Modern Tendencies in Constitutional Justice

The Transformative Effect of Individual Application and the Constitutionalisation of Law

Baku, Azerbaijan
16 July 2025

If a person pursues for longevity, he must be just.
The same is true for states.
Justice sustains longevity.

Honourable Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan,

Distinguished Presidents and Justices of the Member Courts of the Conference of Constitutional Jurisdictions of the Turkic World,

Esteemed Participants,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me extend my warmest greetings and highest regards to each and every one of you.

I am deeply honoured to take part in this meaningful gathering and to address you on the occasion of the 30^th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

It is with great pleasure that I extend, on behalf of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye, our sincere congratulations to the fraternal people of Azerbaijan and the esteemed members of the Azerbaijani judiciary. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Chairman Farhad Abdullayev for his gracious invitation, which has enabled us to attend and contribute to this significant event. I would also like to extend my thanks to Mr. Chairman, the Members of the Court, and all those who have worked diligently for the successful organisation of this remarkable event.

In my remarks today, I will, within the limits of our time, touch upon the meaning and significance of the principle of the supremacy of constitution, the evolution of constitutional justice, and the modern tendencies that have emerged in this field, the Turkish model of constitutional justice, as well as the impact of the individual application mechanism on the Turkish legal system.

I. The Meaning and Significance of the Principle of the Supremacy of Constitution

Constitutions are universally recognised as social contracts that safeguard fundamental rights and freedoms while regulating the exercise of sovereign powers within the framework of democratic principles. They are not merely fundamental legal texts of states, but also reflections of the societies’ shared values, ideals, and collective vision for the future. They are consensus texts that establish the institutions ensuring the existence of states and form a bridge between the state and the nation.

As founding instruments, constitutions enshrine the core philosophy of states, define their institutional structures, and carve out the relationship between the individual and the state. Constitutional norms prevail over all other legal provisions, which is the result of the “principle of the supremacy of constitution”.

Under this principle, all acts of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary must comply with the Constitution. This necessitates the establishment of a dedicated mechanism to safeguard the supremacy of constitution, which is fulfilled by constitutional justice.

The core mission of constitutional justice is to ensure the interpretation and implementation of constitutional provisions in accordance with both their wording and spirit, and to remove from the legal order any unconstitutional acts and regulations. In other words, it is to ensure the effectiveness of constitutions, which serve as social contracts in pursuit of fundamental rights and freedoms, as well as securing the exercise of sovereignty within the scope of democratic principles. In this respect, constitutional justice upholds not only the rule of law but also the supremacy of constitution.

II.The Evolution of Constitutional Justice

Constitutional justice underwent a significant development in the twentieth century. The model of abstract constitutionality review, pioneered by Hans Kelsen in Austria in the 1920s, gradually evolved and took on diverse forms across different jurisdictions. Today, three main models of constitutional justice may be identified:

The European Model (Centralised Review): The Kelsenian model is based on a specialised judicial body, a constitutional court, that may annul unconstitutional legal norms in abstract review. Thus, this system is implemented by a specialised body such as the constitutional court. Among the prominent examples of this model are Germany, Spain, Italy, Türkiye, and Azerbaijan.

The Anglo-Saxon Model (Decentralised Review): The supreme court is the highest judicial body, and its judgments are binding on lower courts under the principle of stare decisis. All courts, across all levels of the judiciary, is vested with the authority to conduct constitutionality review. This model is employed in the United States and Latin American countries.

Hybrid Systems: Some countries combine centralised and decentralised forms of constitutional review within their constitutional system.

III. The Model of Constitutional Justice in Türkiye

In Türkiye, the “European Model”, also referred to as the “centralised model of constitutional justice” or the “specialised court system”, has been adopted for the review of the constitutionality of laws. In this regard, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye was established under the 1961 Constitution.

Pursuant to the Constitution currently in force, the system adopted for the review of constitutionality is the “a posteriori review”, also known as “corrective review”, whereby the constitutionality of laws is reviewed after their publication in the Official Gazette.

Furthermore, the Constitution provides for two distinct procedures in the judicial review of the constitutionality of laws, which are “abstract constitutionality review” and “concrete constitutionality review”.

In addition, the Constitution also provides for the mechanism of “individual application”, whereby individuals may challenge the application of laws in their specific cases. The individual application is not an avenue of constitutionality review, but rather a review of their implementation.

Accordingly, the review conducted by the Constitutional Court may be classified into two categories:
a) Constitutionality review (abstract and concrete)
b) Review through individual applications

The powers and duties of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye, as specified in the Constitution, are as follows:

- to review the constitutionality of laws, decree-laws, and the Rules of Procedure of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (GNAT), both in form and in substance;

- to adjudicate individual applications;

- to try, in is capacity as the Supreme Criminal Tribunal, certain high-ranking State officials for offenses related to their duties;

- to decide on cases concerning the dissolution of political parties;

- to conduct financial audits of political parties;

- to adjudicate requests for the annulment of decisions by the GNAT regarding the lifting of parliamentary immunity; and

- to adjudicate requests for the annulment of decisions by the GNAT regarding disqualification of members of parliament.

IV. Emerging Modern Tendencies in Constitutional Justice

A. Rights- and Justice-Oriented Review through the Individual Application Mechanism

Allowing individuals to directly apply to constitutional courts for the effective protection of their fundamental rights is a major step in the democratisation of constitutional justice. Introduced in Türkiye by the 2010 constitutional amendment, which is one of the most significant reforms in our judicial system, this mechanism has ensured the supremacy of the Constitution not only in theory but also in practice.

We also observe that there exist similar mechanisms aimed at protecting individuals’ constitutional rights in Azerbaijan. In this regard, a significant step in the development of constitutional justice was taken in Azerbaijan with the legislative amendment of 14 July 2023, which restructured the constitutional complaint system.

It is apparent that this new model not only enables applications concerning concrete allegations of rights violations but also provides for the opportunity to challenge unconstitutional norms.  Following this development, constitutional justice has evolved from an institution exclusively tasked with annulment review to one that directly ensures the effectiveness of the Constitution within the social sphere.

Taken together with the introduction of the individual application mechanism in Türkiye in 2010, whereby the Constitutional Court was designated as the competent authority to review such applications, this recent reform in Azerbaijan reflects the emergence of a shared constitutional vision within the Turkic world regarding the protection of fundamental rights.

With the adoption of the individual application mechanism, the Turkish Constitutional Court has assumed a more effective role in safeguarding fundamental rights and freedoms and has become an effective domestic remedy that must be exhausted before application to the European Court of Human Rights.

The role of individual application mechanism has become increasingly significant as a constitutional remedy in protecting fundamental rights and freedoms, interpreting them in line with universal standards, and ensuring their consistent implementation across the country.

As the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye, we remain committed to enhancing the effectiveness of individual application, expanding the scope of constitutional rights, and adapting constitutional justice to meet the requirements of a modern society.

Furthermore, the individual application mechanism has enabled individuals to access and engage with the Constitutional Court. Today, the individual application system, developed by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye, is recognised by the European Court of Human Rights as a model mechanism. Thus, applications lodged directly with the European Court of Human Rights without first applying to the Turkish Constitutional Court are declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

B. Establishing a Common Human Rights Standard through Dialogue with International Law

Today, constitutional courts are engaged not only with their respective national constitutions but also in “dialogue” with international human rights instruments and case-law. The reference to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and other transnational human rights bodies in constitutional court judgments is a direct manifestation of this trend. Such an approach allows for a clearer, more contemporary and human rights-oriented interpretation of constitutional norms. We consider that this development paves the way for the emergence of a common standard worldwide in the field of human rights.

In line with these developments, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye has stood out as a prominent institution, through its outstanding judgments in the field of human rights and supremacy of constitution, not only within our national legal system but also in the international constitutional community.

Türkiye, as one of the founding members of the Council of Europe, recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in 1990. As one of the world’s earliest constitutional courts, the Turkish Constitutional Court is also a founding member of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts (CECC), the Association of Asian Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Institutions (AACC), and the World Conference on Constitutional Justice (WCCJ), thereby prominently contributing to global constitutional justice.

Furthermore, the Constitutional Court is a founding member of the Balkan Constitutional Courts Forum, and holds an observer status in the Conference of Constitutional Jurisdictions of Africa (CCJA), attaching great importance to the institutionalisation of dialogue among supreme courts. Significant developments in this regard also include the establishment of the Conference of Constitutional Jurisdictions of the Turkic World (TÜRK-AY), initiated under the leadership of the Constitutional Courts of the Turkic World, and the Conference of Constitutional Jurisdictions of the Islamic World (CCJ-I), established with the initiative of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye. These platforms not only facilitate the exchange of experience and knowledge in the field of constitutional justice but also foster integration around shared cultural and historical values.

C. From Abstract Constitutionality Review to Concrete Impact

One of the evolving functions of constitutional justice today is the acceleration of the process of “constitutionalisation of law” by ensuring the effectiveness of constitutional provisions across all branches of law. In this process, not only the constitutional justice but also all branches of law, such as criminal, administrative, commercial, tax, civil, and even enforcement law, are shaped in accordance with constitutional norms. Modern constitutional justice has turned into an institution that not only annuls legal provisions but also issues decisions directly affecting the daily lives of individuals. Addressing the concrete social effects of constitutional principles in the reasoning of decisions enhances the effectiveness of constitutional justice. With the constitutionalisation of law, the constitutional justice has no longer been a mere institution conducting abstract constitutionality review, but also an active practitioner of the Constitution, safeguarding individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms.

D. Transparency and Fostering Dialogue with Society through Judgments

It is not only the judgments of constitutional courts that have gained importance, but also how these judgments are perceived by society. At this point, the reasoning of judgments becomes crucial. Today, constitutional courts are expected not merely to annul or find constitutional a given legal provision but to substantiate their decisions with clear and convincing reasons.

Not only the operative part of the judgment but also the reasoning leading to that conclusion holds fundamental importance in establishing constitutional justice. Indeed, from the perspective of constitutional law, the reasoning reveals how and why the constitutional court found the alleged unconstitutional act or provision to be unconstitutional or constitutional, as well as the constitutional interpretation underlying the conclusion. This is both a requirement of the principle of constitutional loyalty and a necessity to ensure that the judgments are comprehensible to the public and binding on the judiciary. Thus, as one of the essential requirements of the modern constitutional justice, constitutional courts must issue their judgments with clear, comprehensible, and strong reasoning; therefore, they not only resolve disputes but also assume a guiding role aimed at strengthening the stability and social legitimacy of the constitutional order.

The clarity and public accessibility of decisions raise constitutional awareness. Constitutional judgments written in clear and comprehensible manner appealing not only to legal professionals but also to all citizens enhance the social legitimacy of the judicial authorities, as well as the credibility of constitutional review. This approach not only facilitates the understanding of judicial decisions but also encourages a deeper connection between citizens and the Constitution, hence promoting a greater awareness of their rights.

In this regard, the socialisation of constitutional justice through digital communication tools and mechanisms employed to establish direct communication with society has become a modern necessity.

Ensuring public access to judgments via open platforms, publishing simplified summaries of decisions, and disseminating informative contents on constitutional justice in cooperation with public institutions, universities, and civil society organisations serves to transform constitutional justice from an exclusive legal field into a domain of social consciousness and shared values. The press releases, summaries of decisions/judgments, statements and announcements of news and events issued by the constitutional court via internet and social media are manifestations of this effort.

Moreover, the publication of annual reports by constitutional courts within the framework of transparency policies, their acting with a sense of accountability to society, and their explanatory activities aimed at increasing public confidence in constitutional justice are important steps which ensure that the principle of the supremacy of constitution is embraced not only in legal terms but also at the societal level.

V. The Impact of the Individual Application Mechanism on Turkish Law

Many provisions enshrined in the Turkish Constitution stipulate that all state organs, including the judiciary, shall conduct their activities in accordance with the Constitution. Courts, which exercise judicial power as part of sovereignty, are therefore bound to resolve disputes in accordance with constitutional principles, which requires them to interpret and apply the legal provisions in accordance with the Constitution.

This obligation, conceptualised as “interpretation in conformity with the Constitution,” is expressly regulated in our Constitution as binding on all judicial bodies without exception.

In Türkiye, this principle was initially addressed primarily in the context of constitutionality review. However, with the introduction of the individual application mechanism into our legal system, and the subsequent review of whether courts interpret and apply legal provisions in conformity with the Constitution in concrete disputes, the significance of the principle has considerably increased, leading to debates on the constitutionalisation of law in Türkiye.

Although the obligation to interpret laws in accordance with the Constitution existed even before the introduction of the individual application mechanism, it is difficult to say that there was a widespread practice of interpreting legal provisions in accordance with the Constitution beforehand. As a matter of fact, prior to the adoption of the individual application system, there was no specific authority specialised in constitutional law to review whether courts issued decisions in accordance with the Constitution. With the introduction of this mechanism, the Constitutional Court began to examine whether the judicial authorities complied with constitutional provisions, at least those governing fundamental rights and freedoms jointly protected by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. The existence of such a review mechanism has compelled courts to interpret the legal provisions in conformity with the Constitution.

Thus, the interpretation of law in conformity with the Constitution, in other words, the constitutionalisation of law has, through individual application, gone beyond being an abstract constitutional requirement and has become a reality that compels courts both legally and practically.

Through its judgments on individual applications, the Turkish Constitutional Court not only reviews whether individuals’ fundamental rights have been violated but also examines whether public authorities and judicial bodies have interpreted and applied legal provisions in conformity with the Constitution. In this sense, the remedy of individual application has become both the driving force and the guarantor of the constitutionalisation of law.  The principle of constitutional interpretation has transitioned from being merely a theoretical norm to becoming a mandatory requirement enforceable through review in individual cases, marking one of the most significant developments in modern constitutional justice.

VI. Conclusion: Constitutional Justice must be the Living Spirit of the Constitution

Mr. Chairman,

Distinguished Colleagues,

Esteemed Participants,

The Constitution is not only a normative text forming the foundation of the State but also an instrument reflecting social consensus and expressing the collective will of the nation to live together around shared values. The effectiveness and sustainability of this instrument can only be ensured by institutional mechanisms that introduce, uphold, and enhance it. In this sense, constitutional justice is not merely the guardian of the Constitution but also the representative of its living spirit.

Today, constitutional justice plays a fundamental role not only in reviewing the constitutionality of legal norms but also in ensuring the effective protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, implementing constitutional principles, and strengthening the democratic state of law. In this process, constitutional courts stand out as a balancing force that reinforces public confidence in the law, institutionalises constitutional loyalty, and restrains arbitrariness in the exercise of public power.

The requirement for constitutions to adapt to changing social needs, novel human rights demands, and rapidly changing political structures over time imposes a dynamic and forward-looking responsibility on constitutional courts. For constitutional justice to play an effective role in this development process, continuous sharing of knowledge and experience among courts, as well as institutional cooperation are essential.

In this regard, the Conference of Constitutional Jurisdictions of the Turkic World (TÜRK-AY), which brings together the constitutional courts of Turkic-speaking countries, represents not only professional solidarity but also a deep bond of brotherhood grounded in shared constitutional values. The meetings held under the auspices of TÜRK-AY have made significant contributions to the development of mutual understanding and a common vision of constitutional justice. On behalf of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye, I would like to underline our strong commitment and support to this platform.

On the 30^th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of the esteemed and fraternal Republic of Azerbaijan, it is particularly valuable to discuss the historical mission and future vision of constitutional justice together, thereby contributing to the construction of a shared constitutional horizon. I wholeheartedly believe that our long-standing close cooperation and strong relations, based on mutual respect, with the Constitutional Court of Azerbaijan will continue to flourish in the years to come.

On this occasion, I once again congratulate the people of Azerbaijan and its constitutional institutions with my deepest feelings, and I would like to reiterate my belief that our joint efforts in the field of constitutional justice will further strengthen the rule of law, human rights, and constitutional democracy in the Turkic world.

Distinguished Fellows,

The establishment of a just and lasting peace across the world is essential for the common future of humanity. To achieve this, it is essential that we return to moral values and justice as soon as possible, ensuring that justice prevails on earth.

Concluding my remarks, I extend, on behalf of myself and the members of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Türkiye, my respectful greetings to you all, with the hope that all practices undermining human dignity may come to an end. I wish you all good health, peace, and a long life with your loved ones.

Thank you for your kind attention.