President's Speeches

Symposium on the occasion of the 64^th Anniversary of the Constitutional Court
“The Impact of the Ne Bis in Idem Principle in Different Jurisdictions”

Ankara
27 April 2026

Honourable President of the Court of Cassation,

Honourable Chair of the Constitutional Committee of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye,

Honourable Judge of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Türkiye,

Honourable Chief Public Prosecutor of the Council of State,

Honourable Head of the Council of Europe Programme Office in Ankara,

Esteemed Vice-Presidents and Members of the Constitutional Court and the High Judiciary, 

Distinguished Colleagues,

Distinguished Members of the Press,

Distinguished Participants,

It is a great honour and pleasure to be with you at this distinguished symposium held on the occasion of the 64^th anniversary of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye. On behalf of the Court, I would like to extend my highest respect and my most sincere and heartfelt greetings to you all. 

The Turkish Constitutional Court, established under the 1961 Constitution and institutionalised for the first time within the Turkish constitutional framework, constitutes the most concrete manifestation of constitutional justice. In this respect, the Court represents not only the establishment of a new judicial body, but also the judicial protection of the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution. This, in turn, confirms that the Court stands as one of the strongest guarantors of the rule of law in Türkiye. Guided by this approach, the Court fulfils its duties and responsibilities and will continue to do so with the same sense of commitment.  

Since its establishment, the Turkish Constitutional Court has served to ensure that legislative acts remain within constitutional limits and that fundamental requirements of the rule of law are effectively upheld. With its powers redefined under the 1982 Constitution, the Court has maintained and further consolidated its central position within the constitutional system.

In particular, the individual application mechanism introduced by the 2010 constitutional amendments has marked one of the key milestones in the Court’s history.

Today, drawing on its 64-year legacy, the Turkish Constitutional Court has become a prominent actor not only within the Turkish legal system, but also in a multi-layered human rights protection mechanism evolving through interaction with international human rights law.

Esteemed Guests,

A proper understanding of constitutional justice and its function requires, first and foremost, recalling the fundamental principles upon which it is built. Indeed, constitutional justice is not merely a technical review mechanism, but an institutional safeguard that upholds the supremacy and binding force of the Constitution.

The Constitution, as the supreme legal norm at the apex of the hierarchy of norms, binds all public authorities, including the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. In this respect, constitutional justice is one of the indispensable pillars of a democratic state governed by the rule of law. It should be accordingly highlighted that, in the absence of constitutionality review, the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution would remain devoid of practical effect.

Moreover, the expanded contemporary role of constitutional justice has transformed it into an institution that goes well beyond merely annulling legal norms. It may be regarded as a mechanism actively contributing to the process of democratisation, extending beyond the protection of rights and freedoms to their further development.

In this context, constitutional justice fulfils the function of ensuring coherence and unity within the legal order by reviewing the compliance of statutes and other legal norms with the Constitution. Moreover, it serves not only to preserve the hierarchical relationship between legal norms, but also to play a fundamental role in constraining state power and safeguarding individual rights.

In this context, constitutional justice is not confined to the role of a mere body of “judicial review”; rather, it transcends this function and stands as a constitutional actor contributing to the sustainability of the democratic order and the enhancement of fundamental freedoms. Particularly with the introduction of the individual application mechanism, the Turkish Constitutional Court has become not only a body offering redress for human rights violations, but also a centre of jurisprudence guiding the legal system as a whole. It has evolved into a body of jurisprudence serving as a bridge between domestic law and international human rights law through this mechanism.

This historical development demonstrates not only institutional continuity, but also the Court’s capacity to respond to evolving social needs. Indeed, as is evident from the Court’s activities in recent years, the effective operation of the individual application mechanism, the adjudication of cases within a reasonable time despite the growing number of applications, and the transformative effect of violation judgments on the legal order clearly illustrate the dynamic nature of constitutional justice.

The Turkish Constitutional Court contributes, on the one hand, to the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms through individual applications and, on the other hand, develops a coherent body of jurisprudence that guides the exercise of public authority and prevents the recurrence of similar violations. This demonstrates that constitutional justice is not merely a mechanism for resolving individual disputes. It also performs a normative and transformative function that shapes the legal system as a whole.

In this respect, the Court has developed a judicial practice that produces both inter partes effects (the protection of individual rights in the specific case) and erga omnes effects (the broader transformation of the legal order). Moreover, the Court has emerged as an important interlocutor between domestic law and international human rights law. Its engagement with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is clearly reflected in its decisions, thereby placing constitutional justice within a broader universal and comparative context.

Distinguished Guests,

The Turkish Constitutional Court remains committed to continuous development and transformation in line with the principles of transparency, accessibility, and effectiveness. The initiatives undertaken in this regard underscore that constitutional justice is not solely a legal activity, but also a public service that contributes to strengthening public trust. The Court acts with a full awareness of this responsibility.

In particular, the broader use of digital solutions designed to simplify individual application procedures has substantially enhanced applicants’ access to the Court and further contributed to the effectiveness and accessibility of legal remedies. Furthermore, the timely and systematic publication of the Court’s judgments gives practical effect to the principle of transparency in constitutional justice and promotes a broader understanding of judicial activities across society.

By making effective use of technological advancements, the Court both expedites judicial processes and strengthens the bond between constitutional justice and society. This clearly illustrates that constitutional justice serves a function that extends beyond the legal sphere, contributing also to institutional trust and democratic legitimacy.

Esteemed Guests,

The Turkish Constitutional Court has made it a deeply rooted tradition to mark its anniversaries not merely through commemoration, but through academic forums that address contemporary issues in constitutional justice and bring together scholars from different legal disciplines and legal practitioners. These meetings stand out as important platforms that not only preserve the institutional memory of the Court, but also contribute to the development of constitutional thought by fostering productive interaction between jurisprudence and legal doctrine. In this respect, such events clearly demonstrate that constitutional justice is not merely concerned with rendering decisions, but also engages in debate, advances ideas, and helps shape the legal landscape.

As in previous years, we wish to mark our anniversary this year through an academic meeting that contributes to the development of constitutional discourse.

At this year’s symposium, we have chosen to focus on a timely and widely debated constitutional issue under the theme “The Impact of the Ne Bis in Idem Principle in Different Jurisdictions”.

This principle represents one of the most significant areas of development in the Court’s case-law. Although the ne bis in idem principle is not expressly enshrined in the 1982 Constitution, the Court has regarded it as an inherent element of the rule of law and the right to a fair trial.

In its individual application judgments, the Court views this principle not merely as a technical rule specific to criminal law, but as a constitutional safeguard protecting legal certainty and the finality of judicial proceedings.

In this context, the Ünal Gökpınar judgment constitutes a leading precedent that clearly illustrates the Court’s approach to the issue. In that case, the Court examined the imposition of both administrative and criminal sanctions for the same act and assessed whether the relevant proceedings formed an integrated whole in terms of “subject-matter, time and the legal interest protected”. The Court thereby laid down an important framework of principles: The mere existence of multiple sanctions in respect of the same act does not in itself amount to a violation. What is essential is whether these sanctions protect the same legal interest and whether they are sufficiently interconnected.

This approach is particularly important, as it illustrates how the “sufficiently close connection” criterion developed by the ECHR has been integrated into the Turkish Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence. Indeed, in its decision no. E.2019/4, K.2021/78 in the constitutionality review, the Court adopted the same approach and assessed the sanction regime in tax law on the basis of these criteria.

The Court has also explicitly recognised that the ne bis in idem principle is not absolute in nature. As highlighted in the Court’s case-law, the same act may be evaluated under different legal disciplines and be subject to sanctions pursuing the protection of distinct legal interests. In such circumstances, the application of multiple sanctions does not automatically lead to a violation of the principle. However, despite adopting this flexible approach, the Court exercises particularly careful scrutiny when determining the element of the “same act”. The case-law holding that actions closely connected in terms of subject-matter, time and place should be regarded as a single act constitutes an important indication of this careful scrutiny.

In this regard, the Court has evolved beyond being a judicial body that applies the ne bis in idem principle in individual applications, becoming a jurisprudential authority that defines the scope and exceptions of the principle.

Today, the issues arising particularly at the intersection of tax law, administrative sanctions, and criminal law render the application of this principle increasingly complex. In the face of this complexity, the jurisprudence of the Turkish Constitutional Court plays a decisive role not only in domestic law but also in ensuring compliance with international human rights law.

 In this context, the ne bis in idem principle is no longer merely a “prohibition”, but rather a constitutional mechanism of balance ensuring coherence between legal systems, harmonising different sanctioning regimes, and placing the protection of the individual at its core.

Distinguished Participants,

I am confident that today’s symposium will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the ne bis in idem principle in the light of the Court’s case-law.

As I conclude my remarks, I would first like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr. Saadet Yüksel, Judge elected in respect of Türkiye at the ECHR, for her kind participation in our programme. In this regard, I would like to emphasise that the support extended by the ECHR is deeply appreciated and a source of great satisfaction for us.

I sincerely hope that this symposium, realised with the valuable contributions and support of the Council of Europe, the Court of Cassation, the Council of State and distinguished scholars as part of the Project on Supporting the Effective Implementation of Turkish Constitutional Court Judgments in the Field of Fundamental Rights, will lead to productive discussions and meaningful outcomes. On this occasion, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to the esteemed presidents of our high judicial institutions, the heads of the boards and chambers, and their members.

I would also like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Mr. William Massolin, Head of the Council of Europe Office in Ankara, and to the distinguished staff of the Office for their valuable support and assistance in implementing the Project and organising this meeting.

Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to my esteemed colleague, Prof. Dr. Feridun Yenisey, who, owing to unavoidable circumstances, is unable to be with us in person today and will therefore participate in the symposium via videoconference, and who I am confident will make highly valuable contributions to our discussions. I also express my sincere gratitude to the other speakers of the symposium and everyone involved in organising this meaningful event. I sincerely hope that our shared efforts toward strengthening the rule of law and ensuring the effective protection of fundamental rights will continue to advance.

I respectfully extend my sincere regards to you all.