issued. Thus, both accusations were based on different grounds. - Regard being had to the gravity of the imputed offence, namely membership of a terrorist organisation, measures stricter than conditional bail were required. Therefore, the applicants’ detention on remand had been neither arbitrary nor unjustified. - Consequently, the Court has found no violation of the right to personal liberty and security.
Metin Bekiroğlu and Özgür Atagün 2018/35266 15 September 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the lack of an effective investigation into the incident where the police fired at a public transportation vehicle carrying civilians. - While the applicants had been going from Diyarbakır Province to Lice District by a public transportation vehicle, an armoured police vehicle had fired at the vehicle they had been in. - At the end of the investigation launched into the incident, a decision of non-prosecution was issued. - The relevant investigation was conducted for the offence of causing damage to property, not for the risk posed to the lives of the civilians in the vehicle. - The reasoning of the decision of non-prosecution was unclear. The magistrate judge’s decision on extension of the investigation was also dismissed with no convincing explanation. - The incumbent chief public prosecutor’s office failed to conduct a rigorous investigation capable of clarifying the incident and identifying those responsible. - Hence, the investigation process lacked effectiveness. - Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to life in so far as it is related to the obligation to conduct an effective investigation.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Mahir Engin Çelik and Sakine Esen Yılmaz 2016/8776 7 September 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to imprisonment for inciting people to an illegal meeting. - Provincial Organization of a political party notified the Governor’s Office that an open-air meeting would be held on 20 March 2012 for celebrating Newroz. The latter indicated that their request would be evaluated in accordance with the circular issued by the Ministry of Interior, which stated that the Newroz celebrations would be held only on 21 March 2012. - The applicants, directors of a labour union, attended the press statement held on 19 March 2012. The applicants had been told that the necessary actions had been taken challenging the circular issued by the Ministry and that, therefore, the celebrations would be held on 20 March 2012 as previously determined. - At the end of the event, while the applicants were preparing to distribute the invitation leaflets for the Newroz celebrations planned to be held on 20 March 2012, they were taken into custody by the security officers, and the leaflets were seized. - Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants for inciting people to an illegal meeting and demonstration march on grounds of distributing the aforementioned leaflets. Hence, they were sentenced to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. - Any interference with the right to assembly can be justified only if it is convincingly demonstrated that it meets a pressing social need and is proportionate. - In the present case, there is no doubt that the applicants had been aware of the circular. However, it could not be demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that they had been aware of the ban imposed by the Governor's Office. - The inferior courts also failed to demonstrate the existence of a concrete and strong relationship between the leaflets the applicants had wanted to distribute and the violent acts that occurred on 20 March 2012. - Thus, it has been concluded that the inferior courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the applicant’s conviction in addition to the seizure of the invitation leaflets, as well as the existence of a fair balance between the competing interests. - Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches.	Press Release
Ali Hizmetçi and Others 2017/18232 7 September 2021 (First Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the applicants ‘conviction for having participated in a demonstration protesting the Gezi Park events. - The inferior court concluded that the demonstration had lost its peaceful nature, that the social life had been affected by violent acts, and that the public order had been disturbed. Accordingly, the demonstration that was no longer peaceful was regarded as illegal. - The demonstrators, including the applicants, refused to disperse despite the several warnings made by police officers, and the violent acts increased. It was also found that the applicants had attacked the officers during the said events. - The pronouncement of the judgment against the applicants was suspended, and they were released on probation for five years. - A fair balance was struck between the protection of the public order as well as the rights of others and the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches. - Consequently, the Court has found inadmissible the alleged violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Malaklar İnş. Taah. Gıd. Mad. San. ve Tic. A.Ş. (2) 2018/3296 30 June 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right for the failure to conclude the debt enforcement and bankruptcy proceedings initiated by the applicant for the collection of his receivable and the impossibility of its collection by any other means as the cooperative’s assets were regarded as assets belonging to the State. - The applicant company having concretes for the construction of houses by a cooperative, following an earthquake taking place in a province, initiated debt enforcement proceedings against the said cooperative for the collection of the relevant amount. - However, he could not obtain any result as cooperatives’ assets, rights and claims are in the form of an asset belonging to the State. - The aim of the statutory provision which bans the levying of an attachment on the State’s assets is to prevent any interruption likely to occur in any public service and post which are to be provided uninterruptedly. - On the other hand, in fulfilling its positive obligations, the State must also take into consideration the interests of a creditor. - In the present case, the debt was incurred by the applicant company due to the use of concretes provided by it during the construction of the said houses after an earthquake. - The applicant company was thereby put under a responsibility that should have been undertaken by the society as a whole after a natural disaster. Nor could it effectively avail the procedural safeguards inherent in the right to property. - The State failed to fulfil its respective positive obligations. - Accordingly, the Court found a violation of the right to property.
B.Y. 2018/30296 7 September 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to the protection of personal data under the right to respect for private life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the use of unlawfully obtained personal data during divorce proceedings. - The applicant filed a criminal complaint against her spouse as the personal data submitted by the latter to the court during the divorce proceedings had been obtained via a spyware installed on the former’s mobile phone. - The criminal court acquitted the applicant’s spouse as he had not disclosed such data through media, publication, internet or any other means but merely relied on it during the divorce proceedings. The regional court of appeal upheld the decision. - The State is to take preventive measures so as to prevent the unlawful obtaining, processing and disclosure of personal data as well as to show deterrent judicial reactions to those who have performed such acts. - Besides, its positive obligation to set up an effective judicial system necessitates the conduct of an effective criminal investigation and prosecution into such unlawful acts. - In the present case, the inferior courts failed to make an assessment as to the way in which the applicant’s personal data had been obtained, the scope of obtained data and the question whether the impugned act had a legitimate aim. - The inferior courts’ approach, which could lead to the impression that the spouses had no sphere of private life against each other, was obviously contrary to constitutional safeguards. - Accordingly, the Court found a violation of the right to the protection of personal data.
Ali Sadet and Others 2018/6838 8 June 2021 (Second Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to life for its being manifestly ill-founded	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the imposition of judicial fine on a public officer who was charged with neglect of duty for failing to prevent the suicide bomb attack. - Certain persons alleged to be a member of a terrorist organisation gathered at the yard of a municipal facility to make a press statement during which a person detonated the bombs on his body and caused several persons’ death and injury. - The proceedings against those having involved in the bomb attack are still pending. - On the other hand, the inspectors assigned by the Ministry of Interior requested the governor of the relevant province to grant permission for an investigation against the public officers A.Ç. and M.Y. as they had failed to take the necessary security measures. - The governor granted permission for an investigation only against M.Y., who was ultimately imposed a judicial fine of 7,500 Turkish liras. - The applicants maintained that the public officer, M.Y., neglected performing his duties for failing to take the necessary measures to prevent the suicide bomb attack although it had been allegedly known beforehand to the public authorities. - However, the applicants did not adduce any concrete evidence to substantiate their allegations but merely made a reference to certain news articles. - Indeed, these news articles contain no information concerning the relevant authorities’ prior knowledge of the impugned bomb attack as well as the failure to take the necessary measures. - The applicants alleged that the suicide bomber had been wanted by the security officers as “a fugitive related to terrorism”. However, this was not due to the impugned attack or any suspicion thereof but to the risk of the suicide bomber’s fleeing abroad to join the terrorist organisation camps. - Therefore, it cannot be said that the suicide bomber constituted a clear and imminent risk for the lives of the applicants’ relatives; and that this had been already known or should have been known to the public authorities. - The imposition of judicial fine on M.Y., instead of an imprisonment, did not give rise to a violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life. - Accordingly, the Court declared the alleged violation of the right to life inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded.
İbrahim Moran 2016/14675 29 June 2021 (Second Section)	Violations of the liability to protect life and the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said liability and right due to the failures to take measures so as to prevent the death of a prisoner, as well as to conduct an effective investigation into the incident. - The applicant’s son, S.M., fell sick for being a drug dependence while he was in a prison. Following the check of his pulse and blood pressure at the prison’s infirmary, he was then taken to his ward. - On the same day, after falling sick, his ward-mates tried to intervene with his sickness by pouring cold water on him. Despite the medical intervention by 112 emergency team arriving at the incident scene, S.M. lost his life. - At the end of the criminal investigation conducted into the incident, a decision of non-prosecution was issued. - Besides, at the end of the disciplinary investigation conducted by the prison administration against the officers in charge and S.M.’s ward-mates, the administration found no ground to impose any sanction on these persons. - The prison administration was aware of S.M.’s drug dependence. Although his medical condition was checked through security cameras, he was not provided with an appropriate treatment and not taken to a health-care institution. - The applicant alleged that there were interruptions in the camera footage obtained from the prison and that there was no information that the officers had intervened with the incident on time and in an appropriate manner. - These allegations were not addressed by the chief public prosecutor’s office which also failed to take into consideration the provision of no treatment for S.M., who had been diagnosed to be drug addicted while being placed in the prison: lack of an effective criminal investigation. -Accordingly, the Court found violations of the liability to protect life and the procedural aspect of the right to life.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2020/9 3 June 2021 (Plenary)	Review of the requests for annulment of certain provisions of the Law no. 6136 on Firearms, Knives and Other Tools	A. Provision concerning those allowed to carry arms by presidential decisions - The impugned provision allows the public officials as well as the officials and members of the municipality, private administration and state economic enterprises to carry or hold at their residence or workplace firearms in accordance with a presidential decision - It is claimed that the impugned provision is unconstitutional, since the authority set forth therein is open-ended, and the principles regarding the use of such an authority as well as its limits are not defined. - The Constitution contains no regulation regarding the authority to possess and carry firearms. Thus, the authority to determine the procedures and principles regarding the permission to be granted for possessing and carrying firearms is at the discretion of the legislator. - Besides, granting permission for possessing and carrying firearms has no concern with fundamental rights and freedoms. - The impugned provision, which is at the discretion of the legislator, does not contradict the principle of a state governed by rule of law. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed. B. Provision enabling the governors to issue a certificate for possessing and carrying arms - The impugned provision stipulates that those who have been granted a certificate by the governors in accordance with the principles to be determined in the regulation issued by the President may possess and carry firearms. - The impugned provision is claimed to be unconstitutional in that the authority set forth therein, which is granted to the President, is open-ended, and the principles regarding the use of such an authority as well as its limits are not defined and might be used arbitrarily, which is in breach of the principle of a state governed by rule of law. - It is clear that the issue set out in a regulation is not related to fundamental rights and freedoms and that it is not required to be prescribed exclusively by law. - The authority to grant the gun licence as well as the principles to be taken into consideration in this regard is clearly set forth therein. - In this respect, the general framework as well as the legal basis of the said regulation cannot be said to have not been specified in the Law. Nor can the provision be claimed to be indefinite. - Thus, the fact that the legislator, having determined the legal framework concerning an issue not required to be prescribed exclusively by law, leaves the authority to regulate the specific issues within this framework to the administration is not contrary to the principles of legal certainty and non-transferability of legislative power. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed C. Phrase included in amended Article 7 § 1 (7) of Law no. 6136 - The impugned provision stipulates that among those who have served as village or neighbourhood headman or mayor for at least one term, the ones who have been dismissed from office as a result of an investigation and in accordance with a final court decision and who have been a member of or have a relation or connection with terrorist organisations or structures, formations or groups determined by the National Security Council (MGK) to have acted against the national security of the state should not be allowed to carry and possess firearms. - The impugned provision is claimed to be unconstitutional in that the concepts specified therein are vague and unforeseeable; that pursuant to the Constitution, the MGK is not authorised to take an executive decision; and that granting such an authority to the MGK is in breach of the principle of equality, and contradicts the principle of legality of crimes and punishments as well as presumption of innocence. 1) Provision not allowing those determined by the MGK to possess firearms - The legal nature of the MGK’s decisions is explicitly defined in Article 118 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the decisions to be taken by the MGK are of advisory nature and shall be submitted to the President. - Implementation of the MGK’s decisions in the absence of another executive decision does not comply with the wording of the Constitution. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found unconstitutional, and therefore, it has been annulled. 2) The remainder of the impugned provision - The impugned provision aims to prevent the threat and risk that might be posed to the public order and national security. In this regard, considering the public interest sought to be achieved by the provision, not allowing the persons specified therein to possess and carry firearms comply with the principle of a state governed by rule of law. - Consequently, the impugned provision has been found constitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment has been dismissed.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Mustafa Karaca 2020/15967 20 May 2021 (Plenary)	No violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the applicant’s compulsory confinement ordered by the incumbent family court. - The complainant, the applicant’s ex-girlfriend, filed a criminal complaint against the applicant for being subjected to blackmailing, sexual harassment, insult and threats through messages, photos and videos sent by the applicant to her. - The incumbent civil court, acting as a family court, indicated an interim measure, aiming at preventing violence against women, for 6 months. - Upon the complainant’s request, the civil court ordered the applicant’s compulsory confinement for 7 days as he had acted in breach of the interim measure. - He was then placed in a penitentiary institution for 7 days after his challenge had been dismissed. - In the present case, the compulsory confinement was ordered due to the applicant’s breach of the interim measure. Therefore, his confinement had a basis. - The applicant was notified of the interim measure as well as the consequences of his failure to comply with the requirements stated therein. - Compulsory confinement is a sanction which intends to secure the compliance with the requirements of an interim measure, thereby affording effective protection for the victim: the applicant’s confinement had a legitimate aim. - There was no explicit error of assessment or any arbitrariness in the findings and conclusions of the inferior courts with respect to compulsory confinement. - Accordingly, the Court found no violation of the right to personal liberty and security.
H.K. 2019/42944 17 June 2021 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to respect for private life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the denial of the applicant’s request for changing his name. - The applicant, a transgender man, brought an action against the Civil Registry Office, requesting the change of his name before undergoing gender reassignment surgery. However, the action brought by him was dismissed on the ground that he had not yet undergone a surgery. - Pursuant to Article 27 of the Turkish Civil Code no. 4721, an action for changing one’s name must be based on reasonable grounds. The impugned provision stipulates no requirement for a gender reassignment surgery to change one’s name. - The inferior courts required the applicant to undergo a gender reassignment surgery in order for him to be able to request the chance of his name. - Although the applicant had made the relevant request by explaining the reasons related to his social life, the incumbent courts failed to rely on relevant and sufficient grounds to dismiss his request. - Hence, the state failed to fulfil its positive obligations concerning the right to respect for private life. -Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to respect for private life.
Erhan Urak 2016/10657 9 June 2021 (First Section)	No violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the applicant’s conviction for disseminating terrorist propaganda during a number of meetings and demonstration marches. - Terrorism is hostile to all values of democratic society, especially the freedom of expression. Therefore, statements that legitimize, praise or incite terrorism, terror and violence cannot be considered to fall under the scope of freedom of expression. - In the circumstances of the case, it was concluded that the applicant’s statements that praised the terrorist organisation and its leader incited the others to commit terrorist offences as well as resorting to the methods including the use of force, violence and threat. Accordingly, the impugned statements had an impact on national security and public order. - In the Court’s view, the applicant’s conviction corresponded to a pressing social need and was proportionate. - In order for an interference with the freedom of expression to comply with the requirements of the order of a democratic society, the grounds relied on by the public authorities must be relevant and sufficient. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the freedom of expression.
Yusuf Özmen 2019/13637 30 June 2021 (First Section)	No violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said prohibition due to the applicant’s detention and continued detention in disregard of his state of health. - The applicant, detained on remand for his alleged membership of the FETÖ/PDY terrorist organisation, was sentenced to 8 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. - His request for release due to his state of health was dismissed by the incumbent judge which ordered the applicant’s transfer to the health care facility for necessary treatment. He subsequently underwent an operation at a hospital. - By virtue of the interim measure indicated by the Constitutional Court, he was hospitalised at a university hospital and received treatment. In its report, the Forensic Medicine Institute stated that the applicant’s state of health did not pose an obstacle to the continued execution of his imprisonment sentence at the penitentiary institution as long as he was put under regular medical controls. -In reply to the applicant’s request, the European Court of Human Rights indicated an interim measure to secure his immediate hospitalisation and treatment in a university hospital. However, he refused to be hospitalised for feeling well. He requested to be released. - The Court of Cassation ordered his release in 2019. However, he was placed in the penitentiary institution in 2021 for the execution of his imprisonment sentence, which had become final. - His requests for being released, or the suspension of the execution of his sentence, or placement in house confinement were dismissed in line with the medical examinations and reports. - Article 17 of the Constitution does not afford an absolute guarantee, for the persons suffering certain diseases including cancer, that they would not be detained. However, in cases where their diseases deteriorate or may deteriorate due to the detention conditions for which the authorities may be held responsible, it may lead to a breach of the said provision. - In the present case, the applicant was provided with the necessary treatments and medical care both prior and subsequent to the Constitutional Court’s interim measure. - The medical reports drawn up with respect to him did not clearly indicate that he could not be treated or his health would deteriorate due to his placement in the penitentiary institution. - Accordingly, the Court found no violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment.
Özgür Sağlam 2016/9076 30 June 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to an effective remedy safeguarded by Article 40 of the Constitution, taken in conjunction with the right to life.	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to the dismissal of his full remedy action. - The applicant, who was detained on remand, lost his left eye during the operations conducted at the penitentiary institution in 2000. - The proceedings conducted against the respective gendarmes for causing death and injury of several persons resulted in impunity. - The proceedings initiated against 399 accused persons including the applicant were discontinued as time-barred, and the accused persons were acquitted. - The ECHR awarded 25,000 euro in compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the applicant who was complaining of the lethal nature of the operation and ineffectiveness of the criminal proceedings. - The administrative court also awarded compensation at the end of the full remedy action brought by the applicant. However, the Council of State quashed this decision. - In the present case, the criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant did not elucidate the conditions under which he had been wounded and his acts strictly necessitating the use of force against him. Nor was it found established that he had actively taken a role in the rebellion by using a weapon together with the other rebellious detainees and convicts. - Accordingly, the Court found a violation of the right to an effective remedy taken in conjunction with the right to life.	Press Release
Ferit Kurt and Others 2018/9957 8 June 2021 (Second Section)	Violations of the right to life and the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to death that occurred as a result of ill-treatment during custody and ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation conducted into the incident. - The incumbent authorities failed to prove that the applicants’ relative had lost his life due to a reason not attributable to the state officials. Thus, substantive aspect of the right to life and prohibition of ill-treatment had been violated. - The accused had benefited from the statute of limitations at the end of a period lasting more than twenty-five years, which was an indication of the fact that the judicial authorities failed to show due diligence in conducting the proceedings with reasonable speed. - Consequently, the Court found violations of the right to life and prohibition of ill-treatment, and awarded 500,000 Turkish liras (TRY) to the applicants jointly.
Kadri Pervane 2015/12115 8 June 2021 (Second Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the applicant’s conviction for disseminating propaganda on behalf of a terrorist organisation by means of playing loudly a song in the form of an anthem at a public bus. - The applicant, driver of a public bus, played a piece of music containing expressions that constituted propaganda of the separatist terrorist organisation. A police officer, a passenger at the same bus, warned the applicant and asked him to turn off it due to the impugned expressions. As the applicant refused to do so, the police officer called the police emergency line. - At the end of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, he was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for the said offence. The decision was subsequently upheld by the Court of Cassation. - The impugned anthem contains expressions which clearly mention the said terrorist organisation, clearly praise it and its armed members and also incite people to become a member of this organisation. - The applicant in his capacity as a driver of a public bus led several persons on the bus to become aware of the impugned march. - The grounds relied on by the first instance court to justify the applicant’s conviction were relevant and sufficient. - The interference met a pressing social need and was also proportionate. Nor was it incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society. - Accordingly, the Court found inadmissible the alleged violation of the freedom of expression for being manifestly ill-founded.
Keleş Öztürk (2) 2018/23565 16 June 2021 (Second Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the imposition on the applicant of a disciplinary sanction on account of his expressions during a hearing. - The applicant, a lawyer, attended a hearing as the counsel of the accused person. A judicial fine was subsequently imposed on him for insulting the officer in charge due to his certain expressions towards the public prosecutor during that hearing. - The applicant then lodged an individual application with the Court, which found a violation of his freedom of expression for the imposition of this fine. - Afterwards, he was also sentenced to a disciplinary sanction of warning by the Disciplinary Board of the İstanbul Bar Association. His challenge to this sanction was dismissed, and his action for annulment thereof was also rejected by the incumbent administrative court. The decision was ultimately upheld by the regional court of appeal. - Lawyers are entitled to make criticisms about the functioning of the judiciary on condition of not exceeding certain limits. Setting such limits is necessary for the protection of all public officials including judges, prosecutors and justices of higher courts. - In the present case, the expressions uttered by the applicant were intended not to perform the defence duties, but rather to offend the public prosecutor expressing his opinion. They were therefore considered prejudicial to the ethical rules and reputation of the profession. - The State did not fail to fulfil its positive obligations within the context of the applicant’s freedom of expression. - Accordingly, the Court found inadmissible the alleged violation of the freedom of expression for being manifestly ill-founded.
D.C. 2018/13863 16 June 2021 (Second Section)	No violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to confiscation of a ship owned by the applicant company for its having been used in relation to an offence. - It was revealed only at the end of the proceedings before the inferior courts, which lasted approximately 3.5 years, that the applicant had not been aware of the fact that the ship had been involved in an offence. - The impugned interference had been necessary and its duration had been reasonable. - Besides, it is obvious that the applicant had sustained burden to a certain extent for its inability to use the ship in trade activities. However, the expert reports revealed that the ship was technically inadequate and its certificates had expired, and that it was not possible for it to operate at full capacity and all year for its age. - In the circumstances of the case, given the imputed act and the duration of the impugned confiscation, it was concluded that the applicant had not been imposed an excessive burden as a result of denial of compensation. - A fair balance was struck between the applicant’s interest in exercising its right to property and the public interest, as well as the impugned interference had been proportionate. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the right to property.
Nuriye Arpa 2018/18505 16 June 2021 (Second Section)	Violation of the prohibition of discrimination safeguarded by Article 10 of the Constitution in conjunction with the right to property safeguarded by Article 35	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the dismissal of the applicant’s request for housing support afforded to those affected by the dam project, for her not being qualified as a family. - The Court previously acknowledged that the grounds for discrimination enumerated in Article 10 of the Constitution are not limited to those related to sex, race, religion and etc. - Pursuant to the Settlement Law no. 5543, entitlement to housing support was conditioned upon being a family. - The discrimination in the present case originated from the definition of family as set forth in Article 17 of Law no. 5543. However, the impugned provision was amended, and single individuals who had no siblings and lost her/his parents, like the applicant, was also defined as family, and thus the applicant was entitled to housing support. - Accordingly, the discrimination inflicted upon the applicant had no objective and reasonable grounds. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the prohibition of discrimination in conjunction with the right to property.
Cafer Seçer 2018/30939 29 June 2021 (Second Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to protection of one’s honour and dignity safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to certain statements used in the news published in two different national newspaper. - The applicant’s appointment as a head of department at the Social Security Institution led to debates and was widely discussed in the national press. - The impugned statements included in the newspapers, which had the potential of instigating a public debate, were considered not to constitute a defamation or ungrounded personal attack towards the applicant, but to be in the form of a criticism. - Besides, the persons wielding public power are to tolerate criticism to a much wider extent than private individuals. - The inferior courts established a fair balance between the defendants’ freedoms of expression as well as the press and the applicant’s right to the protection of his honour and dignity. - Accordingly, the Court found inadmissible the alleged violation of the right to protection of honour and dignity for being manifestly ill-founded.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2016/144 3 June 2021 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the requests for annulment of certain provisions regarding the term of office of the members of the Council of State and the Court of Cassation	A. Provisions limiting the term of office of the members of the Council of State and the Court of Cassation to twelve years - It was claimed that the impugned provisions, which envisaged the election of members of the Council of State and the Court of Cassation for a period of twelve years and did not allow for the election of the relevant persons twice, were clearly in breach of the independence of the courts as well as the principles related to the tenure of judges and public prosecutors and profession of judge and public prosecutor; in breach of the principle of state governed by rule of law since the judiciary was weakened against other powers; and in breach of the principle of certainty, the principle of legal certainty and the Constitution due to the limitation of the term of office of the members of the high judiciary, which was a special status, by law. - Provisions regarding the term of office of the members of the Council of State and the Court of Cassation shall not be in breach of the principles regarding the independence of the courts and tenure of judges. - The Constitution contains no explicit provision regarding the term of office of the members of the Council of State and the Court of Cassation; therefore, the regulations as regards the determination of the said period were not required to be set forth in the Constitution. - The impugned provisions were not of a nature to result in an influence on the judges by any organ, authority or person. Thus, they were not in breach of the principle of the independence of the courts. Nor did they contain a phrase as to the dismissal of the relevant members at the end of their term of office or their forced retirement before the age set forth in the Constitution. - The provisions were not formulated observing special interests other than the public interest or in favour of or against certain persons. - Thus, the impugned provisions were not found unconstitutional, and therefore, the request for their annulment was dismissed B. Provisions terminating the term of office of the members of the Council of State and the Court of Cassation - It was claimed that the impugned provisions completely eliminated the guarantees that enabled the judges to perform their duty independently; that the independence of the courts should also be evaluated in terms of personal rights and administrative guarantees; that since no regulation was contained in the Constitution regarding the term of office of the said members as well as its termination, such a regulation would be in breach of the tenure of judges and the principle of legal certainty; and that while some of the members were entitled to re-election, some others were not granted such a right, which was in breach of the principle of equality. - With the entry into force of the Regional Courts of Appeals, it was envisaged that the workload of the Council of State and the Court of Cassation would be reduced; therefore, there it was deemed necessary that the number of chambers and members of these institutions would be redetermined. - It was understood that termination of the term of office of the relevant members was part of the radical change in the judicial system through the adoption of the three levels of jurisdiction. - The main purpose of the impugned provisions was not the dismissal of the current members of the Council of State and the Court of Cassation and the election of others in their place. As a matter of fact, the majority of the members whose term of office had been terminated were re-elected as members of the Council of State and the Court of Cassation. - It was clear that reducing the number of members of the Council of State and the Court of Cassation was a similar practice with the reduction of the number of chambers. Such a practice was related to the change in the judicial system and was due to the decrease in the workload of these high courts. - It was also not contrary to the principles of the independence of the courts and the tenure of judge that the members whose term of office would terminate would continue their profession as judges. - Thus, the impugned provisions were not found unconstitutional, and therefore, the request for their annulment was dismissed. C. Provision stipulating the appeal of the decisions of the Board of Presidency of the Council of State before the Board of Presidents and not allowing for an appeal before another judicial authority against the decisions of the Board of Presidents - It was claimed that the impugned provision was in breach of the right to a fair trial. - Without prejudice to the main duties of the judges, the legislator may consider it more appropriate for the public interest that judges or the relevant bodies of the Council of State take decisions related to the performance some administrative tasks, especially other works necessary for the proper functioning of the judicial service, the institution is obliged to carry out. - The impugned provision was not in breach of the principle of the state governed by the rule of law as well as the right to a fair trial. - Thus, the impugned provision was not found unconstitutional, and therefore, the request for its annulment was dismissed.
E.2020/18 3 June 2021 (Plenary)	Annulment of the relevant phrases included in paragraph 3 added to Article 37 of Law no. 6755 on the Adoption, with Certain Amendments, of the Decree-Law on Measures to be Taken under the State of Emergency and Making Arrangements regarding Certain Institutions and Organisations	- The contested phrases, which were annulled by the Court for being found unconstitutional, are “… by the National Security Council…” and “…legal…” and “…financial…”. - The contested provision sets forth that the public officers who have taken a decision, executed such decisions or taken no step with respect to the applications concerning the social security rights of the persons -who have been dismissed from public office for their relation, link or connection with any structure, formation or groups considered by the National Security Council to conduct activities against the national security of the State and whose judicial or administrative investigations/prosecutions are still pending- shall not have any legal, administrative, financial and criminal liability on account of such decisions and acts. * the expression “... by the National Security Council” in the contested provision - It was contested that the National Security Council was granted the authority to take decisions of executive nature. - The Court has noted that legal nature of the decisions taken by the National Security Council is clearly specified in Article 118 of the Constitution, which sets forth that such decisions are in the form of recommendations and shall be notified to the President. - These decisions cannot be executed and cannot bear legal consequences in the absence of any other decision to be issued by the President. - Therefore, the contested phrase, which attributes legal consequences to the National Security Council’s decisions without an executive decision, is incompatible with the wording of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. * the expressions “… legal…” and “….financial…” in the contested provision - The contested provision relieves the relevant public officers of any legal and financial liability. It aims at the elimination of the opportunity, on the part of the administration, to recourse the relevant liability to the relevant public officer. - As specified in Article 129 of the Constitution, any pecuniary damage caused by a public officer shall be covered and compensated by the administration on condition of being subsequently received from the relevant officer. - Therefore, relieving the public officers of such liability runs counter to the relevant constitutional provision. - Accordingly, the contested provision, insofar as it contains the impugned expressions, has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Mapfre Sigorta Anonim Şirketi 2018/5832 8 June 2021 (Second Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the applicant’s being deprived of the opportunity to obtain redress for the damage it had sustained. - The applicant company, providing insurance coverage for the irons exported abroad, had to pay compensation to the relevant party as some of the carried materials had been rusted. - The applicant company then initiated execution proceedings against the firm carrying the materials for being reimbursed. - However, its request for execution proceedings was dismissed. Thereafter, it brought an action for the revocation of the dismissal. At the end of the proceedings, its action was dismissed as the parties had made an arbitration agreement which required the resolution of the dispute by arbitration. - The applicant company maintained that since its action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction about 7 years later, its claim became time-barred in the English law. - The Court concluded that the applicant company had been in a position to foresee that the inferior courts might issue a decision of lack of jurisdiction due to the arbitration agreement previously signed by the parties. - Nor did the applicant company apply to arbitration following the dismissal of his action due to lack of jurisdiction so as to prove that it did no longer have a claim due to the lapse of time. - Accordingly, the Court declared the application inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded.
İsmail Sarıkabadayı and Others 2016/23696 8 June 2021 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the ban imposed by the administration on meetings, demonstration marches or similar activities for a certain period. - In the neighbourhood where the applicants were residing, the construction of a temporary refuge centre was started in 2016 for providing a shelter for Syrian immigrants. - The Governor’s Office banned, for a period of one month, any kind of activity to be conducted for the protest of the refuge centre, in consideration of the intelligence submitted by the gendarmerie and the request in this regard. - This one-month ban was also extended for four times by the Governor’s Office which took into consideration the attack against security officers and injury of two officers during a previous protest and the explanations by the heads of PKK terrorist organisation. - The applicants’ request for the stay of execution of the impugned ban was dismissed. Their appeal against the dismissal decision was also rejected by the regional court of appeal. - Whether the danger likely to occur against public order and safety could justify the one-month ban all across the province and its extension for further four times: the grounds relied on by the administration did not suffice to justify the impugned ban. - No fair balance could be struck between the competing interests. - Accordingly, the Court found a violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches.
Ümmü Tunç 2018/27524 16 June 2021 (Second Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 § 1 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the failure to conduct an effective criminal investigation into the death of the applicant’s wife. - The applicant’s disabled wife, M.T., was found death by N.A. and H.S.A.. Thereupon, the chief public prosecutor’s office immediately initiated an ex officio investigation into her death. - Accordingly, M.T.’s husband, her son, N.A., H.S.A., as well as M.K., suspected shovel operator with whom M.T. had been last seen, were questioned. - At the end of the investigation, the chief public prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-prosecution with respect to the suspected operator, M.K., for the imputed offence of causing death by negligence. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed. - Despite the existence of wheel tracks and shoe prints at the incident scene during the crime scene investigation, as well as no difficulty in securing such evidence, the investigation authority failed to secure, and make an examination or assessment as to, these findings. - The Court considered that the incumbent chief public prosecutor’s office failed to elucidate the circumstances surrounding M.T.’s death. - Accordingly, the Court found a violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life.

Case

Decision

Case-Law Development

Related

I. Individual Application

B.A.

2016/9123

18 May 2021

(Second Section)

Violation of the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 § 3 of the Constitution

- Alleged violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment due to the ineffectiveness of the investigation conducted into alleged sexual abuse and the acquittal of the accused at the end of the proceedings.

- The medical report issued in respect of the applicant proved the arguable nature of her claim.

- In the course of the proceedings, in addition other deficiencies, it took approximately three years to conduct a search at the suspects’ homes, which revealed that the investigation had not been conducted with due diligence.

- Obligation to investigate concerns the employment of appropriate means, regardless of the outcome of the investigation.

- Consequently, the Court found a violation of the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Kutbettin Turan and Others 2018/9004 26 May 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right for the authorities’ failure to compensate the damage sustained due to the building being unusable as a result of the collapse on the highway for which the administration was held responsible. - The applicants claimed that they were unable to use or rent their property as a result of the administration’s service failure. - While the said property was undisputedly in such a condition that they could not be rented out, the incumbent courts argued that the alleged damage was not substantiated. - It is obvious that the disputed property could not be used after being evacuated, namely for 4 years and 8 months, since it had been sealed by the municipal authority, thus the applicants inevitably sustained material damage. - The inferior courts failed to make an assessment as to whether there had been a service failure on the part of the administration as alleged by the applicants as well as the extent of the damage sustained. - In this sense, the inferior courts decisions lacked sufficient and relevant grounds. - Considering the administrative and judicial processes as a whole, it is apparent that the procedural safeguards concerning the protection of the right to property were not satisfied. - The fair balance to be struck between the applicants' right to property and the public interest pursued by the alleged interference was upset to the detriment of the applicants, thus resulting in a disproportionate interference. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to property.
Nazmi Şengül 2019/34202 9 June 2021 (First Section)	No violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention on remand. - The applicant, a military judge, was taken into custody within the scope of an investigation conducted into the offences related to the Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation/Parallel State Structure (FETÖ/PDY) and detained on remand for attempting to overthrow the constitutional order. - The trial court, relying on certain grounds, concluded that there was a strong suspicion of the applicant’s having committed the imputed offence. - The Constitutional Court concluded in its many judgments that the similar grounds had constituted a strong indication of having committed an offence related to the FETÖ/PDY. In this regard, there is no reason to depart from its previous conclusions. - The detention order issued by the assize court stated that there was a strong suspicion of guilt against the applicant. In this sense, the detention order was based on the risk of fleeing. - Given the available evidence as a whole, the grounds for detention, notably the risk of fleeing, had factual basis. - In addition, in view of the scope and nature of the investigations related to the FETÖ/PDY and the characteristics of the organisation, such investigations are much more difficult and complex than the other types of criminal investigations. - In the circumstances of the case, the applicant’s detention on remand had been proportionate. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the applicant’s right to personal liberty and security.
Neriman Yonat 2018/33554 15 June 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the death of a baby placed in a nursery in the absence of protective measures and dismissal of the action for a full remedy brought for the impugned death. - The applicant is the mother of the dead baby. She had left her baby in front of her house and then her husband had reported to the police that the baby had belonged to someone else. Thus, the baby was placed in the nursery. - In the nursey, the baby was thrown out from the balcony by a 12/15-year old minor, H.A., suffering from mental retardation. - The applicant was the indirect victim of the death incident. - The administration had failed to take measures to prevent H.A. from entering the baby unit in the nursery, thus failing to fulfil their responsibilities. - The courts of instance established the administration’s responsibility; however, they rejected the applicant’s request for non-pecuniary compensation regardless of her status as an indirect victim. In other words, the judicial process carried out by the courts of instance lacked effectiveness in spite of the positive obligations imposed on the state within the scope of the right to life. - Although the applicant claimed that the pecuniary damage arising from the death of baby should also be compensated, she did not make such a request in her action for a full remedy. Accordingly, rejection of her request for pecuniary compensation was not arbitrary and therefore led to no violation. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to life.
Bülent Akbacı 2018/14389 13 April 2021 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the lengthy interim injunction imposed on the applicant’s property. - While the public authorities enjoy a broad margin of appreciation in taking the necessary measures and restricting the enjoyment of a property for some justified reasons, they are also required to prevent any excessive burden to be imposed on the property owner. - In this sense, the public authorities are also expected to consider the effects of the interim measure on the applicant’s right to property and to avoid any disproportionate interference in this regard. - It is incumbent on the public authorities ordering the interim injunction to act immediately and diligently. - In the circumstances of the present case, there was no doubt that the length of the interim injunction had been unreasonable, thereby imposing an excessive burden on the applicant. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to property.
Adem Aydın and Zübeyde Aydın 2018/1156 18 May 2021 (Second Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to protection of corporeal and spiritual existence safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the rejection of the action for compensation brought after a stillbirth. - The applicants’ baby was stillborn after the caesarean section performed at a private hospital. - The applicants claimed that the action for compensation they had brought due to the stillbirth as a result of medical negligence and organisational failure was rejected without a sufficient examination being conducted. - First of all, it should be noted that it is incumbent on the State to organise health services in both public and private health institutions. - While the provincial directorate of health found negligence on the part of the hospital administration and the doctor who had performed the medical operation, the civil court relied on the report issued by the Forensic Medicine Institute indicating that the healthcare personnel had no negligence in the death incident, thereby rejecting the applicants’ claim for compensation. - The judicial authorities failed to provide reasonable and sufficient grounds. In the same vein, the public authorities failed to satisfy their positive obligations. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the procedural aspect of the right to protection of corporeal and spiritual existence.
Oğuz Demirkaya 2018/15033 18 May 2021 (Second Section)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to imprisonment for the expressions used in an internet newspaper. - The trial court’s failure to examine and clarify the issues such as: whether there was a hostility between the applicant and the complainant; the reason for uttering the impugned expressions; whether there was a background to the expressions; and whether the applicant uttered the said expressions due to the complainant’s certain behaviours or for merely arbitrary reasons. - Nor did the trial court consider the meaning referred to by the applicant using the impugned expressions and exactly which words affected the complainant. - The court only concluded that the applicant’s expressions were rude and exceeded the limits of criticism, which therefore amounted to the offence of insult. - Considering the abstract assessments of the court, a fair balance was not struck between the applicant's freedom of expression and the complainant's right to protection of honour and dignity. - Besides, while the legal system afforded less strict measures, imposition of a heavy penalty on the applicant as well as his having been banned from public service constituted a disproportionate interference. Nor did the applicant’s imprisonment correspond to a pressing social need. - The grounds relied on by the inferior courts cannot be considered relevant and sufficient to justify such an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the freedom of expression.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Hamit Yakut 2014/6548 10 June 2021 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution (pilot judgment procedure)	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the applicant’s conviction for committing an offence on behalf of a terrorist organisation without being a member of it. - The applicant, participating in a demonstration held in front of a political party’s premises, was ultimately sentenced to 3 years and 9 months’ imprisonment on account of the above-mentioned offence. He was also sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment for participating in an unlawful meeting and refusing to disperse despite the police warnings. However, the latter sentence was suspended. - His conviction for committing an offence on behalf of a terrorist organisation without being a member of it was upheld on appeal. - Persons may have connection with a criminal syndicate and get involved in the threat posed by it without being a part of its hierarchical structure. Therefore, the law-maker has set forth, in Article 220 § 6 of the Turkish Criminal Code no. 5237, the offence of committing an offence on behalf of a terrorist organisation without being a member of it. - The wording of this provision is so broad that it fails to offer sufficient protection against the arbitrary interferences by public authorities. - Besides, in cases where this offence overlaps with the exercise of fundamental rights as in the present application, it may have a strong deterrent effect on the exercise of these rights due to the broad interpretation of the concept of “on behalf of an organisation”. - In the present case, as noted by the inferior courts, the applicant did neither inflict violence nor resist the police officers. He merely refused to disperse despite the police warnings. - The imprisonment sentence of 3 years and 9 months imposed on him was so severe and grossly disproportionate to the conducts of persons having recourse to no violence. - The applicant’s conviction due to this offence did not satisfy the lawfulness criterion.
Hanifi Yaliçli 2014/5224 10 June 2021 (Plenary)	No violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s freedom of expression due to his imprisonment for aiding a terrorist organisation since he had allegedly organised a training meeting on behalf of the organisation. - According to the Turkish legal system, the acts serving the aim of the terrorist organisation are categorised as aiding the terrorist organisation. - The abstract nature of the relevant provision to a certain extent is not per se contrary to the principle of legal foreseeability. The fact that the concept of aid is not clearly defined does not render the impugned provision vague. Moreover, the supreme courts’ practices do not render it unclear. - The first instance court’s conclusion that the applicant’s acts had constituted the offence of aiding a terrorist organisation was based on a detailed assessment. - In the circumstances of the case, a fair balance was struck between the legitimate aims sought to be achieved by the alleged interference and the applicant’s freedom of expression. - It has been concluded that the applicant posed a serious threat to the democratic life. - Considering the grave consequences of terrorist offences for individuals, society and the state, the punishment imposed on the applicant had been proportionate.
Murat Beydili 2019/14642 17 June 2021 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to a fair hearing under the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the erroneous interpretation of the statutory provisions in the full-remedy action brought for the redress of the non-pecuniary damage sustained on account of a terrorist incident. - The applicant unsuccessfully applied to the Ministry of Interior and sought for the redress of the non-pecuniary damage he sustained as he had been forced to leave his home and his family and economic order had been impaired due to the curfew declared by the State in certain regions on account of the trench events. - The full-remedy action brought by him was rejected by the incumbent administrative court. His subsequent appeal was also dismissed. - The administrative court, which indeed acknowledged that the applicant had sustained non-pecuniary damage due to the impugned incident, however held that the conditions sought for the redress of such damage by the State -pursuant to the doctrine of social risk-were not satisfied in the present case. - As indicated in the jurisprudence of the Council of State, the liability based on social risk doctrine may come into play when: - the damage is caused within the scope of operations conducted against terrorist acts and terrorism: the applicant sustained damage due to terrorist incidents. - the aggrieved party must not have any involvement in such incidents: no finding by the court as to the applicant’s involvement in the impugned incidents. - the alleged damage must be specific and extraordinary: the court referring to the measures taken by the State to secure the life and property of the residents concluded that the difficulties faced by the applicant were not specific to his case and of an extraordinary nature. - However, such measures could not render the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant unspecific and ordinary. - Therefore, such interpretation by the inferior court rendered dysfunctional the procedural safeguards and impaired the fairness of the trial.
G.G. 2018/9416 9 June 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to respect for private life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the applicant’s being deemed to have resigned from her public post. - The applicant serving as a nurse in a public district hospital filed a criminal complaint against his ex-boyfriend, stating that she had been sexually assaulted. - Given a medical leave for 10 days, the applicant failed to be present in the workplace, albeit the expiry of the relevant period. - A disciplinary investigation was accordingly initiated against her. In the report drawn up at the end of this investigation, it was noted that she could be dismissed from public office pursuant to Law no. 657 on Civil Servants; and if dismissal was not found appropriate in consideration of the anguish and distress suffered by her, she could be instead appointed to another province. - The applicant was deemed to have resigned from her public post pursuant to Article 94 of the Law no. 657. Her action for revocation of this administrative act was dismissed. On appeal, the Council of State upheld the first instance decision and also dismissed the subsequent request for rectification of the decision. - The administration is granted a wide discretionary power in accepting the excuses put forward for the failure to continue performing public office. However, such discretion must be wielded in pursuit of public interest and for the purpose of ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms also in the professional life. -Regard being had to the administrative decision and the proceedings in respect of the applicant, it has been concluded that the relevant authorities failed to consider the disciplinary-investigation report, where the option of appointment and observations as to the applicant’s psychological state were stated, as well as to discuss whether the public interest pursued could be achieved through a less severe interference. - The impugned interference was not compatible with the requirements of a democratic society and proportionate.
Sabahat Günindi 2018/15204 9 June 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to the denial of compensation for a private-registered property determined to be located within the forest boundaries. - Pursuant to Article 169 of the Constitution regarding the protection and development of forests, the ownership of state forests shall not be transferred. However, the disputed property had been registered as private property by the public authorities. - Since it is incumbent on the state to create and keep the land registers, it is also responsible for any error in the said registers. - The applicant should not be burdened with all the consequences of the erroneous acts of the administration. - Hence, an excessive burden was placed on the applicant by the alleged interference, and the fair balance between the applicant's right to property and the public interest was upset to the detriment of the applicant. - Therefore, the interference with the applicant’s right to property had been disproportionate.
Aylin Nazlıaka (2) 2018/24439 15 June 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to the protection of personal data under the right to respect for private life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the disclosure of the applicant’s personal data via a social media account. - A then metropolitan mayor published certain messages and documents with respect to the applicant, an MP, via a social networking site. These documents contained inter alia full address, subscription data of the applicant’s spouse, identity numbers and signatures of her relatives. - The applicant brought an action for compensation against the mayor for the unlawful acquisition and disclosure of her personal data. However, it was dismissed by the relevant court as the impugned act fell into the scope of the mayor’s freedom of expression. On appeal, the first instance decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation. - Pursuant to the positive obligation incumbent on it, the State is to protect all individuals under its jurisdiction against the risks which may result from the acts and actions of public authorities, other individuals as well as of the individual himself. - Undoubtedly, information on identity, subscription and address of a person, signature as well as residence and workplace addresses are among personal data. In the present case, the applicant did not consent to the acquisition and disclosure of such information belonging to her. - The inferior courts considered that the case fell into the scope of the freedom of expression, emphasising that the parties were politicians and the impugned messages amounted to criticism. - The inferior courts’ failure to discuss how and in which scope the applicant’s personal data had been obtained and which legitimate aim was being pursued in their disclosure, as well as to address the applicant’s serious allegations that the acquired and disclosed information should have been considered as personal data and thus protected.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2020/24 3 June 2021 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provisions set forth in the former Law no. 4045	- The contested provisions stipulate that the personnel to be recruited to the Ministry of National Defence, gendarmerie, penitentiary institutions and detention houses shall be subject to security investigation and archive research processes and that the procedures and principles in this regard as well as the authorities to conduct such processes shall be determined by a regulation. - The contested provisions are claimed to be unconstitutional in that certain issues related to the security investigation and archive research processes are conditioned upon a regulation. - They contain no specific information on how the collected personal data shall be processed, which authorities shall conduct the relevant processes, how and how long the collected data shall be stored, and whether the persons concerned shall be able to object to the said data. - Lack of a law containing the guarantees and basic principles regarding the collection, use and processing of the personal data obtained as a result of security investigation and archive research processes run counter to Articles 13 and 20 of the Constitution. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Sadrettin Bilir 2018/12776 26 May 2021 (First Section)	Violations of both substantive and procedural aspects of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right for his being battered by police officers during his arrest and subsequently at the police station as well as lack of an effective investigation into his incident. - The applicant, along with his two friends, was taken to the district security directorate on a criminal charge. - In his petition, the applicant complained of the police officers for having been battered while being arrested and subjected to torture at the police station where he had been taken, which was supported by the forensic report issued with respect to the incident. - The incumbent chief public prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-prosecution. The applicant’s challenge to this decision was dismissed by the magistrate judge. - On the other hand, the applicant and his two friends were acquitted by the assize court at the end of the proceedings. - The police officers maintained that the applicant showed resistance during his arrest. However, it was not substantiated by any evidence such as a video footage or statements of impartial witnesses. Even if the police officers’ intervention was deemed necessary, it was however disproportionate as the applicant had suffered facial fractures. - The failure of the prosecutor’s office to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2019/114 3 June 2021 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provisions restricting the freedom to leave the country	The contested provisions are included in Additional Article 7 of the Passport Law no. 5682. A. Provision on issuance of special stamped passports to lawyers - The contested provision stipulates that the lawyers against whom there has been an ongoing investigation or prosecution for certain offences shall not be issued with a special stamped passport. - It is claimed that the provision restricts the freedom of movement. - In the Court’s view, the contested provision stipulates certain conditions for going abroad with a special stamped passport, and it does not impose any restriction of the freedom to leave the country. - The impugned restriction is not of a continuous nature in that it is applicable only to the period when the investigation or prosecution process continues. - A fair balance had been struck between the aim sought to be achieved and the means employed based on the contested provision. - Accordingly, the request for the annulment of the provision has been dismissed. B. Provisions restricting the freedom to leave the country - The contested provision allows for issuance of a passport by the Ministry of Interior to those whose passports had been revoked for membership of or relation or connection with a structure, formation or group found to have posed threat to the national security as well as to those against whom an administrative action has been taken preventing the issuance of a passport on their behalf, provided that they fulfil the conditions set forth in the relevant provisions, according to the outcome of the investigations to be conducted by the law enforcement officers. - Article 23 of the Constitution provides that a citizen’s freedom to leave the country may be restricted only by the decision of a judge based on a criminal investigation or prosecution. - It is obvious that some of the grounds for restriction set forth in the contested provisions do not comply with the grounds stipulated in the Constitution and that they run contrary to the condition as to the existence of a decision rendered by a judge. - Thus, the freedom to leave the country is restricted unconstitutionally. - Consequently, the contested provisions have been annulled; the relevant decision will be effective after one year as from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Adnan Şen 2018/8903 15 April 2021 (Plenary)	No violation of the nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege principle safeguarded by Article 38 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said principle as the interpretation by judicial bodies of the criminal act of membership of a terrorist organisation had lacked foreseeability and certain acts, which did not indeed constitute an offence, had been also relied on for conviction. - The applicant, holding office as a chief of police, was dismissed from public office pursuant to the Decree-Law no. 670 on the Measures Taken under the State of Emergency. At the end of the proceedings conducted against him for his alleged connection with the FETÖ/PDY, he was sentenced to imprisonment. - On appeal, the decision on conviction was upheld. - He maintained that he had not been unaware of the criminal nature and purpose of the said organisation. - In determining the criminal liability within the scope of the FETÖ/PDY-related proceedings, the inferior courts take into consideration the contribution provided by the suspects, without knowing its illegal nature, to this structure and its activities so as to facilitate its expansion and institutionalisation in the social and economic areas. - The inferior court accordingly concluded that the applicant’s imputed act, his use of ByLock app., was of organisational nature and involved continuity, diversity and intensity. - Therefore, the inferior court’s conclusion that the applicant was, for ByLock for organisational purposes, in a position to know this structure’s intent to commit offences, as well as the elements of the imputed offence of membership of an organisation was not unfounded.	Press Release
Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu 2019/10634 1 July 2021 (Plenary)	Violations of the right to stand for elections and engage in political activities as well as freedom of expression, respectively safeguarded by Articles 67 and 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said rights on the grounds that the proceedings against the applicant were continued even after he was entitled to parliamentary immunity after being elected as an MP and that he was charged with disseminating propaganda on behalf of a terrorist organisation on account of a post he had shared on his social media account. A. Alleged Violation of the Right to Stand for Elections and Engage in Political Activities - The basic framework of parliamentary immunity in the Turkish legal system is regulated in Article 83 § 2 of the Constitution where it is stipulated that MPs cannot be detained, interrogated, arrested or tried unless the GNAT decides otherwise. However, parliamentary immunity is not regulated in absolute terms under the Constitution. - Considering the practice and tradition of the GNAT, the applicant, as an MP, cannot be reasonably expected to foresee during his term of office that the judicial authorities might conclude that he would not be entitled to parliamentary immunity, interfering with his freedom of expression. - Certainty and foreseeability cannot be ensured through the interpretations of judicial authorities, rather than a regulation introduced by the legislator. - The method employed the authorities for denial of the immunity does not include all procedural safeguards which set out the margin of discretion granted to the judicial authorities and which are necessary to prevent arbitrary acts. - The relevant courts failed to interpret the constitutional provisions in favour of freedoms. - As a result, the violation stemmed from the lack of a constitutional or legal regulation involving basic guarantees regarding the protection of parliamentary immunity and the right to stand for elections and engage in political activities, as well as ensuring certainty and foreseeability. - Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to stand for elections and engage in political activities. B. Alleged Violation of the Freedom of Expression - Even if it is made by terrorist organizations or their members, expression of any opinion cannot be evaluated independently of its content, context and objective meaning and categorically excluded from the scope of freedom of expression. - It should be underlined that the mere consideration that a statement was made by an illegal organization does not automatically justify any interference with the freedom of expression. - The impugned news contained no statement that might be regarded as an incitement to violence and that might directly or indirectly lead to the risk of committing a terrorist offence. - The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment on the sole ground that he had shared a news which had been previously published on a national news portal and which is still accessible. - Accordingly, considering that the said news has not been the subject of any accusations since its publication, it has been understood that the grounds relied on by the courts in punishing the applicant were insubstantial. - In this regard, it has been concluded that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression did not comply with the requirements of the order of a democratic society. - Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the freedom of expression.	Press Release
Hacı Yakışıklı and Others 2019/13768 26 May 2021 (First Section)	Violations of the freedoms of expression and the press safeguarded respectively by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedoms due to the award of compensation against the applicants for their publishing a news article in a national newspaper. - The applicants, a reporter, newspaper owner and publisher, published a news article whereby they reported that a school girl was subjected to pressure at her high school, accompanied by a photo of the complainant (the teacher). - The complainant, claiming that her personal rights had been infringed, unsuccessfully brought an action against the applicants. However, on appeal, the regional court of appeal awarded compensation against the applicants. - In awarding compensation to the complainant, the regional court of appeal considered that the impugned statements, where the complainant was reported to demonstrate hostility against those wearing headscarf, were not under the scope of the right to criticise and freedom of expression; and that the complainant was presented as a person against religion and wearing headscarf. - The issue of wearing headscarf at secondary and high schools was a highly controversial topic for the society at the relevant time. - The expressions in the impugned news article may be considered offensive for the complainant. However, the complainant, as a public officer, should show more tolerance when exposed to criticism. - The mere severe nature of an expression, its containing harsh criticisms against officials, its being formulated in a harsh language and even its unilateral, controversial and subjective nature do not remove it from the protection afforded by the freedom of expression. - In awarding compensation against the applicants, the regional court of appeal failed to take into consider the conditions prevailing at the relevant time, the context of the impugned expressions and the factual basis. - No fair balance between the applicants’ freedom of expression and the complainant’s right to honour and dignity.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2018/112 31 March 2021 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the contested provisions of Decree-Law no. 699 on Amendments to Law on Presidential Elections	A. Provisions concerning the submission of the minute issued by the Supreme Election Board with respect to the President, swearing-in ceremony and the prescribed time of the session - The contested provisions envisage that the minute issued by the Supreme Election Board with respect to the President be submitted to the latter by the Turkish Parliamentary Speaker or Interim Speaker; that the swearing-in ceremony be held at the same session. It also regulates the prescribed time of the session. - The Decree-Law including the contested provisions is issued by virtue of Law no. 7142, which empowers the Council of Minister to issue decree laws with a view to ensuring that certain laws and decree laws comply with the constitutional amendments introduced by Law no. 6771. - The contested provisions do not contain any matter which cannot be regulated, as specified in the Constitution, through a decree-law (pursuant to the repealed Article 91 of the Constitution). - They are not related to the method of the presidential election or the election process but to the aftermath of the elections, namely its formal and ceremonial process. Therefore, they are not related to an issue under the rights to elect, stand for elections and engage in political activities enshrined in Article 67 of the Constitution. - They are also clear, comprehensible and foreseeable, thus in compliance with the principle of certainty. - Accordingly, the request for their annulment has been dismissed as they are constitutional by their contents and under the repealed Article 91 of the Constitution. B. Provision Specifying the Date of Swearing-in Ceremonies of the Vice President and Ministers - The contested provision regulates the swearing-in ceremonies of the vice presidents and ministers, who shall be appointed and discharged from office by the President in the new government system introduced by the constitutional amendment. - These officials are not elected persons, but appointed by the President. Therefore, their appointments and swearing-in ceremonies do not fall into the scope of the rights to elect, stand for elections and engage in political activities enshrined in Article 67 of the Constitution. - They are also clear, comprehensible and foreseeable, thus in compliance with the principle of certainty. - Accordingly, the request for its annulment has been dismissed as it is constitutional by its content and under the repealed Article 91 of the Constitution.
E.2019/13 29 April 2021 (Plenary)	Annulment of the first and second sentences of Additional Article 15 of Law no. 1219 on the Practice of Medicine and Related Arts	- The contested provision envisages that the physicians who are liable to perform compulsory public service but who are dismissed from, or are not appointed to, public office for being considered to be a member of, have a link or relation with structures or groups proven to perform acts and actions against national security may be entitled to perform their profession upon the expiry of a certain period of time following the decision ordering their dismissal or non-appointment. - It is maintained that the contested provision is not foreseeable, accessible and comprehensible. Nor does it comply with the equality and objectivity principle. Declaring persons guilty of certain offences through a decree-law issued under state of emergency or through a subjective security clearance investigation in the absence of any court decision is contrary to the presumption of innocence. It also falls foul of the rights to labour and to hold public office. - The contested provision is intended to ensure labour peace between those fulfilling their compulsory public service and those who could not due to the above-mentioned security reasons by envisaging that the physicians subject to the contested provision may perform their professions only upon the expiry of the prescribed duration of compulsory public service (450 days): a legitimate aim in the constitutional context. - No fair balance between the public interest sought to be attained through the contested provision and the right to labour. - Preventing the physicians, who are banned from public service, from performing their profession also in private sector for a long period of 450 days places an excessive burden on them. - Such a long period may also deprive them of professional practice, skills and improvement, which may have undesirable effects also on public health: in breach of proportionality principle. - The contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled.
E.2021/1 (Miscellaneous) 3 June 2021 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for lifting of the additional measures imposed due to dismissal from office	- It is requested that the additional measures implemented against Alparslan Altan (the applicant), who was dismissed from his office as the Justice of the Constitutional Court, be reviewed in accordance with Article 41 of Law no. 7075 and provisional Article 4 of the Law no. 7075 on the Adoption, with Certain Amendments, of the Decree Law on the Establishment of the Inquiry Commission on the State of Emergency Measures, and then be lifted. - Provisional Article 4 of Law no. 7075 is applicable to the additional measures specified in the laws introduced during the state of emergency period regarding the actions taken pursuant to decree laws within the scope of the state of emergency. - The applicant’s dismissal from office is not an action taken pursuant to a decree law within the scope of the state of emergency; it was ordered by the Plenary of the Constitutional Court in accordance with Article 3 § 1 of the Decree Law no. 667 on the Measures to be Taken under the State of Emergency. - The Court, therefore, dismissed the relevant request.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Çelebi Kutlu 2017/38612 21 April 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom for the applicant’s being ordered to pay compensation due to certain expressions. - The applicant and some other members of a Cooperative lodged a criminal complaint against the Cooperative directors for embezzlement, misconduct in office and contravening the Cooperatives Law. - At the end of the investigation, a decision of non-prosecution was issued. - However, the Cooperative members including the applicant were ordered to pay non-pecuniary compensation to the directors due to certain expressions in the petition and uttered by them at a meeting. - Their appeal request was dismissed by the Regional Court of Appeal. - The applicant’s expressions were disturbing and offensive in nature. However, they were directed not against a certain person but generally against the directors and charged not certain persons, but rather the management as a whole, due to the Cooperative’s failure to take the necessary steps. - No fair balance was struck between the applicant’s freedom of expression and the plaintiffs’ right to the protection of their honour and dignity. - The impugned interference was incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society for failing to meet a pressing social need.
Leyla Yücel 2017/31861 21 April 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the revocation, and the order for the retroactive return, of survivor’s pension that the applicant was entitled due to her father’s death as she was entitled to another pension also as a widow after her husband’s death. - In 2007, the applicant was granted, by the Social Security Institution (“the Institution”), a survivor’s pension on request after her husband’s death. She was granted another survivor’s pension in 2010 after her father’s death. - In 2014, the Institution revoked her entitlement to survivor’s pension (upon her father’s death) as it had been erroneously granted, seeking the return of the total amount the applicant had already received. - Upon the dismissal of her challenge by the Institution, the latter unsuccessfully brought an action before the labour court and requested the return of the paid amount plus legal interest. On appeal, the regional court of appeal dismissed the request insofar it related to legal interest but ordered, with final effect, the reimbursement of the paid amount by the applicant to the Institution. - The reasoning of the regional court of appeal was apparently consistent with the previous jurisprudence of the relevant chamber of the Court of Cassation. However, it was subsequently amended in favour of the applicant. - The relevant statutory provisions were interpreted differently by the Institution and the judicial authorities: therefore, the impugned interference was not based on a law fulfilling the requirements of legal certainty and foreseeability.
Remzi Saldıray 2016/2377 24 February 2021 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to enforcement of a judgment within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to declaration of a final court decision null and void. - Res judicata, that is the principle of the finality of judgments, is recognised as one of the general principles of international law. - The obligation to enforce the judicial decisions without delay, as enshrined in the last paragraph of Article 138 of the Constitution, is also a requirement of the principle of res judicata, which is accepted as one of the general principles of law. - The labour court’s dismissal of the applicant’s case by declaring null and void the assize court’s decision which formed the legal basis for the applicant’s receivable, deprived the applicant of his right to enforcement of a final court decision favourable to him. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to enforcement of a judgment.	Press Release
Tahir Gökatalay (4) 2018/24477 24 March 2021 (Second Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment due to the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the case where the applicant had been injured while being taken into custody. - The impugned investigation lasted 4 years and 6 months until the date when the application was examined and was still pending. - Regard being had to the criteria such as the difficulty in the resolution of the impugned legal issue, the nature of the material facts, the obstacles encountered during the collection of evidence and the number of parties, the subject matter of the case was not of a very complex nature. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2018/134 3 March 2021 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision of Presidential Decree no. 14 allowing for certain arrangements regarding an issue regulated by a decree law	- Contested provision, third sentence of Article 21 § 3 of Presidential Decree no. 14 on the Organisation of the Directorate of Communications, stipulates that the procedures and principles regarding the contract to be signed, the amount of wages and all kinds of payments with respect to the personnel to be employed will be determined by the President. - It is argued that the relevant issues are regulated in Additional Article 26 of Decree Law no. 357, and that no presidential decree can be issued on the matters explicitly regulated by law. - Considering the Court’s case-law and practices regarding decree laws, they should be regarded as laws. Accordingly, no presidential decree should be issued on the impugned matter explicitly regulated by a decree law. - The contested provision has been found in breach of Article 104 § 17 of the Constitution, and thus it has been annulled.
E.2018/127 18 March 2021 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provisions laid down in the Presidential Decree no. 10 embodying the principles and procedures as regards the content and publication of the Official Gazette	*A. Article 2 of the Presidential Decree no. 10 insofar as it concerns “…. if deemed necessary…”* - As set forth in the contested provision, the Official Gazette shall be published via internet in every case, and it may be also published in printed form if deemed necessary. - It is maintained that the contested provision renders access to the Official Gazette being limited merely to internet, which entails the risk of denial of access due to technical problems likely to arise. - The contested provision is concerning a matter regarding executive power as the publication of the Official Gazette is a matter of administrative nature. Nor does it embody any regulation on the fundamental rights, individual rights and duties, as well as on the political rights and duties which cannot be regulated through a presidential decree. - Nor is the provision concerning a matter needed to be regulated exclusively by law. Accordingly, it has been found constitutional insofar as it relates to the competence ratione materiae. - As the Official Gazette is envisaged to be available in online version in all circumstances, the contested provision satisfies the accessibility requirement. - Publication in printed form is limited for saving public resources and protecting environment: therefore, it pursues a legitimate aim. - Accordingly, nor has it been found unconstitutional by its content. *B. Article 6 § 2 of the Presidential Decree no. 10 insofar as it concerns “… not found appropriate or…”* - It is stipulated therein that the regulations, communiqués and other regulatory administrative acts, which are issued by the ministries and public institutions & organisations and submitted for being published in the Official Gazette, shall be examined and returned if not found appropriate with the Presidential programmes as well as with the development plans and programmes. - It is maintained that the return of the documents found inappropriate is contrary to the autonomous nature of universities; and that the notion of inappropriateness is not precise and the provision may therefore lead to arbitrary practices. - The contested provision has been found constitutional insofar as it relates to the competence ratione materiae for fulfilling the respective criteria set forth above in heading A. - The contested provision clearly states the scope and nature of the documents which may be subject to examination and returned. - The scope and content of such examination are also determined, and the authority to make such examination is also designated. - Therefore, the contested provision has not been found unconstitutional by its content.
E.2020/58 18 March 2021 (Plenary)	Annulment of Article 1 of the Presidential Decree no. 62 for being unconstitutional insofar as it relates to the competence ratione materiae	- The contested provision sets forth that the lecturers at the public universities, who are subject to Law no. 2914 on Higher Education Personnel, may also hold office as a councillor at the Central Bank of the Turkish Republic. - It is maintained that the regulation concerning the lecturers to hold office at the Assembly of the Central Bank should have been made by law as no Presidential decree may be issued as regards the matters which are to be regulated exclusively by law (Article 104 § 17 of the Constitution). - It is laid down in Article 130 § 9 of the Constitution that the relations of lecturers with public institutions and other organisations and their personal rights shall be regulated by law. - The lecturers at the public universities are enabled, through the contested provision, to simultaneously hold two separate offices as stated above. - It accordingly appears that the contested provision introduces an arrangement as regards the issues falling under Article 130 § 9 of the Constitution. - Thus, it falls foul of Article 104 § 17 of the Constitution. - It has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled.
E.2020/35 31 March 2021 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision requiring the court to make its decision in line with the sanction specified in the prosecutor’s written request	- Contested provision stipulates that upon the public prosecutor’s submission of a written request to the competent court, the latter shall make a decision in line with the sanction specified in the request, if certain conditions are met, otherwise it shall send the file to the chief public prosecutor’s office in order for the investigation to be concluded in accordance with the general provisions. - It is maintained that the contested provision transfers the jurisdiction of the courts to the public prosecutors, that the court is forced to make a decision in line with the sanction specified in the public prosecutor’s request and thus was made dependent upon the determination and evaluation of the prosecutor, which is in breach of the principle of independence and impartiality of courts. - The provision has been found in breach of the principles of the exercise of the judicial power by independent and impartial courts and the judge’s making a decision based on his personal conviction, and thus annulled for being unconstitutional.
E.2020/71 29 April 2021 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision allowing for certain regulations related to the positions of faculty members through presidential decrees	- Contested provision, Article 1 of Presidential Decree no. 65, allows for certain regulations regarding the positions of faculty members. - It is maintained that the contested provision goes beyond the powers of presidential decrees and that since it concerns academicians who perform fundamental and permanent public services, the provisions regarding such positions should be regulated by law. - Pursuant to Article 104 § 7 of the Constitution, no presidential decree shall be issued on the matters which are stipulated in the Constitution to be regulated exclusively by law. - It is also set forth in Article 130 § 9 of the Constitution that the duties, titles, financial affairs and personal rights of the teaching staff shall be regulated by law. - It is obvious that the contested provision makes a regulation on a matter that should be regulated exclusively by law under Article 130. - Consequently, the contested provision has been annulled for being unconstitutional.
E.2020/80 29 April 2021 (Plenary)	Annulment of the relevant provisions of the Opticianry Law no. 5193	*A. Additional Article 1 § 2 added to Law no. 5193* -The contested provision envisages the issuance of regulation regarding the organisation, activities, organs of the Chambers and the Union, the duties of these organs, as well as the other respective acts and actions. - It is maintained that the arrangement as regards the organs, duties, powers and organisation of the Chambers and the Union, which are in the form of a public institution by virtue of the relevant law, falls foul of the constitutional requirement of being established by law, and that the Union is empowered to introduce arrangements in this respect without a legal framework being set. - As regards the issues which are not prescribed -in the Constitution- to be regulated by law, it is possible for the executive to make arrangements in detail upon establishing the general framework through a law. - However, it is envisaged in the contested provision that the relevant issues be regulated through a regulation without the legal framework and basic principles thereof are being defined. - It has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled. *B. Third Sentence of Article 4 § 3 of Law no. 5193* - The contested provision envisages the application of discipline-related provision of Law no. 6643 on pharmacy officers, by analogy, to opticians. - It is maintained that an application by analogy leads to uncertainty as these two professions have different characteristics. - As required by the legal certainty principle, statutory arrangements must be clear, precise, comprehensible and objective for both individuals and the administration. They must also afford safeguards against the arbitrary practices of public authorities. -Given the different nature of two professions, the contested provision leads to uncertainty. The relevant issues are not formulated in a foreseeable manner. - It has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled.
E.2021/1 29 April 2021 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision envisaging the stoppage of retirement pension of the paid-teachers lecturing at formal and non-formal educational institutions, albeit being a retired person, when they exceed the prescribed age-limit.	- As set forth in the contested provision, Article 30 § 4 (f) of Law no. 5335, those giving lectures, on payment, at formal and non-formal educational institutions of every kind and degree may continue receiving their retirement pensions on condition that they do not exceed the prescribed age-limit. - It is maintained that the contested provision is compatible with the aims and duties of social state of law that is liable to remove economic obstacles. - It appears that the provision is intended to ensure the employment primarily of the young and unemployed persons: it pursues the legitimate aim of resolving the unemployment problem. - It does not completely eliminate the possibility of working in the relevant sector and provides those concerned with the opportunity to make a choice whether to lecture on condition of being deprived of their retirement pension they have been already entitled: striking reasonable balance between the pursued public interest and the right to labour, and thereby imposing no disproportionate restriction. - Despite introducing an exception for those to lecture at universities (they shall not be deprived of their retirement pension), the contested provision is not found contrary to the principle of equality before the law, in consideration of the need for lecturers at universities. - Besides, any person deprived of his retirement pension shall continue to receive it upon the termination of his professional relation with these institutions; therefore, imposing no excessive burden on those concerned due to such difference among those having the same legal status.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Fatma Kılıç and İbrahim Haldız 2017/37387 21 Nisan 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to protect one’s corporeal and spiritual existence safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the failure to compensate for the non-pecuniary damage caused by the traffic accident. - In the impugned accident where the applicants sustained damages and underwent a long-term medical treatment, there was a fault on the part of the administration. - Pursuant to the applicable relevant legislation, any damage sustained, either pecuniary or non-pecuniary in the particular circumstance of the case, should be compensated for. - Although the incumbent judicial authorities calculated the pecuniary damages sustained by the applicants, they failed to make any assessment as to the non-pecuniary damages. - While the authorities acknowledged the administration’s fault in the incident, they failed to redress the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, which was in breach of the Government’s positive obligation in terms of the protection of the individuals’ corporeal and spiritual existence. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to protect one’s corporeal and spiritual existence.
Cahit Tamur and Others 2018/12010 24 February 2021 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to legal assistance within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the failure to comply with the ECHR’s judgment. - The applicants had been convicted of committing armed acts to disrupt the unity and integrity of the State. - The applicants’ statements taken in the absence of legal assistance had been relied on in their conviction, which was found in breach of Article 6 of the Convention by the ECHR. - Following the ECHR’s judgment, the applicants requested retrial; however, their request was dismissed by the assize court. - Hence, the judicial authorities failed to comply the ECHR’s judgment. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to legal assistance within the scope of the right to a fair trial.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2019/36 4 March 2021 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision necessitating the screening of the films, which were evaluated and classified by the Ministry beforehand, in accordance with the appropriate signs and inscriptions	- Contested provision, Article 7 § 2 of Law no. 5224, provides that the films, which were evaluated and classified beforehand by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, shall be screened in accordance with the appropriate signs and inscriptions during the relevant events. - It is argued that the impugned provision prevents the commercial circulation and screening of the films not approved and allowed by the relevant Ministry. - It is enshrined in Article 13 of the Constitution that any restriction on fundamental rights and freedoms shall be prescribed by the law, comply with the reasons set forth in the Constitution, and shall not be contrary to the requirements of the democratic order of the society and the principle of proportionality. - The evaluation and classification of the films is appropriate and necessary for the protection of public order as well as the family and children. Thus, there is a reasonable balance between the public interest and the individual interest as regards the freedoms of expression and art, and thereby the alleged restriction is not disproportionate. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional, and thus the request for its annulment has been dismissed.
E.2019/47 4 March 2021 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provisions entailing sanctions for those using measuring instruments (meters) with expired seals and yielding inaccurate measures	- Contested provisions entail sanctions for those who use measuring instruments (meters) with expired seals (stamped for verification) and yielding inaccurate measures. - It is maintained that the contested provisions may lead to unjust punishment of the subscribers and also enable relevant service providers to act arbitrarily and thereby impose certain charges on the subscribers while replacing the meters as their seals have been expired. - The contested provisions were examined under Article 38 of the Constitution which sets forth that criminal liability is personal. - They are indeed intended for ensuring the proper and accurate use of such meters, in pursuit of national economy and public interest. - However, imposing an administrative sanction on the subscribers for merely using meters with expired seals or yielding inaccurate measures, albeit they have no liability or fault on account thereof, amounts to their punishment due to an act committed by any other person. - In this sense, the subscribers themselves cannot be expected to realise or inspect such failures as it would require technical knowledge and know-how. - The contested provisions have been annulled for being unconstitutional.
E.2020/82 18 March 2021 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of Article 104 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code no. 5237	- Contested provision prescribes the imposition of imprisonment sentence, for a period of 2-5 years, on those having sexual intercourse with minors aged 15-18 in the absence of any force, threat or deception, upon complaint of the victim. - It is maintained that the act of sexual intercourse with minors is distinct from the other offences which are set forth in the same code and prosecution of which is conditional upon complaint; and that criminalisation of the sexual intercourse with minors aged 15-18 in the absence of any force, threat or deception falls foul of international conventions. - The contested provision was examined from the standpoint of Articles 13, 20 and 38 of the Constitution. - The Court reiterates that sexual acts and behaviours, as a part of person’s intimacy, fall under the right to respect for private life. - The contested provision undoubtedly restricts this right; however, it may be subject to certain restrictions for the fulfilment of certain obligations incumbent on the State by virtue of the other constitutional rights. - It is intended for protecting minors at certain age in line with Article 41 of the Constitution, which provides that the State shall take measures for the protection of the children against all kinds of abuse and violence: impugned restriction pursues a legitimate aim. - Besides, the restriction imposed by the contested provision is not in breach of the proportionality principle as the prosecution of the impugned act is made conditional upon complaint and the sentence imposed accordingly may be appealed. - Consequently, the Court has dismissed the request for its annulment.

Case

Decision

Case-Law Development

Related

I. Individual Application

Yeliz Erten

2020/99

11 March 2021

(Second Section)

Violation of the right to respect for family life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution

- Alleged violation of the said right due to the dismissal of the applicant’s request for being allowed to contact by phone with her school-age children on any other appropriate day.

- The applicant and her husband, with three school-age children, were held in the same prison. The convicts were allowed to make telephone conversations only on weekdays.

- However, the Ministry of Justice sent a letter to the prison administrations where it was stated that these conversations might be held also at weekends, if found appropriate by the prison board, so as to ensure the continued contact with school-age children.

- The board did not, however, allow any phone conversations at weekends.

- The applicant’s request before the execution judge whereby she requested to be allowed to make phone conversations with her children at a proper time either on weekdays or at weekends was dismissed. The objection thereto was also dismissed by the incumbent assize court.

- The board’s report, which was relied on also by the execution judge, referred to the probability of security risks if the convicts were allowed to make phone conversations at weekends: however, there were no detailed information or plausible and objective grounds as to such security risks.

- Besides, the applicant’s request for contacting by phone with her children at any proper time on weekdays was not taken into consideration.

- The authorities’ failures to consider the children’s best interest, to act in a way that would ensure the maintenance of the family ties and to provide sufficient and concrete reasons to justify the dismissal of the applicant’s request.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Cafer Sezgin and Others 2018/20720 7 April 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the revocation of the licenses granted for commercial and public transportation. - By the decision of the relevant Municipal Council, 32 persons were granted an entitlement to make commercial and public transportation on a certain route designated by the municipality. - Upon the establishment by the Court of Accounts that these licences were granted without a tender being made, the Municipal Council ordered the revocation of the licenses and re-assignment of such licences through a tender. - The applicants’ actions for annulment of the Council’s decision were dismissed by the administrative court. Their subsequent appeals were also dismissed. - The applicants’ entitlements were terminated by a unilateral decision and in the absence of any measure to afford redress for the possible damages to be suffered by the applicants. - Unforeseeable and unreasonable burden was placed on the applicants. - The impugned interference upset the fair balance to be struck between the applicants’ right to property and the public interest.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2019/89 4 February 2021 (Plenary)	Annulment of the first and second sentences of Provisional Article 14 added to Law no. 2942 on Expropriation	- Alleged unconstitutionality as the contested provisions constitute a disproportionate interference with the right to property. - The contested provisions set forth that in actions brought in respect of confiscations without expropriation (as to price- or compensation-related claims), the decisions rendered by the courts shall not be subject to execution process until they become final and that the pending execution processes shall be suspended until the submission of the finalised decisions. - In the past, certain immovables were confiscated without expropriation and assigned to public service for various reasons, which referred to the term “confiscation without expropriation”. - The contested provisions preclude the initiation of execution proceedings with respect to court decisions which have not become final yet and also allow for the suspension of the execution proceedings already initiated: the provisions therefore cause delay in providing those concerned a redress due to the interference with the right to property and restrict the rights to property as well as to a fair trial. The contested provisions have been found unconstitutional and annulled.
E.2018/99 3 March 2020 (Plenary)	Annulment of Provisional Article 13 added to Law no. 2942 on Expropriation; Dismissal of the request for annulment of Article 12 § 5 and 6 of Law no. 4749 on Public Finance and Debt Management in so far as they relate to the terms “… municipalities, provincial special administrations, …”	*A. Provisional Article 13 of Law on Expropriation* - Alleged unconstitutionality as the contested provision constitutes an interference with the judicial process and falls foul of the principles of non-retroactivity of laws and legal certainty. - The contested provision envisages the extended application of the provision, which sets forth that the owners of the immovables who can no longer use their property rights due to the expropriation for a dam construction shall primarily apply to the commissions under the Governor’s Office so as to bring a legal action, to the cases pending before the courts. It accordingly sets forth that the pending cases shall be dismissed on procedural grounds and subsequently referred to the relevant commissions by the incumbent courts. - The contested provision introduces a statutory arrangement, which has been already stipulated in a Regulation, and is intended for the speedy resolution of the expropriation-related claims without the need for bringing an action. - The owners are thereby made to apply to another commission, which is similar to the one already established pursuant to the Regulation: procrastination of the resolution process. - The contested provision prescribes no measure which would afford a redress for the damages sustained. - It places an extraordinary burden on individuals and constitutes a disproportionate restriction on the right to property. - The contested provision has been found unconstitutional and annulled. *B. Provision Allowing for the Transfer of Cash Resources of Provincial Special Administrations and Municipalities to the Single Treasury Account* - Alleged unconstitutionality as the contested provision falls foul of the administrative and fiscal autonomy. - The contested provision envisages the tracking of all public revenues including the cash resources of provincial administrations and municipalities through a single account, which aims at effective and efficient management of public resources. - However, it does not impose any restriction on the municipalities’ and provincial special administrations’ decision to make use of their resources. This arrangement relates to the revenues, which have not been spent or turned into an investment and which have been deposited in a bank account by these authorities. - Not in breach of the autonomous nature of local administrations. - The contested provision has been found constitutional, and the request for its annulment has been dismissed.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Süleyman Kurtel 2016/1808 22 January 2021 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the termination of the payment of the share of attorney fees and reclamation of the payments already made. - The applicant was entitled to a share of the attorney fees, and undisputedly, the share of the attorney fees that had been paid to the applicant was then regarded as his property. - Accordingly, the impugned process cannot be regulated by a decree law for its being related to the payment of the share of attorney fees that falls under the scope of the right to property. - The criterion of legality primarily entails the existence of a formal law in terms of the limitation of fundamental rights and freedoms. - The Court’s case-law regarding the interference with the right to property stipulates that no regulation limiting the right to property shall be made through decree laws even if the Grand National Assembly of Turkey grants an express authority to the Council of Ministers. - Therefore, the termination of the payment of a share of attorney fees and the request for the return of the already paid amounts, plus the legal interest, were not based on a statutory provision.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2020/15 24 December 2020 (Plenary)	Annulment of Additional Article 2 § 4 of Law no. 488 on Stamp Tax and Additional Article 1 § 4 of Law no. 492 on Fees, for being unconstitutional	- Alleged unconstitutionality as the provisions where the contested phrase “…at which foreign companies have also placed a bid…” are included lead to uncertainty for the bidders. - The said provisions set forth that a tender which is put out by public institutions and organisations, allows for the participation of by both local and foreign companies, jointly or severally, and at which foreign companies have also placed a bid is an international tender. They also introduce tax and fee exemptions in terms of the public tenders of international nature. - The law-maker is entitled to introduce certain tax-related exemptions and privileges in certain circumstances. However, such regulations are to be sufficiently precise and foreseeable. - A tender may be regarded as an international tender not only when it is accessible by both local and foreign bidders but also when foreign companies place a bid. - However, the bidders do not know, at the time when they place their bids, the other bidders, whether any foreign company has placed a bid, and thereby whether the tender could be qualified as an international tender. - Such an inability leads to an uncertainty for the bidders who could not foresee whether they are entitled to an exemption from stamp tax and fee as the tender in question is regarded as an international tender. - The contested provisions are contrary to legal foreseeability and certainty.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Semih Tekin 2018/34064 17 March 2021 (Plenary)	Violation of the right of access to a court under the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the dismissal of the applicant’s action as regards his appointment process for being time-barred. - The applicant, entitled to become a labour inspector at the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (the administration), applied to the latter as his appointment process had not been completed for so long. - In its reply, the administration informed him that the relevant process was still pending and that he would be notified of the completion of the process. - Not considering the administration’s reply as a final reply pursuant to Article 10 of Law no. 2577, the applicant awaited a final reply. Upon the expiry of six-month time-limit as from his application with the administration, the applicant brought an administrative action, which was however dismissed for being time-barred. His appeal request was also dismissed. - He then applied to the administration for being afforded his personal and financial rights as his appointment had not be completed yet. It was, however, dismissed. - The Council of State ultimately ordered the payment of the relevant amounts he had been deprived of, plus the incurred legal interest. - Despite the clear provision in Article 10 of Law no. 2577 to the effect that the time-limit for bringing an action shall start running upon the expiry of six months during which a final reply is awaited, the inferior courts’ interpretation of the same provision in the present case was unforeseeable, thereby leading to the dismissal of the applicant’s action for being time-barred. - The impugned interference did not satisfy the lawfulness requirement.
Ali Yazıcı and Others 2018/20766 10 March 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the depreciation of the expropriation price. - The applicants’ immovable was expropriated by the relevant municipality on 5 May 1986. The applicants brought a personal action against the municipality in 2004 for the non-payment of the expropriation price. It was dismissed by the first instance court. The first-instance decision, upheld by the Court of Cassation, was subsequently quashed during the process of the rectification of judgment. - Thereafter, the first instance court determined the respective amounts to be paid to the applicants, but without taking into consideration the inflation rates despite the period of approximately 32 years having elapsed. - The depreciation resulting from the delay in the payment of the expropriation price, in respect of which no fault was attributable to the applicants, placed an excessive burden on them. - The impugned interference was not proportionate. - The Court also ordered a re-trial.
Hasan Kılıç 2018/22085 27 January 2021 (Second Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right to life due to the failure to investigate the Administration’s fault as regards the suicide bomb attack that had occurred in front of the Ankara Train Station during a demonstration. - In the actions for compensation to be brought before the judicial and administrative courts in order to establish the legal responsibility in terms of the right to life, the requirements of reasonable promptness and due diligence must be fulfilled. - In the same vein, it is incumbent on the Constitutional Court to examine whether the inferior courts made an examination as required by Article 17 of the Constitution in the proceedings concerning such incidents. - The applicant, with reference to the findings and evaluations in the preliminary examination report, raised, also before the regional court of appeal, his allegations that the respondent administration had failed to take the life-protecting measures in the incident and that the intervention of the security forces after the explosions worsened the consequences of the attack. - However, the regional court of appeal upheld the administrative court’s decision, stating that it complied with the procedure and the law, but without explicitly examining the applicant’s allegations. - It has been concluded that the inferior courts failed to examine the applicant’s case with due diligence as required by Article 17 of the Constitution.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2017/21 24 December 2020 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision enabling the closure, with the approval of the relevant minister, of media outlets associated with organisations found established to pose a threat to the national security and confiscation of their properties	- Contested provision, Article 2 § 4 of Law no. 6755, regulates the closure, upon the proposal of the commission to be established by the relevant Minister and with the approval of the Minister, of private radio and television outlets, newspapers and periodicals, publishing companies and distribution channels, which have been found to be a member of, or to have connection or contact with structures, organisations or groups that are found established to pose a threat to the national security or terrorist organisations, as well as the transfer of their all kinds of assets to the Treasury. - It is claimed that since the impugned provision enables the closure of the relevant media outlets as well as the confiscation of their properties, it is in breach of the right to property. It is also claimed to limit the freedoms of expression, the press and information as well as right to publish periodicals and non-periodicals to an extent unnecessary in a democratic society, which is in breach of the principle of the State governed by the rule of law. - In consideration of the threats and dangers giving rise to the declaration of the state of emergency, it should be accepted that the assessments to be made during the state of emergency may differ from those to be made in the ordinary period. - General and abstract nature of the laws stems from the need to incorporate all solutions that may vary in the particular circumstances of each case within the relevant provision, in other words, to prevent any situation where the provision excludes a solution that may yield a proper result. Therefore, the contested provision is not unconstitutional in view of the principle that fundamental rights and freedoms shall be restricted by law. - The provision intends to maintain the national security as well as public order and security. In this sense, it pursues a legitimate aim in constitutional terms. - Pursuant to Article 28 of the Constitution, which entails a court decision for closing periodicals, the closure is a heavy sanction and a court decision is required even for temporary suspension. - The contested provision serves the same purpose by regulating the direct and permanent closure of the said private radio and television outlets, as well as publishing companies and distribution channels; however, it ignores the means that would impose less restrictions on the freedoms of expression and the press. - Undoubtedly, the direct closure constitutes the most severe interference with fundamental rights and freedoms among all the means that could achieve the same goal. - The contested provision is also incompatible with the sub-principles of the principle of proportionality, which are necessity and proportionality in the narrower sense. - The contested provision is also applicable during the state of emergency. In times of emergency, the Constitution stipulates certain conditions for derogating from the safeguards enshrined in the Constitutions in terms of fundamental rights and freedoms. In this regard, the conclusion that the contested provision is unconstitutional in the ordinary period does not have any bearing on its applicability, being limited to the state of emergency. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled.	Press Release

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Mehmet Osman Kavala (2) 2020/13893 29 December 2020 (Plenary)	No violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right of the applicant for the alleged unlawfulness and unreasonable length of his detention on remand. - The applicant was taken into custody within the scope of the investigation conducted into the coup attempt of July 15 and was then detained on remand by the magistrate judge for allegedly attempting to overthrow the constitutional order. - Shortly afterwards, the applicant was again detained for obtaining confidential information held by the State, for political and military espionage purposes. *1. Alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention on remand* - The prerequisite for detention is the existence of strong indication of guilt and of the plausible evidence to that end. - The applicant was found to have had contact with a person who had allegedly spied against Turkey and had relations with the FETÖ/PDY that is the organisation behind the coup attempt. He was also found to have supported and financed some projects that might be identified with the ideology and claims of the PKK terrorist organisation. -Besides, the offence of obtaining confidential information held by the State, for political and military espionage purposes concerned the objective to secure the information that must be kept confidential for reasons relating to the security or domestic or foreign political interests of the State. -Regard being had to the nature and gravity of the imputed offence as well as the severity of the punishment prescribed by the law for such offences, the detention of the applicant was a proportionate measure. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the right to personal liberty and security regarding the alleged unlawfulness of detention. *2. Alleged unreasonable length of the applicant’s detention on remand* - There is a strong indication of the applicant’s having committed the imputed offences. - Considering the grounds for detention relied on by the incumbent magistrate judges and assize courts as well as their considerations on the proportionality of the applicant’s detention on remand, the facts such as the risk of fleeing, risk of tampering with evidence, gravity of the offence, proportionality of the detention and insufficiency of the conditional bail came into play. - The imputed offences are among the ones committed against the national security and classified among the gravest offences prescribed within the legal system. Besides, the investigations conducted into such offences are much more complex by their nature. - The grounds underlying the applicant’s continued detention on remand were relevant and sufficient for justifying the deprivation of liberty. - It has therefore been concluded that the length of the applicant’s detention on remand, 2 years and 10 months, has been reasonable. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the right to personal liberty and security regarding the alleged unreasonable length of detention.
Özlem Dalkıran 2017/35203 21 January 2021 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right to due to the failure to sufficiently demonstrate the existence of a strong indication of criminal guilt, a prerequisite for detention. - The applicant, a well-known human rights activist, was taken into custody during a meeting held at a hotel in İstanbul and subsequently detained on remand. - At the end of the criminal proceedings, the applicant was sentenced to 1 year and 13 months’ imprisonment for having knowingly and willingly provided assistance to a criminal organisation, while not being part of its hierarchical structure, on the basis of the case file as a whole, the statement of an anonymous witness, the contents of the relevant messages, HTS records and the identification reports. - The investigation authorities failed to refute the applicant’s counter-arguments raised with respect to the allegations against her. - The failure to sufficiently demonstrate the existence of a strong indication of criminal guilt, a prerequisite for detention, in view of the applicant’s defence submissions and the scope of the case file. - Violation of the relevant safeguards also from the standpoint of Article 15 of the Constitution, which allows for the suspension and restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms in times of a state of emergency.	Press Release
Yasin Agin and Others 2017/32534 Gülistan Atasoy and Others 2017/15845 21 January 2021 (Plenary)	Violation/No violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right of the applicants, public officials, due to imposition of disciplinary punishment on them for their having attended certain meetings and demonstration marches. *As regards the application no. 2017/32534* - The applicants, teachers, were imposed disciplinary punishment for their allegedly having acted improperly as public officials, by attending a demonstration march that had been organised by the labour union of which they were member but banned by the governor’s office. - The said demonstration march had indeed not dramatically interrupted the traffic flow. - The judicial authorities failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons to prove the alleged improper acts of the applicants as public officials as well as their adverse effects on the public service. - The impugned disciplinary punishment imposed on the applicants did not serve a pressing social need and therefore was not necessary in a democratic society. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches. *As regards the application no. 2017/15845* - The applicants, public officials, were imposed disciplinary punishment for their allegedly having acted improperly as public officials, by attending certain demonstration marches in protest against Gezi Park events. - The administration and inferior courts found out that the said demonstrations had not been conducted peacefully and thus become unlawful. The applicants did not challenge this finding of the authorities. - It is incumbent of the public officials to abstain from acting in a manner shaking the confidence in them as well as damaging the reputation of and confidence in the public institutions they are holding office. - The disciplinary punishment imposed on the applicants served a pressing social need and did not impose an unfair burden on the applicant, given the legitimate aim of protecting the public order. Hence, the said punishment complied with the requirements of the democratic social order. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches.
Ali İpekli and Others 2017/30997 22 January 2021 (Plenary)	Violation/No violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right of the applicants due to the alleged unlawfulness of their detention on remand for their membership of the PKK terrorist organisation. *As regards the applicants Kasım Oba, Ali İpekli and Doğan Erbaş* - Pursuant to Article 19 of the Constitution, detention on remand is justified only in the existence of strong indication of guilt that must be supported with plausible evidence. - Given the photos and comments shared by the applicants on their social media accounts, which praised and incited to violence and made terrorist propaganda, there were strong indications of their having committed the imputed offence, which could justify their detention on remand. - Consequently, the Court found no violation of the right to personal liberty and security. *As regards the other applicants* - The investigation authorities failed to sufficiently demonstrate the existence of strong indications that the applicants had committed the imputed offence. - Consequently, the Court found a violation of the right to personal liberty and security.
Hatice Akgül 2018/35900 25 February 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right of the applicant due to the prolonged issuance of the reasoned decision in her favour. - The case concerns the reinstatement proceedings initiated by the applicant challenging the termination of her employment contract. - At the end of the impugned proceedings concluded in favour of the applicant, the decision was pronounced on 18 October 2017, whereas the reasoned decision was issued on 7 February 2019. - The case is far from being complex in view of the criteria such as the difficulty in the resolution of the legal dispute, complexity of the material facts, challenges in collecting the evidence, and number of parties. - It was stated in the labour court’s decision that the applicant might be reinstated only after the decision became final. Thus, the vital importance of the finalization of the decision for the applicant is apparent. - The unjustified delay in the issuance of the reasoned decision resulted in the prolongation of the proceedings.	Press Release
Mehmet Köktaş 2018/ 35775 10 March 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the lack of an effective investigation into the suicide committed during military service. - The applicant’s son (M.K.), a contracted infantryman, committed suicide by shooting himself in the head while being on watch duty and lost his life at a hospital where he was taken by a helicopter. - At the end of the administrative investigation conducted at the command, it was concluded that there was no concrete finding that might give rise to his suicide; and that there was no fault attributable to any personnel. - Accordingly, the chief public prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-prosecution, stating that there was no criminal element in M.K.’s death. - The applicant challenged the decision, alleging that his son could not have committed suicide. However, his challenge was dismissed by the incumbent magistrate judge. - After the incident, the public prosecutor and the incident scene investigation team could not be present at the incident scene as M.K.’s death took place at a command located at the zone of anti-terror operations. Thus, no detailed incident scene investigation could be conducted. - Besides, no autopsy was performed. However, there was no information indicating that M.K.’s dead body could not be transferred to another city with a forensic medicine institution for security reasons. - Despite the absence of any fingerprint on M.K.’s riffle as well as of gunshot residue on his balaclava mask and helmet, no criminal examination was performed so as to ascertain whether the cartridge had been fired from his riffle. - Thus, the chief public prosecutor’s office failed to clarify the circumstances of M.K.’s death.
Yaşar Çetinbaş 2018/ 34564 10 March 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the failure to compensate for the damage caused to the applicant’s immovable. - A viaduct was constructed nearby the applicant’s registered immovable. The applicant then filed a request with three respective authorities and sought for the expropriation of his immovable or its exchange with another immovable. Having obtained no favourable reply, the applicant then brought an action for compensation against these authorities. - His action was dismissed on the merits. He then appealed the decision, which had been issued allegedly on the basis of incomplete examination and erroneous legal assessment as his loss had not been determined by the experts. - The inferior courts failed to take into consideration the applicant’s allegations and ultimately concluded that there was no damage sustained by him due to the restriction imposed on his right to property. - Provided with no opportunity to prove his losses before the courts, the applicant was deprived of the procedural safeguards inherent in the right to property. - An excessive and extraordinary burden was placed on him.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Ahmet Önder and Others 2018/23929 10 February 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution.	- Alleged violation of the said right due to dismissal of the applicants’ request for rectification of the land register on procedural grounds for their failure to apply to the superior administrative authority as per the provisions of the Regulation on Land Registry. - While it is enshrined in the Constitution that fundamental rights and freedom can only be restricted by law, the applicant’s right of bringing an action was not interfered with on the basis of law but in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation. - Hence, dismissal of the applicants’ case had no legal basis and was therefore in breach of their right to access to a court.
Eyüp Toy and Saadet Toy 2017/34841 10 February 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the lack of an effective investigation into the suicide committed by the applicants’ daughter (N.T.) despite the alleged degrading treatment inflicted on her by the school principals and teachers. - N.T. committed suicide after her mobile phone had been taken away by one of her teacher and it had been revealed that she had messaged one of her schoolmates. -The prosecutor’s office immediately initiated an investigation into N.T.’s suicide. - The applicants also filed a criminal complaint with the prosecutor’s office and sought the punishment of those responsible, maintaining that their daughter had been subjected to emotional pressure by the school principals and the relevant teacher and committed suicide on account of the embarrassment and fear she had suffered. - However, a decision of non-prosecution was issued due to the lack of any causal link between the impugned acts of these public officials and N.T.’s suicide. - Failure to investigate whether the suspected teacher or principals had displayed attitudes towards N.T., which amounted to ill-treatment, and whether N.T. had been subjected to any degrading treatment.	Press Release
Abdullah Kaya and Others 2017/26740 16 December 2020 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution.	- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right due to dismissal of the full remedy action they had brought for the authorities’ failure to enforce the court decision that was in their favour. - The applicants’ case was dismissed as being time-barred. - It is set forth in the Constitution and the relevant law that court decisions shall be enforced immediately. - According to the authorities, the applicants should have applied to the administration before filing a full-remedy action; however, such a requirement is not prescribed by the law. - The grounds relied on by the court in dismissing the action brought by the applicants lacked legal basis, which was in breach of their right to access to a court.
Tochukwu Gamaliah Ogu 2018/6183 13 January 2021 (Second Section)	Violations of both substantial and procedural aspects of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right to life due to the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incident where the applicant’s relative had been killed by a police officer. - Although the applicant claimed that he was the brother of the deceased (a foreigner) and thus requested to intervene in the proceedings against the accused police officer, his request was rejected without any investigation conducted into the identity of the deceased. - Besides, the investigation authorities failed to collect the evidence that might have clarified the incident, as well as they lacked independence and thus failed to conduct a rigorous and speedy investigation. - The case is still pending despite the fourteen years having elapsed since the incident. - The State has acted in breach of its substantial and procedural obligations in the present case where a person under its control was murdered by a public officer.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2018/115 30 December 2020 (Plenary)	Annulment of the Decree Law no. 702 concerning the Organization and Duties of the Nuclear Regulatory Authority and Making Amendments to Certain Laws	- Contested Decree Law regulates the principles regarding the organisation, duties, powers and responsibilities of the Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) as well as the personal rights of its employees. - The Decree Law, in its entirety, is claimed to be unconstitutional since the purpose of the Empowering Act on which the relevant Decree Law is based is to ensure adaptation to the amendments made to the Constitution, while the foundation of the NRA does not fall within this scope. - It is clear that foundation of the NRA has no concern with any adaptation to the amendments made to the Constitution. - Besides, the repealed Article 91 of the Constitution sets forth the issues to be regulated by decree laws. - The Court has concluded that the provisions of the contested Decree Law cannot be considered to comply with the purpose and scope of the power granted by the repealed Article 91 of the Constitution to issue decree laws. - It is considered that the annulment of the contested Decree Law shall be effective one year after the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette in order to prevent any violation of public interest due to the legal gap to occur.
E.2020/81 14 January 2021 (Plenary)	Annulment of the phrase “…adjudicated…” in Provisional Article 5 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure no. 5271 for being unconstitutional, whereas dismissal of the request for the annulment of the phrase “…finalised…” therein for not being unconstitutional, insofar as these phrases relate to “simplified trial procedure”	- Alleged unconstitutionality as the contested provision hinders the retrospective application of the simplified trial procedure, which introduces arrangements in favour of the offender, and leads to different practices in respect of the offenders committing the same offences on the very same date. - The contested provision sets forth that the simplified trial procedure shall not apply to the cases that have been adjudicated or finalised by 1 January 2020. *1. Phrase “…adjudicated…” insofar as it relates to “simplified trial procedure”* - The Constitution explicitly prohibits the retrospective application of a given law -prescribing a more severe sentence- to the offences committed before its effective date. - This prohibition, emanating from the principles of legal certainty and legal security, also entails the application of a subsequent law that is more favourable than the one in force on the date of the offence. - In its recent decision (E.2020/16), the Court examined and ultimately annulled the same provision insofar it relates to the phrase “…proceeded to trial” in terms of the “simplified trial procedure”. The Court considered that the prevention of retrospective application of the provisions having a bearing, on the length of a given sentence, to the advantage of the offender falls foul of Article 38 of the Constitution. - No ground to require the Court to depart from its conclusion in the decision no. E.2020/16. - Therefore, the phrase “…adjudicated…” was found unconstitutional and thereby annulled insofar it relates to the phrase “simplified trial procedure”. *2. Phrase “…finalised…” insofar as it relates to “simplified trial procedure”* In cases where this procedure applies, the aim is to ensure the conclusion of the proceedings within the shortest time possible. Therefore, as the trial process ends with a finalised decision, simplified trial procedure cannot apply in finalised cases, which is not contrary to Article 38 of the Constitution. - Nor does it fall foul of the principle of equality as an accused –as the person charged with an offence at the very beginning of the trial– is not in the same legal situation with a convict whose trial has been concluded by a finalised decision and whose sentence is now executed. - Therefore, the phrase “…finalised…” was found constitutional, and the request for its annulment was dismissed.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Cemal Günsel 2016/12900 21 January 2021 (Plenary)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the relevant administration’s refusal to send the applicant’s letter for being inconvenient. - The applicant, a convict, wished to send a letter along with a story -which he had written so as to participate in a story competition- by post to a person living in Belgium. However, the disciplinary board of the relevant penitentiary institution found the impugned text inconvenient and refused to send it. - The applicant’s challenges against the refusal were dismissed by the incumbent magistrate judge and subsequently by the assize court. - It is disputed between the applicant and the public authorities that whether the impugned interference constituted any violation and whether the impugned story legitimised terrorist acts, praised crimes and criminals and contained untrue and false information. - The applicant failed to provide any explanation as to the content of the impugned story, as well as to assert that the administration and inferior courts made erroneous assessments. - Nor did he substantiate that he had indeed wished to send it to participate in a story competition.
Hakan Aygün 2020/13412 12 January 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention ordered on account of his certain posts in social media. - The applicant was detained and indicted by the incumbent chief public prosecutor’s office for publicly inciting hatred and hostility and publicly degrading the religious values of a certain section of the society. - The incumbent criminal court ordered his continued detention, and his challenge against this decision was dismissed. - He was then released at the first hearing. - The Court examined the applicant’s impugned posts to ascertain whether there was strong indication of the applicant’s guilt. - It is evident that in his posts, the applicant used a tone otherizing certain sections of the society. However, they did not provoke hatred or hostility in one section of the public against another section with different characteristics based on social class, race, religion, sect or regional differences. - The investigation authorities’ failure to demonstrate any imminent risk or a concrete damage caused by the impugned posts to the public order. - The failure to sufficiently demonstrate the strong indication of guilt.
Metin Duran 2018/33546 28 January 2021 (First Section)	Violation of the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of defence under the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the failure to notify the reasoned decision to the applicant. - The applicant was convicted of sexual molestation by the criminal court, which suspended the pronouncement of the verdict. - The applicant’s lawyer submitted a petition so as to challenge the criminal court’s decision and also noted that he would submit the reasoned petition following the notification of the reasoned decision to them. - However, the reasoned decision was never notified to them, whereas the decision was communicated to incumbent assize court that would conduct the appellate review. Their challenge was dismissed with final effect. - He was thereby precluded from raising his arguments capable of ensuring his acquittal or mitigation of his sentence and thus from duly exercising his right to appellate review.
Mustafa Türkuz 2017/38496 13 October 2020 (Second Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violations of the rights to a reasoned decision as well as to a fair hearing	- Alleged violations of the said rights due to the recovery, from the applicant, of the compensation amount paid by the Ministry of Justice pursuant to a friendly settlement procedure. - The applicant and two other public officers were convicted, at the end of the criminal investigation initiated in 2001, of having tortured and ill-treated the persons taken into custody for committing a theft at a gendarmerie station, by the assize court in 2013. The decision became final upon being upheld by the Court of Cassation in 2016. - The victims lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights (“the ECHR”) due to lack of an effective investigation as well as the excessive length of the proceedings against public officials. - The proceedings before the ECHR were concluded with a friendly settlement reached in 2013 between the Ministry and the victims. The amount specified in the friendly settlement proposal was paid to the victims. - The Ministry then filed an action for the recovery of the paid amount from the defendants including the applicant. The incumbent civil court ordered the recovery of the relevant amount from them. The applicant’s appellate request was dismissed with final effect. - The inferior courts indicated the legal grounds and provided relevant and sufficient reasons in their decisions: inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to a reasoned decision. - The payment made by the Ministry was not undoubtedly irrelevant to the applicant’s act leading to his conviction. Therefore, the first-instance decision did not contain any manifest arbitrariness or error of appreciation: inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to a fair hearing.
A.G. 2018/6143 16 December 2020 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to respect for family life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the ban on the applicant’s entry to Turkey. - The applicant, a Chechen national, lost one of his legs due to a bomb attack in his home country. He then arrived in Turkey together with his family in 2005. His spouse and children acquired Turkish nationality in 2014, and he was granted residence permit in 2015. - In 2016, he was placed in administrative detention pending his deportation, and a ban on his entry to Turkey was imposed upon his interrogation at the airport. - The incumbent administrative court annulled the applicant’s deportation. However, his action and subsequent appeal against the ban on entering the country were dismissed. - As regards the ban on entering the country, the relevant administration merely pointed to the purpose of national security on the basis of intelligence information. The instant court also dismissed the case on the very same reason. - Failure to make an assessment as to whether the applicant indeed posed a threat to the national security. - No assessment as to the applicant’s requests and challenges with respect to his private life. -Lack of sufficient grounds to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for private life, as well as of a fair balance between the public interest and this right.
Şehmus Altuğrul 2017/38317 13 January 2021 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to education safeguarded by Article 42 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the declaration of the applicant’s post-graduate education null and void. - The applicant applied for an exam to attend a postgraduate education programme (without thesis) of a university. The exam, announced to be held on 21 January 2013, was however postponed to 22 January due to the disclosure of the exam questions on the internet before the exam. - The applicant, successfully passing the exam, was enrolled in the programme. - At the end of the action brought against the exam, the administrative court ordered a stay of execution. The administration (university) challenged the order but it was dismissed by the Regional Administrative Court. - The university ensured the students including the applicant to complete the postgraduate programme. However, the administrative court annulled the impugned exam at a subsequent date. - The applicant’s request for being awarded a diploma or a graduation certificate was rejected due to the annulment of the processes related to the postgraduate programme. His action was also dismissed by the incumbent administrative court. - It is a constitutional obligation incumbent on the administration to enforce the annulment decision. However, the administration is to find the best solution by also taking into consideration the reasoning of the decision. It should abstain from prejudicing the rights of the third parties. - The applicant had no fault in the annulment of the exam. - Lack of a fair balance between the public interest in the enforcement of the annulment decision and the individual interest of the applicant.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2019/71 30 December 2020 (Plenary)	Annulment of the first (relevant phrases), second and third sentences of the amended Article 14 of the Presidential Decree no. 14 on the Organisation of the Directorate of Communications, for being unconstitutional	- Alleged unconstitutionality as the matters regulated through the Presidential Decree are already regulated by law and the authority afforded by the contested provisions are in breach of the autonomous and impartial nature of Anadolu Agency, a State-run news agency. - The contested provision stipulates that the Directorate of Communications (“the Directorate”) has the authority to supervise the activities, budget, organisation and human resources management of Anadolu Ajansı Türk Anonim Şirketi (“the Anadolu Agency” or “Agency”), and the principles and procedures of the said supervision shall be determined by the Directorate; and that the contract to be signed by and between the Directorate and the Anadolu Agency shall set forth the procedures as to the appointment of the executives of the Agency. - As regards the competence ratione materiae, it has been concluded that the contested provision does not address any issue, which has been explicitly regulated by law. - As regards the content: - First Sentence: It is concerning the Directorate’s supervisory power over the Agency’s budget as well as its activities, budget, organisation and human resources management. One of the issues in respect of which the Directorate has supervisory power over the Agency is the budget. Such a budgetary supervision by the central administration does not, in any aspect, have an adverse impact on the Agency’s autonomy and impartiality. However, the supervision of the Agency’s acts and activities by the Directorate, an executive unit operating under the Presidency, is both incompatible with the autonomous nature of the Agency and also likely to prejudice the impartiality of its broadcasts. - Therefore, the Court has found the first sentence of the contested provision unconstitutional by its content and annulled it insofar as it relates to the phrases “… activities…” and “… organisation and human resources management…”, whereas found constitutional the remaining part of the first sentence and accordingly dismissed the request for annulment. - Second Sentence: Vesting the Directorate with a regulatory authority with no definite boundaries, as to the supervision of the Anadolu Agency, without the basic principles and general framework being set has led to the delegation of the regulatory power, which is indeed conferred by the Constitution on the President, to the administration. Accordingly, the second sentence of the contested provision has been found unconstitutional by its content and therefore annulled. -Third Sentence: It is set forth that the appointment procedures of the Agency executives shall be designated by the contract to be concluded by and between the Directorate and the Agency. Designation of the appointment procedures of the Agency executives through a contract renewed every year renders meaningless the autonomous nature of the Agency. Accordingly, the third sentence of the contested provision has been found unconstitutional by its content and therefore annulled.	Press Release
E.2020/57 30 December 2020 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision precluding workers, non-members of the contracting labour union, to benefit from the provisions of the collective labour agreement	- Contested provision stipulates that the requests to benefit from the collective labour agreement before the date of signature shall become effective by this date. - It is maintained that the provision forces the workers to be a member of the labour union concluding the collective labour agreement. - It has consequences in favour of the workers who are already members of the contracting union by the date of its signature, thereby granting an advantage to the said union vis-à-vis the others. - It has been concluded that the restriction imposed by the contested provision undermines the pluralism that should exist in a democratic society, and unfairly distorts the competition among the unions, in favour of the contracting union. - The contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled.	Press Release
E.2019/104 14 January 2021 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision requiring the resignation of the insured employees in order for them to be entitled to old age pension.	- Contested provision requires the resignation of the insured employees in order for them to be entitled to old age pension. - It is argued that the provision is in breach of the right and freedom of employment. - The contested provision is intended to ensure the proper functioning of the social security system. - However, granting the insured employee the status of passive insured employee and arranging the premium payments accordingly will not have a negative effect on the proper functioning of the social security system. - Besides, the provision leads to the deprivation of the insured employee concerned of any income for a period of three months on account of the relevant procedures. - Hence, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled.
E.2019/77 14 January 2021 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision granting financial support in order to encourage local authors and works	- Contested provision grants financial support to each author, limited to one work, for copyrighted works that are included in the repertoire and will be staged for the first time in order to encourage local authors and works. - It is argued that such an issue which is to be regulated exclusively by law has been regulated by presidential decree. - The said financial support shall be covered by the allocation of the General Directorate of State Theatres for capital expenditures, and thus regulated by budgetary laws. Therefore, the provision falls within the scope of the implementation of the budget. - Pursuant to Article 64 of the Constitution, the State shall protect artistic activities and artists as well as take the necessary measures to protect, promote and support works of art and artists. - The contested provision is not in breach of the aforementioned constitutional provision. - The provision has been found constitutional and therefore the request for its annulment has been dismissed.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Cemal Taş and Others 2016/3316 29 December 2020 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right due to the failure to compensate for the loss in value of their property for being designated as military security zone. -- Declaration of the impugned property as a military security zone had consequences such as the restriction of its use, imposition of a ban on its transfer and renting as well as imposition of a de facto construction ban due to its particular location. - While construction permits were granted with respect to other properties located in the same region, the applicants were not only denied a construction permit for their property, but also a de facto construction ban was imposed regarding their property. - Public authorities have discretionary power regarding the removal of annotation or expropriation of the property; however, they failed to take an action in favour of the applicants. - The applicants had to bear an excessive and extraordinary burden, therefore, the said interference with their property was not proportionate.	Press Release
Beyza Kural Yılancı 2016/78497 12 January 2021 (First Section)	Violations of the prohibition of treatment incompatible with human dignity, safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution, as well as of the freedoms of expression and the press respectively safeguarded by Articles 26 and 28 thereof	- Alleged violations of the said prohibition and freedoms due to the applicant’s being subjected to police intervention and force during the demonstration she attended as a press member. - The applicant, a journalist who was at the incident scene to follow and report the protest demonstration, was handcuffed behind her back and taken into custody by the police despite introducing herself as a press member. - She was then released, and no criminal investigation was filed against her. - She filed a criminal complaint against the police officers and submitted a CD, pertaining to the impugned incidents and recorded by the applicant herself. - In the interim medical report issued, it was noted that there were redress on the applicant’s two fingers and sensitivity on both arms. - At the end of the investigation, the prosecutor’s office issued a decision of non-prosecution, considering that the applicant had been released after she had been revealed to be a journalist and that the police officers complained of had not exceeded the limits of their powers on the use of force. - Lack of an effective criminal investigation, capable of leading to the identification and, if necessary, punishment of those responsible for the treatment inflicted on the applicant, which was incompatible with human dignity. -No plausible evidence to demonstrate that the impugned intervention, which precluded the applicant from performing her profession, was lawful or pursued a legitimate aim.	Press Release
Ebru Çıtlak and Fazilet Demirbaş 2017/37573 2 December 2020 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to enforcement of judgments safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right for declaration of a finalized court decision null and void by the civil enforcement court. - The enforcement proceedings commenced by the applicants for collection of non-pecuniary damages and counsel fees awarded to them within the scope of previous criminal proceedings were rejected due to the Court of Cassation’s subsequent order to discontinue the relevant criminal proceedings. - Pursuant to the relevant statutory provisions and case-law, discontinuance of the criminal proceedings would not affect the personal actions seeking redress for the damages sustained. - Therefore, the criminal court’s decision insofar as it concerned the payment of damages and counsel fees still remained in force. - Rendering a final court decision null and void by another court is against the wording and spirit of the Constitution.	Press Release
S.B. 2017/19758 2 December 2020 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to an effective remedy, safeguarded by Article 40 of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 17 thereof	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the inferior courts’ failure to make an examination on the merits of the action the applicant brought for the annulment of the order -whereby he would be deported to the country entailing a risk to both his physical and spiritual integrity- for the refusal of his request for legal aid. - The applicant, a Russian national of Chechen origin who entered Turkey legally in 2013 due to the oppressions in his own country, applied to the relevant security directorate to obtain a legal residence permit in 2015. - However, he was taken into custody, and his deportation was ordered. - He then brought an action before the incumbent administrative court for the annulment of the deportation order and requested to be granted legal aid. - His request was dismissed by the administrative court due to the lack of a bilateral agreement on legal aid between Turkey and the Russian Federation. - Both the first instance court and Council of State declared the applicant’s action and requests related to the appellate proceedings non-filed due to his failure to pay the relevant court fees and expenses. - The first instance court’s failure to make an inquiry and assessment as to the justification of the applicant’s request for legal aid. - During the appellate proceedings, nor was any examination made as to the legal aid. - The applicant’s action was not accordingly examined on the merits. He was therefore deprived of the opportunity to obtain an effective remedy.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2020/10 12 November 2020 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision enabling the General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works to have private institutions and organizations perform the procedures for approval and acceptance of the projects on fish migration structures	- Contested provision enables the General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works, which is the authorized institution for approving, controlling and accepting the projects on fishways, fish elevators and other structures, to have the institutions and organizations it will determine perform the procedures for approval, control and acceptance of such projects. - Article 128 of the Constitution provides that the fundamental and permanent functions required by the public services performed in accordance with principles of general administration shall be carried out by civil servants and other public officials. - Given the nature of the procedures specified in the contested provision, which are fundamental and permanent functions that must be carried out according to the principles of general administration, they must be carried out by public officials. - Therefore, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Sabri Uhrağ 2017/34596 29 December 2020 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to an effective remedy safeguarded by Article 40 of the Constitution, in conjunction with the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 thereof	- Alleged violation of the said right to due to the statutory provision precluding an examination on the merits of the alleged violation of the right to property and the award of a redress. - The applicant’s immovable, situated in a coal basin, entirely become uninhabitable for being damaged as a result of the collapses caused by the subsidence, which had resulted from the defective coal production. - He brought a personal action against the Turkish Hard Coal Enterprise Institution (“the TTK”) and the operator, a private company. However, it was dismissed by the incumbent civil court, based on Article 3 of the Law no. 3303, which envisages that the registered owners of immovables cannot claim any right and compensation on account of damages caused by mining activities. - The first-instance decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation, which also dismissed the applicant’s subsequent request for rectification of decision. - Despite the general provisions under the Turkish Code of Obligations no. 6098, which allow for the redress of the damages that have resulted from mining activities, Article 3 of Law no. 3303 renders dysfunctional this legal avenue, which is available in theory, in so far it concerns the hard coal basin. - Failure of both the first instance court and the Court of Cassation to discuss whether the impugned damage resulted from the faulty actions of the TTK or the company during the mining activities.	Press Release
Kadri Enis Berberoğlu (3) 2020/32949 21 January 2021 (Plenary)	Violations of the right to be elected and engage in political activities as well as right to personal liberty and security, respectively safeguarded by Articles 67 and 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of the applicant’s rights for non-enforcement of the Court’s judgment and continued execution of his sentence. - Pursuant to Article 153 of the Constitution, courts and other bodies exercising public power cannot refrain from enforcing or complying with the Courts’ judgments. - Non-enforcement of the Court’s judgment and failure to redress the consequences of the violation clearly fall foul of the Constitution and are contrary to the will of the constitution-maker. - The decisions of the inferior courts run contrary to the wording of the Constitution, and thus, the applicant’s continued placement in the penitentiary institution as a convict lacks a legal basis. - The Court has specified certain obligatory procedures to be fulfilled by the incumbent court. - In a country where the bodies, courts and individuals exercising public power act contrary to the law, a state governed by rule of law ceases to exist. The failure to enforce the judgments of the Court results in grave violations of the principle of rule of law. - Maintaining the constitutional order is not incumbent solely on the Constitutional Court. Constitutional institutions, bodies exercising public power, natural or legal persons also have an obligation to protect the Constitution and abide by constitutional provisions. - The relevant violation judgments of the Court should also be communicated to the relevant institutions, particularly the GNAT and the Council of Judges and Prosecutors.	Press Release
Ahmet Endes and Others 2018/19018 15 December 2020 (First Section)	Violations of both substantive and procedural aspects of the prohibition of torture as well as procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment due to the disproportionate use of force by the law-enforcement officers during a search conducted in the applicants’ residence as well as the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incident. - It must be noted that the applicants were not suspects within the scope of the investigation where the search warrant was issued. - The use of force resulted in certain fractures on the applicants’ bodies. - Inconsistency between the decisions of the public prosecutor and the criminal court: While the public prosecutor accepted the use of proportionate force by the law-enforcement officers, the latter found disproportionate the impugned use of force. - The public authorities’ failure to prove the proportionality of the use of force. - In fact, the alleged use of force amounted to torture. - Besides, the applicants were not allowed to participate in the investigation process. - Hence, the investigation authorities lacked due diligence.
Celal Oraj Altunörgü 2018/ 31036 12 January 2021 (First Section)	No violations of the right to the protection of personal data and the freedom of communication respectively safeguarded by Articles 20 and 22 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of the said right and freedom due to monitoring of the applicant’s corporate e-mail account by the employer and the termination of his employment contract based on these correspondences. - The applicant was holding office in a private bank. His employment contract, where it is clearly envisaged that the corporate e-mail account assigned to him shall be used only for professional purposes and that the e-mail account may be monitored by the bank management without any prior notice, was terminated as it was found established that he had been engaged in commercial activities through his corporate e-mail account in breach of the working principles and procedures of the bank. - The applicant unsuccessfully brought an action for his reinstatement. His subsequent appeal was also dismissed with final effect. - Despite the applicant’s allegation that his corporate e-mail account was monitored without a prior notice and his consent, his employment contract embodies a provision allowing for the monitoring of his e-mail account without any prior notice. - It is also explicitly noted in the employment contract that any breach of the obligations specified therein may give rise to the termination of the employment contract. - The employer monitored and examined the applicant’s e-mails in so far as they were in support of the allegation and used these e-mails merely for substantiating its claims during the proceedings. - The inferior court provided relevant and sufficient grounds in its decision. - Besides, the applicant could also effectively participate in the proceedings.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2020/64 12 November 2020 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision stipulating the collection of all administrative fines for the return of the driving licence seized due to driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs or stimulants	- Contested provision sets forth that in order for getting back the seized driving licence, all administrative fines that were imposed under the same provision shall be collected. - It was argued that such a restriction, namely the collection of all imposed fines, was disproportionate. - The contested provision is applicable to those who drive under the influence of alcohol, drugs or stimulants. - Such a regulation intents to ensure the traffic order and safety, which therefore pursues a legitimate aim and corresponds to a pressing social need. - Therefore, the contested provision has been found constitutional, and thus, the request for its annulment has been dismissed.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Onur Arslan 2017/17652 15 December 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the death of the applicant’s sister following an unlawful medical intervention, which had been performed under the State supervision and control, as well as due to the dismissal of the applicant’s action for a full remedy. - The applicant’s sister lost her life after she had undergone an abortion operation, which had been unlawfully performed by a gynaecologist at a state hospital, in the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy. - The gynaecologist was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment at the end of the criminal proceedings in 2018. In 2019 the incumbent court ordered the setting aside of the conviction decision as the gynaecologist had died, which was also upheld by the Court of Cassation. - The applicant’s claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage was dismissed by the Ministry of Health for the lack of medical malpractice. His subsequent action for a full remedy was also dismissed. - The gynaecologist, a public officer, performed the operation at the state hospital, in company with the other staff, during a working day despite being on leave, without informing the hospital authorities of the process. - Organisational failure attributable to the state hospital as the administration failed to duly fulfil its duty of supervision and control, which would ensure the medical staff to abstain from performing any criminal acts. - Besides, the dismissal of the applicant’s claim for compensation was also incompatible with the principles for the protection of the right to life.	Press Release
Osman Palçik 2018/25073 15 December 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the applicant’s punishment on account of his criticisms against a politician who was being prosecuted. - The applicant, a columnist in a local newspaper of a district, shared unfavourable posts against M.G. through his social media account. - M.G., mayor of the same district, was being prosecuted on charges of bribery and corruption as well as of membership of a terrorist organisation. Ultimately, he was acquitted of the charges of bribery and corruption, and a decision of non-prosecution was issued in respect of his alleged membership. - Upon M.G.’s complaint, the applicant was imposed a judicial fine for insulting the former. - Whether a fair balance was struck the applicant’s freedom of expression and the complainant’s right to honour and reputation. - Given the proceedings conducted against M.G., the applicant’s expressions against M.G. had indeed factual basis and were proportionate. Nor did they constitute an insult. - As a politician, M.G. should have shown more tolerance towards criticisms against him, compared to ordinary persons. - Having expressed his opinions about the current issues of the district, the applicant made contribution to a debate of public interest. - However, the court, convicting the applicant, failed to strike a fair balance between the respective rights of the applicant and the complainant.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Esra Özkan Özakça 2017/32052 8 October 2020 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to the unlawfulness of the measure entailing the obligation not to leave residence (house arrest). - The applicant’s husband, dismissed from public office while serving as a teacher through a Decree-law issued under the state of emergency, embarked on a sit-down strike and subsequently on a hunger strike. - The applicant then joined her husband and went on a sit-down strike and subsequently on a hunger strike when the latter was detained on remand for his alleged membership of a terrorist organisation, namely the DHKP/C. - The applicant was also subjected to an investigation for the very same offence and ultimately granted a conditional bail requiring her not to leave residence. - At the end of the criminal proceedings, the measure entailing the requirement not to leave residence was replaced with the measure requiring her to report to the police station for signature. - Going on a sit-down or a hunger strike, which may be under certain circumstances regarded as a special aspect of the freedom of expression, should not be considered per se to constitute an offence, in the absence of any finding that these acts have been performed in relation with terrorism or for the purposes of praising, legitimising or encouraging the use of the terrorist organisation’s methods involving coercion, violence and threat. - No document or finding in the investigation file to demonstrate that the applicant embarked on sit-down and hunger strikes for an organisational purpose or she had engaged in such acts as a stance in favour of the terrorist organisation.	Press Release
Şahin Alpay (3) 2018/10327 3 December 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right since although the Court had previously ordered that the violation and its consequences would be redressed through his release, the inferior court granted him conditional bail requiring him not to leave residence (house arrest). - The applicant filed an individual application for the third time. In his previous two applications, the Court found a violation of the same right. - The inferior courts insisted on their practices resulting in the applicant’s deprivation of liberty. - Whether the measure entailing the obligation not to leave residence constitutes an interference with the right to personal liberty and security is at issue. - In one of its recent judgments in another case, the Court concluded that given its nature and the way of its application, the impugned measure constituted an interference with the right to personal liberty and security. - The incumbent courts failed to demonstrate the strong indication of the applicant’s guilt as a prerequisite for the measure entailing the obligation not to leave residence. - The inferior courts failed to redress the violation and its consequences, which had previously been found by the Court.	Press Release
K.S. 2017/29420 3 December 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the right to an effective remedy safeguarded by Article 40 of the Constitution in conjunction with the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 thereof	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the applicant’s deportation to a country where there existed a risk of ill-treatment against him and the non-suspension of the deportation process pending the action brought against his deportation order. - The applicant of Uzbek origin legally residing in Turkey with his family was placed in administrative detention, pursuant to Law no. 6458 on the Foreigners and International Protection, on suspicion of having a link with a terrorist organisation. - The incumbent administration also ordered his deportation. - Pending the administrative action brought by him for the stay of execution of his deportation order due to the risk of his being subjected to ill-treatment, at the end of which the deportation order was annulled with final effect, the applicant was deported to his country. - Despite the annulment of the deportation order by the judicial authorities, the applicant was deported to his country as no interim measure to suspend his deportation had been taken. - The administrative and judicial authorities’ failure to conduct a rigorous assessment as to the alleged risk of ill-treatment in case of deportation.
Rıdvan Batur 2018/17680 3 December 2020 (First Section)	Violations of the principles of equality of arms and of the adversarial proceedings inherent in the right to a fair trial	- Alleged violations of the said principles due to the failure to notify the information and documents relied on as a basis during the proceedings to the applicant. - The applicant, having successfully passed the exam held by the relevant Ministry, was not appointed as a tax inspector. He filed an application with the Ministry to be informed of the reasons precluding his appointment but could not receive any concrete explanation. - He then filed an action before the incumbent administrative court; however, it was dismissed. The applicant’s appeal request was also dismissed. -The administrative court concluded mainly on the basis of the documents submitted by the relevant Ministry that the process whereby the applicant’s appointment had been denied was lawful. - The applicant was not provided with practical and effective opportunities to examine, to comment on, and to challenge the documents forming the basis of the decision.
Barış Koç 2016/11722 15 September 2020 (Second Section)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the applicant’s being imposed a disciplinary sanction on account of his petition submitted to his military superiors. - The applicant, a military officer at the Turkish Armed Forces, submitted a petition to his superiors and sought for certain arrangements concerning the guard duty. - Thereafter, the applicant, asked to submit his defence submissions on account of certain expressions in his petition, was given a disciplinary sanction (reprimand). His challenge for the annulment of this sanction was dismissed by the relevant command. - Civil servants including the military officers are entitled to freedom of expression, like all other individuals of the society. - The applicant was given a disciplinary sanction not for having submitted a petition but for his certain statements found to be in breach of the correspondence rules within the military and rules to be observed in addressing to superiors. - The petition was not formulated in a harsh and impudent style. - The sanction imposed on the applicant did not meet any pressing social need in a democratic society.
*II. Constitutionality Review*
E.2019/100 22 October 2020 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the contested phrase included in the second sentence of Article 5 § 4 (a) of Law no. 7143	- Pursuant to Article 5 of Tax Amnesty Law no. 7143, which embodies the contested provision, if any tax amount having accrued due to an increase in tax basis or tax is not paid within the time-limit and in the manner prescribed in the law, the due amount shall be collected, pursuant to Article 51 of Law no. 6183, plus the accrued default interest; and the relevant tax-payers shall not seek for the application of Article 5 of Law no. 7143. - It is maintained that the contested provision makes the tax-payer failing to satisfy the payment conditions subjected to two separate sanctions; that therefore, the contested arrangement is not fair and proportionate and is also in breach of the principles of fairness as well as of equality in taxation. - Given the provision in question, the Court has concluded that the restriction has been imposed through an accessible, precise and foreseeable provision of law. - The tax administration is entitled, by virtue of the contested provision, to have recourse to two different processes at the same time in order to ensure the collection of the due amount of tax. However, it does not amount to a double taxation. - Besides, there is an available legal remedy whereby those concerned may have recourse to in case of any dispute likely to derive from the application of the contested provision. - Although the contested provision imposes a restriction on the right to property, necessary and sufficient safeguards have been afforded to avoid any excessive individual burden.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Abdullah Yaşa 2015/12486 5 November 2020 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to an effective remedy safeguarded by Article 40 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right for the administration’s failure to redress the non-pecuniary damage he had sustained due to his injury as a result of disproportionate use of force by the security forces. - It was already found established by the ECHR that the prohibition of ill-treatment had been violated, and thus the applicant was awarded compensation. - Existence of an explicit inconsistency between the ECHR’s judgment and the administrative court’s decision dismissing the applicant’s action for compensation, given their respective reasoning and conclusions. - Article 46 § 1 of the Convention, which provides that the final judgments of the ECHR are binding for the Contracting Parties, comes into play. - In cases where the ECHR has found a violation of any constitutional right, the individual concerned shall have a right to an effective remedy. - In addition, there is a contradiction between the findings of the administrative court and those of the assize court.	Press Release
Candar Şafak Dönmez 2015/15672 5 November 2020 (Plenary)	No violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the applicant’s conviction. - The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment severally for his membership of the TKP/ML–TIKKO (the Turkish Communist Party-Marxist Leninist - Turkish Workers and Peasants’ Liberation Army) and for having disseminated terrorist propaganda. - Given the slogans chanted and the activities performed by him, he was proven to praise the members of the terrorist organisation, to support their violent activities and to glorify the deceased members of the organisation in the context of their organisational role. - His impugned acts cannot be considered merely as an abstract danger. - The impugned interference was found to meet a pressing social need, be proportionate and compatible with the requirements of a democratic society.
*II. Constitutionality Review*
E.2019/21 24 September 2020 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provisions on the revocation of demolition orders and administrative fines with respect to the unlicensed buildings situated in the Bosphorus Frontal View Area	- Contested provisions allow for the revocation of the demolition orders issued and administrative fines imposed with respect to the unlicensed buildings situated in the Bosphorus Frontal View Area, as well as for the official registration of the buildings constructed in contravention of Zoning Law. - Alleged to be unconstitutional as they contradict the State’s duty to preserve the historical, cultural and natural assets and hinder the execution of the demolition orders issued with respect to the several unlicensed constructions situated in the Bosphorus Area, as well as the collection of the administrative fines imposed on account thereof. - As clearly indicated in the Constitution, the State is under the obligation, inter alia, to take measures so as to improve the natural environment, to protect the environmental health as well as to secure the protection of historical, cultural and natural assets and wealth. - The preservation of the Bosphorus coastline and the frontal view area, having several outstanding cultural and natural assets, is a concern not only to those living today but also to the next generations: involving a significant public interest. - No reasonable balance between the competing interests.	Press Release
E.2019/7 15 October 2020 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision stipulating that the uncollected administrative fines regarding the buildings with a building registration certificate shall be revoked.	- Contested provision sets forth that the uncollected administrative fines regarding the buildings with a building registration certificate shall be revoked. - The provision is claimed to be unconstitutional since it puts those who have already paid the fines at a disadvantage when compared to those who have not made a payment yet, despite being in the same legal position and situation, which is allegedly in contradiction with the principle of equality. - It is clear that the first group is at a disadvantage. - However, the aim pursued by such a regulation is to reduce the workload of the judiciary and municipalities. Hence, it pursues a legitimate aim. - Within the scope of the reconstruction peace, it is at the discretion of the legislator to revoke the already collected administrative fines, provided that it is not contrary to the constitutional rules and principles. - Besides, the impugned rule is provisional. - The contested provision is based on a reasonable and objective ground and is proportionate; therefore, it has been found constitutional, and the request for its annulment has been dismissed.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Mehmet Aypan 2016/4868 30 September 2020 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to protect the corporeal and spiritual existence safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the impugned right due to insufficient compensation awarded for visual loss caused during military service. - The applicant, found medically fit for military service, was recruited in the Gendarmerie Training Command. Having complained of pain and visual loss in his one eye, the applicant was then referred to a hospital where he underwent a surgery for having eye infection. - He was subsequently discharged from the army for being no longer fit for military service. - He suffered a total loss of vision in his eye. - In the action brought by him for compensation, the Supreme Military Administrative Court found neglect of duty on the part of the relevant administration for having recruited the applicant who had been indeed medically unfit for military service and accordingly awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation. - The Court however observed a manifest disproportionality between the amount of non-pecuniary compensation awarded to, and the damage sustained by, the applicant and found the awarded amount so low that would impair the very essence of the right to compensation. - Positive obligations incumbent on the State within the meaning of the right in question were not fulfilled in the present case.	Press Release
Public Services Employees Union of Turkey 2016/14475 30 September 2020 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to union safeguarded by Article 51 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the refusal to grant leave for an investigation against an administrator allegedly exerting pressure on the unionised employees. - As maintained by the applicant union, the Deputy Mayor ordered the unionised employees working in a municipality to immediately resign from the union and otherwise, their employment contracts would be terminated. - In this sense, the employment contract of the union’s representative at that workplace was terminated. However, the incumbent civil court ordered the reinstatement of the union’s representative to his post, stating that his employment contract had been terminated for union-related reasons, as in the cases of two other employees who had been also dismissed. - The applicant union filed a criminal complaint before the incumbent prosecutor’s office against the Deputy Mayor for his having precluded the exercise of union-related rights. However, no leave was granted for an investigation. - The way in which the public authorities conducted the investigation was not capable of having a deterrent effect to prevent unjustified interferences with the right to union.	Press Release
Majid Momtaz 2017/24261 30 September 2020 (Second Section)	No violation of the right to respect for family life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the deportation order issued against the applicant. - The applicant, a foreign national married to a Turkish citizen with two children, was sentenced to imprisonment for forgery of official documents. He was then released on conditional bail. A decision ordering his deportation and administrative detention was issued due to his posing a threat to the public order. - His action for annulment of the decision was dismissed by the administrative court. His request for an interim measure to stay the execution of the deportation order was also dismissed by the Court. - The applicant’s failure to take the necessary steps to lawfully reside in Turkey despite living in the country for about 30 years and married to a Turkish citizen. - His deportation order was overridden by the legitimate aim of maintaining public order and security. - Nor did he submit any concrete information or document to show the serious obstacles to his living with his family outside Turkey.
*II. Constitutionality Review*
E.2020/60 1 October 2020 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provisions allowing for the establishment of several bar associations in the same province	- Contested provisions allow for the establishment of a bar association, with the presence of a minimum of two thousand lawyers, in the provinces with more than five thousand lawyers exercising the legal profession and accordingly set forth the relevant principles and procedures. - It is argued inter alia that Article 135 of the Constitution cannot be interpreted in a way that would allow for the establishment of several public legal entities in a region so as to exercise the same profession; and that the establishment of more than one bar association in the same province would lead to an impression that the lawyers from the bar associations having a close relationship with the ruling party would be in a more advantageous position vis-à-vis the others before the judiciary. - The Court notes that there is no constitutional restriction to the effect that there cannot be several professional organisations in the form of a public institution in the same region. - Whether the enacted law is in pursuance of public interest: The Court found that the contested provisions do not pursue any aim other than that of the public interest. - Besides, legal measures have been taken so as to prevent the bar associations from engaging in any activity that serve any aim other than those specified in the Constitution and Law.	Press Release
E.2018/124 15 October 2020 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the contested provisions laid down in the Presidential Decree on the Presidency of Defence Industry	A. Contested provision empowering the Presidency of Defence Industry (“PDI”) to found its organisation abroad. - It is argued that the PDI’s organisation abroad cannot be founded through a Presidential Decree. - The contested provision is concerning a matter regarding executive power and does not embody any regulation on the fundamental rights, individual rights and duties, as well as on the political rights and duties which cannot be regulated through a presidential decree. - Nor is the provision concerning a matter needed to be regulated exclusively by law. Accordingly, it has been found constitutional insofar as it relates to the competence ratione materiae. - Nor has it been found unconstitutional by its content. B. Contested Provision on the appointment procedure of the PDI’s personnel - It is set forth therein that the personnel of the PDI shall be appointed upon the approval of the President; and that the President may delegate this authority to the Head of the PDI. - It is argued that the principles and rules on the employment of the PDI’s personnel should have been regulated by law; and that as the employment by public institutions falls within the scope of the right to hold a public office, this issue cannot be regulated through a presidential decree. - The contested provision merely designates the competent authority to appoint the PDI’s personnel and does not contain any arrangement as to the employment requirements. It is therefore not a matter falling under the scope of the right to hold a public office. - Nor is there any provision of law explicitly regulating this matter. - Accordingly, the contested provision has been found constitutional insofar as it relates to the competence ratione materiae. - As the contested provision, which is to be clear, precise, comprehensible, enforceable and objective to the extent that would cause no hesitation and doubt for both individuals and the administration, involves no unclarity, it has been found constitutional by its content.
E.2020/14 15 October 2020 (Plenary)	Annulment of the contested phrase “… imprisonment for longer than 6 months” in Article 6 (E) of the Law no. 772 on the District Guards, the assistant law-enforcement officers (“Bekçi”)	-Contested provision stipulates that those who have been sentenced to imprisonment for longer 6 months are not eligible to serve as a district guard. - It is argued that the contested provision does not contain any distinction as to the nature and classification of the criminal act due to which imprisonment sentence is imposed, despite the general conditions sought for becoming a public officer, which only prohibits holding a public office in case of imprisonment due to a deliberate offence. - It has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled for serving no legitimate aim within the constitutional context.
E.2019/59 22 October 2020 (Plenary)	Annulment of the contested provision prohibiting the attachment of the movable and immovable properties of private schools until the end of the relevant school year	- Contested provision stipulates that the movable and immovable properties of the private schools operating under Law no. 5580 cannot be subject to attachment until the end of the relevant school year. - It is argued that the failure to delimit the attachment prohibition with the movable and immovable properties used exclusively for educational activities imposes an excessive burden on the creditor; and that despite the opportunity to impose a temporary ban on sale and disposal of such properties, to prescribe an attachment prohibition falls foul of the principle of equality. - Contested provision is indeed intended for ensuring the continued educational activities without any delay at schools within the scope of the constitutional right to education. - However, no distinction is set as to the nature of the properties which cannot be se subject to attachment during the relevant school year and thereby the scope of such prohibition is extended to the properties of such individuals which are indeed related to any other field of business activity. - It has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled for upsetting the balance to be strike between a creditor and a debtor to the detriment of the former.
E.2020/1 22 October 2020 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the contested provision setting an upper limit for the counsel fees to be distributed among the counsels	- Contested provision sets an upper limit for the counsel fees awarded in favour of the relevant administration and to be subsequently distributed among the counsels of the administration. - It is argued that as the contested provision, containing an arrangement as to financial rights, cannot be regulated through a decree law; and that it is therefore unconstitutional. - The upper limit prescribed therein is formulated in a clear, precise and computable way. Therefore, the contested provision is not found indefinite and unforeseeable. - Besides, it is intended for ensuring fairness, as well as equity of income distribution, among the counsels holding office in the same department, thereby being in pursuance of the public interest.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Özkan Karataş and Others 2017/31774 14 October 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right due to imposition of administration fines for their sit-in protest without permission during the state of emergency period. - The aim sought to be achieved through the permission requirement put into effect during the state of emergency was to enable the authorities to prevent the incidents that might disturb public order and to take necessary measures in advance. - In the circumstances of the case, the applicants’ failure to seek permission was not necessarily a required element for the administration to take measures. - There was no evidence that the applicants had disturbed the public order due to their acts in the public area closed to traffic. - The applicants' peaceful demonstration, in other words their just sitting on a bench for about seventy days, should have been tolerated in a democratic society. - Punishment of the applicants, who had participated in a peaceful demonstration not interfering with daily life, traffic or the public services, through the imposition of administrative fines on account of their failure to seek permission cannot be regarded as a restriction proportionate to the aim pursued during the state of emergency.	Press Release
*II. Constitutionality Review*
E.2020/12 10 September 2020 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision banning demonstration marches on intercity highways	- Contested provision stipulates that demonstration marches shall not be held on intercity highways. - It was argued that in determining the place where a demonstration march would be held, the rights and freedoms of other individuals who would use that place should also be taken into consideration; however, the impugned provision imposed a categorical ban without such consideration. - The right to hold meetings and demonstration marches, taken together with the freedom of expression, forms the basis of a democratic society. - As pointed out in the previous judgments of the Court, meetings and demonstration marches inevitably have an adverse effect on the daily lives of others, which should be tolerated in a democratic society. - However, unless there is a pressing need in a democratic society, individuals should be able to choose the place where they will hold a demonstration march. -The contested provision categorically bans the organisation of demonstration marches on intercity highways, without referring to the extent of the potential disruption or hardship. - The impugned restriction on the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches does not meet a pressing social need, nor does it comply with the requirements of the order of a democratic society. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled.	Press Release
E.2019/69 10 September 2020 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision prescribing criminal sanction for disclosing the identities of child victims of crime in periodicals	- Contested provision prescribes criminal sanction for disclosing the identities or causing the recognition of minor victims of crime in periodicals. - It was argued that the acts to be subject to criminal sanction pursuant to the contested provision was limited to the periodicals and would not constitute crime if committed through the mass media, and that the rights of those to be mentioned in the news would override the freedom of the press. - Constitutional provisions allows for the restriction of the freedom of expression for the purpose of protecting the reputation or rights of others. - The contested provision aims to protect the reputation and rights of child victims, thereby pursuing a legitimate aim. The said restriction also complies with the constitutional provision that requires the State to take measures to protect children against all kinds of abuse. - Equality before the law does not necessarily mean that everyone shall be bound by the same rules. The particular circumstances may require different rules and practices for some individuals or communities. - It is at the discretion of the legislator, within constitutional limits, to prescribe different types of sanctions for the same act committed through different means, which does not contravene the principle of equality. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional and the request for its annulment has been dismissed.
E.2020/27 24 September 2020 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision stipulating that the mayor may appeal the final decisions of municipal before the administrative courts	- Contested provision sets forth that the mayor may appeal the final decisions issued by the municipal council before the administrative courts. - It was argued that in the cases to be filed by the mayor against the decisions of the municipal council, there is uncertainty about the person who will represent the municipality. - One of the basic principles of the rule of law is certainty, which can also be achieved through the courts’ case-law, provided that it meets the requirements such as being accessible and foreseeable. - It is foreseeable that the technical aspects of the said remedy, the general framework of which is set by the impugned provision, shall be determined by the administrative courts through the case-law. - Thus, the contested provision is not uncertain. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional and the request for its annulment has been dismissed.
E.2020/21 1 October 2020 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision whereby the court decisions issued upon objection to an administrative fine are considered final	- Contested provision sets forth that the decisions issued by courts upon objection to administrative fines that have been imposed on construction inspection authorities shall be final. - It was argued that the contested provision was unconstitutional as the administrative fines, subject-matter of the court decisions envisaged to be final in the contested provision, might be in excessive amounts and that these decisions therefore must be subject to appellate review. - The right to appellate review of a decision is applicable to all proceedings either based on a criminal charge or concerning civil rights and obligations. - The contested provision, which envisages that the court decisions issued upon objection to an administrative fine shall be final, constitutes a restriction on the right to appellate review of a decision by another court. - The administrative fines in excessive amounts are in the form of severe sanctions, given their effect on the financial situation of the concerned individual; and that they therefore amount to a punishment. - In this sense, the importance attached to the appellate review of such decisions, which may cause the relevant individual to face a severe penalty in financial terms, cannot be denied. - The contested provision imposes a disproportionate restriction on the right to appellate review of a court decision. - Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled.	Press Release

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Ayla Demir İşat 2018/24245 8 October 2020 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to respect for private life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the termination of the applicant’s employment contract, based on breach of confidence. - The applicant, an employee serving at the Central Union of the Turkish Agricultural Credit Cooperatives, was dismissed from office -without notice and compensation- following the coup attempt, by virtue of the Decree-law no. 667. - Her action for reinstatement in the relevant post was dismissed by the relevant court. Her challenge and subsequent appeal request were also rejected. - The application was examined under the right to respect for private life as the impugned interference with the professional life had a severe effect on the applicant’s private life, which attained a certain level of gravity. - Reasons underlying the suspicion to the effect that she was in relation or connection with the FETÖ/PDY were not capable of proving the alleged breach of confidence. - No plausible, relevant and sufficient grounds to justify that the impugned interference met a pressing social need.	Press Release
*II. Constitutionality Review*
E.2018/31 16 July 2020 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision regarding the lack of responsibility of the civilians, who resisted the coup attempt of July 15, for their acts during such resistance	- Contested provision stipulates that those who contributed to the suppression of the coup attempt of 15 July 2016 and related terrorist activities, regardless of whether they had an official title or fulfilled an official duty, shall not have legal, administrative, financial or criminal responsibilities due to their acts. - It is argued that the impugned provision has the characteristics of granting amnesty, therefore, a three-fifths majority is sought for its adoption by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey; and that it is unconstitutional as it limits many fundamental rights and freedoms disproportionately, notably the right to life and the prohibition of torture. - As regards the formal examination of the impugned provision, it is observed that the provision is not related to an offence. In order for the applicability of amnesty, there must be an offence. Thus, a qualified majority is not required for the adoption of such provision. - As regards the substantive examination of the impugned provision, it is observed that the provision does not impose an obstacle for trial. In the examination of the acts claimed to have been wrongful, it shall be considered whether the act in question was committed under the conditions stipulated by the provision, and if it is concluded otherwise, the criminal responsibility shall come to the fore. - Consequently, the contested provision has not been found unconstitutional and thus the request for its annulment has been dismissed.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Hüseyin Sezer 2016/13566 and Barış Baş 2016/14253 2 July 2020 (Plenary)	Violation of the presumption of innocence safeguarded by Articles 36 and 38 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicants’ presumption of innocence due to the administrative courts’ failure to consider the acquittal decisions issued in the criminal proceedings. - The applicants were tried before the incumbent criminal courts due the offences imputed to them, and at the end of the criminal proceedings, they were acquitted. - Due the same impugned acts, a disciplinary penalty was imposed on them. The actions brought by them for the revocation of their disciplinary penalties were dismissed as the incumbent administrative court found the penalties lawful. - In cases where the acts subject-matter of the disciplinary and criminal proceedings are the same, the administrative courts dealing with the disputes concerning disciplinary investigations are expected to respect the conclusion reached by the criminal court and not to use expressions that would question the criminal court’s conclusion. - In the present cases, the administrative court and the regional administrative court not only discussed the conclusion reached by the criminal court in its decision but also created the impression for those reading the decisions that the applicants had committed the imputed acts, which rendered the acquittal decisions dysfunctional and casted doubt on their innocence.	Press Release
S.A. 2017/40199 8 September 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the right to marry safeguarded by Articles 20 and 41 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the failure to notify the divorce decree to the spouse abroad. - The applicant was divorced from her Tanzanian husband on 21 February 2003. - The civil court issued a writ to the Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry”), seeking the notification of the divorce decree to the defendant (ex-husband) who was in his country of origin. - In 2016, the applicant was informed that although the request had been submitted several times to the relevant ministry of the respondent country, any reply had not been taken due to systemic problems in the country. - The outcome of divorce proceedings could not be notified to the defendant for his not being in Turkey. Therefore, the applicant’s marital status could not be changed, despite 17 years having elapsed since the date of divorce decree, due to the non-completion of the finalisation process. - Failure of the relevant authorities to apply the alternative legal means, namely notice by publication. - The due diligence obligation was disregarded to the extent that would impair the very essence of the right to marry.	Press Release
Tahir Baykuşak 2016/31718 9 July 2020 (Second Section)	Violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment, safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment due to the failure to prosecute the police officers allegedly battered the applicant during an identity check. - The State’s obligation to protect the corporeal and spiritual existence of the individuals from any danger, threat and violence came into play. - The investigation authorities’ failure to take statements of the witnesses. - Given the consequences of the treatment of the law enforcement officers against the applicant, the minimum threshold of severity required by the Constitution had been exceeded. - In addition, although it was stated in the first medical report issued in respect of the applicant that there was no sign of assault on his body, the subsequent report that was issued on the same day upon the applicant’s request proved otherwise. - The investigation authorities failed to investigate the relevant doctor, either. - Hence, the investigation into the incident lacked both thoroughness and effectiveness.	Press Release

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Kadri Enis Berberoğlu 2018/30030 17 September 2020 (Plenary)	Violations of the right to be elected and engage in political activities as well as the right to personal liberty and security, respectively safeguarded by Articles 67 and 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of the applicant’s rights for his having been held in detention on remand even after he was re-entitled to parliamentary immunity following his re-election as a Member of the Parliament. - Pursuant to Article 83 § 4 of the Constitution, which stipulates that parliamentary immunity shall be granted throughout a legislative session and lifted at the end of the session, a re-elected MP shall be, as a rule, re-entitled to parliamentary immunity. - Parliamentary immunity, as a constitutional institution, is a protection mechanism employed to ensure that MPs can freely participate in legislative activities without encountering any obstacle. - An exception to a general rule –in the present case, Provisional Article 20– cannot be interpreted broadly, and its scope cannot be extended as well. - The denial of the applicant’s re-entitlement to parliamentary immunity, despite his being re-elected as an MP, pursuant to the imperative provision of Article 83 § 4, which is a general rule, as considered to fall into the scope of Provisional Article 20 of the Constitution runs contrary to the wording of the relevant article as well as the will of the constitution-maker. - The applicant was re-entitled to parliamentary immunity as of the date of his re-election as an MP at the general elections and therefore; his continued detention after the relevant date was incompatible with Article 83 of the Constitution. - The applicant's request for release –relying on his parliamentary immunity– was not examined on the merits from 29 June 2018 until 20 September 2018, and his detention continued throughout this period. Thus, deprivation of the applicant's liberty between the aforementioned dates has been incompatible with Article 83 of the Constitution, where the guarantees related to parliamentary immunity are laid down.	Press Release
Arif Ali Cangı 2016/4060 17 September 2020 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to the protection of personal data under the right to respect for private life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the disclosure of the applicant’s private information to a third party. - The applicant, a lawyer, was the plaintiff in an action brought for the annulment of the impugned zoning plan. The intervening party of the said annulment proceedings requested information from the relevant Ministry to use during the proceedings. - Information disclosed to the other party included the applicant’s personal data. - Upon the dismissal by the relevant administration of his claim for non-pecuniary compensation, the applicant brought an action for compensation due to the disclosure of his personal data; but it was dismissed by the administrative court. - Neither the administration nor the judicial authorities proved a public interest in the disclosure of the information about the applicant. - Interference with the applicant’s right to the protection of his personal data lacked any legal basis. - The collection and disclosure of such information in the absence of the applicant’s explicit consent did not meet a pressing social need and were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society.	Press Release
Bestami Eroğlu 2018/23077 17 September 2020 (Plenary)	No violation of the right to the protection of personal data and the freedom of communication safeguarded by Articles 20 and 22 of the Constitution respectively	- Alleged violation of the said right and freedom due to the unlawful gathering of the applicant’s ByLock communication and personal data. - The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for his membership of the FETÖ/PDY terrorist organisation. The decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation. - The impugned interference pursued the aims of revealing the activities of the said terrorist organisation and preventing the commission of offences. - The use of intelligence methods is inevitable for the identification of the members of this clandestine organisation and uncovering of its activities. -The applicant’s communications were intercepted and obtained pursuant to the relevant laws and by virtue of a court decision. - Besides, the impugned interference was necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the aims pursued.
E.Ü. 2016/13010 17 September 2020 (Plenary)	Violations of the right to the protection of personal data and the freedom of communication safeguarded by Articles 20 and 22 of the Constitution respectively	- Alleged violation of the said right and freedom due to the termination of the applicant’s employment contract on the basis of his correspondences through the e-mail address of the workplace. - The applicant, a lawyer in a law office, was dismissed from office at the end of the administrative investigation during which his e-mail communications were monitored. - The relevant court dismissed the applicant’s action for reinstatement, which was subsequently upheld by the Court of Cassation. - In the present case, the applicant had not been explicitly informed of any possible monitoring of the communications through the official e-mail address of the workplace. - Besides, the employer failed to demonstrate any legal basis and any compelling reasons to justify the impugned interference. - Inferior courts failed to observe the relevant constitutional safeguards and conduct the proceedings diligently, thereby to fulfil the relevant positive obligations.
N.K. 2017/21761 22 July 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the right to an effective remedy, safeguarded by Article 40 of the Constitution, in conjunction with the prohibition of ill-treatment, safeguarded by Article 17 thereof	- Alleged violation of the said right for not being awarded compensation despite being detained in inappropriate conditions pending the execution of the deportation order, which was found unlawful through a court decision. - The applicant was placed in administrative detention pending her deportation for prostitution. However, her deportation order was annulled by the administrative court, and she was then released from the foreigners’ removal centre where she had been placed in administrative detention for 62 days. - She brought an action for compensation for being detained in inappropriate conditions. However, it was dismissed. Upon the appellate process, the regional administrative court awarded partial compensation to her. - Although the applicant clearly complained of her detention conditions, neither the inferior court nor the appellate authority considered these allegations. - They confined their examinations to the applicant’s allegedly unjust detention and failed to conduct an inquiry into the alleged violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment due to the impugned detention conditions. - Therefore, no examination was conducted as to the question whether the applicant’s detention conditions were compatible with human dignity.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2020/44 17 July 2020 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the Law no. 7242 on Amending the Law on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures and Certain Laws as well as of the Amended Provisional Article 6 of the Law no. 5275 for not being unconstitutional	- Alleged unconstitutionality in form as the impugned statutory arrangement is in the form of a special blanket pardon, and adoption of laws concerning the grant of pardon requires a three-fifth majority of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. However, this qualified majority was not sought in the adoption of the contested law. - The contested provisions are mainly related to the remission of the sentences imposed in respect of certain offences. - Whether the contested arrangement is indeed a parole: it has been concluded that it is not a parole as it does not introduce a change in the total length of the sentence and it only includes provisions as to the procedure of the execution of the imposed sentence. - Therefore, the contested law was adopted by maintaining the required quorum for meeting and decision specified in the relevant provision of the Constitution.
E.2019/40 17 July 2020 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain provisions authorizing the executive to determine the general conditions of the compulsory liability insurance	- Contested provisions do not regulate the scope of the liability of the insurance company arising from the compulsory liability insurance contract; instead they provide that this scope shall be determined by the general conditions, which are the regulatory act of the administration. - According to the contested provisions, the liability of the insurance company to arise from the compulsory liability insurance contract shall be determined by the administration according to the general conditions which may always change. - Thus, the main framework and basic principles regarding the determination of the scope of the debt are not determined by the law, and the administration is granted a broad discretionary power in this regard. - Therefore, the provisions restricting the content of the contract are in breach of Articles 13 and 48 of the Constitution in terms of the criteria of legality. - Besides, the contested provisions should be evaluated considering the balance between the interests of the parties to the contract. - The contested provisions have been found unconstitutional and annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Mehmet Ali Ayhan 2016/7967 22 July 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the right to legal assistance safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the dismissal of the request for a retrial filed in accordance with the ECHR’s violation judgment. - The applicant, who had not been provided with legal assistance at the investigation stage, was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment. After the appellate review, the first instance decision became final. - He then lodged an application with the ECHR, which found violations of the right to legal assistance due to his lack of legal assistance at the investigation stage, as well as of the right to a trial within reasonable time. - Relying on the ECHR’s judgment, the applicant filed a request with the incumbent court for a stay of execution of his sentence and for a retrial. - Indeed, a retrial was conducted by the first instance court, which ultimately upheld the initial decision. - It cannot be fully ascertained whether the applicant’s statements, obtained at the investigation stage in the absence of his defence counsel and forming the subject matter of the ECHR’s violation judgment, was relied on as a ground in his conviction ordered at the end of the re-trial. - Failure to comply with the ECHR’s violation judgment.	Press Release
B.A.Ş. 2017/28013 22 July 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the right of access to a court safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the dismissal of the action for reimbursement of stamp fee as time-barred. - The applicant, a company engaging in import business in the automotive sector, filed a request with the relevant administration for the reimbursement of the surplus amount of the stamp fee it had paid erroneously for the imported vehicles. - His request was left unanswered, and he then brought an action before the administrative court. - The action was dismissed as time-barred, and the applicant’s appeal request was also dismissed. - As indicated by the inferior court, any surplus amount of stamp fee paid based on an incorrect declaration could be reimbursed by filing a request with the administration. However, this request be filed within 60 days, the period for bringing an action, running from the date of accrual (payment). - The inferior court’s interpretation as to the limitation period for bringing an action precluded the applicant from bringing an action and thereby placed an excessive burden on it; and that the burden borne by the applicant was not proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued.	Press Release
Mehmet Şimşek 2018/10953 22 July 2020 (First Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to personal liberty and security as out of time.	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to his allegedly unlawful and arbitrary detention. - The applicant, detained on remand during the investigation initiated following the coup attempt of 15 July, was sentenced to imprisonment for his membership of the terrorist organisation, FETÖ/PDY. - The regional court of appeal, examining his appellate request, ordered a rehearing of his case as well as his continued detention. The challenge against the continued detention was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed an individual application. - A rehearing ordered by the regional court of appeal does not automatically lead to the annulment of the conviction decision, which would continue to remain in full force until the end of the rehearing. - On the other hand, the allegations indicated in the application form concern the unlawfulness of his detention on remand. - Therefore, the application was declared inadmissible as lodged out of time.
Onmed Tıbbi Ürünler Paz. ve Dış Tic. Ltd. Şti 2016/8342 17 June 2020 (Second Section)	Violation of the nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege principle safeguarded by Article 38 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation the said principle, requiring the offences and corresponding penalties to be clearly defined by law, due to the decision issued without considering the new statutory arrangement, which was more favourable to the applicant. - The applicant, a company engaging in purchase and sale of medical consumable materials, was imposed an administrative fine for having contravened the Law on the Protection of Competition. His action for the revocation of this fine was dismissed. His appellate request was also dismissed. - Pending the proceedings, the criterion applied in the determination of the amount of administrative fines was changed by virtue of an amendment to the relevant law. - Despite the applicant’s claim that the new provision was in its favour and must therefore be applied to its case, the Council of State failed to make any assessment in that regard.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Tamer Mahmutoğlu 2017/38953 23 July 2020 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to respect for private life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the annulment of the applicant’s registration with the bar association for being dismissed from public office. - The applicant, a bachelor of laws, was dismissed from his public office due to his involvement, relation or link with the FETÖ/PDY. - He then filed a request with a Bar Association to enter on its registry; however, the Bar Association refused the request. Thereafter, he challenged the refusal before the Union of Turkish Bar Associations (“the TBB”). It accordingly annulled the Bar Association’s decision refusing the applicant’s request. - After the TBB’s decision had been finalised, the Ministry of Justice brought an action for annulment before the incumbent administrative court, which annulled the TBB’s decision as those who had been dismissed from public office by virtue of the decree-laws issued under the state of emergency could not be allowed to register with the bar association as, and to use the title of, a lawyer. - In the meantime, the applicant was acquitted at the end of the criminal proceedings. - Whether the impugned interference had a legal basis: the relevant statutory arrangements set forth that those who have been dismissed from their public offices would no longer hold a public office and can no longer use their titles. The applicant did not get the title of lawyer by virtue of his public office. Besides, the profession of lawyer is, in principle, a self-employed profession which is not subject to an administrative hierarchy, and the self-employed lawyers do not practise for and on behalf of the State.	Press Release
M.B. 2018/37392 23 July 2020 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to fair proceedings within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the unforeseeable interpretation of the relevant provisions in the action brought for the annulment of the applicant’s registration with the bar association. - The applicant, holding office as a public prosecutor, was dismissed from his public office following the coup attempt of 15 July. Following his dismissal from public office, the applicant filed a request with a Bar Association to enter on its registry. The Bar Association accepted the request and subsequently, the TBB approved the bar association’s decision. - After the TBB’s decision had been finalised, the Ministry of Justice brought an action for annulment before the incumbent administrative court, which ordered the stay of execution and also annulled the TBB’s decision. The appeals against the court’s decision were rejected. - A decision of non-prosecution was issued at the end of the criminal investigation conducted against the applicant. - The basic question to be resolved in this case is whether the applicant met the necessary conditions sought for practising as a lawyer. In the court’s annulment decision, the applicant was found not to have satisfied the necessary conditions. - Despite being defined as a public service in the relevant law, the profession of self-employed lawyer is not undoubtedly a public service as the lawyers registered with a bar association, save for those practising this profession in public institutions and organisations, do not have any direct or indirect affiliation with the State. - Any interpretation and practice which extends the scope of a given law restricting a right or freedom may give rise to the imposition of a restriction, which has not indeed introduced by the legislator, by administrative and judicial authorities. - The broad and unforeseeable interpretation of the relevant provision of law rendered dysfunctional the procedural safeguards afforded to the applicant.	Press Release
Şeyhmus Terece 2017/26532 23 July 2020 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the prolonged application of an interim injunction imposed on the applicant’s immovable. - In an action brought in 1998 for the annulment and re-registration of the title-deeds of the immovable in question, the civil court imposed an interim injunction on the immovable so as to prevent their transfer to third parties. - In the course of the first-instance and appeal proceedings, the interim injunction was not lifted until 2017: therefore, a restriction was imposed on the applicant’s right to property for 19 years, which cannot be considered reasonable. - Nor is there any fault attributable to the applicant in this respect.
R.G. 2017/31619 23 July 2020 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to protect and improve the corporeal and spiritual existence safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the procrastination of the applicant’s request for termination of her pregnancy resulting from a criminal act. - The applicant, who was under 18 at the time of the impugned events, became pregnant as a result of the sexual intercourses she had had by force and threat. - Her family filed a request with the magistrate judge for the termination of the pregnancy. However, it dismissed the request on procedural grounds. Their other attempts to that end were also unsuccessful. - The approach adopted by the judicial authorities deprived the applicant of the opportunity to end her pregnancy and thereby placed an excessive burden on her. - The impugned interference with the applicant’s right to protect and improve her corporeal and spiritual existence was not disproportionate.	Press Release
Murat Haliç 2017/24356 8 July 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the right to an effective remedy safeguarded by Article 40 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the dismissal of the action for compensation brought by the applicant as the records obtained as a result of the interception of his communication had not been destroyed but rather made public. - During an investigation conducted against the applicant, his telephone conversations were wiretapped and intercepted. At the end of the investigation, a decision of non-prosecution was issued and the destruction of the records of his intercepted communication was ordered. - The applicant brought an action for compensation due to the relevant authorities’ failure to destroy the given records. However, it was dismissed for not satisfying the necessary conditions specified in the relevant Code in the absence of any relevant and sufficient grounds. - Therefore, he was not afforded an effective legal remedy attended by minimum safeguards for the redress of the damage he had sustained within the meaning of the right to respect for private life and the freedom of communication.	Press Release
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2019/2 11 June 2020 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provisions in Article 86 of the Turkish Criminal Code no. 5237 as well as in Article 20 of the Law no. 6284 on the Protection of Family and Prevention of Violence against Women	A. Code no. 5237 - The contested provision sets forth that where an intentional injury is committed against a spouse or sibling, no criminal complaint shall be sought for prosecution, and the penalty to be imposed shall be increased by one half. - It is maintained that this provision eliminates the possibility of forgiveness or conciliation, and deepens the conflicts, among family members. - The provision intended for the effective protection of family, which is not contrary to the principles of justice and fairness, is not in breach of the principle of a state governed by the rule of law. It has an objective and reasonable basis. - Therefore, it is not contrary to Articles 2, 10 and 41 of the Constitution. B. Law no. 6284 - The contested provision sets forth that the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Services (“the Ministry”) may, if deems necessary, intervene in all criminal cases filed due to violence, or a risk of violence, against a spouse. - It is maintained that this provision leads to problems in practice; that the Ministry may pursue the relevant cases by itself; and that the counsel’s fee may be awarded in favour of the intervening parties. - The provision aims at effective protection of the victim of domestic violence and thereby of the family. Therefore, it pursues a legitimate aim in the public interest. - Besides, the Ministry is not envisaged to intervene in all cases but only those deemed necessary by the Ministry itself. An award of counsel’s fee in the favour of the intervening party also depends on the conviction decision to be issued at the end of the proceedings. The amount of this fee, specified in the contested provision, cannot be considered to impose an excessive burden on individuals. - Therefore, it is not contrary to Articles 13, 35, 36 and 41 of the Constitution.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Hasan Ballı 2017/21825 2 June 2020 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to examine a witness under the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the applicant’s inability to examine, at the hearing, the witness whose statements constituted a main basis for his conviction. - The applicant, a co-accused, was sentenced to imprisonment for plundering and depriving the complainant of his liberty. He appealed his conviction which was ultimately upheld. - During the proceedings, S.K. a co-accused of the applicant -who was heard by the incumbent court through the Audio-Visual Information System (“SEGBİS”)- gave testimony against the applicant. - The applicant was then afforded the opportunity to raise his challenges and defence submissions against S.K.’s testimony both in writing and orally, which may be considered as a reparatory opportunity. - However, in his subsequent statements before the first instance court, the complainant H.B. noted that the applicant had not been present at the incident scene and among those who had committed the imputed offences. - Given the subsequent statement of the complainant, it has been concluded that the reparatory opportunity afforded to the applicant was not indeed capable of remedying the impugned restriction imposed on his right of defence. - Therefore, the incumbent court’s reliance on the testimony of the witness, who had not been examined at the hearing, in convicting the applicant had undermined the overall fairness of the proceedings.	Press Release
Y.K. 2016/14347 2 June 2020 (Second Section)	Violations of both substantive and procedural aspects of the prohibition of torture safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the prohibition of torture for the applicant’s having been placed in a single room at the Foreigners’ Removal Centre for a prolonged period of time. - The Foreigners’ Removal Centres are institutions adopting a human-oriented approach in ensuring the shelter and control of the foreigners to be deported. In that vein, the Centres are required to provide services based on the protection of the right to life of the individuals held there as well as the strengthening of them both socially and psychologically. - The impugned interference, pursuing no legitimate aim and contravening the working principles of the Centres, may be regarded as torture given its nature and duration. - As for the procedural aspect of the prohibition of torture, the judicial authorities failed to rely on a comprehensive, objective and impartial assessment of all findings obtained during the investigation process. - Nor was there a rigorous investigation capable of clarifying the applicant’s allegations that his hands and feet had been handcuffed in an isolation room.	Press Release

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Emin Arda Büyük 2017/28079 Berrin Baran Eker 2018/23568 2 July 2020 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right due to dismissal, without an examination on the merits, of their actions for reinstatement they had brought challenging the termination of their employment contracts. - The right to a court, one of the guarantees of the right to a fair trial that is an indispensable right in a democratic society, requires that the substantial claims and defences related to the dispute at issue be examined, assessed and adjudicated by the incumbent judicial authority. - In cases where the court, while settling a dispute before it, concludes the trial by relying on the claims and defence put forth by one of the parties but without discussing the substantial objections raised by the other party, then there has not been an actual trial, even if there is a formal decision. - In the present cases, the incumbent courts failed to examine whether the conditions for valid termination had been fulfilled. In other words, the courts failed to fulfil their duty of addressing and adjudicating the material and legal matters of dispute, which constitutes the basis of their judicial function, and thus failed to perform an actual judicial activity. - Therefore, the judicial remedy available to the applicants enabling them to challenge the termination of their employment contracts was accessible for them only in theory.	Press Release
C.A. (3) 2018/10286 2 July 2020 (Plenary)	No violation of the right to respect for private life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right of the applicant, a cleaning worker in the municipality, due to termination of her/his employment contract for breach of the trust relationship on account of being a member of an association having relations with the FETÖ/PDY. - The applicant was imposed imprisonment sentence for membership of the FETÖ/PDY, and her/his appeal request is still pending. - The applicant’s statements taken within the scope of the disciplinary investigation conducted against her/him created a serious, strong and objective suspicion of her/his having relation with the FETÖ/PDY. - The administrative and judicial decisions stated that any relationship with the FETÖ/PDY was an indication of the weakness of loyalty to the State and essentially should be regarded as an element breaching the trust relationship. - In addition, the relevant decisions of the courts contained relevant and sufficient grounds that the impugned interference had been proportionate and pursued a pressing social need. - Thus, a fair balance was struck between the public interest and the applicant’s personal interest.
Millî Reasürans Türk Anonim Şirketi 2016/70 1 July 2020 (First Section)	No violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right of the applicant company due to dismissal of its case challenging the tax accrual, despite its declaration of regret as well as submitting a petition for reservation. - In order for an interference with the right to property to be constitutional, the said interference must be legal, proportionate and serve the public interest. In the present case, there is no doubt that the alleged tax collection served the public interest. - The decision of the incumbent court, interpreting a legal provision in the particular circumstance of the case, did not impose an excessive or extraordinary burden on the applicant, and thus the said interference did not disturb the fair balance between the public interest and the applicant’s right to property.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2020/16 25 June 2020 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision hindering the application of simplified trial procedure to cases proceeded to trial by 1 January 2020	- Contested provision sets forth that the simplified trial procedure, which has a bearing on the length of sentence to the advantage of the offender in cases which are at the trial stage but have not been concluded yet by a decision, shall be applied being limited to the cases proceeded to trial after a given date. - It is maintained that the contested provision is unconstitutional as the legal arrangements concerning the simplified trial procedure, which embody a more favourable provision, must be applied to all cases. - As a requisite of the legal certainty and legal security, Article 38 of the Constitution precludes the retrospective application of criminal law to the detriment of the offenders. - In cases where a law enacted subsequent to the date of offence decriminalise the same act or prescribes a more lenient sentence for the same offence, the principle of application of a more favourable criminal law comes into play. - Certain rules on trial procedures may have a bearing on the length of sentences prescribed for the criminal acts under prosecution. The prevention of retrospective application of the provisions having a bearing on the length of the relevant sentence to the advantage of the offender falls foul of the principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. - Therefore, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled.	Press Release
E.2019/105 12 June 2020 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of certain provisions of the Presidential Decree no. 46	A. Provision on the Establishment of the Organisation Abroad of the Ministry of Health and Empowerment of the Ministry to Establish this Organisation Contested Provisions - The first provision, where it is set forth the Ministry of Health (“the Ministry”) shall be composed of central, provincial organisations as well as an organisation abroad, is contested insofar as it relates to the phrase “…as well as … abroad”. - The second contested provision is concerning the empowerment of the Ministry to establish the organisation abroad through the Presidential Decree no. 1 upon being amended by the Presidential Decree no. 46. - It is maintained that Article 106 § 11 of the Constitution allows for the establishment of merely the central and provincial organisations of the ministries through the presidential decrees. Besides, Article 123 § 3 of the Constitution prescribing that the public legal entities be established through presidential decrees cannot apply to the ministries. - It is within the President’s discretionary power to decide whether there is a need to establish an organisation abroad of a given ministry pursuant to Article 106 § 1 of the Constitution. Therefore, the first contested provision is not contrary to this constitutional provision. - As regard the second contested provision, the executive organ may leave the necessary actions to be taken pursuant to the decree-laws to the relevant administration after setting the general framework. This provision does not empower the Ministry to make direct arrangements concerning the organisation abroad, but to perform the necessary acts and actions within the scope of such arrangement. - Therefore, the contested provisions have been found constitutional and the request for their annulment has been dismissed. B. Provision Allowing the Health Institutes of Turkey (TÜSEB) to Award Scholarship - The contested provision concerns the phrase “… and scholarship…” added to the Presidential Decree no. 4. In the provision, it is set forth that it is among the TÜSEB’s tasks to provide opportunities, to grant awards and to give scholarship so as to ensure training and improvement of the scientists and researchers. - It is maintained that the contested provision is related to the budgetary right, and that the public expenditures are to be made on the basis of the public budget. However, this expenditure which is not specified in the budget act has been regulated through presidential decree without any legal basis. - TÜSEB is a public legal entity established by virtue of a Presidential Decree. Pursuant to Article 123 § 3 of the Constitution, the duties and powers of this Institute established through presidential decree may also be regulated through a presidential decree. - The issues required to be regulated by law according to Article 161 of the Constitution are limited, inter alia, to the processes and procedures as to the preparation, implementation and auditing of the central administration budget. - In this sense, the contested provision is related to budget for embodying an arrangement as to the making of a public expenditure but does not directly touch on the legislator’s budgetary right. - Besides, laws and presidential decrees must pursue the aim of securing public interest, embody general, objective and fair provisions and observe the fairness criteria. - The contested provision has been found to be in pursuance of public interest given the favourable effects on the public health of raising and training scientists and researchers in the health sector. - Therefore, the contested provision has been found constitutional and the request for its annulment has been dismissed.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Feride Kaya 2016/13985 9 June 2020 (First Section)	Violation of both substantive and procedural aspects of the prohibition of torture safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right for her having been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody and the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation in this regard. - The medical reports issued during the investigation process supported the applicant’s claims, which demonstrated that there were sufficient evidence to the effect that the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment both psychologically and psychically under the supervision and responsibility of the State. - Considering that the investigation was closed as being time-barred, without identification of the perpetrators, the public authorities failed to fulfil their obligation to make a plausible explanation regarding the alleged ill-treatment. - In addition, given the gravity of the offence of ill-treatment, an investigation into such an act should be concluded speedily. However, in the present case, the investigation lasted about 13 years and was subsequently ended as being time-barred. - Thus, the State also failed to fulfil its positive obligation.
Savaş Candemir and Others 2016/5116 18 June 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right due to the imposition of administrative fines as they wanted to participate in a press statement during a demonstration. - The applicants were charged with disobedience of an order, as they had failed to comply with the warning to disperse during a demonstration. - In order for such an administrative sanction, there should be an order previously announced and applicable on the date of the alleged act, as well as the applicants’ conducts should be incompatible with the said order. - Vagueness as to the existence of such an order that was actually applicable at the material time. - Failure of the judge to provide a convincing justification as regards the applicants' acts requiring the imposition of an administrative fine. - The applicants were imposed administrative fines on the sole basis of the public authorities’ interpretation; therefore, the said interference was unlawful.
Rabia Nur Yazıcı and Selma Kocapiçak 2016/9528 9 June 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the deaths resulting from a flood. - The applicants are the relatives of a father and his two children who lost their lives due to the flooding of the basement floor where they lived. - During the criminal investigation into the incident, permission was sought for launching an investigation against the public officers who were allegedly responsible for the impugned incident. No permission was granted for some of these public officers. In respect of those who were subject to an investigation, a decision of non-prosecution was issued. - The applicants then filed an action for compensation whereby the administrative court found the relevant administrations faulty and awarded compensation to the applicants. However, this decision was quashed by the Council of State which also dismissed the subsequent request for rectification of the decision. The case remitted to the administrative court is still pending. - Whether the criminal investigation into the present case was conducted effectively: despite a court expert report where one of the relevant administrations was found 50% at fault, the investigation authority issued a decision of non-prosecution in respect of these public officers. - Failure to conduct an effective investigation that would prevent impunity gave rise to a violation of the positive obligation to set up an effective judicial system.
Güven Bostan 2016/4293 1 July 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the attachment of the applicant’s domicile against the tax debt, which was devoid of legal basis. - The applicant filed an action for revocation of the payment orders issued for the unpaid tax debts of the company where he is a shareholder. The orders which had not been duly issued were revoked, while the others were approved. He paid the relevant amounts indicated in the payment orders which were not revoked. - However, the tax authority levied attachment on the applicant’s immovable as the amounts not revoked were not fully paid and had to be collected from the company. The applicant filed an action for annulment of the attachment process, and it was annulled by the administrative court. - However, the first instance decision was quashed upon the administration’s appellate request. The applicant’s request for rectification of the decision was also dismissed. - During his request for rectification of the decision, the applicant raised his claim that no attachment could be levied on his immovable for being a domicile. However, the regional administrative court dismissed the request, without making a reasoned assessment as to this claim. - The procedural safeguards were not fulfilled; fair balance to be struck between the public interest underlying the impugned interference and the individual interest in the protection of the applicant’s right to property was upset to his detriment; and the impugned interference was not proportionate.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Muhsin Hükümdar 2016/69274 5 March 2020 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to the police officer’s practice inducing him to commit a misdemeanour. - In the present case, a police officer entered the applicant’s shop in the guise of a customer and purchased alcoholic drinks at night during the hours when selling alcoholic drinks were legally forbidden. Thereupon, the police officer showed his identity and issued a report against the applicant. Hence, the applicant was imposed an administrative fine. - In the Constitutional Court’s view, in cases where there is no suspicion of an individual’s having committed a crime before, creating an environment inducing the relevant person to commit a crime is unacceptable. - Even in cases where there is a suspicion of crime, special investigation techniques to be applied must also have a legal basis. - It is clear that the police officer took an active role in the misdemeanour alleged to have been committed by the applicant. - The applicant was deprived of his right to a fair trial.
Yıldırım Turan 2017/10536 4 June 2020 (Plenary)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to personal liberty and security for being manifestly ill-founded.	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the applicant’s detention in the absence of any concrete evidence and against the procedural safeguards afforded to members of the judiciary. - The applicant was suspended, in the aftermath of the coup attempt of 15 July, from his office for having relation with the FETÖ/PDY and subsequently detained on remand for his membership of the said terrorist organisation. He was then released pending trial. - It should be primarily noted that investigation/prosecution of, and applying preventive measures including detention in respect of, judges/prosecutors who are covered by the security of tenure granted for the judiciary are subject to permission/decision of an administrative body if the imputed offence is related to his profession (except for cases of flagrante delicto). However, if it is an individual offence, there is no statutory arrangement impeding such investigation/prosecution (and such measures) or making the relevant process subject to permission of any administrative authority. - In its previous judgments in similar cases, the Court considered the membership of a terrorist organisation as an individual offence and as a case of flagrante delicto. - Therefore, the act imputed to the applicant is an individual offence: therefore, no statutory obstacle rendering his detention unlawful. - On the other hand, the ECHR, in one of its judgment which is not final yet, concluded that the applicant’s detention was unlawful as being contrary to the safeguards afforded to the members of the judiciary and found a violation under the Convention. - The Court, notably in dealing with the individual applications before it, considers and adopts, to a significant extent, the ECHR’s case-law and the Convention. It also pays attention to render decisions in compliance with the ECHR’s case-law, as a requirement of its role to minimise the possible conflicts between the domestic law and international law. - However, it should be indicated that it is for the Turkish authorities exercising public power and thereby for the domestic courts to interpret statutory provisions concerning detention of the members of the judiciary. The domestic courts are in a better position to interpret the domestic statutory provisions than the ECHR. - Regard being had to the other factors in the prevent case, the Court found that the applicant’s detention also had both legal and factual basis.
Serkan Şeker 2017/15118 2 June 2020 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to sitting of a judge dismissing the applicant’s complaint against a disciplinary sanction also on the bench of the court examining his challenge to the first instance decision. - The applicant, who was detained, was placed in solitary confinement for 3 days, as a disciplinary sanction for defaming and insulting the public officers during a quarrel between the prisoners and the guardians. - In principle, the procedural safeguards inherent in the right to a fair trial must be afforded also during the appellate process. In this sense, for ensuring effectiveness of the appellate examination and giving no impression that such examination has not been conducted in accordance with the objective impartiality principles, the judge issuing the first instance decision in a given case must not sit on the bench of the appellate tribunal. - However, failing to fulfil this principle is not per se sufficient to conclude that the appellate examination is ineffective and partial. Particular circumstances of each case must also be taken into consideration. - In the present case, despite the clear statutory provision setting forth that in cases where a magistrate judge sits also on the bench of the assize court, which will examine the challenge against the decision issued by a bench composed of the same magistrate judge, he cannot take part in the appellate proceedings, the judge involved in the appellate examination of the applicant’s challenge, which impaired the objective impartiality.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2018/155 11 June 2020 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision of Presidential Decree that prescribed an amendment to the Law	- Contested provision stipulates that certain departments, which were established with Presidential Decrees, shall be added to Schedule (1) annexed to Law no. 5018, and thus, the principles governing the budgeting and supervision processes of these departments shall be evaluated within the scope of the general budget. - It is argued that the impugned amendment by the relevant Presidential Decree is related to an issue that is in fact regulated by law. - Article 104 of the Constitution provides that the issues except for those related to executive power shall not be regulated by a presidential decree. - The contested provision has been found unconstitutional on the ground of incompetence ratione materiae, and therefore it has been annulled.	Press Release
E.2018/88 11 June 2020 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provisions stipulating that that higher education institutions may require additional conditions in the appointment of associate professors and assistant professors	- Contested provisions stipulate that higher education institutions may require additional objective and reviewable conditions in the appointment of associate professors and assistant professors. - It is argued that the contested provisions are unclear may result in discriminatory practices. - According to Article 130 of the Constitution universities have scientific autonomy. - Considering the dynamic structure of scientific and academic studies as well as the needs and conditions of each higher education institution, it may be necessary to determine new conditions, which cannot be foreseen before, in the appointment of academic staff. - The impugned provisions also set forth certain criteria in terms of the use of such authority (e.g. the said conditions must be objective and reviewable). Besides, additional conditions determined by higher education institutions shall be subject to the approval of the Council of Higher Education. - The contested provision has been found constitutional. Thus, the request for its annulment has been dismissed.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Bedrettin Morina 2017/40089 5 March 2020 (Plenary)	Violation of the prohibition of discrimination taken in conjunction with the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the prohibition of discrimination, taken in conjunction with the right to property, due to the applicant’s deprival of the opportunity to fill pension contribution gaps incurred for the period of service abroad prior to acquirement of Turkish citizenship. - The applicant, subsequently acquiring Turkish citizenship, was entitled to old age pension from the Social Insurance Institution (“the SSI”) in 2009 by filling the pension contribution gaps incurred for the periods he worked abroad. However, his pension was cut, and he was ordered to return the paid amounts in 2015 by the SSI’s decision which indicated that he was not entitled to old age pension as the period of his service abroad could not be taken into consideration. - Upon the appeal process, his case became final. - Indifference treatment between natural-born citizens and naturalised citizens as those in the former category are afforded the opportunity to file pension contribution gaps while those in the latter category are not for the periods of service abroad prior to citizenship. - In the present case, there was no objective and reasonable ground justifying such a difference in treatment by the type of acquirement of citizenship: placing an excessive burden on the applicant.	Press Release
Bünyamin Uçar 2017/32004 3 June 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the principles of equality of arms and adversarial trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the relevant principles due to the failure of the authorities to inform the applicant of the confidential information and documents used as evidence during the proceedings within the scope of the action for annulment brought by the applicant. - The applicant had brought the impugned action for annulment, challenging his elimination due to the unfavourable result of the security investigation conducted in respect of him as part of the procedures for recruitment, although he had successfully passed the personnel recruitment examination. - It is of great importance for the applicant to be aware of the content of the security investigation in order to be able to defend himself and make claims. - Otherwise, he will be in a weak and disadvantaged position in the face of the administration's actions. - It is clear that the applicant had been subjected to a procedure falling foul of the principles of equality of arms and adversarial trial.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Şehrivan Çoban 2017/22672 6 February 2020 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to be present at the hearing within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to the dismissal of her request to be present at the hearing and instead, her being provided with the opportunity to attend the hearing though the audio-visual information system. - The parties' right to be present at the hearing not only ensures the effective exercise of the right to defence, but also renders the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings operational. - The authorities failed to consider alternative methods other than the audio-visual information system that should be among the last resorts. The particular circumstances hindering the applicant’s being present at the hearing were not indicated. - As a result, the authorities failed to demonstrate in concrete terms that the dismissal of the applicant’s request to be present at the hearing, where an examination on the merits had been made, had really been necessary. As such, the impugned interference had not been necessary.	Press Release
M.T. 2018/10424 4 June 2020 (Plenary)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to personal liberty and security as being manifestly ill-founded	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to his unlawful detention on remand. - The applicant was detained on remand for membership of the FETÖ/PDY within the scope of the investigation launched after the coup attempt of 15 July, and a criminal case was filed against him. At the end of the proceedings, he was convicted of membership of an armed terrorist organization. - The charges against the applicant were mainly based on the fact that he had been using the application called ByLock, which was the most important ground for his detention on remand. - It is specified in numerous court decisions that the ByLock –the covert digital communication platform of the FETÖ/PDY– was the most important application used by the organization in order not to be uncovered by ensuring the communication among its members privately. - A number of investigations conducted into the ByLock application have demonstrated that it was not an ordinary communication programme but was used as a private and secret communication platform among the members of the FETÖ/PDY. - Considering the results as a whole, it has been understood that the assessments made by the judicial authorities to the effect that the ByLock communication system, under the cover of a global application, had in fact been created to ensure organizational communication among the members of the FETÖ/PDY and the organizational communication was provided with great confidentiality through this program were based on very strong factual grounds as well as material/technical data. - Therefore, regarding the use of the ByLock application as an organizational activity cannot be considered as an ill-founded or arbitrary approach. Hence, it was considered as a strong indication of guilt in terms of crimes related to the FETÖ/PDY.
Ferhat Kara 2018/15231 4 June 2020 (Plenary)	- No violation of the right to a fair hearing under the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution - Inadmissibility	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right as the digital data from ByLock had been obtained unlawfully and formed a basis for his conviction as a sole and decisive evidence. - The applicant, a guardian at the relevant time, was sentenced by the incumbent assize court to 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for his membership of an armed terrorist organization, namely the FETÖ/PDY, after the coup attempt of 15 July. In his conviction, the court relied on the applicant’s use of ByLock application. - Whether the relevant digital data were obtained unlawfully: The National Intelligence Organization (“the MİT”) became aware of the use of ByLock application for organizational purposes while performing its duties under Law no. 2937. The MİT then reported this fact (digital materials) to the judicial authorities for necessary action. Therefore, the act by MİT –where it only reported a concrete data it had obtained on a legal basis while performing its intelligence activities in order to reveal the organizational acts and actions during the period when the FETÖ/PDY was perceived by the public authorities to pose a threat to the national security- cannot be construed to the effect that the MİT, an intelligence service, performed law-enforcement activities. The acts by the intelligence services to obtain and analyse information and evidence concerning terrorist organizations meet a pressing need in democratic societies. - Therefore, the delivery, to the chief public prosecutor’s office, of the digital materials on ByLock communication system, which was obtained by the MİT within the framework of its statutory powers, and the technical report issued in this respect cannot be considered to constitute a manifest error of judgment or manifest arbitrariness. - Besides, the judicial authorities conducted all necessary examinations and inquiries as to the authenticity and reliability of the digital data. The defence was provided with the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the evidence indicating that the applicant was a ByLock user. - The court’s reliance on the applicant’s use of ByLock encrypted communication network, which was used by the FETÖ/PDY members to ensure confidentiality, in the applicant’s conviction cannot be considered as a manifest arbitrary act which completely rendered dysfunctional the procedural safeguards inherent in the right to a fair trial: inadmissibility for being manifestly ill-founded.
Eren Erdem 2019/9120 9 June 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the impugned right of the applicant, a journalist, an author and the Republican People’s Party (CHP) 25^th and 26^th term MP for İstanbul, due to unlawfulness of his detention and the lack of reasoning for the risk of his fleeing. - He was detained on the basis of strong suspicion that he had knowingly and wilfully aided the FETÖ/PDY armed terrorist organization. He was then sentenced to 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. He was subsequently released by the decision of the regional court of appeal. - During the investigation launched against him in 2014, the investigation authorities did not find it necessary to order his detention or to apply any other measure. - However, relying on the fact that the applicant was not nominated to stand as a 27^th term MP as well as on a report sent to the police through an e-mail that he might flee abroad, the incumbent chief public prosecutor’s office requested issuance of an arrest warrant against him. Thereafter, a ban was imposed on his travelling abroad. - The applicant, not being aware of the ban, unsuccessfully tried to travel to Germany with his family. - The Court has observed that the report sent to the police by an unknown person cannot be regarded as a strong suspicion. Besides, there was no other concrete fact underlying the risk of his fleeing: therefore, his detention was found disproportionate.
Selahattin Demirtaş (3) 2017/38610 9 June 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right of the applicant, an MP and also the co-chairperson of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (“the HDP”) at the time when his detention was ordered, due to the unreasonable length of his detention. - He was detained on remand for his alleged membership of a terrorist organization and having publicly incited to commit an offence. - The Constitutional Court, examining the applicant’s individual application, found his detention lawful. - He then lodged an application with the ECHR which also found his detention lawful but concluded that the length of his detention exceeded reasonable time, which amounted to violations of the right to personal liberty and security, the right to free elections as well as of the prohibition that the rights and freedoms cannot be restricted for any purpose other than those prescribed under the Convention. His case is still pending before the Grand Chamber. - Despite the assize court’s decision ordering his release, the applicant was not released who was convicted of another offence at the time of the decision. - His detention was ordered anew within the scope of another investigation. - Whether the length of his pre-trial detention has exceeded a reasonable time: The Court has observed on the basis of certain findings that there were strong indications of the applicant’s guilt. - However, the incumbent courts failed to make an assessment as to the applicant’s allegations that his continued detention was unreasonable due to his capacities as an MP, co-chairperson of a political party and a presidential candidate. - Dismissal of his requests for release and challenges against his continued detention based on stereotyped reasoning: therefore, his continued detention lacked relevant and sufficient reasoning.	Press Release

Case

Decision

Case-Law Development

Related

I. Individual Application

Senih Özay

2020/13969

9 June 2020

(First Section)

Inadmissibility for non-exhaustion of available remedies

- Alleged violations of certain constitutional rights and freedoms due to the Covid-19 lockdown measure ordered for those aged 65+.

- The applicant, who was among those covered by the circular issued by the Ministry of Inferior where a lockdown restriction was imposed for those aged 65+ and those suffering from chronic illnesses, directly lodged an individual application with the Court without resorting to any other judicial remedy.

- Whether there was any effective remedy capable of addressing the said allegation and finding a violation, if any.

- The applicant should have filed an administrative action for annulment, which is a remedy capable of establishing whether there was an interference with the applicant’s constitutional rights and, if any, whether it constituted a violation.

- Besides, despite certain measures taken in judiciary, as a part of the fight against Covid-19, for slowing down, to a certain extent, the judicial services and ensuring their performance through different working methods, the judicial activities were never suspended.

- Accordingly, the consideration that the examination and adjudication of an administrative action, if filed, may be postponed due to the Covid-19 measures had no legal basis.

- The present application lodged without exhausting the available administrative remedy was therefore declared inadmissible.

Case

Decision

Case-Law Development

Related

I. Individual Application

Rıdvan Türan

2017/20669

10 March 2020

(First Section)

Violation of the freedom of communication safeguarded by Article 22 of the Constitution

- Alleged violation of the impugned freedom of the applicant, a prisoner, due to the penitentiary institution’s refusal to send his letter, for its allegedly inconvenient content.

- The relevant public authorities and inferior courts are obliged to justify with relevant and sufficient grounds that the impugned interference with fundamental rights and freedoms pursued a pressing social need and was proportionate. Otherwise, such interferences would not comply with the requirements of the democratic social order.

- The authorities’ failure to provide reasonable grounds for such interference.

-The impugned interference had not been necessary in a democratic society.

Press Release

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Kemal Çakır and Others 2016/13846 5 Mart 2020 (Plenary)	Violation of the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right due to dismissal, without an examination on the merits, of the action they had brought seeking the annulment of the decision whereby it was concluded that an environmental impact assessment was not required for the project according to which a wind power plant would be built in an area close to the neighbourhood where their properties were located, for their alleged lack of capacity to sue. - The impugned decisions of the interior courts included a categorical approach that those who did not have a property in the project area would not be able to challenge against the impugned project under any circumstances, regardless of their subjective conditions such as the closeness of their properties to the project area as well as their intended use. - Since such an approach made it impossible for the people, who were likely to be affected by the project, to bring an action, the said interference with the applicants' right of access to a court was disproportionate.	Press Release
Doğan Depişgen 2016/12233 11 March 2020 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to the denial of the payment of his salary as a mukhtar for the period when he was held in detention. - The applicant was acquitted at the end of the proceedings. - The subsequent actions he brought claiming pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages were concluded in his favour, but his request for the payment of his unpaid salaries was rejected. - The authorities failed to provide reasonable grounds in this respect. - An excessive burden was imposed on the applicant. - The fair balance between the protection of the right to property and the public interest pursued by the interference was disturbed to the detriment of the applicant. Hence, the impugned interference had been disproportionate.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2018/125 E. 2019/31 E. 2019/78 22-23 January 2020 (Plenary)	- Dismissal of the request for annulment of the contested provisions included in the Presidential Decrees no. 1 and 8 for not being unconstitutional - Annulment of the provision allowing for an advance payment in product and service procurements abroad	- The most significant feature of the presidential government system is, inter alia, to authorize the President to make arrangements through the “presidential decrees”. - The President is authorized, by virtue of the Constitution, to issue presidential decrees; however, it is not an unlimited authority. - Article 148 of the Constitution sets forth that the presidential decrees be subject to constitutionality review both in substance and in form. - In Article 104 § 17 of the Constitution, it is set forth that the President may issue presidential decrees on the matters regarding executive power; and that the fundamental rights, individual rights and duties, and the political rights and duties shall not be regulated through a presidential decree. It is further specified that no presidential decree shall be issued on the matters which are stipulated, in the Constitution, to be regulated exclusively by law and which have been explicitly regulated by law. A. Provision stipulating that the Supreme Military Council (“the SMC”) secretariat services shall be conducted by the authority to be designated by the President. - It is argued that empowering the President to assign the authority that would conduct the SMC secretariat services, without setting the basic principles on the performance of these services, is in breach of the Constitution. - The contested provision does not allow for the establishment of an administrative structure or regulation of its duties and powers but vests the President with the power to designate the authority that would perform and conduct the SMC secretariat services. Nor is the provision concerning a matter needed to be regulated exclusively by law. Accordingly, it has been found constitutional insofar as it relates to the competence ratione materiae. - The presidential decrees are also required to be clear, precise, comprehensible, enforceable and objective to the extent that would cause no hesitation and doubt for both individuals and the administration. - As the contested provision, allowing for the performance of these services by an authority to be designated by the President, involves no unclarity, it has been found constitutional by its content. B. Provision allowing for an advance payment in product and service procurements abroad. - It is maintained that the contested provision is unconstitutional as it is intended for making an arrangement as to the matter which has been indeed regulated explicitly by law; and that the executive power has been exercised in breach of the principle of supremacy of the Constitution and the laws. - In the review of the contested provision, it was firstly ascertained whether the relevant law was enforceable in the field covered by the presidential decree and subsequently determined whether the statutory arrangement was clear. - The terms and conditions of making an extra budgetary advance payment are in general laid down in Article 35 of Law no. 5018, which sets out the terms and conditions of extra budgetary advance payments. - . It has been therefore concluded that the contested provision on the matter which has been explicitly regulated by law introduces an arrangement in breach of the relevant provision of the Constitution. Accordingly, it has been found unconstitutional insofar as they relate to the competence ratione materiae. C. Provisions providing for the appointment of coordinator head doctor for the joint management of hospitals - It is maintained that the provisions allowing for the appointment of a coordinator head doctor, in cases where there are several hospitals located within the same campus, for the joint management of these hospitals contain arrangements concerning a matter which is specified in Article 128 of the Constitution and which is to be regulated exclusively, and has been already regulated, by law. - Article 106 § 11 of the Constitution provides for “The establishment, abolition, the duties and powers, the organizational structure of the ministries, and the establishment of their central and provincial organizations shall be regulated by the presidential decree”, thereby explicitly permitting to make arrangements, through the presidential decree, concerning the organizational structure of the ministries and the establishment of their central and provincial organizations. Accordingly, the contested provisions have been found constitutional insofar as they to the competence ratione materiae. - Given the objective meaning of, and the aim pursued by, the contested provisions, it has been observed that they are designed to ensure the proper fulfilment of the duties and responsibilities concerning the management of the hospitals and thereby the effective performance of health-care services. Therefore, the contested provisions involve no aspect that would require the Court to conclude that they are intended for any purpose other than public interest. Accordingly, they have been found constitutional by their contents. D. Provisions Stipulating that the members of the High Advisory Board of the Presidency and payments likely to be made to the members shall be designated by the President - It is argued that the contested provisions are unconstitutional on the grounds, inter alia, that there is no clarity as to the qualifications, number and expertise of the Board members; and that the financial rights of the Board members should have been designated by law. - Duty performed by the Board members is not in the form of a principal and permanent public service which is to be conducted in accordance with the general administrative principles within the meaning of Article 128 of the Constitution. Therefore, the designation of the Board members and the relevant payments cannot be considered as a matter needed to be regulated exclusively by law. - Accordingly, the contested provisions have been found constitutional insofar as they relate to the competence ratione meteriae. - The qualifications of the Board members are set forth in Article 4/A of the Presidential Decree. - In consideration of the advisory nature of the Board, the number of the Board members having the necessary qualifications may vary by time and situation. It has been considered that the non-designation of the number of the Board members would not lead the individuals to foresee the relevant consequences of the contested provisions and render the provisions unclear, incomprehensible and unenforceable for the administration. - It has been concluded that the contested provisions, taken together with the other provisions on the purpose of the Board’s establishment, qualifications of the members and their assignment procedure, do not lead to any unclarity. - Accordingly, the contested provisions have been found constitutional by their contents.	Press Release
E.2018/139 19 February 2019 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision stipulating that in cases filed in order to benefit from premium incentive, the legal interest shall start running from the date of application to the administration prior to filing a case.	- Contested provision stipulates that in cases filed in order to benefit from premium incentive, the legal interest shall start running from the date of application to the administration prior to filing a case, and that the payments shall be made within three years. - It is argued that the payment of the applicants’ receivables within three years will neither be lawful nor fair, as well as in view of the date of entry into force of the impugned provision, it will result in inequality between those who had brought or will bring an action in the same respect. - It is clear that considering the date on which the legal interest shall start running and the three-year period prescribed for the payment, the contested provision restricts the right to property. It imposes a disproportionate burden on those concerned. - The provision is found unconstitutional for being in breach of Articles 13, 35 and 36 of the Constitution and it is therefore annulled.
E.2018/122 19 February 2019 (Plenary)	Annulment of the Decree Law provision that is not based on the Empowering Act and Prescribes a Regulation on Fundamental Rights	- Contested provision stipulates that those who will be employed in public service on a contractual basis shall be required not to have been given imprisonment sentence for a period of more than 6 months. - It is argued that while the impugned period is one year with regard to the public officials employed under the Civil Servants Law, it is six months with regard to the personnel to be employed in public service on a contractual basis under the relevant Decree Law, which is allegedly in breach of the principle of equality and therefore unconstitutional. - Question of applicability of the repealed Article 91 of the Constitution, which regulated the legal regime of the decree laws: It is found applicable under certain circumstances. - The contested provision stands for a regulation regarding the exercise of the right to enter public services. However, according to the repealed Article 91, the said issue cannot be regulated by a decree law. - The provision is found unconstitutional for being in breach of the repealed Article 91 of the Constitution and it is therefore annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Constitutionality Review*
E.2018/163 19 February 2020 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision stipulating that the units entrusted with conducting security investigation and archive research are authorized to access personal data	- Contested provision stipulates that the units entrusted with conducting security investigation and archive research are authorized to receive information and documents from the archives and electronic data processing centres of the ministries and public institutions as well as to access the records and court decisions. - It is argued that the contested provision grants an unlimited opportunity to access the personal data of those wishing to enter public service, which may take away the concerned persons’ chance to enter public service or the dismissal of those who already hold public service positions. In this regard, it is claimed that the impugned provision imposes an unlimited restriction on the right to enter public service, in breach of the Constitution. - Article 20 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to request the protection of his/her personal data. - The data obtained through conducting security investigation and archive research are personal data. Thus, the contested provision restricts the right to request the protection of personal data. - According to Article 20 of the Constitution, personal data can be processed only in cases envisaged by law or by the person’s explicit consent. The principles and procedures regarding the protection of personal data shall be laid down in law. - The law where the contested provision is embodied provides no guarantee or regulation concerning the obtainment or processing of such data. - Consequently, the provision is found unconstitutional as being in breach of Articles 13 and 20 of the Constitution and it is therefore annulled.
E.2018/91 19 February 2020 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain provisions of the Law no. 7072 on the Adoption, with Certain Amendments, of the Decree-Law on Making Certain Arrangements under the State of Emergency	A. Provision stipulating that the licence applications of media service providers which are reported by the General Directorate of Security and the National Intelligence Agency to have connections and relations with terrorist organizations shall be rejected. - It is argued that the restriction imposed by the contested provision is disproportionate and that the procedures and principles regarding the said interference are not set forth in the law. - Article 13 of the Constitution stipulates that any restriction on the freedoms of expression and the press shall be in conformity with the reasons mentioned in the relevant articles of the Constitution and be proportionate. - It is observed that the relevant Law provides no legal guarantees preventing any arbitrariness in this respect; therefore, the contested provision imposes a disproportionate restriction on the freedom of expression and the press. - The determination of the fact that the contested provision is unconstitutional in the ordinary period does not include any assessment as to whether it is constitutional under the state of emergency. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court has found the contested provision in breach of Articles 13, 26 and 28 of the Constitution and therefore annulled it. B. Provision stipulating that as regards the crimes committed in the virtual platform, the police shall be authorized to access the identity information of internet subscribers and to carry out researches in the virtual environment, as well as the access, location and content providers shall provide such requested information to the relevant law enforcement unit. - It is argued that the relevant powers granted to the police officers by contested provision should in fact be enjoyed only by the public prosecutor according to the criminal procedure system. - Article 20 of the Constitution safeguards the right to request the protection of personal data within the scope of the privacy of the private life. The identity information of internet subscribers constitutes personal data. - The contested provision restricts the right to request the protection of personal data. - Any restriction on the fundamental rights and freedoms must comply with the order of the democratic society as well as it must serve a pressing social need. The practice prescribed by the contested provision does not meet these criteria. - The determination of the fact that the contested provision is unconstitutional in the ordinary period does not include any assessment as to whether it is constitutional under the state of emergency. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court has found the contested provision in breach of Articles 13 and 20 of the Constitution and therefore annulled it. C. Provision stipulating that security investigation and archive research shall be conducted in respect of the personnel to be hired on contractual basis. - It is argued that it will result in arbitrariness where personal data is accessed through security investigation and archive research in the absence of legal regulations related to its obtainment, processing and use. - The data obtained through conducting security investigation and archive research are personal data. Thus, the contested provision restricts the right to request the protection of personal data. - According to Article 20 of the Constitution, personal data can be processed only in cases envisaged by law or by the person’s explicit consent. The principles and procedures regarding the protection of personal data shall be laid down in law. - The law where the contested provision is embodied provides no guarantee or regulation concerning the obtainment or processing of such data. - The determination of the fact that the contested provision is unconstitutional in the ordinary period does not include any assessment as to whether it is constitutional under the state of emergency. - Consequently, the Constitutional Court has found the contested provision in breach of Articles 13 and 20 of the Constitution and therefore annulled it.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Emine Göksel 2016/10454 12 December 2019 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to respect for family life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the impugned right of the applicant for dismissal of her challenge against the attachment order on their family residence that was imposed due to her husband’s debts. - In cases where the attached house is a family residence, the concept “residential house” should be interpreted as a house suitable for the social and economic situation of the debtor and his family, not only the debtor. - The positive obligations regarding the family residence, which are imposed on the State by the Constitution, are independent of the right to property. - Considering that the debtor's spouse also has a legal interest in resorting to the jurisdiction to challenge the attachment of their family residence, she/he should have the opportunity to raise her/his rights arising from the assurance of the family residence as well as to assert them before the judicial authorities. - The incumbent court’s narrow interpretation of the capacity for bringing an action did not comply with the guarantees enshrined in the Constitution.	Press Release
Erenkum İnş. Taah. Nak. Gıda Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. 2017/6462 27 February 2020 (First Section)	Inadmissibility (right of access to a court)	- Alleged violation of the impugned right of the applicant, a company, due to the dismissal of its challenge against the traffic ticket as being time-barred. - Examination of the application from the standpoint of the criterion of being devoid of constitutional and personal significance, which is one of the admissibility criteria. - It is concluded that the application does not point to a general problem regarding the right of access to a court, nor is it important for the implementation and interpretation of the Constitution. - Besides, the applicant failed to demonstrate how the dismissal of its challenge against the administrative fine caused harm to it.	Press Release
Mustafa Berberoğlu 2015/3324 26 February 2020 (Second Section)	Violation of the right of access to a court safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to dismissal of the action brought by a trade union on behalf of the applicant for lack of litigation capacity. - The applicant, a trade-union representative at his workplace, was given disciplinary punishments by the institution where he was holding office and subsequently appointed to another office. - As the applicant did not give an explicit authorisation to the trade union, the case brought by the latter was dismissed by the Council of State which also dismissed the request for rectification of the dismissal decision. - In cases where an administrative action is dismissed for lack of litigation capacity, it is almost impossible to bring a fresh action, thereby constituting a particularly severe interference with the right of access to a court. - Despite the existence of a less severe means of interference to achieve the pursued aim, resorting to a more severe means was also in breach of the principle of necessity.	Press Release
Yasin Akdeniz 2016/22178 26 February 2020 (Second Section)	No violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right as the applicant, who was detained for attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and his membership of the FETÖ/PDY terrorist organisation, could not effectively challenge his detention due to the restrictions on his meetings with his lawyer. - The right to personal liberty and security is not among the core rights which cannot be interfered with, by virtue of Article 15 of the Constitution, in case of a state of emergency during which measures contrary to the safeguards prescribed for the ordinary period may be taken. - The said restrictions have been found to be strictly required by the exigencies of the state of emergency. -Besides, these restrictions are not applicable to all detainees and intended for maintaining constitutional order and public safety. - Accordingly, the applicant’s membership of the FETÖ/PDY justified the monitoring of his meetings with his lawyer.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Deniz Karadeniz and Others 2014/18001 6 February 2020 (Plenary)	Violations of the prohibition of treatment incompatible with human dignity and the freedom of expression, respectively safeguarded by Articles 17 and 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of the applicants’ rights for their having been battered and insulted by the police officers and for removal of the banner hung on the political party building. - Use of tear gas in an indoor area constituted a disproportionate use of force. - In addition, no effective criminal investigation was conducted against the police officers. - Any interference with the freedom of expression that is of vital importance for the functioning of democracy must comply with the requirements of the order of the democratic society, and the public authorities must put forth relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the interference. - The Constitutional Court has acknowledged in its many judgments that the freedom of expression should be interpreted broadly that it may allow for exaggeration and even provocation to some extent. - The content of the banner hung by the applicants did not pose a threat to the public order. - The impugned interference did not meet a pressing social need. Nor was it proportionate or necessary in a democratic society.
İhsanYalçın 2017/8171 9 January 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to his unlawful detention. - The applicant was charged with the membership of the FETÖ/PDY terrorist organization. - However, the authorities failed to provide strong indication of guilt substantiating the applicant’s detention. - The applicant’s detention was unlawful also under Article 15 of the Constitution regulating the suspension of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms in cases of state of emergency, as the detention was not a kind of measure that was strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.
Ali Taştan 2017/5809 29 January 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the impugned freedom of the applicant, an educationalist and unionist, due to his punishment for his expressions during an interview. - The Ministry of National Education filed a criminal complaint against the applicant. - The trial court made an abstract assessment regardless of the context of the applicant’s expressions and relied on only one word; it failed to consider the said interview as a whole. - Failure on the part of the judicial authorities to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s freedom of expression and the complainant’s right to honour and dignity. - It should be acceptable in a democratic society that the applicant, who closely follows educational debates that are especially of interest to the union of which he is a member, can freely express his criticisms on the issue. - Besides, as a requirement of the democratic society, the public authorities should be more tolerant to the criticisms about their actions. - In addition, the complainant authority used its wide range of opportunities to respond to the criticisms directed to it and could inform the public. - The trial court failed to provide relevant and sufficient grounds to demonstrate that the punishment imposed on the applicant corresponded to a pressing social need.
Hüseyin Aydın and Others 2016/4177 27 February 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right due to the judicial authorities’ making a decision without taking into consideration the neglect of duty in a case where the applicants’ relative had also died as a result of the explosion of an armoury. - Judicial authorities’ failure to examine and make an assessment as to whether there had been a neglect of duty on the part of the military administration. - It is concluded that within the scope of the positive obligation to protect the right to life, the judicial process did not operate effectively.
İbrahim Kaya 2017/29474 28 January 2020 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to be provided with the necessary time and facilities to make defence under the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to submission of the case file to the regional court of appeal without communication of the reasoned decision to the applicant. - The applicant was convicted of fraud. The decision was read to him at the hearing. He appealed against the decision, stating that he would later submit his reasons for appeal after the impugned decision would be communicated to him. However, without the communication of the decision to the applicant, the regional court of appeal dismissed his appeal on the merits. - The applicant could not prepare a document pertaining to the detailed reasons for his appeal and thus could not submit any document to the regional court of appeal in this regard. Hence, he could not properly exercise his right to appeal.
Fenerbahçe Spor Kulübü Derneği 2017/4483 13 February 2020 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the impugned right of the applicant, a sports club, due to the administration’s getting a share of its revenue from the advertisement on its uniforms. - Any interference with the right to property must have a clear, accessible and foreseeable legal basis. - However, there was no legal provision ordering the applicant’s payment of the impugned amount. Therefore, imposition of a financial obligation in the absence of legal arrangement was in breach of the principle of legality
Melih Dalbudak 2016/16050 13 February 2020 (Second Section)	Violations of both substantive and procedural aspects of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right for his having sustained life-threatening injuries as a result of the use of disproportionate force by the police officers and for the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective criminal investigation into the incident. - The applicant was injured with a gas cartridge fired by the police officers. The use of such a weapon must be the last resort. However, in the present case, the impugned use of force was not absolutely necessary. - The investigation into the incident did not allow for an assessment as to whether the legislation regulating the use of force by the police officers provided safeguards against the arbitrary and excessive use of weapons as well as preventing individuals from unexpected accidents. - In this respect, the police officers failed to take the necessary measures and resorted to the use of force in an uncontrolled manner. - Besides, the investigation process lacked due diligence and reasonable promptness.
Mehmet Okyar 2017/38342 13 February 2020 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to a reasoned decision within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right for the trial court’s disregarding the Court of Accounts’ decision that was in his favour. - The trial court failed to provide reasons for its decision that was contrary to that of the Court of Accounts. - The principle of state of law is a basic principle required to be observed in the interpretation of the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. It also necessitates that the judicial authorities, as much as possible, refrain from making contradictory decisions regarding the same material or legal facts. Otherwise, the principle of state of law, as well as the people’s confidence in the law may be undermined.
*II. Constitutionality Review*
E.2018/159 24 December 2019 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision stipulating that the executives who have been reinstated in their public services shall be appointed according to their titles prior to being an executive	- Contested provision stipulates that in cases where the people, who were dismissed from public service pursuant to Decree Law no. 677 while holding executive positions, have been reinstated, their titles prior to their executive positions shall be taken into consideration in their appointment. - It is argued that the contested provision eliminates the public officials’ right to be reinstated in their positions prior to their dismissal in the absence of objective and concrete reasons, which is in breach of the principle of the protection of vested rights and the principle of legal certainty, and thus in breach of the Constitution. - It is a requirement of the principle of legal certainty to ensure that the public officials shall not be dismissed, unless there is a legal and factual necessity. - As a result of the applications with the Commission on Examination of the State of Emergency Procedures, in the event that the Commission renders a decision in favour of the individual concerned, then it means that he has no relation or connection with the terrorist organizations. However, in the presence of such a decision, failure to reinstate the public officials in their last positions will create the impression that the suspicions against them have not disappeared, which may adversely affect the individuals’ private and professional lives. - Besides, the contested provision does not provide any guarantee to prevent such an impression, as well as it prescribes no a legal and factual necessity for preventing their appointment to their last positions. - Accordingly, the impugned provision does not comply with the requirements of the order of the democratic society, and it also violates the principle of proportionality. - The provision is found unconstitutional for being in breach of Articles 13 and 20 of the Constitution and it is therefore annulled.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
UğurluGazetecilik Basın YayınMatbaacılıkReklamcılık Ltd. Şti. (3) 2016/5653 9 January 2020 (First Section)	Violations of the freedoms of expression and the press safeguarded respectively by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of the impugned freedoms of the applicant, a publishing company as well as a newspaper, due to a decision of the Press Advertisement Associationordering the suspension of the publication ofadvertisements and official announcements. - It is of vital importance in terms of the freedom of the press that such a decision hindering the economic opportunities of a newspaper should be the last resort. - Failure of the Press Advertisement Association as well as the civil court to make a comprehensive assessment. - Punishment of the applicant in such a way did not serve a pressing social need.
İhsanYalçın 2017/8171 9 January 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to his unlawful detention. - The applicant was charged with the membership of the FETÖ/PDY terrorist organization. - However, the authorities failed to provide strong indication of guilt substantiating the applicant’s detention. - The applicant’s detention was unlawful also under Article 15 of the Constitution regulating the suspension of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms in cases of state of emergency, as the detention was not a kind of measure that was strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.
FarmasolTıbbiÜrünler San. ve Tic. A.Ş. (2) 2017/37300 15 January 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right due to non-reimbursement of the fee paid by the applicant company to file an objection despite the decision in its favour. - The applicant was excluded from a tender by the tender commission. The relevant administration dismissed his complaint against its exclusion. - The applicant then filed an objection with the relevant Authority by paying the relevant fee. Examining its objection, the Authority decided in favour of the applicant. - However, the applicant was not reimbursed the fee it had paid. - Receiving of the relevant fee indeed pursued the aim of public interest, but the impugned interference with the right to property placed an excessive burden on the applicant. - Besides, the applicant’s interests were disregarded.	Press Release
FidanlarİnşaatTaahhütSanayiveTicaret Ltd. Şti. 2017/38836 15 January 2020 (First Section)	No violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right for imposition of an administrative fine of an excessive amount due to its failure to obtain an EIA report prior to starting a construction. - Obtaining an EIA report prior to any construction activity is of great importance in terms of the protection of environment and the right to live in a healthy environment. - The applicant, as a company operating in the construction industry and having carried out many projects, should have predicted that it would not be allowed to start a construction without obtaining an EIA report. - Administrative fine resulting from the applicant’s own negligence. - In addition, the applicant’s failure to submit any information or document substantiating its allegation that the amount of the fine was excessive. - Fair balance was struck between the applicant’s right to property and the public interest, as well as the impugned interference was proportionate.	Press Release
Abdulkadir Yılmaz and Others 2016/13649 29 January 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right as no permission was granted for initiating an investigation against certain public officers, the suspects of the mine explosion resulting in death and injury of several persons. - The relevant expert report reveals that the public officers, who inspected the mine where the explosion took place from 2010 to the explosion date, had certain omissions which might have a bearing on the occurrence of the explosion. - However, the Minister of Labour refused to grant permission to initiate an investigation against these officers. - Discontinuation of the judicial process without allowing the investigation authorities to establish the criminal liability of the public officers was incompatible with the principles of an effective investigation. - Besides, the failure to charge the persons who have put individuals’ lives at risk or to subject them to a trial may give rise to a violation of the right to life.	Press Release
*II. Constitutionality Review*
E.2018/74 24 December 2019 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision hindering the right to file a case against the additional measures implemented with the state of emergency decree laws	- Contested provision stipulates that the additional measures set forth in the Decree-Laws adopted during the state of emergency cannot be challenged before the Inquiry Commission for State of Emergency Measures. - Primary measures stipulated in the relevant decree-laws can be challenged. However, the additional measures are not always the essential consequences of or related to the primary measures. Some of them directly concern the fundamental rights and freedoms safeguarded by the Constitution. - The contested provision prevents any assessment on the lawfulness of the said additional measures. Thus, such measures should be considered independently. - The provision is found unconstitutional for being in breach of the right to an effective remedy under Article 40 of the Constitution.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Ahmet Gülen 2016/23168 16 January 2020 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to respect for family life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right of a detainee whose request for having a contact visit with his child with Down syndrome was rejected. - The public authorities should have taken into consideration the fact that the child who was 90 percent disabled and suffering from Down syndrome could not properly enjoyed his right to non-contact visit and that it would be to his best interest to be allowed to visit his imprisoned father under more special conditions. - The authorities’ failure to put forth relevant and sufficient grounds for dismissal of the applicant’s request. - The impugned interference had not been proportionate or necessary in a democratic society in terms of ensuring minimum family relationships.	Press Release
Aslan Avcı Döküm Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. 2017/39159 28 January 2020 (Second Section)	No violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the administrative fine imposed on the applicant for its failure to dispose of hazardous wastes. - Disposal of hazardous wastes is of great importance for the protection of environment and for the right to enjoy a healthy environment. - The impugned interference with the applicant’s right to property was intended to serve the public interest and to protect the environment. - No factual obstacle to the disposal of the hazardous wastes. - The applicant had the opportunity to effectively challenge the impugned interference which was through its own fault. - No judicial or administrative sanction, other than the administrative fine, was imposed. - The fair balance that had to be struck between the applicant’s right and the public interest was not upset, and the interference was proportionate.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Uğurlu Gazetecilik Basın Yayın Matbaacılık Reklamcılık Limited Şirketi (2016/12313) 26 December 2019 (Plenary)	No violations of the freedoms of expression and the press respectively safeguarded by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of the said freedoms of the applicant for the damages it had been ordered to pay due to the news allegedly referred to an issue that had already been reported as news previously and allegedly falling into the scope of journalistic activities. - The allegations raised against the complainants, who are a politician and his wife, in the impugned news had not relied on credible evidence. - The applicant’s failure to fulfil its obligation to make an extensive research before disseminating information. - Punishment imposed on the applicant was proportionate and complied with the requirements of the order of the democratic society.
Erol Aksoy 2016/11026 12 December 2019 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to property  safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to the non-execution of the court decisions ordering annulment of the sale by auction of the applicant’s media group. - An administrative act annulled by an administrative tribunal is deemed to have never been performed. The administration is not relived of its obligation to execute an annulment decision even under extraordinary circumstances where its execution is impossible either de jure or de facto.  - In the present case, the court decisions annulling the impugned tender and sale were not executed in spite of having final and operative effect. - Public authorities’ failure to ensure the execution of these decisions. - Administration’s failure to demonstrate the existence of any de jure and de facto impossibility hindering the execution of the decisions as well as to offer an alternative solution to the applicant.	Press Release
Ayfer Demirel and Others 2016/8011 9 January 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the substantive aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right of the applicants’ next-of-kin who had died as a result of the explosion of military ammunition at the age of 13 due to the failure of military authorities to take adequate measures. - As the place where the incident had occurred and the ammunition had been obtained was a military zone or close to there, the public authorities had an obligation to take reasonable and special security measures to ensure the protection of life. - However, the security measures taken had not been sufficient to the extent ensuring the protection of a minor at the age of 13. - It should be noted that children, who naturally do not have ability to discern like adults, should be provided with special protection.
Şehmus Altındağ and Others 2014/4926 9 January 2020 (First Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right of the applicants, demonstrators protesting the killing of some persons who were members of the PKK terrorist organization, on the ground that the police officers caused incidents of death and injury by use of arms unlawfully, as well as that the investigation authorities failed to conduct an effective and speedy investigation into the incident. - In order for a criminal investigation to be effective, the investigation authorities should act ex officio and immediately with a view to collecting all evidence capable of clarifying the incident and identifying those responsible. - Investigation authorities’ failure to act with due diligence. Despite the existence of tangible evidence on how the impugned incidents had occurred, a decision of non-prosecution had been issued, which demonstrated that the relevant evidence had not been subject to exhaustive, objective and impartial analysis
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2018/89 14 November 2019 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provisions stipulating that those who have connections and relations with terrorist organizations shall not be allowed to be notary, mediator or expert	- Contested provisions stipulate that those who have connections and relations with terrorist organizations shall not be allowed to be notary, mediator or expert. - It was claimed; that the contested provisions were unconstitutional on the grounds that the contents of the terms connection and relation were unclear and unpredictable; that they were not only applicable during the state of emergency, but were of continuous nature; that they constituted and interference with the right to enter public service; and that such an interference did not comply with the criteria regarding the restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms. - The contested provisions are convenient and necessary for ensuring the legal certainty and public interest, given the nature of the mentioned professions. - As for the alleged lack of clarity and predictability regarding the contents of the terms connection and relation; the Court denies this allegation, as the said terms are of general nature and their contents are clear as well as predictable. - It is also possible that any dispute to arise out of the application of these provisions may be brought before the courts. In addition, there is no obstacle in entering these professions for those who have applied to the courts against the allegations to the effect that have connections and relations with terrorist organizations and hence received a judgment in their favour. - The Law where the impugned provisions are included also provides legal safeguards preventing any arbitrariness in their application. - Consequently, the reasonable balance between the public interest in ensuring the conduct of the public service in an accurate, impartial and safe manner and the individuals’ right to enter public service has been struck.
E.2018/90 14 November 2019 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain provisions of the Law no. 7071 on the Adoption, with Certain Amendments, of the Decree Law on Making Certain Arrangements under the State of Emergency	A. Provision stipulating thatthe municipal services, which cannot be carried out properly due to disasters, mass migration and terrorism or due to the appointment of the mayor or deputy mayor to another service, may be transferred to another municipality upon the request of the governor or mayor. In such a case, the relevant request can be fulfilled with the permission of the Minister of the Interior, without the need for a council decision of the municipality the service of which is transferred to another municipality. - It was argued that the provision constituted an interference with the administrative and financial autonomy of municipalities. - Transfer of municipal service to another municipality without consulting to the council of the municipality in need of assistance is in breach of the autonomy of local administrations as well as the principle of local administration. - Provision found unconstitutional and annulled. B. Provision stipulating thatthe real and legal persons reported by the General Directorate of Security and theUndersecretariat of the National Intelligence Agency to have connections and relations with terrorist organizations cannot participate in public tenders. - It was argued; that such a prohibition would constitute an interference with the freedom of contract; that the contents of the terms connection and relation was unclear and unpredictable; and that imposition of such a measure in the absence of a main legal arrangement, but relying on sub-arrangements, would amount to the delegation of the legislative prerogative. - The announcement to be made by the General Directorate of Security and the Undersecretariat of the National Intelligence Agency must not necessarily be predicated upon the information and documents that may form a basis for the criminal investigation. The contested provision does not provide legal safeguards against any potential arbitrariness in this respect. - Provision found in breach of Articles 13 and 48 of the Constitution and annulled. C. Provisionallowingfor postponement of a legal strike or lockout in the sector of mass transportation service and banking services, for a period of 60 days. - It was argued; that the contested provision imposed an excessive and disproportionate restriction on the right to strike; that the executive organ was vested with an authority that could only been enjoyed by the judiciary; and that the right to strike could be restricted in vital or basic public services but the services set forth in the provision are not of that nature. - Any restriction on the right to strike that is important in terms of the functioning of democracy must pursue a pressing social need. - Mass transportation and banking services are not among the vital or basic public services. - The restriction prescribed in the impugned provision does not comply with the requirements of the order of the democratic society. -Provision found in breach of Articles 13 and 54 of the Constitution and annulled. D. Provisions imposing a restriction on the creditor’s right to make a claim from the debtor company; precluding the guarantor from raising certain pleas of claim; and envisaging that in cases where the company for which a trustee has been appointed is a guarantor, the creditor(s) may make a claim from the company only after applying to the debtor and the other guarantors. - It was argued; that the contested provisions allowed for an unforeseeable interference with the right to property as well as for an unequal treatment in favour of the companies for which a trustee has been appointed; and that vesting the TMSF, an administrative body, with the authority to directly sell assets of real and legal persons constituted an arbitrary interference with the right to property. - The contested provisions were intended for attaining the aim of public interest. At this point, it would be ascertained whether the least severe means was chosen to attain this aim. - Unilateral alteration of the deeds, which were indeed guaranteed by the legal provisions in force at the relevant time, to the detriment of one party upset the fair balance between requirements of the protection of the individuals’ right to property and the aim of public interest sought to be attained and imposed an excessive burden on individuals. - Provisions found in breach of Articles 13 and 35 of the Constitution and annulled.
E.2018/38 24 December 2019 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision stipulating that the Black Sea-Marmara Canal Project (Canal İstanbul) and similar waterway projects shall be included in the investments and services that can be carried out by public institutions and organization within the framework of the build-operate-transfer model	- Contested provision stipulates that the Black Sea-Marmara Canal Project (Canal İstanbul) and similar waterway projects shall be included in the investments and services that can be carried out by public institutions and organization within the framework of the build-operate-transfer model. - It was argued; that the project would have an adverse impact on the environment, nature and individuals’ lives; that there is no outweighing public interest in materialization of the project; and that it is incompatible with the international obligations on the protection of environment. - The contested provision only indicates the method to enable the performance of the project and does not include any expression and content which would preclude taking of necessary, effective and functional measures in order to protect the environment. - Nor does it remove, in any aspect, the obligation to act in line with constitutional principles and provisions concerning the protection of the environment.  - Provision not found in breach of the Constitution, and the request for its annulment was rejected.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Mustafa Özterzi 2016/14597 31 October 2019 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to unlawfulness of the applicant’s arrest, custody and detention under an investigation conducted into the FETÖ/PDY. - Detention of the applicant, a former judge, had a legal basis. - Investigation authorities’ failure to demonstrate the existence of concrete facts as to the strong indication of the applicant’s guilt. - The impugned interference is not justified by Article 15 of the Constitution allowing for suspension and restriction of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms in times of a state of emergency.
Rasül Kocatürk 2016/8080 26 December 2019 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to respect for private and family life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the said right due to dismissal of the request by the applicant, a convict held in a penitentiary institution, to attend his father’s funeral and to receive condolence visits. - The prosecutor’s office dismissed the request as the funeral had already taken place and the staff shortage in the institution might cause security vulnerability. - The applicant should have filed a challenge before the execution judge against the prosecutor’s dismissal decision. However, as his father’s funeral had taken place before the decision was served on him, this remedy would not secure an effective outcome for the applicant: no need for him to exhaust this remedy before lodging an individual application. - As provided for in Law no. 5275, the convicts are entitled to a compassionate leave in case of the death of their next-of-kin, which includes not only to attend the funeral but also to receive condolence visits. - The authorities’ failure to prove that they had indeed responded with due care to ensure the applicant’s attendance in the funeral and that they had resorted alternative means to overcome the understaffing problem.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and Others 2017/22355 26 December 2019 (Plenary)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the said freedom as the blanket ban on access to Wikipedia constituted an interference not complying with the requirements of the democratic order of the society. - Blocking of access to Wikipedia in Turkey has constituted an interference not only with the freedom to disseminate information and thoughts enjoyed by the applicant in its capacity as the content provider but also with the Turkish users’ right to receive information and thoughts. - Inferior courts’ failure to prove the causal link between the impugned contents on the website and the reason underlying the restriction as well as to provide relevant and sufficient grounds to demonstrate that the impugned restriction was justified by a pressing need. -The measure of blocking access has become permanent so as to clearly constitute a disproportionate interference with the said freedom.	Press Release
Betül Öztürk Gülhan and Sıla Koç 2016/12937 10 December 2019 (First Section)	Violations of the prohibition of treatment incompatible with human dignity and the right to hold meetings and demonstrations marches safeguarded respectively by Articles 17 and 34 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of the said prohibition and the right due to the decision of non-prosecution issued at the end of the investigation conducted against the police officers who had intervened in the demonstration held in order to protest the Soma mine accident. - Failure to demonstrate the necessity of the police intervention in the demonstrators. - No sufficient diligence and endeavour by the investigation authority to identify the police officers who had sprayed the applicants with tear gas. - The investigation authority’s failure to fully take necessary steps to clarify the incident and to conduct the investigation with due diligence: violation of the prohibition of treatment incompatible with human dignity. - No finding to the effect that the applicants impaired the peaceful nature of the meeting. - The administration’s failure to demonstrate that the applicants’ acts led to the disturbance of the public order or caused such a risk: violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches.	Press Release
Yaşar İnce 2016/1750 10 December 2019 (First Section)	Violation of the right to respect for family life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to dismissal of the applicant’s request for maintaining contact with his stepfather while serving his aggravated life imprisonment sentence. - A reasonable balance is to be struck between the public interest in maintaining security and discipline at prisons and the individual interest in ensuring the prisoners to maintain their family relations. - The Court has emphasized several times that even in the absence of blood relation or adoption, a family tie may be deemed to have been established, under certain circumstances, between the children and those taking care of them and meeting their needs. - The impugned interference was not based on relevant and sufficient grounds. Nor was it proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.
Murat Yasan 2015/6802 8 January 2020 (Second Section)	Violations of the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings inherent in the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violations of the said principles as the applicant was not notified of the expert report forming a basis for the impugned decision, which precluded him from duly putting forward his claims and challenges against the report. - In dismissing the action brought by the applicant, the inferior court relied on an expert report which had not been previously served on him. Therefore, the applicant was deprived of practical and effective opportunities to examine, comment on and challenge the report. - Nor were his subsequent challenges against the report discussed in the appeal process.
*II. Constitutionality Review*
E.2019/85 14 November 2019 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the contested provision in the Turkish Criminal Code which allows for suspension of the running of prescription until the settlement of the dispute which is to be dealt with and resolved in another jurisdiction	- Alleged unconstitutionality as the contested provision has led to the prolongation of the proceedings due to faults not attributable to the parties involved, which is in breach of the right to a fair trial as well as contrary to the principle of equality and the prohibition of discrimination. - The law-maker has a discretion in setting the prescription time-limits on condition of being compatible with the constitutional rules. - It should be noted that the prescription time-limits are set not only in favour of individuals but also in favour of the public in general. - Despite the contested the provision, the criminal judge is also entitled to adjudicate the case without awaiting for the decision to be rendered on the same matter in another jurisdiction. - Therefore, the provision was not found in breach of Articles 10, 36 and 41 of the Constitution.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Candaş Kat 2015/18467 19 November 2019 (First Section)	Violation of the right to an individual application safeguarded by Article 148 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to the seizure by the prison administration of the documents that he wanted to send to his lawyer by e-mail in order to lodge an individual application. - Individual application is a constitutional right ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. Therefore, administrative and judicial authorities are obliged to abstain from acting in a deterrent or obstructive manner in this respect. - In the present case, no relevant and sufficient grounds were provided to demonstrate why these documents were found unrelated with individual application.
Hayko Bağdat 2016/256 28 November 2019 (First Section)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right for being convicted due to his social media post addressed to a politician. - The Court has always stressed that the limits of criticism against politicians and publicly known persons are much wider. - The fine imposed on the applicant would have a suppressive effect on his activities as an author and journalist. - The interference with his freedom of expression with a view to protecting another person’s reputation and rights was not found compatible with the requirements of a democratic society.
Mehmet Salih Baltacı 2017/14768 27 November 2019 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation the said right for seizure of the vehicles belonging to a third person for allegedly having been used during an offence. - The applicant whose vehicles had been used during the offence had not been aware of the said offence; he was a bona fide third party. The judicial authorities’ failure to make a reasonable assessment in this respect. - The applicant was imposed an excessive and disproportionate burden. - Failure to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s right to property and the public interest to the detriment of the applicant.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
İbrahim Acar 2016/3140 7 November 2019 (First Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right since he was ordered to pay more than he earned as alimony payment. - The court only relied on the information provided by the law enforcement officers regarding the economic conditions of the parties. Hence it reached a decision without having exact information about the applicant’s monthly income. - The amount the applicant was ordered to pay was not proportionate. - The public authorities’ failure to fulfil their positive obligations under the right to protect and improve the applicant’s corporeal and spiritual existence.
Ziya Özden 2016/67737 19 November 2019 (First Section)	Violation of the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right for rejection of his request not to be placed in a single cell in the penitentiary institution, without an examination by the execution judge. - The decision ordering the applicant’s placement in a single cell was delivered by the Administrative and Supervisory Board of the Penitentiary Institution. - The execution judge claimed that the said decision had been given upon the instruction of the Ministry of Justice and that it therefore refused to examine the applicant’s objection. - However, the applicant’s objection was against the decision of the Administrative and Supervisory Board that was within the jurisdiction of the execution judge. - The rejection by the execution judge of the objection submitted by the applicant, without any examination, had been unlawful.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Hasan Fırat 2015/9496 31 October 2019 (Plenary)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the said prohibition due to the injury sustained by the applicant as a result of police intervention in a demonstration. - As required by procedural aspect of the positive obligation under the right to protect one’s corporeal and spiritual existence, the State has to conduct an official effective investigation capable of leading to identification and punishment, if necessary, of those responsible for any kind of physical and mental attacks. - However, in the present case, a decision of non-prosecution was rendered, at the end of the investigation, without clarifying whether the applicant’s injury had been caused by intervention of police officers or third persons. - The way in which the investigation was conducted also casted doubt on its independence and impartiality.
Aligül Alkaya and Others (2) 2016/12506 7 November 2019 (First Section)	Continued violation of the right to a fair hearing safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right to a fair hearing due to the non-enforcement of the Court’s judgment finding a violation. - In case of an order for a retrial by the Court in conjunction with its violation judgment, the relevant inferior court has no discretionary power in assessing whether a ground requiring a retrial exists. - Non-enforcement of a violation judgment rendered by the Court amounts to the continuation of the previously-found violation. - In the first application lodged by the applicants, the Court found a violation of the right to a fair hearing in its entirety due to the inferior court’s failure to fulfil the requirements inherent in the rights to examine and cross-examine witnesses as well as to legal assistance. - Due to the inferior court’s failure to accept the request for a retrial in accordance with the Court’s violation judgment, the violation found by the Court in its former judgment with respect to the applicants and the consequences thereof were not redressed.	Press Release
Şükran İrge 2016/8660 7 November 2019 (First Section)	Violation of the right to respect for family life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to dismissal of the request for a suspension of execution filed by the applicant, a convict serving her sentence in a penitentiary institution with her two children. - Her request was dismissed as she was to be considered as a dangerous convict: no sufficient ground so as to indicate why the applicant, convicted of aggravated theft, was categorized as a convict posing a threat. - In the face of the public authorities acknowledgement that the ward’s capacity as well as physical condition of the penitentiary institution was unfit for children’s lives and development, the applicant’s baby was deprived of a sound environment fit for his age and needs. - No balance was struck between the applicant’s placement in a penitentiary institution and the child’s best interest. Nor was any measure such as providing an appropriate environment for the child or transferring them to another institution with better conditions taken: non-fulfilment of the positive obligations	Press Release
Ali Ertan and Others 2016/6190 7 November 2019 (First Section)	Violation of the right of access to a court safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said right due to dismissal, as being time-barred, of the action for compensation brought by the applicants, relatives of two lieutenant pilots who died as a result of a plane crash taking place due to the fire opened by a foreign State’s forces while serving in the Turkish Armed Forces. - The Supreme Military Administrative Court found the applicants’ action time-barred, noting that the applicants had become aware of the deaths and the sustained damage at the date of the incident: but they had not been indeed aware of the administrative nature of the impugned act until the indictment was served on them. - As the Court has recently pointed out, in cases where the administrative nature of act, or the damage it has caused, or the casual link between them, is found out or can be proven long after the incident, the prescribed time-limit for filing an action will start running only thereafter. - Impugned interference placed a disproportionate	Press Release
Ahmet Haluk Altan 2015/14340 12 October 2019 (Second Section)	No violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the impugned freedom of the applicant, a lawyer, for his punishment due to his expressions in the petition he had submitted to the court in defence of his client. - The impugned expressions of the applicant were addressed to the judge of the trial court. - The parties of the case should abstain from behaviours and conducts targeting the personality of the judge as well as preventing the sound conduct of the proceedings. - The applicants’ words against the judge had been offensive. - A fair balance has been struck between the applicant’s freedom of expression and the complainant’s (judge) right to protection of honour and dignity.
Erbil Tuşalp 2015/2595 23 October 2019 (Second Section)	Violation of the freedoms of expression and the press respectively safeguarded by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the impugned freedom of the applicant, a journalist, for the sanction imposed on him on the ground that he had contributed to the dissemination of the expressions harming the complainant’s (Fetullah Gülen, leader of the FETÖ/PDY) honour. - The impugned expressions were not related to the complainant’s private life but concerned the public interest. - The courts’ failure to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s freedom of expression and the interests of the public and the complainant. -Interference was unnecessary in a democratic.
Hasan Ercan 2015/54 12 November 2019 (Second Section)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the fine imposed on him on account of his expressions in a petition whereby he filed a complaint about a judge dealing with his uncle’s case. - Right to petition is one of the most important means of the right to legal remedies and allows for sentencing of individuals claiming rights only under very exceptional circumstances. - Even if the applicant’s criticism towards the judge is found to be very severe, it is not targeted at his private life or personal characteristics but concerns the decision rendered by him. - The inferior court’s failure to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s freedom of expression and the complainant’s right to protection of honour and reputation. - In imposing a fine, the inferior court failed to give relevant and sufficient grounds to justify that there was a pressing need.
*II. Constitutionality Review*
E.2019/70 16 October 2019 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision stipulating that the broadcast of the enterprises failing to pay the channel and frequency usage fee shall be ceased by the Radio and Television Supreme Council (“the RTÜK”) within one month.	- Alleged unconstitutionality as there was no reasonable balance between the envisaged measure and the aim sought to be achieved. - The impugned measure in the form of suspension of broadcast has restricted the freedom of expression and the press enjoyed by the relevant radio and television channels. - Lack of a gradual method as a measure for receivables that will be subject to default interests in case of a delay or failure in their payment and may also be collected through enforcement. - Restriction on freedom of the press must be subject to stricter criteria in that it also ensures the individuals’ freedom of information. - The envisaged measure has not been mandatory in terms of the aim sought to be achieved by the contested provision and the reasonable balance between the public interest pursued by the restriction and the freedom of expression and the press could not be struck. - The contested provision is in breach of Articles 13, 16 and 28 of the Constitution	Press Release

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Mehmet Aksoy 2014/5433 11 July 2019 (Plenary)	Violation the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the said freedom of the applicant, a sculptor, due to the demolition of the monument he had sculpted, in accordance with the decision of certain public authorities. - An interference not complying with the conditions stipulated in Article 13 of the Constitution violates the freedom of expression. - State’s failure to fulfil its positive obligations to protect a piece of art. - Failure to demonstrate that the demolition of the monument had been necessary in a democratic society as well as being the last resort. - Decisions of the administrative authorities and courts lacked relevant and sufficient grounds.
Binali Boran 2016/1235 24 October 2019 (First Section)	Violation of the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right for rejection of his appeal request, which he had submitted electronically via the National Judiciary Informatics System (UYAP), as being time-barred. - Domestic law provides that a case can be filed via an electronic platform by using a secure electronic signature and that the deadline is the end of the day for the electronically-conducted processes. - Although the applicant filed an appeal request via UYAP on 11 June 2015, the court staff proceeded with the request one day after the expiry of the statutory period (on 12 June 2015). Relying on the latter date, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal request as being time-barred, which cannot be regarded as foreseeable. - The impugned practice of the Court of Cassation eliminated the applicant’s opportunity to make use of the appeal remedy, thereby imposing a heavy burden on him.	Press Release
Gülşen Polat and Kenan Polat 2015/4450 10 October 2019 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to life and the prohibition of torture, safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said rights due to the death of the applicants’ son at a military penitentiary institution as a result of ill-treatment and lack of an effective investigation into the incident. - It was found established by the inferior courts that the applicants’ son had lost his life due to the ill-treatment he had been inflicted at the military penitentiary institution. No reasonable explanation about the said acts under the State’s supervision and protection. - The military prosecutor’s office acted ten days after the applicants’ son had been taken to hospital where he subsequently died: Failure to take his statement due to the delayed action. - It was revealed by the chief public prosecutor’s office that similar ill-treatment incidents had occurred in the said military penitentiary institution previously. -Proceedings unreasonably lasted 9 years and 7 months.
*II. Constitutionality Review*
E.2018/144 19 September 2019 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision (added to the Tax Procedural Law) setting forth that an electronic notification shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee by the end of the fifth day following the date of delivery receipt.	- Allegedly unconstitutional for not providing an adequate and reasonable period for the addressee to enable him to use his relevant rights as well as for causing discrepancies, among those who became liable for taxes prior and subsequent to the impugned notification system, in terms of the notification methods. - The contested provision primarily entails an obligation for the addressees to check their e-mail boxes at certain intervals. Setting a five-day time-limit to file an objection before administrative or judicial authorities does not impose an excessive burden regard being had to the today’s technological facilities and conditions as well as to the fact the prescribed term of five days shall not run in case of force majeure. - Balance needed to be struck between those concerned and the public interest has been ensured. - Restriction imposed on the right of access to a court is proportionate. - No distinction which would lead to a difference in treatment in respect of prior and subsequent tax-payers: not in breach of the principle of equality.
E.2019/48 19 September 2019 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provisions setting forth that in case of any delay in overtime payment of the journalists, the amounts shall be payable plus a daily five-percentage for each delayed day.	- Allegedly unconstitutional for bestowing a manifest privilege on journalists, thereby undermining the principles of equality before the law, state of law and legal security. - Undertaking significant duties such as informing public, journalists must be provided with certain safeguards in performing their duties. - However, such arrangements must be proportionate: in the present case, the liability imposed on the employer to pay the overtime wage, in case of any delay, by applying a five-percentage default rate on a daily basis imposes an excessive burden on him. - Contested provision also leads to a difference among the journalists and the other employees who are governed by other laws: such a difference may not breach the principle of equality only when it has an objective and reasonable basis and it is proportionate. - The contested provision has an objective and reasonable basis but is not proportionate.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Tonguç Özkan and Others 2015/1261 26 September 2019 (First Section)	No violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right due to the disciplinary punishment imposed on them for obstructing the train service. - The applicants, employees of the Turkish State Railways, had been on a work stoppage. - They had not been imposed the disciplinary punishment for their work stoppage act but their sitting in front of the train and preventing the train from moving thereby hindering the others’ rights. - The disciplinary punishment imposed on the applicants served a pressing social need, namely the protection of the public order. The interference had been proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the public order.
Veysel Kaplan 2015/13524 26 September 2019 (First Section)	Violation of the freedom of association safeguarded by Article 33 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s freedom of association due to the disciplinary punishment imposed on him for his refusal to listen to the teleconference speech of the Minister of Education, protesting it on behalf of the labour union of which he was the head. - Freedom of association is a special aspect of freedom of expression. - The applicant expressed his criticism of the Minister peacefully in accordance with the decision of the labour union. - Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons to prove that the interference with the right to association served a pressing social need; disciplinary punishment was not necessary in a democratic society. -Failure to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s freedom of association and the interests of those attending the meeting.
Hacı Karabulut 2017/14871 9 October 2019 (First Section)	Violation of the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial due to non-communication of the objection letter of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Cassation to the applicant. - Judgment was rendered against the applicant who had not been informed of the observations included in the objection letter and hence had had no chance to submit his counter-observations. - Violations of the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms.
Ahmet Urhan 2014/13961 9 October 2019 (First Section)	Violation of the freedom of association safeguarded by Article 33 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s freedom due to his conviction for membership of a terrorist organization on the ground of his link with an association established in accordance with the laws and maintaining its activities within a legal framework. - The first instance court considered legal the association to which the applicant was affiliated; but, relying on a police report, it noted that the impugned association indeed conducted activities on behalf of a terrorist organization, the MLKP, and was operating directly in line with the latter’s goals: failure to indicate any relevant evidence demonstrating that the association had acted in line with the MLKP’s goals, as well as to reveal the link between the applicant’s activities falling into the ambit of his fundamental rights and the terrorist organization, thereby causing an unjust and deterrent effect on the freedom of association. - Accordingly, the first instance court failed to provide relevant and sufficient ground to demonstrate that the use of the applicant’s impugned acts as evidence in his conviction had corresponded to a pressing social need: the impugned interference did not comply with the requirements of a democratic society.	Press Release
Mahin Parjani and Others 2015/19219 10 October 2019 (Second Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the impugned right due to the death incident that had occurred as a result of use of force by the security officers and failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incident. - It is of vital importance that the investigation authorities act ex officio and without delay in cases of suspicious death. -Insufficient and delayed analysis of the evidence that might shed light on the incident: Investigation was not conducted rigorously.	Press Release
S.S. Yeni Foça Asmadere Konut Yapı Kooperatifi 2015/14525 10 October 2019 (Second Section)	Violations of the right to property and the right of access to a court respectively safeguarded by Articles 35 and 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the impugned rights due to the failure to enforce the final judicial decision. - The applicant that is a cooperative and the Treasury signed an agreement to exchange their properties. The applicant also made an additional payment to register the relevant property under its name. - The exchange of the properties was subsequently annulled. - The applicant was denied to obtain the reimbursement of the additional payment he had made as well as of the compensation awarded to him as a result of the title deed annulment action he had brought, which was in breach of its right to property. - Failure to enforce a final judicial decision that was in favour of the applicant was in breach of the right of access to a court.
Ulvi Bacıoğlu 2015/3175 10 October 2019 (Second Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the freedom of communication safeguarded by Article 22 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s freedom due to the lack of an effective and meticulous investigation into his complaint of unlawful interception of his communications. - The applicant, becoming aware through a piece of news that his telephone lines were being tapped, filed a criminal complaint with the incumbent chief public prosecutor’s office for the identification and punishment of those responsible. However, a decision of non-prosecution was rendered at the end of the investigation. - The investigation authority’s failure to seek to obtain information and documents having a key role in the investigation, and thereby to widen the scope of the investigation: non-fulfilment of the requirements inherent in the public authorities’ positive obligation to conduct an effective and meticulous investigation.	Press Release
*II. Constitutionality Review*
E.2018/105 19 September 2019 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision added to the Higher Education Law, which provided that the graduates of the associate degree program of theology shall have the opportunity to complete their education with a view to obtaining bachelor’s degree at the faculty of theology or the faculties offering the same programme	- Alleged unconstitutionality as the contested provision was only applicable to the graduates of the associate degree program of theology, in breach of the principles of equality and social state of law. - It was a privilege for the graduates of the associate degree program of theology in that while the graduates of other associate degree programs had to take an exam in order to complete their education with a view to obtaining bachelor’s degree, the graduates of the associate degree program of theology were accepted unconditionally. - Contested provision was in breach of the principles of equality and justice. - Incompatibility with Article 2 of the Constitution.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Ömer Faruk Eminağaoğlu 2015/7352 26 September 2019 (First Section)	No violation of the right to stand for elections safeguarded by Article 67 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to his inability to be reinstated in his office as a judge following his resignation in order to stand for parliamentary elections. - The impugned interference was intended for ensuring the independence and impartiality of courts and judges, a constitutional principle. - In order to observe this principle, the State is entitled to introduce measures which would preclude reinstatement of the judges resigned from their posts to stand for parliamentary elections. - The impugned interference did not impose an excessive restriction on his right to stand for elections and was not proportionate to the legitimate aim of ensuring independence and impartiality of courts and judges. - Compatible with the requirements of the democratic order of the society.
Nihal Uslukol 2016/73086 25 September 2019 (Second Section)	Violation of the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the impugned right due to dismissal of appeal as being time-barred; interference with the right of access to a court. - The statutory period for appeal was ten days to run from the date on which the decision was pronounced or served on the applicant in accordance with the relevant Law. The matter is the date -namely the pronouncement of the decision or its notification to the applicant- to be taken as a basis for running of the time limit for appeal. - The appellate authority’s interpretation as to the start of the appeal period had been unpredictable for the applicant and therefore imposed a heavy burden on her. - The burden imposed on the applicant had been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. - Hence, the said interference had not been proportionate.	Press Release
Ercan Toğrul 2016/71110 25 September 2019 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right due to the confiscation measure applied during a criminal investigation. - The applicant, a chief police officer, was dismissed from office and sentenced to 6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment for being a member of an armed terrorist organization. - Confiscation measure was also indicated in respect of his assets. - The confiscation measure is still in force. - The court, which convicted the applicant, did not order confiscation of his assets. Nor did it render any decision on the continuation or discontinuation of the impugned confiscation measure. Besides, no ground or legal basis justifying the measure was provided: the interference with his right to property was disproportionate.	Press Release
*II. Constitutionality Review*
E.2018/92 25 July 2019 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision setting forth that the custody period shall be 7 days in times of emergency and shall be prolonged, if required by the exigencies of the situation, for a further 7 days	- Allegedly unconstitutional for constituting a disproportionate interference with the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by the Constitution. - The Court notes that the periods during which individuals may be deprived of their liberty, which are prescribed in the Constitution, may be extended during a state of emergency and in time of war; and that however, such arrangements cannot be in breach of the constitutional safeguards applicable during the state of emergency for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. - Besides, given the extent of the coup attempt, the structure of the FETÖ/PDY, the number of investigations carried out in the aftermath of the coup attempt and especially dismissal of many police officers and judicial officers from office, the custody period to a maximum of 14 days, which is only applicable during the state of emergency for the proper conduct of investigations, is an appropriate and necessary measure. - The judicial system also affords an effective remedy against custody and extension of custody, and certain guarantees have been provided in order to ensure that the custody periods are applied in a proper and proportionate manner. - Hence, the contested provision is not unconstitutional.	Press Release
E.2017/18 25 July 2019 (Plenary)	- Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provisions which envisage that war colleges, military high schools and non-commissioned officers training schools be closed and the military cadets be transferred to appropriate schools	- Allegedly unconstitutional for being in breach of the right to education of the military cadets in question as well as for causing inequality between those already graduated from these schools and the ones transferred to other schools. - Certain measures must be inevitably taken by the public authorities to effectively struggle against the FETÖ/PDY, to eliminate the coup threat and avoid its recurrence: one of these aims is the re-structuring of the military staff training system. - Reasonable balance was struck between the public interest of maintaining and protecting national security, constitutional order and public safety and the right to education as the Ministry of National Education ensured the transfer of those concerned to the appropriate schools. - No inequality between those already graduated from the schools that were closed and those transferred to other schools as they are not in the same legal position. - Hence, the contested provision is not unconstitutional.
E.2016/205 24 July 2019 (Plenary)	Annulment of certain provisions of the Law no. 6749 on Amendment and Acknowledgement of the Decree-Law on the Measures Taken within the Scope of the State of Emergency	A) Contested provision stipulates that the students, who had been enrolled in the higher education institutions that was closed within the scope of the state of emergency for their having had links with the FETÖ/PDY terrorist organization and subsequently placed by the Higher Education Council in other state or foundation universities, shall continue to pay the fees, which they had been required to pay to their previous universities until graduation, to the relevant universities in which they have been subsequently placed: annulled. - It was claimed that the said provision constituted inequality and was in breach of Articles 10, 13 and 42 of the Constitution. - In accordance with Article 13 of the Constitution, right to education may only be restricted to the extent required in a democratic society. The said restriction imposed by the contested provision has not pursued a pressing social need. - Collection of the fees from the students who have been transferred from the closed foundation universities to the state universities is in breach of the principle of equality in terms of the right to education. B) Contested provision stipulates that the officials who make decisions and fulfil their duties within the scope of Law no. 6749 shall not be subject to legal, administrative, financial or criminal liabilities: request for annulment is dismissed. - It was claimed that the said provision ensured non-liability of the persons specified in the Law and was in breach of Articles 2 and 10 of the Constitution. - Law no. 6749 aims at eliminating the threats and dangers underlying the state of emergency. Accordingly, the contested provision serves the same purpose. - Use of the authorities or fulfilment of the duties prescribed by the laws or making decisions in this scope is lawful in our legal system. It means execution of the authorities granted by law.

Case

Decision

Case-Law Development

Related

I. Individual Application

Halk Radyo ve Televizyon Yayıncılık A.Ş.

2014/19270

11 July 2019

(Plenary)

Violations of the freedoms of expression and the press safeguarded by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution

- Alleged violation of the applicant’s rights due to the broadcast ban imposed within the scope of an ongoing criminal investigation conducted against a number of former ministers.

- The Law in accordance with which the ban was imposed did not include any provision concerning the said ban.

- Failure to fulfil the criteria of “foreseeability” and “certainty”, thereby failure to meet the requirement of legality.

Mustafa Açay and E.A.

2016/66638

2016/78293

3 July 2019

(First Section)

Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution

- Alleged violation of the right due to the unlawfulness of the applicants’ detention.

- Their detention was ordered for allegedly having committed certain offences related to the FETÖ/PDY.

- The Court discussed whether there was strong indication of their guilt.

- The court ordering their detention relied on the orders whereby the applicants had been suspended from their offices and the ongoing threat resulting from the state of emergency prevailing throughout the country: However, the Court noted that the applicants’ suspension and/or dismissal from office cannot be per se considered as a strong indication of guilt.

- Nor were there any witness statements which demonstrated, directly and with concrete evidence, the applicants’ link or relation with the FETÖ/PDY.

- The Court also discussed whether the impugned detention was legitimate under Article 15 of the Constitution which allows for suspension and restriction of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms in times of a state of emergency: not justified for lack of a strong indication of the applicants’ guilt.

Press Release

Hüseyin Yıldız and İmiş Yıldız

2014/5791

3 July 2019

(First Section)

Violation of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution

- Alleged violation of the right as the applicants’ son had visual loss as a result of an operation conducted by security officers into the prison where their son was held.

- The criminal action is still pending for over 9 years, which has made it difficult to obtain evidence and thereby to clarify the way how the incident took place.

- Unreasonable prolongation of proceedings -notably in cases where the power to use force has been abused- may leave the impression that such acts are tolerated and promoted.

- Public authorities’ failure to fulfil the obligation to plausibly demonstrate that the force used was absolutely necessary.

Ali Çerkezoğlu and Others

2015/1737

18 July 2019

(First Section)

Violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution

- Alleged violation of the right due to the decision of non-prosecution rendered at the end of an investigation conducted into the police intervention.

- The Court assessed whether the impugned intervention was compatible with the requirements of a democratic society:

- Necessary authorisation to hold the demonstration was received from the relevant administration.

- No finding demonstrating that the applicants acted contrary to their responsibilities or did not peacefully exercise their rights.

- Administration failed to demonstrate the applicants’ acts had disturbed public order or posed such a risk.

Semra Omak

2015/19167

17 July 2019

(Second Section)

Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution

- Alleged violation of the impugned right for the unlawful detention of the applicant’s child who had been detained for committing a theft and then killed himself in the penitentiary institution.

- According to the relevant Law, detention of children is a measure of last resort. However, in the present case, the applicant’s child had been detained –as the first measure– instead of conditional bail. Therefore, the said detention had not been a proportionate measure.

Press Release

K.Ş.

2016/14613

17 July 2019

(Second Section)

Violation of the right to protect individual’s corporeal and spiritual existence safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution

- Alleged violation of the right due to the dismissal of the applicant’s request for change of her workplace as her life was endangered.

- The applicant having being battered and stabbed by her ex-husband with whom she had served in the same school was granted a protection order by the incumbent family court.

- She further applied to the Ministry of National Education, seeking a change of her school. However, it was dismissed for her failure to submit a preventive protection order.

- Relevant law allows for a change of workplace by virtue of a judge’s order which must be fulfilled by the competent authorities.

- While the applicant asserted her life-safety concerns on the basis of concrete grounds, the inferior court failed to provide any concrete explanation, assessment and justification in dismissing her request.

Press Release

Kenan Işık

2017/26291

17 July 2019

(Second Section)

No violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution

- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to the transfer of the Bank of which he had been a shareholder to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund.

- The said interference served the public interest.

- In addition, it was subsequent to several procedures that the transfer decision was ultimately given.

- The applicant failed to prove that the impugned interference had been unnecessary.

- The fair balance between the interference with the applicant’s right to property and the public interest pursued was not disturbed.

Erdal İmrek

2015/4206

17 July 2019

(Second Section)

Violations of the prohibition of treatment incompatible with human dignity, as well as the freedoms of expression and the press respectively safeguarded by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution

- Alleged violations of the rights due to the police intervention with the press members including the applicant (exposed to battery and tear gas) during a demonstration.

- Violation of the prohibition of treatment incompatible with human dignity: Public authorities failed to demonstrate that the use of force by the police was inevitable and the force used was proportionate.

- Failure to take necessary steps capable of identifying the offender as well as to obtain evidence capable of leading to clarification of the incident and identification of those responsible.

- Violation of the freedoms of expression and the press: Public authorities failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds justifying the press members’ preclusion from performing their journalistic activities. Besides, the press members including the applicant did neither resort to violence nor pose any threat during the demonstration.

Case

Decision

Case-Law Development

Related

I. Individual Application

Zübeyde Füsun Üstel and Others

2018/17635

26 July 2019

(Plenary)

Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution

- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right due to being convicted of disseminating terrorist propaganda for having signed a declaration issued by a group of academics seeking to end the curfews and clashes during the operations carried out within the scope of the fight against terrorism in the East and Southeast of Turkey between 2015 and 2016.

- The Court is aware of concerns about the expressions and acts that might deteriorate the security situation in the region where the terrorist incidents have taken place. It is also aware of the fact that the impugned declaration was prepared unilaterally and from a certain perspective and that it included exaggerated comments, as well as some offensive and vicious expressions against the security forces. The Court’s consideration that this declaration should fall under the protection of the freedom of expression does not mean that it shares and supports the thoughts and ideas stated in the declaration.

- The expressions that are in no way supported by the Court may also fall within the scope of the freedom of expression. In assessing whether they fall under this scope, it must be considered whether the used expressions legitimize, praise or incite the violent and threatening methods of the terrorist organization.

- Interference imposed on the applicants could not be proven to be proportionate to the aim of maintaining public order inherent in the fight against the terrorist organization in question and terrorism.

- In cases where it is possible to address unjust attacks and criticisms of the opponents through different means -even if they appear to be highly unreasonable and irrelevant-, criminal proceedings must not be resorted to.

Press Release

Elegance Hotel Turizm İşletmeleri A.Ş.

2015/19953

30 May 2019

(Plenary)

Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution

- Alleged violation of the right due to the contribution accrued on behalf of the applicant, a company engaging in hotel management and accommodation services.

- Undoubtedly, there is an interference with the applicant company’s right due to the accrued contribution. Such an interference may be in compliance with the Constitution if it has a precise, accessible and foreseeable legal basis.

- Such kind of financial obligations leading to an interference with the right to property must be based on law in form. Introduction of a financial obligation -which is not prescribed by law- through a regulation or similar regulatory administrative acts would be in breach of the requirement of being prescribed by law: the interference had no legal basis.

S.M.

2016/6038

20 June 2019

(Plenary)

Violation of the presumption of innocence safeguarded by Articles 36 and 38 of the Constitution

- Alleged violation of the right of the applicant -against whom an interim decision was issued for having disturbed individuals’ peace and quiet - on account of the expressions stated in the interim measure (he is described therein as “the party inflicting violence”).

- Although the phrase “the party inflicting violence” is specified in Law no. 6284, it must not be used in such interim decisions in a stereotyped way, and the incumbent court or the authorities concerned must act with due diligence in making an assessment on this point.

- Use of this phrase in the interim decision gives the impression that he committed the act in respect of which a decision of non-prosecution was indeed issued or he actually committed any other violent acts: violation of the presumption of innocence.

- There is no legal interest in conducting a re-trial as the impugned expressions do not have any consequential effect on the court decisions.

- Removal of the expressions “the party inflicting violence” and “the party exposed to violence” from the impugned decisions will redress the violation.

Sedat Şanlı

2018/6812

3 June 2019

(Plenary)

Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution

- Alleged violation of the right of the applicant -whose house was demolished during the earthquake of 1975- due to the authorities’ failure to assign a permanent housing to him despite Law no. 7269 whereby he gained right-holder status.

- No inquiry was carried out in order to determine whether he was provided with a title deed in spite of 44 years having elapsed. Even if it is assumed that the applicant has been assigned a housing, it is uncertain whether its title deed was registered in his name.

- Procedural safeguards for the protection of the right to property have not been implemented.

Tevfik İlker Akçam

2018/9074

3 July 2019

(First Section)

Violation of the prohibition of discrimination safeguarded by Article 10 of the Constitution in conjunction with the right to property

- Alleged violation of the right of the applicant, an attending physician, for not being provided with the payment of on-call duty fees although other staff performing the on-call duties were paid such fees.

- In examining the alleged discrimination within the context of the right to property, it must be primarily ascertained whether factors of similar situation and different treatment exist; whether individuals in the same or similar position have been treated differently in terms of the interference with the right to property; whether the different treatment had an objective and reasonable basis as well as was proportionate.

- Distinction as to on-call duty between attending physicians governed by Law no. 657 and those governed by Law no. 2547 has constituted a discriminatory treatment within the scope of the right to property.

- Discriminatory interference with no objective and reasonable ground placed an excessive burden on the applicant.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
*I. Individual Application*
Ünal Gökpınar 2018/9115 27 March 2019 (Plenary)	No violation of the principle of not to be tried or punished again for the same offence safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	-Alleged violation of the said principle due imposition of punishments as a result of both administrative and judicial processes related to tax affairs. - In accordance with this principle, an individual cannot be tired or punished again for the same offence. However, this principle is not absolute, and the same offence may have different consequences in different legal disciplines. - The principle is applicable solely to criminal cases, therefore it does not constitute an obstacle to bringing a civil action or launching a disciplinary investigation for the same offence alongside the criminal investigation. -Imposition of different sanctions for the same offence within the scope of different disciplines (in the present case, administrative and judicial processes) is not in breach of the said principle.
Recep Bekik and Others 2016/12936 27 March 2019 (Plenary)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said freedom of the applicants who were prisoners, due to non-delivery arbitrarily and without any justification of the periodicals they had subscribed to or purchased. - The criteria outlined by the Court in terms of accepting publications to penal institutions have not been implemented properly. - Lack of uniform assessments as well as clear, guiding and consistent practices, capable of preventing arbitrariness, on the part of the courts in similar cases: ongoing structural problem in the current system when it comes to accepting publications to penal institutions. - If no effective system is established, the structural problem will continue, thereby leading to the continuous violation of the freedom of expression.
Abdulkadir Yapuquan 2016/35009 2 May 2019 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to the unlawfulness of his detention in the Removal Centre; alleged unlawfulness of holding a foreigner in administrative detention for more than twelve months. - Lack of legal grounds such as public order and public security justifying the administrative detention of the applicant: unlawful deprivation of liberty. - Applicant applied to the Constitutional Court and the ECHR for his release, which demonstrated that he was not being held in the Removal Centre at his own request.
Türkiye İş Bankası 2016/2400 3 April 2019 (First Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right to property due to collection of taxes on the contributions that were paid on behalf of the employees. - The rule which provides that the contributions made to the Foundation shall be taxed was adopted in 2012; therefore, cannot be applicable to the period before 2012. - Existence of and interference with the right to property on the basis of an unforeseeable legal provision.
Mehmet Geçgel 2014/4187 18 April 2019 (First Section)	Violation of the right to a fair hearing safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to the rejection of his request for redress of his damages arising from terrorist events, due to his previous sentence which had indeed been suspended and thus had not been final. - The administrative court dismissing the applicant’s request for compensation relied on a judgment that had not become final: manifestly erroneous assessment.
Mehmet Özhaseki 2015/4972 8 May 2019 (First Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to protection of honour and dignity safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right of the applicant, a mayor, due to rejection of the action for compensation that he had brought due to certain allegations voiced by a politician against him at a public meeting, which according to him damaged his personal rights: manifestly ill-founded. - Politicians, public figures and public officials may be subject to more severe criticisms due to their position and are expected to become more tolerant to criticisms. - In parallel, politicians’ freedom of expression must be broader. - Expression of thoughts about the events that occurred in a municipality is a natural result of a democratic political system.
Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu and the Republician People’s Party (CHP) 2014/12482 8 May 2019 (First Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to protection of honour and dignity safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right of the applicants, main opposition party and its leader, due to the news published in a newspaper: manifestly ill founded. - Politicians, public figures and public officials may be subject to more severe criticisms due to their position and are expected to become more tolerant to criticisms. - Freedoms of expression and the press are of vital importance in a democratic society. - The expressions in the impugned news did not exceed the limits of criticism. - Democratic pluralism entails more tolerance on the part of politicians to criticisms against them. -Fair balance struck between the freedoms of expression and the press and the individual’s right to protection of his moral integrity.
Nihat Zeybekçi 2015/5633 8 May 2019 (First Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to protection of honour and dignity safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right of the applicant, member of parliament, due to the words used by a political party leader at a group meeting: manifestly ill-founded. - Politicians, public figures and public officials may be subject to more severe criticisms due to their position and are expected to become more tolerant to criticisms. - The applicant had the opportunity to respond to the unfavourable remarks against him. - Fair balance struck between the defendant’s freedom of expression and the applicant’s right to protection of his honour and dignity.
Timur Demir 2018/33190 9 May 2019 (Second Section)	Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to his being placed in a single room in the penitentiary institution: manifestly ill-founded. - The alleged measure intends to prevent any cooperation to commit crimes and to maintain security and discipline in penitentiary institutions. - He did not complain about the physical conditions which were completely favourable in terms of social facilities and the possibility of meeting his relatives. - Detention conditions did not reach the minimum threshold of severity.
Sadettin Ekiz 2016/9364 9 May 2019 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right of the applicant, property owner, due to collection of the counsel’s fee from him in the expropriation proceedings. - Fair balance between the public interest pursued by the interference and the applicant’s right to property was disturbed to the detriment of the applicant. - Judicial authorities’ obligation to conclude the proceedings at little cost: not fulfilled (disproportionate cost) - Collection of the expenses from the applicant imposed an excessive burden on him. - Proportionality assessment as regards the expenses is different in the expropriation cases from the other types of cases.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2017/154 10 April 2019 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision stipulating that the counsel fee shall be paid to the lawyer	- Contested provision stipulates that the counsel fee to be charged from the other party to the case by a court decision relying on the Minimum Attorneyship Fee Tariff shall be paid to the lawyer. - It is disputed that in addition to the payment of an attorney fee to the lawyer by the client, the counsel fee that is subsequently awarded by the court in favour of the client (prevailing party) is also paid to the lawyer, which bestows a privilege upon the lawyers: allegedly in breach of the right to legal remedies as well as the principles of fair trial. - The counsel fee that is specified in the provision is not the attorney fee arising from the agreement between the lawyer and the client, but a fee awarded by the court on the basis of the Minimum Attorneyship Fee Tariff. -The contested provision does not prejudice the legality or scope of the attorney agreements signed by the parties on an equal basis with their free will.
E.2017/154 10 April 2019 (Plenary)	Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision stipulating that no disciplinary punishment shall be imposed on the law enforcement officers in the absence of a disciplinary investigation	- Contested provision stipulates that where disciplinary supervisors consider that an inquiry is needed against one of their subordinates due to his undisciplined acts or inappropriate behaviours, then a disciplinary investigation will be launched. - It was argued that the contested provision vested the disciplinary supervisors with the authority to impose disciplinary punishments even in the absence of a disciplinary investigation: allegedly in breach of Articles 10 and 129 of the Constitution (respectively, “equality before the law” and “disciplinary decisions shall not be exempt from judicial review”). - The contested provision, read as a whole, stipulates that where a disciplinary supervisor considers that an inquiry is needed into a case, then he will launch a disciplinary investigation. On the other hand, where he considers that no inquiry is needed, then he will not take any action. Accordingly, it does not vest the disciplinary supervisors with such authority as alleged.
E.2019/9 11 April 2019 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision precluding retroactive application of the law more favourable to the accused	- Contested provision, which is included in the Law no. 6750 on Pledge over Movable Properties in Commercial Transactions, stipulates that this Law shall not be applicable to the cases pending by the date of its entry into force. - It was argued that the contested provision precluded the retroactive application of new legal provisions that were more favourable to those accused of the offences committed when the abolished law had been in force. - Application of the less favourable law retroactively is prohibited by virtue of the principle of legal certainty and security; however, retroactive application of the more favourable law is a requirement of the principles of justice and fairness in conjunction with the rule of law. - Application of the less favourable provisions included in the abolished law will result in an unpredictable punishment for the individuals - Principle of legality of crimes and punishments is also at stake.	Press Release
E.2019/6 11 April 2019 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provisions allowing the reinstatement of the heads of professional organizations who resigned to stand for parliamentary and local elections	- Contested provisions stipulate that heads and board members of the Turkish Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges, as well as the heads and board members of professional organizations, who resigned to stand for parliamentary and local elections, can be reinstated, if they lose the elections. - The union and organizations in question, established under respectively Law nos. 5174 and 5362, have public institution status. - It was argued that the reinstatement had no reasonable ground and was not proportionate. - Different practices, related to elections, between the heads of professional organizations governed by Law nos. 5174 and 5362 and those of other professional organizations with public institution status: Violations of the principle of equality, as well as right to be elected.

Case	Decision	Case-Law Development	Related
I. Individual Application
B.P.O 2015/19012 27 March 2019 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to protect an individual’s corporeal and spiritual existence safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution No violation of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the former right for being subject to an intrusive body search by a woman police officer as the applicant −a national of Colombia− was suspected of transporting narcotic drug. - Intrusive body search had no legal basis for being conducted without the knowledge and order of a public prosecutor: in breach of the constitutional right as the necessary conditions prescribed by law for this type of search were not satisfied. - Alleged violation of the latter right for her conviction on the basis of illegally obtained evidence. - The applicant convicted of importing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances challenged not the whole evidence but the one obtained illegally. - Examination as to whether the challenged evidence impaired the fairness of the proceedings as a whole: no impairment as not being the sole and decisive evidence. - The other relevant criteria (equality of arms, adversarial proceedings, examination on the merits of the applicant’s allegations and sufficient justification) were also satisfied in the present case.
Hasan Akboğa 2016/10380 27 February 2019 (Plenary)	Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 § 9 of the Constitution No violation of Article 19 § 3 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to his wrongful arrest and custody for his alleged membership of a terrorist organization. - As concerns Article 19 § 3: no violation as the applicant’s arrest had a legal basis, a factual basis conforming suspicion of criminal guilt, was necessary given the risk of his fleeing based on the severity of the envisaged penalty for such offences, and was proportionate. - As concerns Article 19 § 9: the applicant’s action for compensation brought upon the decision of non-prosecution was dismissed due to the non-fulfilment of the necessary conditions. - However, if a decision of non-prosecution is issued following a person’s arrest, he may request the State to redress his pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages pursuant to Law no. 5271: the applicant’s case falls into the ambit of this provision.
Mustafa Demiraydın 2015/1051 21 March 2019 (First Section)	Violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to imposition of an administrative fine as a result of participating in a press statement in a peaceful environment. - Right to hold meetings and demonstration marches aims at protecting the rights of the individuals who express their opinions in a peaceful manner without resorting to violence. - As a requirement of the pluralistic democracy, the State is expected to show patience and tolerance to the non-violent acts that do not pose a threat to the public order. -Administrative fine: unnecessary in a democratic society. - Failure to strike the fair balance between the measures taken and the applicants rights within the scope of Article 34.
A.D. 2014/19506 3 April 2019 (First Section)	Violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the said prohibition due to the risk of applicant’s extradition to a third country if being deported to his/her country of nationality. - In issuing a deportation order, public authorities are to take into account whether there is any risk of extradition of the person concerned to any country where he/she will be allegedly subject to ill-treatment. The receiving country’s being a member of the Council of Europe or a party to the European Convention on Human Rights does not per se eliminate the obligation to conduct an inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment. - The Court’s violation in the present case does not amount to an acknowledgement of his allegations that in case of his/her deportation to his/her country of nationality, he/she would be extradited to the USA where he/she would be allegedly ill-treated. - The Court ordered a re-trial and halted the applicant’s deportation until the conclusion of his/her re-trial.
Ayşe Çelik 2017/36722 9 May 2019 (Second Section)	Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the freedom at stake as the applicant did not intend to justify, or incite to, violence or hatred but indeed used peaceful expressions during a live TV show. - Impugned interference was incompatible with the necessities of a democratic society: her expressions included no element praising or supporting terrorism, or directly or indirectly inciting to violence or an armed resistance, but concerned issues of public interest.	Press Release
İbrahim Sözer and Others 2016/10425 4 April 2019 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right due to the failure to expropriate for over 30 years their immovable allocated for public service and to redress the damages incurred. - Although the administration decided to no longer expropriate their immovable, no amendment was made to the development plan: relevant restrictions such as construction ban remained in force. - The public authorities’ failure to indemnify the applicants put an excessive and extraordinary burden on them, which upset the fair balance to be struck between their right to property and the public interest.
Eyüp Kurt 2015/6926 4 April 2019 (Second Section)	Violation of the right to protect corporeal and spiritual existence safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation the applicant’s right due to the proceedings conducted into his having been permanently disabled allegedly as a result of medical negligence. - Lack of the medical records at the material time, which resulted in a failure to determine whether the doctor as well as the medical institution in question were responsible for the applicant’s disability: the applicant was at a disadvantage before the respondent administration. - Inferior courts dismissed the applicant’s case in the absence of sufficient grounds based on concrete evidence: excessive burden on the applicant; unfair situation. - The State’s failure to satisfy its positive obligations under the right to protect corporeal and spiritual existence.	Press Release
Hacı Ahmet Yaşartürk and Nurdane Yaşartürk 2014/850 4 April 2019 (Second Section)	Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution	- Alleged violation of the right to life due to death caused by a temporary village guard not fulfilling the criteria concerning military service and alleged violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time for failure to conduct an effective criminal investigation. - The procedural aspect of the positive obligation incumbent on the State within the scope of the right to life requires that in cases of unnatural death, an effective criminal investigation capable of identifying those responsible and, if necessary, punishing them must be conducted: not fulfilled in the present case. - Investigation not concluded with reasonable speed. - In addition to finding of a violation, the applicants were also awarded compensation.
II. Constitutionality Review
E.2018/156 10 April 2019 (Plenary)	Annulment of the provision concerning the increase to be applied to price of the expropriated property	- Contested provision stipulates that the increase in the price of the expropriated property shall not be higher than the half of the land’s determined price. - One of the constitutional elements of the expropriation is “actual price”. - As required by the right to property and the principle pf proportionality, the real value of the expropriated property must be paid to its owner. - The limitation stipulated by the contested provision might prevent the determination of the real value of the property and hence its payment to its owner; fair balance between the public interest and the right to property is disturbed: unconstitutional.	Press Release

Case-Law Summary

13 - 24 January 2025Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

30 December 2024 - 10 January 2025Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

2 - 13 December 2024Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

18 - 29 November 2024Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

21 October - 15 November 2024Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

22 July - 2 August 2024Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

24 June - 19 July 2024Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

10 - 21 June 2024Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

27 May - 7 June 2024Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

13 - 24 May 2024Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

15 - 26 April 2024Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

1 - 12 April 2024Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

18 - 29 March 2024Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

19 February - 1 March 2024Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

5 - 16 February 2024Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

22 January - 2 February 2024Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

8-19 January 2024Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

25 December 2023 - 5 January 2024Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

11 -22 December 2023Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

27 November - 8 December 2023Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

13 - 24 November 2023Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

30 October - 10 November 2023Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

16 - 27 October 2023Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

2 - 13 October 2023Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

18 - 29 September 2023Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

5- 23 June 2023Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

22 May - 2 June 2023Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

8 - 19 May 2023Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

24 April - 5 May 2023Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

10 - 21 April 2023Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

27 March - 7 April 2023Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

13 - 24 March 2023Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

27 February - 7 March 2023Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

13 - 24 February 2023Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

30 January-10 February 2023Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

16 – 27 January 2023Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

17 – 28 October 2022Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

3 – 14 October 2022Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

22 August – 2 September 2022Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

8 – 19 August 2022Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

25 July – 5 August 2022Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

11 - 22 July 2022Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

27 June - 8 July 2022Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

13 - 24 June 2022Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

30 May – 10 June 2022Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

16 – 27 May 2022Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

24 January – 4 February 2022Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

10 - 21 January 2022Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

27 December 2021 – 7 January 2022Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

13 – 24 December 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

29 November - 10 December 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

15-26 November 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

1-12 November 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

18 - 29 October 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

4 - 15 October 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

20 September – 1 October 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

6 – 17 September 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

23 August – 3 September 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

9 – 20 August 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

26 July - 7 August 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

12 - 23 July 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

28 June – 9 July 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

14 – 25 June 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

31 May – 11 June 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

17 – 28 May 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

3 – 14 May 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

19 – 30 April 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

5 – 16 April 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

22 March – 2 April 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

8 - 19 March 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

22 February – 5 March 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

8 – 19 February 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

25 January – 5 February 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

11 – 22 January 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

28 December 2020 – 8 January 2021Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

14 December - 25 December 2020Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

30 November - 11 December 2020Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

16 - 27 November 2020Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary

2 - 13 November 2020Turkish Constitutional Court’s Case-law Summary