Time Limit for Individual Applications to the Constitutional Court: Calculating the 30 Days, Learning Through UYAP and UETS Notification

Source research: 11 October 2026

The time limit for an individual application to the Constitutional Court (AYM) is, as a rule, 30 days. However, to calculate it correctly, it is not enough to look only at the date on the return of service (mazbata). Reading the reasoned final decision earlier through UYAP, or opening the UETS notification before the day on which it is deemed to have been served by law, may start this period sooner. The applicant's representation by an attorney does not in every case render the applicant's own date of learning irrelevant.

Another current distinction concerns the filing channel: since 1 October 2025, attorneys have been able to file individual applications to the AYM through the UYAP Attorney Portal. Learning of the decision is relevant to the calculation of time; sending the application through the system relates to whether the application has been made. The dates and legal consequences of these two acts must be tracked separately. [1–3]

This article has been prepared in particular to help avoid loss of rights in criminal files. Its explanations are also relevant, under the relevant conditions, to civil and administrative court decisions. The example calculations are hypothetical; in a concrete file, which application route must be exhausted, which decision is final and when the first learning occurred must also be determined separately.

From which decision does the thirty-day period run?

Article 47(5) of Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court provides that the application must be made within 30 days from the date on which the available remedies were exhausted or, where no remedy is provided, from the date on which the violation was learned of. Taking into account that an application cannot be prepared against a decision not yet known, the AYM assesses this starting point, for decisions given at the end of proceedings, by reference to learning of the reasoning of the final decision. Service is an important means of learning; it is not the only one. [1, 2, 4]

The first question must be answered: have the remedies available in the legal system for the alleged violation, which are accessible and effective, been exhausted? In a criminal conviction, an appeal and, where its conditions are met, a cassation review fall within this assessment. However, it cannot be said that a Court of Cassation decision will always be awaited in every criminal file. A decision not open to cassation may become final before the regional court of appeal, depending on the applicable system of remedies. Failure to use a suitable ordinary remedy within its time limit also does not create a direct right to apply to the AYM.

The day on which the court's decision was given, the day it became final, the day on which the reasoning became accessible and the day of learning may not be the same. For this reason, a "finality note" in the file is not by itself a substitute for calculating the starting point. The application form must state, in addition to the date of the final decision, the manner of learning and the document that shows it.

In the same criminal file, is every complaint tied to the same date?

No. A complaint about the fairness of the conviction and a complaint about detention, a protective measure or an enforcement step may depend on different routes of application and on different final decisions. Where the effective remedy for one complaint has been exhausted, waiting for the end of the main criminal case may create a time-limit problem for that complaint. Conversely, applying while a remedy that must still be exhausted is open carries a risk of inadmissibility.

For this reason, rather than a single file timetable, a timetable should be set up that links each alleged violation with the relevant act, route of application and final decision. In areas such as detention, the current compensation and objection routes must be examined separately; the question of which route must be exhausted should not be decided solely by the general thirty-day calculation in this article. [1]

Can reading the decision on UYAP start the period before service?

According to the AYM's settled approach, it can. The decisive point is learning of the final reasoned decision by the applicant or the representative. Uploading a decision to the file and a person opening that decision are not the same event. Likewise, logging into UYAP or viewing the list of case documents should not be equated with the act that shows the reasoned decision was learned of.

The AYM may examine the UYAP document transaction log to establish which document was involved, by whom, on what date and what kind of act was performed. Consequently, even where the service date stated in the application form is correct, an earlier record of reading may change the calculation of the time limit. [5, 6]

The decision in Hüseyin Aşkan: learning by the defence counsel

In Hüseyin Aşkan, Application No. 2017/15649, 21 July 2020, the applicant stated that the Court of Cassation's judgment had been served on 13 January 2017 and applied on 27 January 2017. The AYM, however, established that the final decision had been opened and read through UYAP by the attorney on 21 December 2016. Because the application was lodged more than 30 days after that learning, it was declared inadmissible as out of time. [5, §§ 15, 26–31]

The application had raised important complaints, including a defence through the SEGBİS video-conference system, the failure to hear an anonymous witness and the taking of a statement without defence counsel. This did not change the result. The significance of the decision for this article is not whether those defence complaints were justified or unjustified: because the time condition was not met, the examination could not proceed to the merits. A strong claim of violation does not remove the obligation to apply within time.

The decision in Ümran Özkan: earlier learning by the client

In Ümran Özkan [GC], Application No. 2019/13338, 8 March 2023, the final decision was read by the applicant through UYAP on 27 March 2019; it was served on the attorney on 6 April 2019. The application was lodged on 30 April 2019. The majority of the AYM determined that the last day of the 30-day period was 26 April 2019 and declared the application inadmissible as out of time. [6, §§ 31, 39–46]

The practical result of this decision is clear: the attorney's following the file does not remove the effect on the time limit of the applicant's earlier learning of the decision from their own UYAP account. The client and the attorney should inform each other without delay when they reach the final decision; a calendar should not be built solely on the later service on the attorney.

The appointed defence counsel and access by a third person

In Birnur Doğan [GC], Application No. 2020/34420, 31 January 2024, the AYM also assessed, for the purposes of time, the learning of the final decision by a defence counsel appointed by the bar. The majority started the period from the defence counsel's learning, on the basis of the counsel's duty to inform the person to whom legal assistance is provided. [7, §§ 48–51]

In the same decision, reading through the account of a person in a penal institution by third persons was also examined. The AYM concluded from the concrete facts that access had taken place with the applicant's consent and approval. This assessment should not be generalised into the statement "whoever logs into the account, the applicant is always deemed to have learned." A claim of unauthorised access must be explained by concrete evidence of the means of access and of subsequent acts. The bare statement "I did not read it" does not answer all the questions about the transaction record. [7, §§ 52–57]

The 2026 decisions show that the approach continues

In Mustafa Takıl, Application No. 2022/35091, 10 February 2026, the applicant relied on a service dated 5 March 2022; the AYM took as the basis the learning through UYAP on 17 February 2022. The application made on 23 March 2022 was declared inadmissible as out of time. [8, §§ 6–10]

In the criminal proceedings decision Aydın Tekiner, Application No. 2022/104739, 4 March 2026, it was also established that the defence counsel holding a power of attorney had read the final Court of Cassation decision on 17 October 2022. The AYM set the last day as 16 November 2022 and found that the application made on 6 December 2022 was not in time. This decision shows that a complaint about the right to a reasoned judgment may also fall foul of the time condition. [9, §§ 1–3]

How are arrival, reading and service dates distinguished in the UETS?

Under Article 7/a of the Notification Law No. 7201, electronic notification is deemed made at the end of the fifth day following the day on which it reached the addressee's electronic address. The Regulation on Electronic Notification provides for the separate recording of the dates of arrival, reading and the statutory deemed service. It is therefore normal for there to be more than one date in a UETS record. [10]

In Mehmet Özcan, Application No. 2019/6266, 15 January 2020, this distinction is set out clearly. The service of the final decision reached the attorney's account on 15 January 2019 and was opened the same day. Although the statutory date of service was 20 January 2019, the AYM took the learning on 15 January as the basis for the individual application. The application made on 15 February 2019 was declared inadmissible as out of time. [11, §§ 8–10, 26–28]

It cannot be concluded from this that early reading changes the date of service for all civil and procedural time limits. The reason on which the AYM relies is the special time-limit system of the individual application, which depends on learning. When calculating the time for an appeal, a cassation petition, an objection or an action, the starting rule of the relevant procedural code must also be applied. The "statutory date of service" kept for the same notification and the "date of learning for the purposes of the AYM" may be recorded in separate fields.

An SMS or e-mail notice must also not be confused with the service itself. Under the Regulation, the failure of a notification message to arrive does not by itself render the service invalid. On the other hand, it should not be automatically concluded, from a message that merely shows that a notice has arrived, that the whole content of the reasoned decision was learned at that moment. The actual service and evidence records in the UETS must be examined. [10, Art. 10]

How are the thirty days calculated?

The day of learning or service that determines the start is not counted; the following day is day one. The thirty days are counted as calendar days. Weekends and public holidays are included in the intervening days. If the last day falls on an official public holiday, the period is extended to the first following working day. In this calculation, the cross-reference in Article 49(7) of Law No. 6216 and Article 84 of the Rules of Procedure, and the appropriate procedural provisions, particularly Articles 92 and 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are taken into account. [1, 2, 12]

Thirty days and one month are not the same period. Moving the starting date one month forward in the calendar may produce a wrong result because months are of different lengths. Since electronic records also contain the time of day, the official processing date of the relevant system should be used rather than the date on a local computer.

Hypothetical date examples

In the examples below, it is assumed that there is a valid final decision, that there was no other earlier learning, that there was no unusual suspension of the period and that there was no excuse. The dates are according to the 2026 calendar.

For example, where the notification reaches the UETS on 1 September, the fifth day is 6 September. The fact that this day is a Sunday does not in itself move the date of deemed service to the Monday. The rule of the holiday applicable to the day on which service takes place and the rule applicable to the last day of the application period are different. If the thirtieth day fixed for the application falls on a holiday, the extension is assessed separately.

Does the judicial recess extend the period?

No extension for the judicial recess applies to the time limit for an individual application to the AYM. For a decision learned of in July or August, one should not rely on judicial recess provisions in other branches of the judiciary.

In Çiğdem Güneş and others, Application No. 2019/27740, 22 February 2022, the applicants stated that they had learned of the date as 25 June 2019 and applied on 30 July 2019. The AYM held that the judicial recess had no effect on the time limit for individual applications, and that the earlier learning would be taken into account; it found the time limit to have been exceeded. [13, §§ 17–22]

An administrative leave statement should also not automatically be treated as the same as a statutory public holiday. Where it is alleged that time limits were suspended because of a disaster, a special law or another regulation, the date range of the regulation, its scope as to persons and places, and whether it covers individual applications, must be examined separately.

How long can one wait if no service arrives?

The absence of service does not mean that the period will start at some indefinite future date. The AYM also takes into account the duty of care regarding following the status of the file and learning of the reasoning once it is accessible. A petition given to the court by the applicant, a copy taken from the file or a request for a certificate of finality may be data about earlier learning.

In Suat Bircan [GC], Application No. 2014/16800, 1 December 2016, the representative's requests concerning service and finality were assessed. Although the decision was served later, the AYM concluded from the representative's act of 9 July 2014 that the outcome of the decision had been learned of and that access to the reasoning was available. The application made on 23 October 2014 was declared inadmissible as out of time. [14, §§ 23–29]

The three-month assessment in A. C. and others [GC], Application No. 2013/1827, 25 February 2016 should also be read in this framework. Where a criminal decision that was not served reached the court of first instance and its reasoning became accessible, the AYM explained that, within the scope of the duty of care, the decision is deemed learned of at the latest within three months. This is not a free application period of "three months plus thirty days" available to everyone. If earlier actual learning exists, or an act showing learning, that date becomes significant. [4, §§ 25–32]

If the reasoning cannot be accessed, the problem must be recorded: which document could not be opened, on which dates copies were requested and how the request was answered must be shown. Merely knowing the result of the decision without investigating the reasoning at all may, depending on the characteristics of the file, be assessed against the applicant.

Does applying for an extraordinary remedy suspend the period?

Requesting the exercise of the power of objection of the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation, applying for correction of the law in the interest of the law (kanun yararına bozma), or requesting the reopening of proceedings does not, as a rule, suspend or restart the AYM time limit relating to the final decision. Whether a remedy must be exhausted is determined by its effectiveness in the concrete case and by reference to the question whether it is an available remedy.

In particular, a request for an objection under Article 308 of the CMK is not the same as an ordinary appeal that the applicant can use directly. Merely waiting for the prosecutor's reply to such a request may cause loss of time. However, an absolute statement that erases all exceptions would not be correct either.

In Ali Önal [GC], Application No. 2015/11798, 25 May 2017, the AYM first stated this general rule; it then assessed differently, in the concrete case, the position where the Public Prosecutor's Office had actually used its objection and the process had reached a particular stage. In that file, the Court accepted that the objection route was effective and concluded that there was no time-limit problem. Therefore, requesting that an objection be made and the competent authority operating the objection route are not the same legal situation. [15, §§ 44–45]

How is an AYM application through UYAP secured?

The AYM's announcement of 1 October 2025 confirms that attorneys may file electronically through the UYAP Attorney Portal. This development does not mean that the application is automatically made by filling in the electronic form on the AYM's website. The preparation of the form, its proper delivery and the creation of an application record in the system are separate stages. [3]

That a citizen can read a decision through UYAP should not be interpreted to mean that the citizen can send an application to the AYM with the same portal authority. The electronic channel verified in this article is the attorney portal. For physical applications and other authorised delivery routes, Law No. 6216 and Article 63 of the Rules of Procedure must be followed. An application does not have to be made through an attorney. [1–3]

Because button names and technical limits on the portal may change, the official guide and screen explanations on the day of the transaction should be followed. The list below is not a copy of any particular screen; it is a practical suggestion for checking that the application has been completed:

• The applicant, representation and final decision information, and the date of learning, must be consistent with the attached documents.
• The application form and annexes must be openable, in the correct order and complete. Court fees or legal aid must also be checked separately.
• The electronic signature and sending stage must be completed; it is not enough to have a saved draft or a payment made.
• The system record showing that the transaction was completed, with its date and time, and the final version of the form sent must be kept.
• The file number or transaction reference must be linked to the documents sent and the annexes. Later records should not be confused with the record of the first submission.
• If there is a technical error, the time of the error, the screen information and a support record must be kept, and other authorised routes of application that can be used before the time limit expires must be considered.

Is the end of working hours or the end of the day the relevant point for the last day?

For physical delivery, the working hours of the relevant unit are important. For electronic transactions, the end-of-day rule in Article 445(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure is considered together with the procedural provisions appropriate to the nature of an individual application. The application must not only have been prepared, but must have been completed within the time limit and registered in the relevant system. A last-minute signing, payment or upload error must not be assumed to extend the time limit of its own accord. [1, 2, 12]

In Binali Boran, Application No. 2016/1235, 24 October 2019, the applicant sent the appeal petition through UYAP on 11 June 2015 at 17:44; the court clerk's office acted on it the next day. When the appeal request was rejected on the basis that it was deemed submitted on the following day, the AYM found a violation of the right of access to a court. [16, §§ 47–53]

This decision is not a ruling on the technical operation of the new AYM application portal. It concerns an ordinary appeal petition. The practical lesson to draw is that the time of a properly completed electronic submission is separate from the subsequent act of the court staff, and that the transmission record must be preserved. Uploading a draft to the system is not the same as completing a proper submission.

How is a valid excuse raised if the time limit has been missed?

A person who could not apply within the time limit because of a valid excuse may apply within 15 days from the date on which the excuse ceased, together with evidence showing the excuse. Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure gives force majeure and serious illness as examples. This provision is not an additional 15 days available to everyone, nor an automatic renewal of the 30 days. [1, 2]

The explanation of the excuse must establish three links: what the obstacle was, the dates between which it lasted, and why it prevented the application from being made. Where there is a medical certificate, the effect of the condition on the ability to carry out the act is important, not only the name of the diagnosis. Where there is an attorney or representative, it must be explained, in light of the concrete circumstances, why the application could not be made through them.

In Yasin Yaman, Application No. 2012/1075, 12 February 2013, the claim that the applicant could not leave the workplace because of work in another city was not accepted as a valid excuse. The AYM held that this situation did not prevent the individual application from being made. The decision shows the difference between an excuse that makes daily life harder and an obstacle that actually prevents the application. [17, §§ 20–25]

In a claim of portal interruption, the mere statement that "the system did not work" may not be considered sufficient. The time of the interruption, its duration, any official announcement or support record, the nature of the failed transaction and the time remaining for the application must be shown together. Planned maintenance, a personal computer problem and a general access problem with the application system must be distinguished. Whether any of these constitutes an acceptable excuse is for the AYM to decide.

Acceptance of an excuse can only solve the problem of delay; it does not remove other conditions of admissibility, such as exhaustion of remedies or the reasoning of the violation. [1, 2]

By which documents should the date of learning and the date of application be explained?

The calculation of time must not consist of a single date field in the application form. A verifiable relationship must be established between the final decision, the event of learning and the record of the application. The table below may be used both in preparing the application and in the final check of the file.

It is possible that not all the detail of the UYAP transaction log is visible on the applicant's screen. A date must not be written as though a record that cannot be accessed existed; the information available must be stated and, where necessary, a request should be made for the relevant record to be obtained. However, waiting for the result of a request for records does not in itself suspend the time limit for the application.

Where there is a dispute as to date, it must be clearly stated which document confirms which claim. For example, if the file shows a reading record dated 2 September, but it is necessary to report 6 September as the date, the difference cannot be passed over silently. If it is said that the reading record belongs to a different document, that the reasoning could not be opened on that date, or that access was unauthorised, the factual basis for that claim must be shown. Reporting an inaccurate date of learning may also lead to an assessment of abuse of the right of application. [2, Art. 83]

An arrangement of explanation that may be used in the application form

A statement of time may set out, in order: the identity of the final decision; the forms of learning of the applicant and the representative; other service dates; the result of the calculation; and the numbers of the evidence. For example, in a hypothetical file, the explanation could state that the final decision was read by the attorney through UETS on 2 September; that it was deemed served at the end of 6 September; that there was no earlier learning; that the thirty-day calculation ended on 2 October; and which annexes contain the relevant records.

This arrangement is not a ready-made petition. Where there are several final decisions, several applicants or different dates of learning, each must be explained separately. In the section on the violation, the event, the constitutional right, the reason for the violation, the documents and the request must be built together. The explanation given to the time limit does not replace the principal claims as to defence or the right to a reasoned judgment.

How are a time-limit decision and the completion of a deficiency distinguished?

The registration of an application or the assignment of a file number is not a confirmation that it was made in time. The AYM may assess the time condition at later stages of the examination. Where the time limit has been exceeded, an application may be found inadmissible despite a strong claim of violation. [1, Art. 48; 5, §20]

The time for remedying a formal deficiency is a different matter. Under Article 47(6) of the Law and Article 66 of the Rules of Procedure, a peremptory period not exceeding 15 days may be given to remedy a deficiency. This procedure is not a new individual application period granted so that the applicant can freely add all alleged violations later. The claims and their basis must be clearly set out in the first application; later independent complaints may raise a separate time-limit problem.

An administrative rejection under Article 66 of the Rules of Procedure can be objected to within seven days; the decision of inadmissibility given by the Commission or the Section is not the same. Under Article 48(4) of the Law, decisions of inadmissibility are final. For this reason, the view "if the AYM rejects for time-limit reasons, I will object within seven days in every case" is not correct. Which body gave the decision notified, and by what procedure, must be examined. [1, 2]

Do criticisms of the case law on learning change practice?

In the decision in Ümran Özkan, seven members did not join the majority approach. The dissenting opinions emphasised, in particular, legal predictability and the avoidance of an excessive burden on the right of individual application, where a person represented by an attorney relied on service being effected on the attorney. The debate centres less on rejecting the importance of learning altogether than on whether the same consequence should attach to the client learning before the attorney. [6, dissenting reasons]

Ersan Şen and Erkan Duymaz's study on the subject also draws attention to access to UYAP records, the position of the citizen and the attorney, and problems of predictability. Abdulkadir Karaarslan's 2025 review assesses the rules on learning and excuse within a broader framework of admissibility. These criticisms may strengthen the legal defence; however, they do not amount to a regulation extending the 30-day period currently in force. [18, 19]

Where an error in recording, a barrier to access or an unforeseeable application is alleged, one should not be content with abstract criticism. It must be shown which rule was applied and how, why the person could not apply earlier, and on what document the claim rests. Preparation on the basis of the current majority approach and the 2026 decisions, using the earliest legally relevant date of learning, does not prevent critical opinions from being set out in the application.

For further details, you may consult our article on defective service and restoration to the previous position.

Conclusion

Protecting the thirty-day period in an individual application to the AYM begins with identifying the correct final decision. The learning acts of the applicant and the representative, the UYAP records and the UETS evidence records must then be assessed together. A calculation that does not explain the difference between the statutory service date and an earlier date of learning may result in loss of rights.

Since 2025, the UYAP Attorney Portal application facility has simplified the process; it has not removed the conditions of time, form and reasoning. Records showing that the application was completed must be kept, any excuse must be raised with concrete evidence where it exists, and each alleged violation must be assessed within its own route of application.

The firm's work in this area is also set out on the Constitutional Court and ECtHR application processes service page.

In criminal proceedings, an effective constitutional defence depends as much on the conditions of admissibility as on strong arguments on the merits. Before the defence right or the right to a reasoned judgment can be examined, the procedural foundation must first be properly established.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the time limit for an individual application to the AYM 30 days or one month?

The time limit is 30 days. The calculation is made in calendar days, without counting the first day; if the last day is a holiday, the relevant extension rule is assessed. Choosing a date one month later does not always give the same result. Detailed examples are in the section "How are the thirty days calculated?".

If I read the decision on UYAP before the notice reaches my attorney, does the time limit begin?

It can begin, if you learned of the final reasoned decision. In the decision in Ümran Özkan, the client's earlier learning through UYAP was taken as the basis. It should not be assumed that a later notice to the attorney will necessarily give a new 30 days.

Is it enough for the decision to be uploaded to UYAP?

Uploading and learning are not the same event. Opening the decision, access to the reasoning and the transaction records are important. However, deciding not to monitor an accessible decision indefinitely on the ground that no service has arrived may create a separate problem in terms of the duty of care.

If I open the UETS notification on the first day, can I wait for the fifth day?

You should not rely on this in calculating an AYM application. If the reasoned final decision was learned of on the first day, the 30-day period may be calculated from that learning. The end of the fifth day is the statutory date of service; the AYM's own assessment of learning is separately applied (see the section on UETS dates).

If I never open the UETS notification, does the period not start?

No. A properly made electronic notification is deemed made at the end of the fifth day following arrival at the address. If the decision was learned of earlier through another route, that date may also be taken into account. Not opening the notice does not provide a right to wait indefinitely.

Can we now file the application through UYAP?

Attorneys have been able to file through the UYAP Attorney Portal since 1 October 2025. Viewing the decision through the citizen portal, or filling in the electronic form on a computer, does not by itself mean that the application has been made. Completion of the transmission must be confirmed by the record.

What happens if the last day falls on a weekend or in the judicial recess?

If the last day falls on a weekend or an official holiday, the first following working day is considered. The judicial recess neither suspends nor extends the AYM individual application time limit on its own. These two situations are not governed by the same rule.

Does requesting an objection from the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office preserve the AYM time limit?

A mere request does not, as a rule, suspend the period. Whether the competent authority actually operated the objection, and the stage the process has reached, may be assessed separately in the concrete case. The exception in the Ali Önal decision cannot be generalised to all requests for objection.

Is a delay automatically accepted when a medical report is submitted?

No. It is assessed how the illness prevented the application, when it ended, and whether the application was made within 15 days of the excuse ceasing to apply. Submitting a document does not mean that the excuse will in every case be found valid.

I paid the fee but did not complete the transmission; is the time limit preserved?

One should not rely on the payment alone. It must be confirmed that the application was completed through the authorised channel and registered. A draft, a payment and a completed application are different stages.

If the AYM issues a decision of inadmissibility for time-limit reasons, can I object within seven days?

Decisions of inadmissibility are final. The seven-day objection in the Rules of Procedure relates to the procedure for administrative rejection. These two routes must not be confused until the decision notified has been identified.

Is making the application in time sufficient for a finding of violation?

No. Exhaustion of remedies, the personal and current effect, the constitutional scope of the violation and the substantiation of the claim are also examined. Protecting the time limit is one of the necessary conditions for the examination on the merits; it is not a guarantee of a positive outcome.

Sources

Sources reviewed in the research of 11 October 2026. Application numbers and decision dates were checked against the full texts in the AYM decisions database. The decision date and the date of publication on the website may differ.

[1] Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court, in particular Arts. 45–49 and transitional Art. 1/8. AYM legislation page.

[2] Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, in particular Arts. 59, 63–66, 81, 83–84. AYM Rules of Procedure page.

[3] AYM, "Individual Applications Begin to Be Accepted Through the UYAP Attorney Portal", 1 October 2025. Official announcement. For the current forms and guides, see the Individual Application page.

[4] AYM, A. C. and others [GC], Application No. 2013/1827, 25 February 2016, §§ 25–32. Decision.

[5] AYM, Hüseyin Aşkan, Application No. 2017/15649, 21 July 2020, §§ 20–31. Decision.

[6] AYM, Ümran Özkan [GC], Application No. 2019/13338, 8 March 2023, §§ 31–46 and dissenting opinions. Decision.

[7] AYM, Birnur Doğan [GC], Application No. 2020/34420, 31 January 2024, §§ 48–57. Decision.

[8] AYM, Mustafa Takıl, Application No. 2022/35091, 10 February 2026, §§ 6–10. Decision.

[9] AYM, Aydın Tekiner, Application No. 2022/104739, 4 March 2026, §§ 1–3. Decision.

[10] Notification Law No. 7201, Art. 7/a; Regulation on Electronic Notification, Official Gazette 6 December 2018, no. 30617, in particular Arts. 3, 9, 10 and 20; technical criteria for electronic notification. Ministry of Justice, UYAP E-Notification legislation and technical explanations.

[11] AYM, Mehmet Özcan, Application No. 2019/6266, 15 January 2020, §§ 8–15, 20–28; Official Gazette 4 March 2020, no. 31058. Decision.

[12] Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Arts. 92, 93 and 445. Ministry of Justice legislation record.

[13] AYM, Çiğdem Güneş and others, Application No. 2019/27740, 22 February 2022, §§ 17–22. Decision.

[14] AYM, Suat Bircan [GC], Application No. 2014/16800, 1 December 2016, §§ 23–29. Decision.

[15] AYM, Ali Önal [GC], Application No. 2015/11798, 25 May 2017, §§ 44–45. Decision.

[16] AYM, Binali Boran, Application No. 2016/1235, 24 October 2019, §§ 47–60. Decision.

[17] AYM, Yasin Yaman, Application No. 2012/1075, 12 February 2013, §§ 20–25. Decision.

[18] Ersan Şen and Erkan Duymaz, "Calculating the Time Limit for an Individual Application: 'Learning through UYAP'", 22 May 2023. Text published by the authors.

[19] Abdulkadir Karaarslan, "The Time-Limit Rule in Individual Applications in the Light of the Decisions of the Constitutional Court", TBB Journal, 2025, no. 181; in particular pp. 23–27. Full issue of the journal.