Individual Applications to the Constitutional Court: Admissibility Criteria and Common Filing Errors

Research date: 11 October 2026

Success in an individual application to the Constitutional Court does not depend merely on filing the form within the time limit. Which right was violated, by which act of public authority, how the violation occurred, before which bodies the complaint was raised and which documents confirm it must be explained together. For the Court to proceed to its examination of the merits, the admissibility conditions must also be met. For this reason, a strong application sets out, beyond an objection to the last court decision, a constitutional problem that can be examined.

In criminal proceedings, a restriction of the right of defence, the failure to hear a decisive witness or the failure to address in the reasoned judgment a defence that could have affected the outcome may call for constitutional review. However, if the file does not show where these claims appear, the application may be concluded without going into the merits of the alleged violation. This article explains the admissibility conditions through real decisions of the Constitutional Court (AYM). In addition to the exhaustion of remedies and the concrete statement of the alleged violation, it addresses together representation, the filing channel, missing documents, repeated applications and the obligations to follow up after filing.

What does the admissibility review determine?

Admissibility refers to the conditions under which the complaint raised may be examined by the AYM on its merits. Not every application found admissible ends in a finding of violation. On the other hand, a decision of inadmissibility does not mean that all the acts of the lower court were found lawful. For example, if the available remedies have not been exhausted, there may be no need to assess whether the alleged violation exists. Article 148 of the Constitution and Articles 45 to 48 of Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court form the basis of this distinction. [1] [2]

The review proceeds not so much on the file as a single whole as on the conditions of each individual complaint raised in the file. In the same application, one complaint may be found inadmissible while a violation is found in respect of another right. In the decision in Ahmet Kartalkuş, the right of access to a court was violated, while the complaint about trial within a reasonable time was found inadmissible because the route before the Compensation Commission had not been exhausted. [6, §§ 18–24, 25–42]

This table does not show that the review follows a fixed order in every file. It is a working aid for distinguishing different grounds for rejection at the preparation stage. In particular, a defect of form, a failure to substantiate the claim and the absence of significant harm are not the same concepts.

How should the guide and current legislation be read together?

The AYM's Guide to Admissibility Criteria for Individual Applications does not treat the admissibility review solely by reference to time limits and form. It explains together competence as to person, subject matter, place and time, the exhaustion of remedies, the lack of foundation, the criterion of importance, repetition and the termination of the application after it has been filed. However, the work is dated June 2017. The examples of decisions in it should not be used as a current operating instruction independent of later legislative and case-law developments. [19]

For example, the UYAP channel through which attorneys can now file electronically, and the permanent Compensation Commission route created in 2024, fall outside the time scope of the 2017 guide. On the other hand, the basic distinctions about identifying the correct applicant, presenting the facts honestly and documenting the alleged violation remain important for present-day preparation. When using an earlier decision, one must first determine the procedure as it stood on the date of the event and then the provision that applies to the file today. [14] [16] [19]

Who may make an individual application, and for which rights?

The applicant must show that a current and personal right has been directly affected by an act, conduct or omission of public authority. Public-law legal persons may not make individual applications. Private-law legal persons may apply only in respect of rights that belong to them. A complaint by the members of a company or association asserting a general violation on their behalf is therefore different from the legal person defending its own property right. Foreigners have no right to apply in respect of rights granted only to Turkish citizens. [2, Art. 46]

The right alleged to have been violated must fall within the common field of protection of the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and the additional protocols to which Türkiye is a party. Not every allegation of unlawfulness falls within that field. Legislative acts and regulatory administrative acts cannot themselves be the subject of a direct individual application; however, a concrete act of public authority that arises from their application to a person may be examined, if the other conditions are also met. Limitations in the law must also be observed in respect of acts which the Constitution excludes from judicial review. [1, Art. 148] [2, Art. 45]

Representation, the death of the applicant and concealment of identity

An individual application may be made in person, through a statutory representative or through an attorney; representation by an attorney is not mandatory. In an application made through a representative, a document showing the authority must be attached, and the identity and contact details of the applicant and the representative must be kept separate. The signing authority of a person applying on behalf of a company and the power of attorney of a natural person do not rest on the same documentary basis. The authority of the person who signs the application form and the applicant's legal status on the date of application must also be checked. [3, Arts. 59, 61]

In the decision in Abdurrehman Uray, Application No. 2013/6140, 5 November 2014, an application was made on behalf of a person who had died before it was lodged, and the death was not disclosed. In that file, the AYM found the application inadmissible for lack of competence as to the person, and also imposed a disciplinary fine on the attorney for the misleading application. The decision shows the consequences of treating a power of attorney granted before death as sufficient for every later act, and of failing to check the applicant's current status. The type of rejection in that historical decision does not mean that the same decision will be given in every later file; the current rules on abuse also apply. [20, §§ 28–39]

A new application on behalf of a deceased person, a complaint based on the relatives' own suffering, and the continuation after death of a properly lodged application are different matters. In complaints concerning the right to life, the indirect victim status of relatives may be relevant; for rights that can pass to heirs, the continuing legal interest in the application may be assessed. If the death occurs during the examination, this should be notified; those who wish to continue the application must state their status, interest and intention. Not every death leads automatically to the same procedural outcome. [19, pp. 165–170]

A request to conceal identity in publicly accessible documents does not amount to a right to apply anonymously. Identity and representation details are submitted to the Court; information that is not to be disclosed publicly, together with the grounds for confidentiality, must be stated separately. Sensitive health records or information about children should be submitted only to the extent necessary to explain the complaint and with the related request. [3, Art. 59]

Being a complainant is not in every case being a victim of the right to a fair trial

In the decision in Onurhan Solmaz, Application No. 2012/1049, 26 March 2013, a complaint limited to asking for the punishment of a third person was not regarded as falling within the scope of protection of the right to a fair trial. The decision ended in a finding of lack of competence as to subject matter. The Court distinguished between a dispute concerning the applicant's own civil rights or the protection based on a criminal charge directed at the applicant, and a request that someone else be punished. [5, §§ 18–27]

This result does not mean that victims of crime can never apply to the AYM. Where the applicant's own right to life, the prohibition of ill-treatment or private life is concerned, the State's duty of protection or investigation may arise. Proper preparation explains, in addition to the applicant's status in the file, which personal right the applicant asks to be protected. It would not be correct to turn the Onurhan Solmaz decision into a rule excluding all victim applications.

Competence in time is also examined separately. Article 1(8) of the Transitional Provisions of Law No. 6216 is based on final acts and decisions that became final after 23 September 2012. The date on which the event began must be distinguished from the nature of the act complained of or of the continuing situation. It is not sufficient to assess the matter merely by reference to the fact that the event occurred at an earlier date. [2]

Which errors of competence in time and place should be avoided?

The present effects of an intervention completed in the past are not the same as a situation that continues to give rise to the violation. For example, a request for an extraordinary remedy years after an earlier final decision does not by itself transfer the original dispute to the AYM's competence in time. Where there is an independent complaint arising from a new act, its subject matter and the remedies must be separately identified. The Guide's statements on competence in time show that this distinction must be drawn by reference to the concrete right and act. [19, pp. 65–84]

On competence in place, the question is not only where the applicant lives. It is also examined whether the act or omission complained of can be attributed to the public authority of the Republic of Türkiye. Living abroad does not by itself prevent an application against an act of Turkish public authority. However, merely being a Turkish citizen does not bring an act of a foreign State within the AYM's review. The application must identify the authority that performed the act and the concrete link said to give rise to Türkiye's responsibility. [2, Art. 45] [19, pp. 87–90]

What does exhaustion of remedies mean?

An individual application is a secondary means of seeking justice. The primary responsibility for remedying a violation lies with the relevant administrative and judicial authorities. Before applying to the AYM, the available, accessible and effective remedies that can examine the concrete complaint and provide appropriate redress must be properly used. The fact that a remedy is provided for in legislation is not in itself sufficient; nor does a personal belief that the remedy will not produce a positive result justify bypassing it. [4, §§ 16–17] [6, §§ 26–29]

Where it is alleged that no effective remedy exists, or that it is inaccessible in the concrete case, the reasons and documents must be shown in the application. General statements such as "the result would not change anyway" or "the courts take a long time" are not adequate explanations. Nor is it a reliable method to apply at a stage where the ordinary remedy is still open, on the assumption that the gap will be closed later. Where the complaint concerns an intervention that can be assessed separately from the main trial, it must also be determined which decision is final for that complaint. [4, §§ 16–21] [6, §§ 26–29]

Formal exhaustion and raising the substance of the complaint

Having filed an appeal or a cassation petition does not show that the exhaustion condition has been met for every alleged violation. The applicant must have raised the substance of the problem later brought to the AYM before the competent authorities, in good time. It is not necessary that every petition cite the same constitutional article; what matters is that the event affecting the right and the objection have been raised in a form that allows the competent authority to examine them. [4, § 17]

For example, where only the excessive length of a sentence was challenged in an appeal against a conviction, a subsequently raised complaint that a decisive defence witness was not heard must be separately examined. It must be shown who the witness was, what fact the witness would have clarified, when the request to hear the witness was made, and whether the refusal was brought before the appellate review. Where the violation emerged only from the final decision, it must also be explained whether there was an earlier opportunity to raise it.

A practical method for the petition is to give under each heading of alleged violation a short procedural history: the first request, the refusal or non-response, the relevant appeal petition and the final decision. When each stage is tied to a document number, the Court can follow when and how the complaint was raised. The method also allows a procedural step that has been forgotten to be identified before the last day of the period.

Within what limits should the Ayşe Zıraman decision be used?

In the decision in Ayşe Zıraman and Cennet Yeşilyurt, Application No. 2012/403, 26 March 2013, the applicants' request for correction of the civil judgment had not yet been decided. The AYM held that the remedies had not been exhausted, given the procedural provisions applicable in the case and the state of the application that had been made. [4, §§ 18–21]

The lasting importance of the decision lies in the requirement of subsidiarity and of a properly lodged application. It does not follow that a request for correction must today always be made in every civil or criminal file. Which ordinary remedy is open in the concrete file must be determined by reference to the date of the judgment, the type of proceedings and the transitional provisions. Transferring the historical procedural system described in the decision directly to the current system may lead to an incorrect filing timetable.

Is the route of application the same for every complaint in a criminal file?

It is not correct to tie all the complaints in a criminal file to the finality of the conviction. A complaint of defence concerning the making of the judgment, an objection concerning detention and a claim for compensation for the length of proceedings may require different routes. For this reason, the intervention complained of and the redress sought must first be identified, and then the route and time limit relating to that intervention must be examined.

Particular attention must be paid to the distinction of functions in relation to protective measures. Law No. 7499 brought requests falling within subparagraphs (e), (f) and (l) of Article 141(1) of the CMK under the Compensation Commission system. For other requests, the functions of the heavy criminal court and the transitional provisions must be examined separately. It cannot be said that every complaint about detention will automatically be taken to the Commission. Bringing an end to a continuing restriction and claiming compensation for a past measure are different purposes. [14, Art. 2, 5/B] [15, Arts. 12–13, 22]

Should a request for an extraordinary remedy be awaited?

Under Article 308 of the CMK, requesting the exercise of the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation's power to object is, as a rule, not an ordinary remedy that must be exhausted before an individual application. The making of such a request does not in itself create a new time limit for an AYM application. Letting the time limit for the ordinary final decision expire while waiting for the request to be refused creates a serious procedural risk. [12, §§ 44–45]

However, in Ali Önal [GC], Application No. 2015/11798, 25 May 2017, the situation in which the Public Prosecutor's Office actually exercised its power of objection and reopened the file for review was assessed differently. A mere request by the applicant and the competent authority's operation of the objection route are not the same. The practical lesson of the decision is to look at which act was performed in the file, not at the existence of an extraordinary remedy petition. [12]

How is a complaint about trial within a reasonable time assessed before the Compensation Commission?

The provision Article 5/A added to Law No. 6384 by the amendment that came into force on 12 March 2024 created a permanent application route for claims for non-pecuniary damages based on the allegation that criminal investigation and prosecution, and private-law and administrative-law proceedings, were not concluded within a reasonable time. The application may be made while the proceedings are continuing, or at the latest within one month of learning that the matter has been concluded by a final decision. The "one month" here should not be used as the same unit of time as the "thirty days" for an individual application to the AYM. [14, Arts. 2/3-a, 5/A]

Against a decision of the Commission, an objection may be made through the Commission to the Ankara Regional Administrative Court within fifteen days of service. The decision given on objection is final. As regards a constitutional complaint that is said to remain unremedied, an application to the AYM may arise after the Commission and the relevant judicial route have been exhausted. Finality does not mean that, where its conditions are met, the possibility of constitutional review has disappeared. [14, Art. 7/4] [6, §§ 38–40]

The permanent route and the transitional provisions must be distinguished

In Veysi Ado [GC], Application No. 2022/100837, 27 April 2023, the decision was given in the context of the transitional arrangement for applications pending before the AYM as of 9 March 2023. In Ahmet Kartalkuş, Application No. 2019/39635, 19 March 2024, the Court assessed the route created in 2024 and the position of the applications then awaiting decision before the AYM. The two decisions follow the same line of development; however, the groups of applications and the statutory provisions on which they are based are not identical. [7] [6]

The three-month period for applying to the Commission, available for certain earlier applications within the scope of transitional Article 3, is not a general time limit for all new applications. For example, for in-scope applications still pending before the AYM as of 12 March 2024, the date of service of the decision of inadmissibility by reason of non-exhaustion of remedies is the reference. The provisions on discontinuance and on certain applications that have gone to the ECtHR are also governed by separate provisions in the article. Before relying on the three-month period, it must be established which group the file belongs to. [14, transitional Art. 3]

For current practice, the decision in Bilgin Yelkanat, Application No. 2022/49859, 9 April 2026 is also important. Following the approach in Ahmet Kartalkuş, the AYM found the complaint about trial within a reasonable time inadmissible for non-exhaustion of remedies, and found in the same file that the right of access to a court had been violated. The three-month statement in the decision concerning the transitional provision does not change the one-month period of the permanent route under Article 5/A. [8, §§ 27–29 and operative part]

How is the alleged violation substantiated?

The application must connect the narrative of events with a constitutional guarantee. The statements "the court decided wrongly", "the evidence was not taken into account" or "my defence was restricted" do not by themselves show which act affected which right. To make the problem concrete, the relevant act, the applicant's request, the court's attitude and its effect on the proceedings must be described. [9, §§ 19–26]

Veli Özdemir: the volume of the file does not replace clarity of the claim

In Veli Özdemir, Application No. 2013/276, 9 January 2014, the applicant argued that he could not contest the accusations raised in his absence. However, he did not sufficiently present the records showing which defendant made which accusation, how it relates to the conviction, and that the relevant objections were raised in the trial. The AYM found the application manifestly lacking in foundation, on the ground that the allegations of violation had not been substantiated. [9, §§ 24–27]

The decision shows that attaching the whole criminal file without explanation is not sufficient. The reader should not be expected to work out for themselves which sentence of which record supports the application. Likewise, where a document cannot be reached, what the document is, who holds it and why it could not be obtained must be explained; where considered necessary, a request that it be obtained should be made. The court's power to request information and documents does not entirely remove the applicant's burden of explanation. [3, Art. 59] [9, § 22]

How are the event, the right, the document and the request combined?

The following working example is hypothetical; it is neither the petition in a real file nor a definite finding of violation. It is assumed that the defence submitted a technical report on the date on which the digital document relied on for the judgment was created, that it explained in its appeals that the report was decisive, and that it nonetheless received no adequate response.

This structure should not be used as a mechanical template. For example, if the reasoned judgment did in fact respond to the report, one cannot say that it was "never assessed"; rather, the reasons why the answer given is inadequate must be explained. If the contradiction in the report does not affect the outcome of the judgment, a merely technical difference may not be sufficient for a constitutional violation. The suitability of the file for an application should be assessed by reading together the reasons for and against.

The boundary between a complaint on ordinary appeal and a constitutional violation

The AYM is not an appellate authority that re-evaluates the assessment of evidence by the courts in every respect. Article 148(4) of the Constitution states that matters which must be observed in ordinary appeal may not be examined in an individual application. However, guarantees such as access to evidence, the ability to present one's defence, procedural balance with the prosecuting party and a reasoned response to decisive defences are subject to constitutional review. [1] [10, §§ 31–39, 78–80]

This distinction also determines the request in the application. The AYM cannot be asked merely to give different weight to the same evidence in order to produce an acquittal. On the other hand, it may be alleged that a decisive piece of evidence was withheld from the defence or that an objection affecting the outcome was not examined. In the second case, the applicant must show the concrete deficiency in the trial process and its effect on the right.

Sencer Başat: a reasonable response to a decisive defence

In Sencer Başat and others [GC], Application No. 2013/7800, 18 June 2014, the AYM examined the assessment of technical reports and expert opinions on the reliability of digital evidence. The Court considered that the failure to address with adequate reasoning defence evidence that could have affected the outcome was problematic in terms of the right to a reasoned judgment and the equality of arms; it also assessed the requests to hear witnesses and found a violation of the right to a fair trial. [10, §§ 55–72, 73–85]

The decision does not require courts to answer every defence in the same detail. The essential criterion is whether the claim raised clearly and concretely is of a kind that could change the outcome of the case. Rather than stating that the reasoning was "short", the application should describe what unanswered defence there was and why it was decisive. In a complaint about the refusal to hear a witness, it must also be shown what fact the witness would have explained and why hearing the witness was necessary. [10, §§ 35–39, 77]

In the scholarship, Bülent Algan does not regard manifest lack of foundation as a mere formal review; he draws attention to the relationship of this criterion to the substance of the application. This approach helps one understand that completing a form and substantiating a constitutional problem are different obligations. Because the study dates from 2014, current legislation, including later developments such as electronic filing or the current Commission route, must be treated as the operative law. [17, pp. 250–251]

Is manifest lack of foundation only a complaint of ordinary appeal?

No. The Guide treats separately the failure to prove the alleged violation, objections that are to be examined only on ordinary appeal, complicated or forced complaints that do not disclose an identifiable violation of a right, and cases where it is clear that no violation exists. The fact that numerous decisions and constitutional provisions have been added therefore does not by itself overcome this obstacle. A link must be established between the right, the interference and the ground for finding a violation. [19, pp. 229–232]

On the other hand, it is not correct to exclude in advance from review every complaint about the assessment of evidence. Where arbitrariness that is manifest or an obvious error of discretion is alleged to have affected a constitutional guarantee, it must be explained where and how this appears in the concrete decision. Rather than repeating the label "arbitrary decision", the application should show the contradiction between the acceptance in the decision and the decisive record in the file. The assessment of procedural guarantees in the decision in Sencer Başat also shows why this concreteness is important. [10] [19, pp. 231–232]

How is the condition of constitutional and personal importance applied?

The criterion in Article 48(2) of Law No. 6216 contains two elements together: that the application is not of importance for the interpretation of the Constitution or the scope of fundamental rights, and that the applicant has not suffered significant harm. An assessment that relies on only one of these elements is incomplete. Manifest lack of foundation is a separate ground of inadmissibility provided for in the same provision. [2] [11, §§ 55–58]

In K.V. [GC], Application No. 2014/2293, 1 December 2016, the AYM found the part of the application relating to collection proceedings to lack constitutional and personal importance. The Court assessed the material effects alleged and their importance in light of the applicant's own circumstances. The amounts used in the decision do not create a fixed monetary threshold for all later applications. Significant harm also cannot be reduced to loss of money alone. [11, §§ 64–79]

For this reason, the applicant should not leave the impact by stating only "I was wronged". The effect of the loss on living conditions, profession, liberty, family life or personal circumstances must be explained by reference to the right concerned and the nature of the event. Similarly, constitutional importance is not established merely by saying that the case "will set a precedent"; the feature of the question in relation to settled principles, or a recurring pattern in practice, must be shown.

Final check on time limits, UYAP and formal defects

The general time limit for an individual application to the AYM is thirty days. The date on which the final decision was learned, and any earlier records of learning, must be carefully assessed. Access to the reasoned final decision through UYAP may be evidence of learning in the concrete case. In the decision in Hüseyin Aşkan, the UYAP record was also assessed in this respect. It is therefore not safe to disregard earlier learning merely by reference to a later date of service. In case of excusable delay, the fifteen-day application period from the removal of the excuse and the conditions for documenting it are separately examined. [2, Art. 47/5] [3, Art. 64] [13]

Since 1 October 2025, attorneys have been able to file individual applications electronically through the UYAP Attorney Portal. This is a channel for transmitting the application; it does not change the conditions of exhaustion, time limit and reasoning. The AYM's announcement also states that applications may be made directly, and through the courts, penal enforcement institutions and overseas representatives. For an electronic application, the record showing that transmission was completed and readable copies of the annexes submitted must be kept. [16]

Where and how should the application be submitted?

A physical application is made to the AYM directly, or through the intermediary authorities that are accepted, using the current application form and the necessary annexes. The application must be drafted so that it clearly shows that the body asked to give the finding of violation is the Constitutional Court; delivery to a court does not amount to opening a new merits action in that court. The date of delivery and a record showing that the document was received must be kept. For attorneys, the individual application procedure on the UYAP Attorney Portal must be completed; uploading documents only to the existing file of the court of first instance should not be treated as an application to the AYM. [2, Art. 47] [3, Art. 63] [16]

E-mail, fax, a CİMER complaint or merely completing and saving the online form does not replace an individual application completed through the designated channel. Preparing the application form electronically is a different act from sending it through the electronic system recognised by law. It should not be assumed that an application lodged with the wrong authority automatically preserves the time limit; it must be checked under which procedure the delivered document was recorded. [3, Arts. 59–63] [16]

The form should be legible and concise; the annexes should be numbered in date order and tied to an explanatory index. Under Article 60 of the Rules of Procedure, where the form, excluding annexes, exceeds ten pages, a summary of the events must be added. This rule does not mean that every application longer than ten pages is prohibited. Decisions, records of learning, documents relating to representation and the basis for each claim should be matched to the explanation in the text. [3, Arts. 59–60]

An application is subject to court fees. The fee receipt must be attached; where inability to pay is alleged, the request for legal aid must be justified with documents showing the financial situation. Representation by an attorney, detention or the existence of an alleged violation of rights does not by itself confer exemption from fees. Payment of the fee does not remove a defect of time limit or admissibility. The annual fee amount must be checked against the official tariff in force on the date of the act. [2, Art. 47/2] [3, Art. 62]

Missing documents and excuse: the Mehmet Encu decision

Where there is a defect in the form or annexes, a period not exceeding fifteen days may be given to complete them. This opportunity is not a right to create unstated allegations of violation without limit later, or to restart a missed time limit for application. An objection to an administrative rejection may be made to the Commission within seven days of service; however, the finality of a decision of inadmissibility rests on a different provision. An administrative rejection and a decision of inadmissibility are not the same type of decision. [2, Arts. 47/6, 48/4] [3, Art. 66] [9, §§ 21–23]

In Mehmet Encu and others, Application No. 2014/11864, 24 February 2016, the completion of deficiencies after the time limit set by the Court and the late notification of the excuse were assessed. The majority held that the medical report submitted did not disclose an illness of such severity as to prevent the act being carried out, and noted that other attorneys were also involved in the application; it rejected the application. Accordingly, not every rest report automatically constitutes a valid excuse. The link between the obstacle and the act that could not be performed, and the date on which the excuse ended, must be documented. [24, §§ 31–40]

The decision was given by a majority. In the dissent, the serious allegations concerning the right to life, the documents that could have been obtained, and the strict application of procedural rules in view of a two-day delay were criticised. This dissenting view shows the debate as to whether formal rules should disproportionately restrict the pursuit of rights; however, it does not change the outcome of the majority in the concrete file. In practice, rather than relying on explaining an excuse afterwards, documents and time limits should be monitored at the stage when the obstacle arises. [24, dissent]

File review before the application is submitted

The following file check may be carried out before the application is made:

• For each alleged violation, have the relevant act of public authority, the personal effect and the constitutional guarantee been identified?
• Are the petitions and decisions by which the complaint was raised before the competent authorities shown by annex numbers?
• In calculating the time limit, have the final decision, learning, service and electronic access records been examined together?
• Is there a clear link between the statement of the violation and the relevant part of the annexed document?
• Are the representation document, the fee receipt, and the legal aid request with its supporting grounds and the necessary form annexes present?
• Is the redress sought connected with the alleged violation and any loss?
• Have earlier applications on the same subject, and new developments affecting the outcome of the file, been correctly disclosed?

Monitoring of the file should continue after the application is made. Concealment of developments affecting the assessment of the application, or of a decision in the applicant's favour, may, depending on the nature of the conduct, raise a question of abuse of the right of application. Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure provides sanctions for exploitative or misleading conduct. Not every deficiency amounts to abuse; but the accurate and current presentation of facts is essential to the credibility of the application. [3, Arts. 59, 83]

Differences between administrative rejection, inadmissibility and discontinuance

Describing a decision merely as a "rejection" may lead to a misunderstanding of the remedy available and the meaning of the decision. The operative part, the reasons and the authority that gave the decision must be read together. The distinctions below directly affect how the application is followed. [2, Arts. 47–51] [3, Arts. 66, 80, 83]

A time-limit defect may be treated as an administrative rejection or as inadmissibility, depending on the stage at which the decision was given. For this reason, the choice of objection route should not be determined merely by whether the word "time limit" appears in the reasons. Submitting a new form with the same complaints against a final inadmissibility decision is also not the ordinary means of challenging that decision. [2, Art. 48/4] [3, Art. 66]

A new application on the same subject: the problem of repetition

In Türkiye İş Bankası A.Ş. (3), Application No. 2015/356, 22 September 2016, it was established that two joined applications had been made by the same branch for the same transactions and the same allegations of violation in the same taxation period. The AYM rejected the subsequent application on the ground of repetition, and found a violation of the right to property in the other applications taken up for examination. Thus, the merit of a constitutional complaint did not justify opening a second application on the same subject. [22, §§ 19–29, 44 and operative part]

Changing the name of the application, changing the representative or adding a fresh legal characterisation to the same events does not by itself create a different subject of application. However, where a subsequent independent act or a separate alleged violation arising from new proceedings exists, the respect in which it differs from the earlier application must be explained. The earlier file number must not be concealed; the possibility of repetition must, where necessary, be disclosed through a short explanation of the relationship between the files. That the first application was lodged without exhausting the remedies is also considered, together with the reasons for the decision, when assessing the conditions of the subsequent application. [19, pp. 27–29] [22]

Misleading information and abuse of the right of application

In Mehmet Güven Ulusoy [GC], Application No. 2013/1013, 2 July 2015, the applicant alleged that the Court of Cassation had carried out an examination for correction of the judgment without a request from the parties. The file, however, contained the other party's petition for correction of the judgment, its service on the applicant, and the applicant's reply. The AYM rejected the application as an abuse, on the ground that the allegation was misleading. Concealing against the applicant adverse procedural steps in order to construct an account favourable to the applicant may remove the whole of the alleged violation from examination. [21, §§ 25–35]

Not every wrong legal opinion, missing document or unsuccessful application is an abuse. What is decisive is whether the concrete conduct misleads the examination or is clearly contrary to the purpose of the application. Legitimate criticism must also be distinguished from insult and threat. Facts must be stated in a verifiable form; significant developments after the application, such as an award of compensation, a quashed decision or a restarted trial, must be notified. [21, §§ 31–34] [3, Arts. 59/5, 83]

Under the current Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure, rejection is provided for in cases of abuse, and a disciplinary fine not exceeding TRY 2,000, in addition to the costs of proceedings, may also be imposed. Article 51 of Law No. 6216 also provides for this sanction. The fine is not an automatic consequence of every rejection. The former wording of the Rules described in the Guide must be distinguished from the current wording following the amendment of 6 November 2018. [2, Art. 51] [3, Art. 83] [19, pp. 15–20]

Remedy after the application is lodged: the S.Ö. decision

In S.Ö., Application No. 2013/7087, 18 September 2014, a violation had been found by the Compensation Commission in respect of a complaint about a lengthy trial and compensation had been awarded. The AYM accepted that the violation and its consequences had been remedied in the concrete case, and decided to discontinue the application. Because the applicant did not disclose the other application and the subsequent compensation decision, a disciplinary fine was also imposed. This decision shows that discontinuance and the sanction for misleading information may be separate issues in the same file. [23, §§ 23–30 and operative part]

The annulment of a decision, the payment of compensation or the ending of a measure does not in every file mean that all the consequences of the violation have been removed. When notifying a new development, the applicant must also specify any continuing prejudice that persists. The AYM may continue the examination even where a development such as a waiver or redress has occurred, if constitutional interpretation, the scope of fundamental rights or respect for human rights requires it. For this reason, the file should not be left silently to lapse; the present state of affairs and the request to continue must be stated openly. [3, Art. 80] [19, pp. 53–62]

What redress may be sought after a finding of violation?

The part of the petition dealing with the relief sought should show how the violation alleged in the file can be remedied. The finding of violation, retrial where appropriate, pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages and costs of proceedings must be justified separately. In a request for retrial, the procedural defect that must be remedied must be explained; in a claim for pecuniary damages, the relationship between the loss and the violation, and the documents, must be set out. [2, Art. 50] [6, §§ 43–45]

An AYM finding of violation does not guarantee automatic acquittal or compensation in a particular amount. In the decisions in Ahmet Kartalkuş and Bilgin Yelkanat, retrial was regarded as sufficient redress, and claims for compensation were rejected. The connection between the outcome sought and the remedying of the constitutional violation is therefore important in preparing the application. The lodging of an individual application likewise does not by itself stay the enforcement of a judgment or the execution of a sentence. [6] [8] [18]

A request for interim measures must be justified separately from the admissibility and the merits. The provision in Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure, as amended on 5 August 2025, is based on a serious danger to the applicant's fundamental rights, in particular to life or to material or moral integrity. The urgent danger, its proximity and the consequences that may follow if no measure is granted must be shown by current documents. Merely stating that "execution must be stayed" or obtaining an application number has no automatic suspensive effect. [3, Art. 73]

For further details, see also our article on qualified rights and AYM decisions.

Conclusion

Admissibility in an individual application to the AYM is not a formality to be passed over briefly at the end of the petition. Preparation should begin with identifying the correct route of application for each complaint, and be carried through with records showing that the route was used in good time and in the proper form. Applications in which the substance of the alleged violation was not put before the competent authorities, or in which decisive documents were not disclosed, may not reach a merits examination.

An effective application tells the events without burying the reader in unnecessary detail; it ties the constitutional guarantee to the concrete problem; it places the document beside the claim it supports; and it asks for appropriate redress. What determines the quality of an application is not the number of pages but the consistency between these elements. In criminal files in particular, a regular record from the outset of defence requests and of the responses given to them forms the basis of any later constitutional application.

The same care must continue after the application has been delivered. Timely replies to letters identifying deficiencies, monitoring of representation, disclosure of earlier applications and notification of significant new developments are the continuation of preparation. Knowing the distinctions between administrative rejection, inadmissibility, repetition, abuse and discontinuance prevents the wrong objection route from being used and fresh procedural losses from arising in the same file.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it enough for the decision to become final in order to apply to the AYM?

No. Proper exhaustion of the effective remedies available for the complaint, the time limit, competence and the conditions of reasoning are examined together. Different complaints in the same file may have different outcomes. See the section on the admissibility review.

Is it necessary to write the constitutional article in an appeal or cassation petition?

What is essential is that the substance of the complaint be put before the competent authority. Merely stating an article number is not enough, and the absence of the same number is not by itself decisive either. The point is explained in the section on exhaustion of remedies.

Must a request for correction be made in every file?

No. The open remedies in a file are determined by the date of the judgment, the type of proceedings and the transitional provisions. The historical procedural position in the Ayşe Zıraman decision cannot be generalised. See the section on the Ayşe Zıraman decision.

Does a request to the Public Prosecutor's Office for an objection restart the AYM time limit?

A mere request does not, as a rule, create a new time limit. Whether the competent authority has actually exercised its power of objection is assessed separately. The distinction is drawn in the section on extraordinary remedies.

Can a complaint about trial within a reasonable time be made while the case is still pending?

Under Article 5/A of Law No. 6384, an application may be made to the Compensation Commission while the proceedings are continuing. It should be borne in mind that this is not the same procedure as applying directly to the AYM. See the section on the Compensation Commission.

Is the time limit for applying to the Commission one month or three months?

The permanent route and the transitional provisions must be distinguished. Under Article 5/A, the period is one month from learning of the final conclusion; for certain earlier applications under the transitional provisions, three months applies. See the section on the permanent route and transitional provisions.

Is it enough to attach the whole case file?

It must also be explained which claim each document supports. The relevant page, the record and the connection of the decision with the concrete violation must be shown. The Veli Özdemir decision illustrates this obligation.

Is it a violation if a court does not respond to every defence?

A detailed answer to every allegation is not mandatory. A defence that was raised clearly and concretely and that could affect the outcome must be assessed with a reasonable justification. See the Sencer Başat decision.

Are losses of low value always inadmissible?

No. There is no fixed general monetary threshold. Constitutional importance and whether the applicant suffered significant harm are assessed together. See the explanation in constitutional and personal importance.

Does filing through UYAP affect admissibility?

The UYAP Attorney Portal provides an electronic transmission facility; it does not change the legal conditions. Completion of the application and correct submission of the annexes are also separately checked. See the section on time limits, UYAP and form.

Are an objection to an administrative rejection and inadmissibility the same?

No. For administrative rejection, the Rules of Procedure provide for an objection to the Commission within seven days. Decisions of inadmissibility are final under Article 48 of Law No. 6216. See the section on form defects.

Does compensation always follow when the AYM finds a violation?

No. Redress depends on the nature of the violation; retrial may be considered sufficient. A claim for compensation must be explained by reference to the violation, the loss and the appropriate redress. See the section on redress claims.

Does an attorney's medical report justify every delay?

No. It must be shown how the illness prevented the act concerned, how long it lasted and when it ended. Timely invocation of the excuse is also important. The Mehmet Encu decision is explained together with the majority and the dissent.

May I apply to the AYM a second time for the same file?

Re-presenting the same events and allegations of violation may result in rejection on the ground of repetition. A later independent act or allegation of violation must be shown to differ from the earlier application. See the section on repeat applications.

Must compensation obtained after the application be notified to the AYM?

Yes. Redress and other significant developments that affect the assessment of the application must be notified. Any continuing prejudice must also be explained. The S.Ö. decision shows the consequence of this obligation.

Does the death of the applicant always end the file?

No. The position before and after death, the victim status of relatives and the continuing legal interest of heirs are assessed differently. The death and the status of representation must be notified. See the section on representation and death.

Sources

[1] Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, in particular Arts. 36, 148 and 153. AYM legislation page.

[2] Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court, Arts. 45–51 and transitional Art. 1/8. Official text.

[3] Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, in particular Arts. 59–66, 73, 80 and 83. Official text.

[4] AYM, Ayşe Zıraman and Cennet Yeşilyurt, Application No. 2012/403, 26 March 2013. Decision.

[5] AYM, Onurhan Solmaz, Application No. 2012/1049, 26 March 2013. Decision.

[6] AYM, Ahmet Kartalkuş, Application No. 2019/39635, 19 March 2024. Decision.

[7] AYM, Veysi Ado [GC], Application No. 2022/100837, 27 April 2023. Decision.

[8] AYM, Bilgin Yelkanat, Application No. 2022/49859, 9 April 2026. Decision.

[9] AYM, Veli Özdemir, Application No. 2013/276, 9 January 2014. Decision.

[10] AYM, Sencer Başat and others [GC], Application No. 2013/7800, 18 June 2014. Decision.

[11] AYM, K.V. [GC], Application No. 2014/2293, 1 December 2016. Decision.

[12] AYM, Ali Önal [GC], Application No. 2015/11798, 25 May 2017. Decision.

[13] AYM, Hüseyin Aşkan, Application No. 2017/15649, 21 July 2020. Decision.

[14] Law No. 6384 on the Duties and Working Procedures of the Compensation Commission, Arts. 2, 5/A, 5/B, 7 and transitional Arts. 2–3. Text published by the Ministry.

[15] Law No. 7499, in particular Arts. 12–13 and 22–32; Official Gazette 12 March 2024, no. 32487. Text adopted by the Grand National Assembly.

[16] AYM, "Individual Applications Begin to Be Accepted Through the UYAP Attorney Portal", 1 October 2025. Official announcement.

[17] Algan, Bülent (2014), "The Interpretation and Application of the Criterion of 'Manifest Lack of Foundation' in Individual Applications by the Constitutional Court", AÜHFD, 63(2), pp. 247–284; in particular pp. 250–251. DOI and publication record.

[18] AYM, Frequently Asked Questions, statements on individual applications and the effect of an application on enforcement. Official page.

[19] Constitutional Court (2017), Guide to the Admissibility Criteria for Individual Applications (Bireysel Başvuru Kabul Edilebilirlik Kriterleri Rehberi), eds. Muharrem İlhan Koç and Recep Kaplan, Ankara, June 2017; in particular pp. 3–29, 33–37, 53–90, 93–94, 123–170, 175–181, 229–232, 367–370. Guide.

[20] AYM, Abdurrehman Uray, Application No. 2013/6140, 5 November 2014, §§ 28–39. Decision.

[21] AYM, Mehmet Güven Ulusoy [GC], Application No. 2013/1013, 2 July 2015, §§ 25–35. Decision.

[22] AYM, Türkiye İş Bankası A.Ş. (3), Application No. 2015/356, 22 September 2016, §§ 19–29, 44 and operative part. Decision.

[23] AYM, S.Ö., Application No. 2013/7087, 18 September 2014, §§ 23–30 and operative part. Decision.

[24] AYM, Mehmet Encu and others, Application No. 2014/11864, 24 February 2016, §§ 31–40 and dissent. Decision.