Esteemed Participants,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I extend my warmest greetings and highest respect to each and every one of you.

At the outset of my words, I would like to express my delight at being here in our beautiful city of İzmir on the second day of the second century of our Republic.

I firmly believe that these regional meetings, where we discuss the inter partes and erga omnes effects of judgments, contribute significantly to a better understanding and implementation of the individual application mechanism. I hope that this sixth meeting in the series, which we have just inaugurated, will be as successful and fruitful as its predecessors.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all those involved in the organisation of this meeting and to the dedicated officials and esteemed members of the judiciary of our gracious province for their warm hospitality.

Esteemed Participants,

Drawing on the experience of the past century of the Republic, building the centuries to come and passing on our achievements to future generations is a shared responsibility for all of us. To achieve this, we must better comprehend and articulate the legal dimension of the Republic.

The Roman philosopher and statesman Cicero states that the Republic is the creation of the people, yet he also stresses that this “people” is not just any random collection of individuals. According to him, the people who build the Republic are a numerous gathering brought together by legal consent and a community of interest.¹

Undoubtedly, constitutions serve as the most obvious manifestation of this legal consent. In fact, the Republic of Türkiye was established by incorporating the provision “The form of government in Türkiye is a republic” into Article 1 of the 1921 Constitution, which was in force a century ago. This provision has been included in the initial articles of our constitutions as “The State of Türkiye is a Republic” since the 1924 Constitution.

The constitutional identity forged by the founders of the Republic has evolved over time, undergoing certain changes to reach its current form. Despite variations in content, interpretation and implementation, Article 2 of the Constitution effectively encapsulates the constitutional identity of the century-old Republic. It affirms that the Republic of Türkiye is, alongside its other attributes, a democratic, secular and social state governed by the rule of law, dedicated to upholding human rights.

In this definition, the defining quality is the “rule of law”, because this principle is not only one of the qualities of the Republic, but also a fundamental principle that qualifies other qualities. In this sense, the Republic of Türkiye is first and foremost a constitutional state. Principles such as human rights, democracy, secularism and the social state are also formulated as qualities that complement the rule of law.

Due to this defining quality, the Constitutional Court frequently refers to the rule of law in its decisions on constitutionality review as well as in its judgments on individual applications. More importantly, according to the Court, “the rule of law is a principle that must be taken into account in the interpretation and application of all articles of the Constitution”.²

Esteemed Participants,

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Republic and the Turkish constitutional identity, once stated: “The Republic is first and foremost the guardian of the destitute”. President Atatürk recalled this quote immediately after mentioning the developments in the judiciary during his speech at the commencement of the second legislative year of the third term of the Turkish Grand National Assembly on 1 November 1928.³

From this perspective, we can assert that the responsibility of being the “guardian of the destitute” falls primarily on the judiciary. Especially since the introduction of the individual application mechanism, the Constitutional Court has made every effort to fulfil this essential role. Individuals from almost every segment of society who consider their constitutional rights and freedoms have been violated, especially those who feel helpless and destitute, resort to the individual application procedure after exhausting all administrative and judicial remedies. Individuals and organisations from almost all walks of life, including but not limited to workers, businesspeople, farmers, exporters, students, teachers, journalists and politicians, apply to the Constitutional Court to seek redress for the alleged violations they have suffered.

Over the past 11 years, the Constitutional Court has thoroughly examined these applications with a rights-based approach, identifying violations, if any, and proposing remedies to address them. In its judgments on virtually every category of rights, the Turkish Constitutional Court indicates the steps needed to be taken not only to address and remedy the specific grievances suffered by the applicants, but also to prevent further violations.

This approach has enabled the identification of structural issues giving rise to violations of fundamental rights and has significantly established principles and standards for the protection of these rights.

Esteemed Participants,

One of the most significant transformations brought about by the individual application mechanism is the constitutionalisation of the law. In fact, with the introduction of this mechanism, constitutional provisions and the decisions of the Constitutional Court regarding these provisions have been considered in various domains, ranging from administrative and labour law to criminal and family law. This constitutionalisation has become evident in both academic discourse and judicial practice.

Nevertheless, this process has undoubtedly given rise to notable legal challenges, with the foremost being the need to harmonise the interpretation of constitutional provisions. Article 138 of the Constitution stipulates that judges shall rule “in accordance with the Constitution, the law and the statutes”. Ruling in accordance with the Constitution inherently entails the interpretation of constitutional provisions.

The interpretation of the Constitution by courts at various levels naturally leads to differences in interpretation. In a democratic state governed by the rule of law, it is natural for different institutions to interpret a constitutional provision differently. Furthermore, diversity of interpretation can be seen as a form of richness.

Diversity of interpretation should not, however, undermine the need to apply constitutional provisions equally to all. In other words, in a state governed by the rule of law, there is a diversity of interpretation, but not a “cacophony of interpretation”. Certainly, it is the role of the Constitutional Court to monitor this and to ensure uniformity in the interpretation and application of constitutional provisions.

Esteemed Participants,

To ensure consistency in the interpretation and application of the Constitution, it is essential to recognise the erga omnes effect of individual applications. As is well known, the primary purpose of individual applications is not to address individual allegations of rights violations, one by one, in order to provide subjective remedies. As stated by the constitution-maker, individual applications were introduced in our country with the aim of better protecting and upholding the standards of fundamental rights and freedoms.

Hence, the main purpose of individual applications is to prevent new violations and, so to speak, to drain the swamp that breeds such violations. This requires, above all, the implementation of the erga omnes effect of individual applications. Erga omnes effect means that the findings and assessments made by the Constitutional Court with regard to the scope and limits of a right or freedom that is the subject of an individual application will have an impact “on those in a similar situation”.⁴

In this sense, the erga omnes effect requires that the legislative, executive, judicial and administrative branches take into account the assessments in the decisions and judgments of the Constitutional Court, along with the fundamental principles and procedures that have been established, and act in such a way as to prevent the occurrence of new violations.

In fact, a failure to consider the erga omnes effect of individual applications would result in all similar complaints of violations on the same subject being brought before the Constitutional Court. This would undoubtedly have a negative impact on the function of the individual application mechanism based on the principle of subsidiarity in the protection of fundamental rights.

It is precisely for this reason that “authorities exercising public power must, when necessary, implement general measures to prevent the recurrence of violations and to redress the consequences of such violations in the legal sphere, in accordance with the judgments of the Constitutional Court”.⁵ When violations arise from structural issues independent of the subjective condition of the applicant, the obligation to prevent potential new violations in accordance with the erga omnes effect is much more evident, particularly for the authorities exercising public power, especially the judiciary.⁶

Esteemed Participants,

In concluding my remarks, I would like to emphasise that after 11 years of implementation, the individual application mechanism has been institutionalised as a means for our Republic, founded on human rights and the rule of law, to reach out to society and address the challenges faced by our citizens in relation to fundamental rights.

It would therefore not be unreasonable to consider the individual application as one of the greatest achievements of the Republic’s centenary.

Preserving and further developing this achievement is a collective responsibility that we must pass on to future generations of the Republic “with free mind, free conscience and free wisdom”⁷. It is also our moral duty to honour those who sacrificed their blood and lives in the process leading to the establishment of the Republic.

With these sentiments and thoughts, I celebrate the 100^th anniversary of our Republic and express my gratitude to all the participants, especially the speakers at the sessions.

Once again, I wish our regional meeting to be successful and productive, and I extend my best wishes for your health and well-being.

¹ Cicero, The Republic and the Laws, trans. N. Rudd, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), Book 1, § 39, p. 19.

² Mehmet Güçlü and Ramazan Erdem, no. 2015/7942, 28 May 2019, § 50; Cihangir Akyol [Plenary], no. 2021/33759, 23 February 2023, § 46.

³ Atatürk’ün Söylev ve Demeçleri I-III, Cilt I: T.B.M. Meclisinde ve C.H.P. Kurultaylarında (1919-1938) (Atatürk’s Speeches and Statements I-III), Vol. I: In the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye and the Congresses of the Republican People’s Party (1919-1938)), 4^th Edition, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1989), p. 374.

⁴ İbrahim Er and Others [Plenary], no. 2019/33281, 26 January 2023, § 52.

⁵ Şerafettin Can Atalay (2) [Plenary], no. 2023/53898, 25 October 2023, § 83.

⁶ Şerafettin Can Atalay (2) [Plenary], § 87.

⁷ Atatürk’ün Söylev ve Demeçleri I-III (Atatürk’s Speeches and Statements I-III), Volume II (1906-1938), 4^th Edition, (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1989), p. 179.