The right to a trial by an independent and impartial tribunal guarantees that a dispute is decided by a judicial authority free from outside pressure, without prejudice against the parties, and without giving rise to legitimate doubt about its impartiality. To protect this right, it is not enough to object to the outcome of the decision. The judge's connection with the case or the parties, any previous role, the words used and the relevant procedural safeguards must be shown concretely. [1; 2; 8]
A challenge to a judge, an appeal or cassation, an individual application to the Constitutional Court (AYM) and an application to the European Court of Human Rights (AİHM) are routes that operate at different stages. The time limit for a challenge request and the time limit for appealing against the decision on the challenge are not the same. The rules applicable in criminal, civil and administrative proceedings also differ from one another. This guide explains these distinctions on the basis of current statutory texts and real decisions.
What safeguards do independence and impartiality involve?
Judicial independence and the guarantee of the lawful judge
Article 9 of the Constitution provides that judicial power is exercised by independent and impartial courts. Article 36 regulates the right of access to a court and a fair trial, and Article 37 the guarantee of the lawful judge (kanuni hâkim). Under Article 138, judges are independent in the performance of their duties; they give judgment in accordance with the Constitution, the law and the rule of law, guided by their conscientious conviction. No authority may issue orders or instructions to the courts in the exercise of judicial power. [1]
Independence is not limited to protection against the executive. Pressure on a decision from the parties, economic circles or other centres of power is also covered by this guarantee. The constitutional provisions on judicial tenure and professional status are part of the structure that protects freedom of decision. The guarantee of the lawful judge, for its part, ensures that a person is not brought before any authority other than the court to which they are subject by law, and that extraordinary bodies producing that result are not established. [1, Art. 37, 138–140]
However, a person has no right to choose their own judge. Dissatisfaction with the competent court, or encountering a statutory allocation of cases or a change of judge, does not by itself show a constitutional violation. The claim must explain which regulation, interference or assignment has undermined the judicial guarantee, and why. The protection under Article 6 of the ECHR also applies only where the dispute concerns civil rights and obligations or the determination of a criminal charge; not every administrative application automatically falls within that scope. [1; 2]
Subjective and objective impartiality
Subjective impartiality concerns the personal attitude of a particular judge in the case. Allegations of personal hostility, prejudice or interest are assessed in this area. Until the contrary is shown, a judge is presumed to be personally impartial. Objective impartiality, by contrast, examines, without proving the judge's intention, whether there are facts giving rise to legitimate doubt as regards the composition of the court and its connections. [8, §§ 60–62; 12, §§ 30–32]
This distinction matters in practice. An applicant cannot always prove the inner state of the judge or the personal motive behind a decision. However, the applicant may show an objective link between the decision-maker and the dispute. In Micallef v. Malta, the ECtHR explained that the two approaches are not wholly separate and that the objective examination provides an additional guarantee. The applicant's concern is taken into account; what is decisive is that the concern can be justified by concrete facts. [13, §§ 93–99]
| Guarantee | Focus of the examination | Making the allegation concrete |
|---|---|---|
| Independence | External pressure and safeguards in decision-making | The source, timing and relation to the file of the interference |
| Subjective impartiality | The judge's personal prejudice or interest | Statements made, conduct, personal connection and verifiable records |
| Objective impartiality | Legitimate doubt arising from the composition of the court | Previous role, close relationship, participation in the decision under review |
| Lawful judge | Trial before the judicial authority competent by law | Concrete breach of the rules on assignment and jurisdiction |
Which situations may make a judge's impartiality questionable?
Close relationships, interest and connection with the dispute
A judge's kinship with one of the parties, a personal interest in the outcome of the case, or the assumption of a different role at an earlier stage of the dispute may be significant. However, statutory disqualification grounds must be distinguished from general grounds for challenge. Where the law expressly prohibits a judge from acting, the relevant provision applies; relationships falling outside the listed prohibitions are assessed to determine whether they are of such weight as to cast doubt on impartiality. [3, Art. 22–24; 4, Art. 34–36]
In Micallef v. Malta, the Grand Chamber found a violation because close family relations between the presiding judge and the lawyers of the opposing side did not provide sufficient guarantee of objective impartiality. The Grand Chamber reached its finding of violation on 15 October 2009. The decision shows that the relationship may matter not only with the party but also with the party's lawyer. The legal consequence in Türkiye must be determined together with the disqualification and challenge provisions of the relevant procedural code. [13, §§ 100–104]
Not every professional acquaintance carries the same weight. The closeness, continuity and concrete link of the relationship must be explained. Rather than relying on general information about the social environment, the applicant should show, through lawfully obtained documents, which fact is to be investigated. Introducing irrelevant information about a family or private life does not strengthen the claim.
Prior expression of views and conduct at the hearing
Conducting a hearing, asking legal questions or seeking to clarify the dispute does not in itself amount to taking sides. In civil proceedings, Article 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK) sets out the judge's duty to clarify the case. By contrast, guiding one party in a way the law does not require, or improperly expressing a settled view on the outcome of the case, may be assessed under Article 36 of the HMK. [4]
Taking a statement out of context is a serious error. The complete statement, the stage of the hearing at which it was made, the request to which it responded and how it was recorded in the minutes must be presented together. The opposing view may be that the words fell within legal evaluation or the maintenance of order at the hearing. An effective application must address this possibility and show why the matter went beyond it.
In Morice v. France, the conduct of one of the judges who examined the case against a lawyer, having previously openly supported a judge on the opposing side, was assessed in the specific connections of the case. The Grand Chamber did not consider that the judge's position as one sole member of a wide panel was sufficient to dispel the doubt; it also took into account that the applicant had not known in advance the composition of the panel. The decision does not treat every professional solidarity as an automatic ground for challenge; it takes the context of the case as its basis. [14, §§ 79–92]
An adverse decision and complaints about a judge
An adverse interlocutory decision, participation in an expert report or the rejection of a request for evidence is examined first under the relevant procedural rules and the provisions on appeal. The claim that a decision was wrong and the claim that the decision-maker was not impartial are not the same. For the second claim, facts explaining the suspicion of bias must be presented beyond the mere assertion of error. [8, §§ 60–63]
In the application of Tahir Gökatalay, the applicant whose request for interim measures had been rejected sent the judge a notice of responsibility; a process of recusal and supervision followed. The AYM found the impartiality complaint to be manifestly unfounded in the concrete circumstances, since there was no evidence showing bias and the procedural safeguards had operated, and declared it inadmissible. A complaint or action against a judge does not by itself lead to that judge being removed from the file. A contrary approach could allow the parties to change the judge by a unilateral act. [8, § 63]
A judge taking up roles at different stages of the same case
Why the nature of a previous role is decisive
In Piersack v. Belgium, the examination concerned whether the presiding judge of the trial court had previously headed the prosecution unit dealing with the same prosecution. The ECtHR stated that a person having once been a prosecutor does not in itself bar that person from all later cases; however, it found an issue of objective impartiality in view of earlier administrative and professional powers connected with the same file. The criterion is not the professional title held in the past, but the relationship between the earlier role and the concrete case. [12, §§ 28–32]
In Hauschildt v. Denmark, the Court also explained that deciding on pre-trial matters does not by itself eliminate impartiality. However, because the special test applied in maintaining detention required a very strong conviction of guilt, a violation was found in the concrete case. For this reason, not only the heading of an earlier decision but also its reasoning and the evaluation test applied must be examined. This assessment of Danish law does not replace the express statutory prohibitions in Turkish law. [15, §§ 46–53]
Article 23 of the CMK should not be read in isolation
Article 23(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) provides that a judge who took part in the relevant judgment or decision of the lower court may not take part in the corresponding decision or judgment of the higher court. Article 23(3) concerns the bar on a judge who acted in the earlier proceedings from taking part in the same matter when the case is reopened. For the investigation–prosecution distinction in paragraph 2, Article 11 of Law No. 5320 must also be read. [3; 6]
This special provision states that Article 23(2) of the CMK does not apply in cases other than those under Article 163 of the CMK. Article 163 governs the conduct of certain investigative acts, which belong to the prosecutor, by the criminal judgeship of peace in specific urgent circumstances. Accordingly, the generalisation that "a judge who makes any decision during the investigation can under no circumstances take part in the prosecution" does not accurately reflect the current law. [3, Art. 163; 6, Art. 11]
Nevertheless, the general grounds for challenge and the constitutional guarantees of impartiality do not disappear. Where an earlier act has specific features suggesting that the judge formed a settled view as to guilt, it is assessed separately. Aras Turay's study criticises the limitation in Law No. 5320 and proposes its removal. This is a doctrinal proposal, which is not the same thing as the law currently in force. [17, pp. 206–207]
The Seyfi Gür decision: the composition of the panel reviewing an objection
In its decision of 11 February 2026 in Seyfi Gür, the First Section of the AYM found that a judge who had delivered the conviction and a judge who, by not finding the objection well-founded, had sent the file to the objection authority both sat on the three-member panel that reviewed the objection. The AYM found that this composition was incompatible with objective impartiality and held that Article 36 of the Constitution had been violated. [9, §§ 46–51]
For the applicant, the decisive documents are the signature sections of the earlier decisions and of the decision on the objection. Rather than saying only that "the same court decided", it should be shown which judge took part in which step. In this case, the presence on the panel of two judges who had made the earlier assessments is significant. The outcome of the decision cannot be mechanically generalised to all systems of appeal or to every earlier role.
The AYM ordered that the case be sent back to the competent authority for retrial; it stated that a retrial would provide adequate redress and rejected the claim for non-pecuniary damages as well as the unsubstantiated claim for pecuniary loss. This decision clearly shows that a finding of violation does not mean automatic acquittal or automatic compensation. [9, §§ 54–57 and operative part]
Where and how is a judge challenged in criminal proceedings?
Right to apply, time limit and petition
Under Article 24 of the CMK, the public prosecutor, the suspect, the defendant or their defence counsel, and the intervening party or their representative may make a request for challenge. If the persons concerned so request, the names of the judges who will take part in the decision or judgment are notified. The request is made by petition to the court to which the judge belongs, or by having a record drawn up by the court clerk. All known grounds for challenge must be stated at once, together with their facts. [3, Art. 24–26]
Where the grounds cast doubt on impartiality, the request must be made before the questioning of the accused begins at the court of first instance. In appeal and cassation hearings there are special limits on the stage at which the report is read, and in other cases on the start of review. For grounds that arise or become known later, the application must be made within seven days of learning of them, and before the hearing or review has concluded. The statutory bar on acting and general grounds for doubt subject to this time limit must not be confused. [3, Art. 22–25]
The petition must clearly state the case number, the judge to be challenged, the date on which the ground became known, the concrete facts, the legal basis and the supporting documents. A record of the application should be kept. Writing only to a complaints office or sending a notice to the general e-mail address of the court should not be relied on as having complied with the challenge procedure the law requires.
Authority to review and effect on the proceedings
As a rule, the request for challenge is examined by the court to which the judge belongs, without the judge whose challenge is sought taking part. Special rules on the competent authority exist under Article 27 of the CMK where the court cannot be formed, and for single-judge courts and criminal judgeships of peace. For example, a request concerning a criminal judgeship of peace is examined by the criminal court of first instance in the same judicial district. The filing location and the authority that will review the request should therefore be identified, rather than referring the matter to an unrelated higher court. [3, Art. 26–27]
A request for challenge does not unconditionally suspend all proceedings. Article 29 of the CMK permits procedural acts in which delay would be harmful. There is a special regulation for the continuation of the hearing where a challenge is raised during it; however, under Article 216, the hearing of final submissions and statements may not proceed, and the next session may not begin before the challenged judge is removed by a decision on the challenge. If the challenge is upheld, procedural steps other than urgent ones at the hearing may have to be repeated. [3, Art. 29]
Return of the request, rejection on the merits and objection
Requests that are not made in time, that are unsupported and without evidence, or that are clearly intended to prolong the hearing may be returned under Article 31 of the CMK. In these limited cases, the fact that the challenged judge may take part in the decision does not mean that the judge may examine the merits of every request for challenge. Faruk Turhan's detailed study emphasises the practical importance of the boundary between return of a request and examination on the merits. [3, Art. 31; 16, pp. 1049–1052]
Under Article 28 of the CMK, a decision to uphold a challenge is final; an objection is possible against a decision not to uphold it. An objection may also be made against a decision to return a request under Article 31. The general objection period under Article 268 of the CMK is two weeks from learning of the decision. This change applies to decisions given on or after 1 June 2024 under Provisional Article 6. The seven-day period for the initial challenge request has not become a two-week period for objection to a decision; these are separate procedural steps. [3, Arts. 28, 31, 268, Prov. Art. 6]
Procedure for challenging a judge in civil and administrative proceedings
Disqualification and challenge in civil cases
In the disqualification situations under Article 34 of the HMK, the judge must withdraw even if no request is made. Article 36 sets out the important grounds that require a suspicion of impartiality. Guiding a party, giving unnecessary opinions, previous specific roles, acting as mediator or conciliator, and the other relationships mentioned in the article may fall within this assessment. The fact that grounds for challenge are listed by example does not mean that examination is confined to those examples. [4, Art. 34–37]
A known ground for challenge must be raised at the latest at the first hearing. If the ground was learned of later, it must be notified immediately, before any new step is taken at the first hearing after learning of it. The HMK contains no general seven-day time limit for this request as the CMK does. The request is submitted by petition to the court of the judge to be challenged, stating the grounds and supporting evidence and indications. A challenge request cannot be withdrawn; an invitation to the judge to withdraw also has the effect of a challenge. [4, Art. 38]
The scope of the power of attorney is also important where the application is made through a lawyer. Article 74 of the HMK requires express authority for the challenge of a judge. It should not be assumed that a general power to conduct litigation automatically includes this special authority; any gap should be checked before the application is made. [4, Art. 74]
It may be sufficient for acceptance that the authority considers a ground for challenge probable, even if it is not fully established; however, mere abstract distrust is not enough. There are exceptions to the rule that the judge may not hear the case until the authority has decided on the challenge, for urgent matters and for repeated requests based on the same facts. A request made in bad faith and rejected on the merits carries a risk of a disciplinary fine. [4, Art. 42]
How to appeal in civil cases
A decision of return under the procedure of Article 41 of the HMK may be challenged by a legal remedy together with the final judgment. By contrast, for a decision of the authority under Article 43, where an appeal is open against the substantive judgment, there is a special two-week appeal route from notification. Decisions under Article 44 concerning the challenge of judges of the regional courts of appeal may also be appealed on points of law within two weeks of notification, provided that an appeal on points of law is open against the substantive judgment. [4]
For this reason, the statement "my challenge request was rejected" is not sufficient to determine the time limit. The article under which the decision was given and the authority to which it belongs must be read. If there is no remedy against the substantive judgment, the finality of the decision of the authority concerned must also be separately assessed. Under Provisional Article 1 of Law No. 7499, the new time limit and the starting point of notification apply to decisions given on or after 1 June 2024. Carrying the one-week periods that applied before the 2024 amendment over to current files, or applying today's rules automatically to older decisions, is an error. [4, Arts. 41–44; 19, Art. 37, Prov. Art. 1, Art. 40]
Special rules of the authority in administrative justice
Article 31 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) refers to the HMK provisions on the disqualification and challenge of judges. However, Article 56 contains special provisions for the Council of State, and Article 57 for the administrative, tax and regional administrative courts. For this reason, the ordering of judicial authorities in the HMK cannot be transferred unchanged to administrative justice. [5]
In a single-judge case, the request is examined by the administrative or tax court in which the challenged judge does not take part. Where several members of an administrative or tax court are challenged, the regional administrative court becomes involved; where several members of a regional administrative court are challenged, the Council of State becomes involved. Special composition rules also apply to the chambers and boards of the Council of State. The application should state the court in which the file is pending; the appeal periods of civil proceedings should not be transferred directly to the administrative file. [5, Arts. 56–57]
| Step | Time or procedure | Distinction to note |
|---|---|---|
| Ground for challenge learned of later in criminal proceedings | Within 7 days of learning of it; before the hearing or review concludes | CMK 25(2) |
| Objection to a decision on challenge in criminal proceedings | Current general rule: two weeks from learning of the decision | CMK 268 and Prov. Art. 6 |
| Challenge request in civil proceedings | First hearing; if learned of later, at the next hearing before any new step | HMK 38; no general seven-day rule |
| Decision of return under HMK 41 | Legal remedy together with the judgment | Not to be confused with the authority's decision on the merits |
| Decisions under HMK 43–44 | Two weeks from notification, where the conditions are met | Whether the substantive judgment is open to appeal is important |
| Individual application to the AYM | 30 days after ordinary remedies are exhausted | Not the period for the challenge request or the HSK complaint |
How should a decision finding no violation and a dissent be read?
In the application of Nihat Karagöz, the question was whether the spouse of a person who had signed an administrative act took part in the Council of State's examination. The AYM majority found that the right to an impartial tribunal had not been violated, taking into account that the first-instance court had insisted and that the Plenary of the Administrative Litigation Chambers, whose composition had not been objected to, had examined the case unanimously. This cannot be read as meaning that the closeness was unimportant; in the majority's reasoning the subsequent proceedings were decisive. [10, §§ 36–42]
The dissenting member, Selahaddin Menteş, argued that the guarantee of impartiality is independent of the outcome of the case, and that a later change of authority does not automatically resolve the problem at the first stage. When preparing an application, rather than presenting only the supporting view, the distinction between the majority's reasoning and the dissent should be explained. In addition, a finding of a violation in the same file concerning a trial within a reasonable time does not mean that a violation of impartiality has also been found. [10, operative part and dissent]
The Karagöz decision and the Seyfi Gür decision have different factual sequences. In the first, the effect of the subsequent independent review was discussed; in the second, the composition of the panel that concluded the objection was the problem. The applicant should explain, using the documents in their own file, why the later review did not remedy the earlier defect or at what stage the supervision became ineffective.
Preparing an effective petition and documents
The link between facts, right, documents and request
An effective petition rests on verifiable facts, not on characterisations. First the facts and the date of learning should be explained, then the connection with impartiality and the procedural rule to be applied. The final section should state which decision is sought against which judge. Where there are several judges in the same file, the role of each should be shown separately.
| Allegation | Appropriate basis | Legal connection to explain |
|---|---|---|
| Participation in an earlier decision | Signature pages and role information of the decisions | Which steps the same person took part in and what assessment was made |
| Prejudicial statement | Hearing minutes and a lawfully made record | The complete statement, its context and why it affected impartiality |
| Close relationship or interest | Lawfully obtained documents showing the concrete connection | The importance of the relationship for the dispute |
| Later discovery | Access, notification or information request records | The starting point of the time limit and the timeliness of the application |
| Non-examination of a challenge request | Petition receipt, interlocutory decision and objection papers | The reason the procedural safeguard was not applied |
A petition that seeks only the quashing of the judgment without explaining the impartiality issue may cause problems in a later individual application. Conversely, seeking only the challenge of a judge without using the open legal remedy against the substantive decision may also lead to a loss of rights. The time limits for the challenge file and the substantive file must be followed together.
The boundary between strong criticism and unfounded allegation
In the decision in Simay Kozmetik Gıda Turizm Taşımacılık ve İnşaat Ticaret Ltd. Şti., the AYM examined the non-pecuniary damages awarded against the company on account of the words used in a challenge petition, from the perspective of freedom of expression. The failure to assess adequately the factual basis of the allegations led to a finding of violation in the decision of 20 May 2026. The decision does not establish that all the allegations in the petition were true, or that the request for challenge should have been granted. [11, §§ 20–26]
In practice, strong criticism should be connected to the case file and its basis, and personal accusations that have not been proven must not be written as established fact. Freedom of expression and the judge's impartiality are separate subjects of review. A finding of a violation in the first does not automatically produce a result in the second. Correctly identifying which constitutional right a decision concerns is essential when relying on it as precedent.
What conditions apply to applications to the AYM and the ECtHR?
Effective ordinary remedies first
The AYM is not a higher court that selects judges for the first time or reviews every interlocutory decision directly. The claim of violation must be properly raised in the accessible and effective ordinary remedies. An individual application is assessed once it has been determined how the challenge, objection and remedies against the substantive judgment will operate in the concrete case. The right invoked must fall within the common area of protection of the Constitution and the ECHR, and the applicant must explain that they are directly, currently and personally affected. [7, Art. 45–48]
In the Seyfi Gür decision, a violation was found in relation to impartiality, but a complaint about property linked to confiscation was declared inadmissible because it had not been raised in the ordinary objection and so remedies had not been exhausted. This example shows the importance of assessing admissibility separately for each complaint. [9, §53]
A professional or disciplinary complaint to the HSK does not replace an appeal or cassation against a court decision. The field of competence under Article 159 of the Constitution and the review of a judicial decision must be kept separate. It is incorrect to assume that pending a disciplinary complaint suspends the time limits for judicial applications. [1; 3; 4; 7]
Time limit and channel of application
Under Article 47 of Law No. 6216, an individual application is made within thirty days of the exhaustion of remedies or, where no remedy is provided, from the date the violation was learned of. In cases of justified excuse, a separate option exists to apply within fifteen days of the cessation of the excuse, with evidence supporting it. This option is not a freely available way of extending the ordinary time limit. [7]
When fixing the starting date, the notification and learning records of the final decision must be assessed together. Viewing a document on UYAP and electronic notification through UETS are not the same procedure. Without establishing when knowledge was actually acquired in the concrete file, one should not rely solely on a future notification date.
An application may be made directly to the AYM, through the courts or through representations abroad. In addition, since 1 October 2025 lawyers have been able to make individual applications through the UYAP Lawyer Portal. This facility does not mean that every citizen can carry out the same procedure from every e-Government screen. The form, signature, attachments, fees or request for legal aid suitable for the channel used, and a record confirming that the application has been completed, should be checked. [7, Art. 47; 18]
Finding of violation and international application
A finding of violation by the AYM aims to remedy the violation and its consequences. Where the violation stems from a court decision, a retrial may come into question; compensation is assessed according to its conditions. One should not proceed on the assumption that the making of an application automatically suspends the main proceedings or the enforcement. As explained in the Seyfi Gür decision, a retrial does not mean that the outcome of the case is predetermined in the applicant's favour. [7, Art. 49–50; 9, §§ 55–57]
For the ECtHR, the exhaustion of effective domestic remedies and, as a rule, the four-month period running from the final domestic decision are important. The proper use of the AYM route, which is an effective remedy in Türkiye for such complaints, is also part of this assessment. The ECtHR is not a court of appeal that corrects every legal error; it examines whether a guarantee of the Convention has been violated. [2, Art. 6, 35]
Common mistakes made by lawyers and applicants
• Treating an adverse decision alone as proof of bias, without distinguishing a legal error from an issue of impartiality.
• Failing to show which role of the judge is being objected to, when the ground for challenge was learned of, or the relevant document.
• Failing to check the express authority to challenge a judge in the power of attorney in civil proceedings.
• Confusing the seven-day period for a challenge request in criminal proceedings with the period for objecting to a decision, and the decision of return under the HMK with the decision of the authority.
• Reading Article 23(2) of the CMK without Article 11 of Law No. 5320.
• Sending the petition of challenge to the wrong file; failing to keep the receipt; or treating an electronic draft as a completed application.
• Bringing a complaint before the AYM for the first time without raising it in the ordinary remedies; or thinking that a complaint to the HSK suspends the time limit.
• Confusing the consequences of different rights in a decision; presenting a dissent as the majority's ruling, or a freedom-of-expression violation as a violation of impartiality.
• Adding long extracts from decisions without establishing the connection with the concrete facts and the request; expanding the file with unnecessary personal data.
To reduce these errors, three records should be kept together at every step: which decision or conduct is being objected to, which time limit is running, and what legal outcome is sought. In this way, the challenge request, the defence on the substantive case and any later claim of violation of rights form a consistent whole.
Conclusion
The right to a trial by an independent and impartial tribunal protects both the personal attitude of the decision-maker and the trust-inspiring composition of the court. An effective application goes beyond abstract distrust by specifying the earlier role, the closeness, the interest or the statement involved; it correctly determines the procedure and the time limit that apply.
Read together, the decisions in Seyfi Gür, Nihat Karagöz and Tahir Gökatalay show that the outcomes of violation, no violation and inadmissibility can rest on different reasons. The right defence strategy is not simply to list supportive decisions, but to explain the similarities between one's own file and those decisions and the points on which they diverge. Challenge, ordinary remedies and individual application are complementary safeguards, but none of them replaces the others.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are an independent court and an impartial court the same thing?
No. Independence means being able to decide free from outside pressure; impartiality means being free from prejudice against the parties and the dispute, and sitting in a structure that does not give rise to legitimate doubt. They complement each other. [1; 8]
If a judge rules against me, can I ask for that judge to be challenged?
A request for challenge must rest on a concrete ground. Believing that an adverse decision is wrong is not enough on its own; additional facts giving rise to a suspicion of bias must be explained. The unlawfulness of the decision is raised separately, in the relevant appeal route. [8]
Must I definitively prove that the judge is biased?
For objective impartiality, proof of personal intent is not required; concrete facts giving rise to legitimate doubt are examined. Article 42 of the HMK also attaches a consequence to the authority considering a ground for challenge probable. Abstract opinion is still not enough. [4; 13]
Where is a petition for challenge filed in a criminal case?
It is submitted to the court to which the judge belongs, or a record is drawn up by the court clerk. The authority that will decide the request is determined under Article 27 of the CMK. The place of filing and the authority reviewing the request are not always the same. [3]
Within how many days must a ground for challenge learned of later be raised?
In criminal proceedings, within seven days of learning of it, and before the hearing or review concludes. In civil proceedings, the rule is to notify it immediately at the first hearing after learning of it, before any new step is taken. [3, Art. 25; 4, Art. 38]
Does a hearing stop completely when a challenge is made?
Not in every case. Procedural acts in which delay would be harmful, and other special situations, are regulated in criminal and civil proceedings. For the relevant stage, Article 29 of the CMK or Article 42 of the HMK applies. [3; 4]
Can the judge who is being challenged decide their own challenge request?
As a rule, in the examination on the merits, the judge whose challenge is sought does not take part. The specific cases of return under Articles 31 of the CMK and 41 of the HMK are exceptions. That exception does not allow all requests to be examined on the merits by the same judge. [3; 4]
Is a complaint to the HSK about a judge sufficient?
No. A disciplinary complaint does not replace a request for challenge or an appeal against a court decision. The subject and time limit of each route must be followed separately. [1; 3; 4]
Is a judge who previously ordered detention necessarily biased?
No automatic result can be drawn. The statutory bars under Turkish law, the special provision of Law No. 5320, and the content of the earlier decision are assessed together. The reasoning of an earlier decision that shows a settled view on guilt may also be significant. [3; 6; 15]
Is a judge's closeness to the opposing party's lawyer important?
Yes; depending on the nature and closeness of the relationship, an issue of impartiality may arise. In Micallef v. Malta, a violation was found because of close family ties. Not every professional acquaintance leads to the same result. [13]
In a civil case, is the time limit against a decision on a challenge always two weeks?
No. For decisions under Articles 43–44 of the HMK, there is a two-week period where an appeal is open. Decisions of return under Article 41 of the HMK are challenged together with the judgment. [4]
If a challenge is not accepted, should I go straight to the AYM?
As a general rule, effective ordinary remedies must be exhausted first. Applying directly without considering the outcome of the challenge alongside the status of the substantive proceedings may give rise to an admissibility problem. [7]
Can an individual application to the AYM be made through UYAP?
Yes. Lawyers have been able to apply through the UYAP Lawyer Portal since 1 October 2025. Completion of the application, the attachments and the record of the procedure should also be checked. [18]
If the AYM finds a violation of impartiality, has the case been won?
No. A retrial aims to produce a new decision through a procedure that remedies the impartiality problem. It does not mean automatic acquittal, admission of the claim or compensation. [9, §§ 55–57]
Does a challenge petition containing harsh words always lead to sanctions?
The context of the words, their factual basis and the purpose of seeking justice must be assessed. A finding of a freedom-of-expression violation in the Simay Kozmetik decision does not mean that unfounded allegations are protected without limit. [11]
What is the time limit for an application to the ECtHR?
As a rule, four months from the final domestic decision. Exhaustion of effective domestic remedies and compliance with the procedural requirements of the application are also necessary. [2, Art. 35]
Sources and legal bases
[1] Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Arts. 9, 36, 37, 138–140, 148, 159. Current text.
[2] European Convention on Human Rights, Arts. 6 and 35. ECtHR official Turkish text.
[3] Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), in particular Arts. 22–31, 38/A, 163, 268 and Provisional Art. 6. Current text.
[4] Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Arts. 31, 34–44, 74. Current text.
[5] Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), Arts. 31, 56–57. Current text.
[6] Law No. 5320 on the Implementation of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanununun Yürürlük ve Uygulama Şekli Hakkında Kanun), Art. 11. Current text.
[7] Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court (6216 sayılı Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kuruluşu ve Yargılama Usulleri Hakkında Kanun), Arts. 45–50. Current text.
[8] AYM, Second Section, Tahir Gökatalay, App. No. 2013/1780, 20/3/2014, §§ 60–63. Decision.
[9] AYM, First Section, Seyfi Gür, App. No. 2021/41572, 11/2/2026, §§ 37–57 and operative part. Decision.
[10] AYM, First Section, Nihat Karagöz, App. No. 2019/21436, 3/2/2022, §§ 36–42, operative part and the dissent of Selahaddin Menteş. Decision.
[11] AYM, First Section, Simay Kozmetik Gıda Turizm Taşımacılık ve İnşaat Ticaret Ltd. Şti., App. No. 2023/841, 20/5/2026, §§ 20–30. Decision.
[12] ECtHR, Chamber, Piersack v. Belgium, No. 8692/79, 1/10/1982, §§ 28–32. HUDOC.
[13] ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Micallef v. Malta, No. 17056/06, 15/10/2009, §§ 93–104. HUDOC.
[14] ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Morice v. France, No. 29369/10, 23/4/2015, §§ 73–92. HUDOC.
[15] ECtHR, Plenary, Hauschildt v. Denmark, No. 10486/83, 24/5/1989, §§ 46–53. HUDOC.
[16] Faruk Turhan, "A Critical Assessment of the CMK Provisions on the Challenge of a Judge for Grounds Casting Doubt on Impartiality in Criminal Procedure in Light of Doctrine and Practice" (Ceza Muhakemesinde Hakimin Tarafsızlığını Şüpheye Düşürecek Sebeplerden Dolayı Reddi Usulüne İlişkin CMK Hükümlerinin Doktrin ve Uygulama Işığında Eleştirel Bir Değerlendirmesi), Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2023, 13(2), pp. 1049–1138; section used pp. 1049–1052. Article.
[17] Aras Turay, "The Impartiality of the Court and a Judge Taking on Different Roles in the Same File" (Mahkemenin Tarafsızlığı ve Hakimin Aynı Dosyada Farklı Görevler Alması), Akdeniz Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2025, 15(1), pp. 179–224; section used pp. 206–207. DOI: 10.54704/akdhfd.1672512. Article.
[18] Constitutional Court, "Individual Applications Begin to Be Received Through the UYAP Lawyer Portal", 1/10/2025. Official announcement.
[19] Law No. 7499 Amending the Code of Criminal Procedure and Certain Other Laws, Art. 37, Prov. Art. 1 and Art. 40. Text of the law.