File Access and Restriction Orders in Criminal Investigations: The Right of Defence and Routes of Objection

The existence of a restriction order in an investigation file does not mean that the defence may be prevented from accessing all documents. Article 153 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 (CMK) accepts as the rule that defence counsel may review the file and obtain copies of documents. Restriction may be applied only for certain offences, on the request of the public prosecutor, and by judicial order. Some documents fall outside this restriction; access to the evidence needed to challenge the lawfulness of detention is, moreover, separately subject to constitutional review. [1, 5]

For this reason, the first question is not merely "Is there confidentiality in the file?" The offence on which the order rests, the danger it seeks to prevent, which document has not been provided and how that gap affects the defence should be examined together. This guide addresses access to the file in criminal investigations in Türkiye, objection to a restriction order, and the problems that may be carried to individual application.

Legislation and case-law research: 12 October 2026. This is general information; the date of the act, the party's status and the route of application must be assessed separately in the specific file.

Confidentiality of the investigation and restriction of file access

Article 157 of the CMK, in regulating the confidentiality of investigative acts, expressly ensures that the rights of the defence are not harmed. This confidentiality concerns the arrangement that prevents investigation information from being disclosed to the public at random. The restriction of defence counsel's authority to review the file, however, depends on the special conditions in Article 153 of the CMK. The opening of an investigation, or the marking of a document as "confidential", does not by itself stand in for a judicial order that removes defence counsel's access. [1, Arts. 153 and 157]

In practice, what is called a "confidentiality order" is most often the restriction order under Article 153(2). The defence should identify the act behind that label: which court issued the order, what its date and separate case number are, and which investigation it covers. Where the file has been separated from another investigation or merged with one, the relationship between the earlier order and the current file should also be clarified. Where a copy of the order has not been provided, the access problem should be formally recorded.

Restriction of access to the file is not the same act as a publication ban, the protection of the identity of an anonymous witness, or a limit on meetings with counsel. For example, the restriction on meetings under Article 154(2) of the CMK has its own offences, time limits and conditions for orders. It cannot be concluded that meetings with a lawyer may be prevented merely because the file is restricted. The legal basis and scope of each interference must be shown separately. [1, Arts. 153–154] For further details, see the article the right to meet a lawyer in prison under confidentiality.

Who may review the investigation file?

Under Article 153(1) of the CMK, defence counsel may review the content of the file during the investigation stage and obtain copies of the documents they wish, without paying fees. The representative of the victim of the offence also benefits from these rights under Article 153(5). Article 137 of the relevant Regulation on Judicial Clerical Services governs the right of the suspect and defence counsel to review and copy the file in physical or electronic form; it also covers victims, complainants, those harmed by the offence and their representatives. [1, 4]

The general review provisions in Articles 2 and 46 of the Attorneys Act No. 1136 should be read together with the defence counsel's authority in criminal proceedings. Under the general regulation there is a distinction between review without a power of attorney and taking copies of documents. In a criminal file, by contrast, the authority of a defence counsel who has been chosen or appointed arises from the CMK and is given specific consideration. It cannot be said that every lawyer may review every investigation without limit, nor that a notarised power of attorney is required in every case even where the defence relationship is specific. [1, Arts. 149–153; 3, Arts. 2 and 46]

The application should clearly show the person's status, the identity of the lawyer and the relationship of defence counsel or representative. The bar appointment, the record of defence counsel in the file and the existing representation documents matter in establishing this relationship. If an access request is not resulting in a decision because of a gap in identity or representation records, that gap should be remedied first. A technical record problem and a legal restriction based on a judicial order cannot be resolved by the same objection.

Reviewing the file and taking copies does not authorise disclosure of the information to anyone. Personal data in the documents obtained for the defence, information about third parties, and the confidentiality of the investigation must be protected. Exercising the right to review does not by itself make it lawful to publish documents on social media. [1, Art. 157; 3, Art. 36]

Under what conditions can a restriction order be issued?

For a restriction, the conditions in Article 153(2) of the CMK must be met together: the investigation must concern one of the offences in the law; review or copying of the file must be capable of jeopardising the purpose of the investigation; the public prosecutor must make a request; and a judge must decide. An oral explanation by the police or the clerk does not stand in for this order. Nor does the prosecutor's request alone establish the restriction. [1]

A restriction order cannot be issued for every offence

The list in Article 153(2) of the CMK is limited. In the text in force as reviewed, the following groups of offences appear:

• Intentional homicide under Articles 81, 82 and 83 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 (TCK); sexual assault under Article 102, except its first paragraph; sexual abuse of children under Article 103; manufacture and trafficking of narcotic or stimulant substances under Article 188; and offences of forming an organisation for the purpose of committing offences under Article 220.

• Offences against the security of the State under Articles 302, 303, 304, 307 and 308 of the TCK; offences against the constitutional order under Articles 309–316; and offences against State secrets and espionage under Articles 326–331 and the offences listed in Articles 333–337.

• Arms smuggling under Article 12 of Law No. 6136, embezzlement under Article 160 of the Banking Law No. 5411, and offences defined in the Law No. 5607 on Combating Smuggling. [1, Art. 153(2)]

The existence of the list does not mean that a restriction is mandatory whenever one of the listed offences is alleged. A concrete danger to the purpose of the investigation must also be shown. Moreover, this list is not identical to the catalogue for pretrial detention under Article 100 of the CMK. For example, in a file where the only allegation is possession of narcotics for personal use, which falls under Article 191 of the TCK, the listing of Article 188 does not automatically provide a basis for restriction. The legal character of the offence and the other allegations in the file are examined separately. [1]

Concrete justification and necessity are required

A continuing operation, the protection of evidence not yet collected, or the safety of third parties may make the disclosure of certain information harmful. However, it is not sufficient to rely only on the seriousness of the offence or the phrase "jeopardising the purpose of the investigation" in the law. It should be assessed which access is harmful and why, and what effect the restriction has on the defence. The Constitutional Court's decision in the Hüda Kaya case particularly emphasises this requirement. [5, §§ 93–99]

The defence's objection must also be framed with the same specificity. It may be explained that the evidence has already been collected, that the requested report relates to existing acts, or that providing a particular document would not create the claimed danger. Where necessary, options such as access only to the relevant part of the document, redaction of irrelevant personal information, or review under supervision may be proposed. These are not ready-made solutions that are sufficient in every case; they must allow the person to actually discuss the grounds for detention. [5, 9, 11]

Which documents may be reviewed even under a restriction?

Article 153(3) of the CMK excludes certain documents from the restriction in paragraph 2. The presence of a broad phrase such as "the whole file" in the order does not remove these statutory exceptions. The request should state the name, date and relevance to the defence of the document, and explain which exception it falls under. [1]

A document whose heading says "examination report" does not thereby become an expert report. Who prepared it, in what capacity and under what appointment should be investigated. Conversely, the restriction of a genuine expert report cannot be explained solely by the general restriction on the file. Where the annexes are considered necessary for understanding the report, this link should be shown separately; it should not be asserted that the exception for the report automatically opens the whole investigation. [1, Arts. 63 and 153]

For example, if a digital examination report is decisive in the grounds for detention, the defence may explain that, in addition to the report, it needs to examine the date of the records relied on for the allegation, their link to the user, and the relevant sections. In this hypothetical example, providing only the results page may not be enough to allow the conclusions of the report to be tested. The strength of the request lies less in the sentence "we want the whole file" than in showing which conclusion cannot be discussed without which document. [5, 10]

Access to the evidence needed for an effective objection to detention

The inability of a detained person to access the file is not only a matter of the fairness of the later trial. Article 19(8) of the Constitution guarantees that a person deprived of liberty may request judicial review of their situation within a short time. Article 5(4) of the ECHR also provides an effective remedy against the lawfulness of detention. If meaningful information cannot be obtained about the evidence used to justify detention, this review may be rendered ineffective. [2, 14]

At this stage, the requirement that all details of the investigation be disclosed in every case must be distinguished from the access needed to discuss the substance of detention. The issue to be examined is whether the defence was able to challenge the allegation, the strong suspicion and the grounds for detention in a concrete way. Knowing the name of the offence is not the same as being able to test the content, context and reliability of the document on which the accusation rests. [5, §§ 94–96]

The approach clarified by the Hüda Kaya decision

In its decision of 25 February 2025 in Hüda Kaya, B. No: 2023/102251, the General Assembly (AYM Genel Kurulu) of the Constitutional Court expressly stated that the earlier approach needed to be reconsidered. The Court took account of the problem of near-automatic application of the restriction provision for certain offences, and of the European Court's decision in Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu. The assessment is no longer limited to whether the applicant knew of the accusation. [5, §§ 89–96]

In the concrete case, neither the prosecutor's request nor the judge's order explained how the applicant's access to the documents would jeopardise the purpose of the investigation. Repeating the statutory text and carrying it into the reasons for the decision was not considered sufficient, and a violation of Article 19(8) of the Constitution was found. Remedying the difficulty faced by the defence and examining the evidence on which detention was based were particularly important. [5, §§ 98–99]

The practical consequence of the decision is that an objection to a restriction should be directed at the review of reasons and necessity. Alongside the assessment "he knows the accusation and answered questions", it should also be discussed why the document was withheld and how the difficulty this caused to the defence was remedied. This decision is not an abstract review of a norm that annuls CMK Article 153; it cannot be used as a provision that automatically removes all restrictions or secures release for every applicant.

How earlier inadmissibility decisions should be read

In its decision of 14 July 2015 in Hidayet Karaca [General Assembly], B. No: 2015/144, the Constitutional Court assessed whether the applicant and defence counsel were aware, during questioning and in the objection to detention, of the information on which the accusation was based, and whether they were able to present a detailed defence. The complaint about access to the file was expressly found to lack any basis. This outcome belongs to the relevant part of the complaint in that decision. [6, §§ 105–110]

In Adnan Erol [1st Section], B. No: 2020/27934, decided on 15 March 2022, the complaint of access was also expressly found to lack any basis, on the ground that information was obtained about the accusation and the grounds for detention. However, the Court first examined the objection route against the restriction order and found that the applicant had used that route. This decision should not be reported as if the complaint of access to the file were dismissed because remedies had not been exhausted. [8, §§ 64–78]

These earlier decisions show the importance of which information was actually obtained in the concrete file. A current objection, however, should not be assessed by these decisions alone; it should be read together with the criteria of necessity, reasons and remedying the difficulty for the defence set out in the Hüda Kaya decision. The 2025 academic study by Volkan Aslan also addresses this change through the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the European Court. [15, pp. 1285–1292]

The limits of effective access in European Court decisions

The Lietzow and Nedim Şener decisions

In Lietzow v. Germany, B. No: 24479/94, decided on 13 February 2001, the defence's inability to access other suspect statements made against the applicant was significant. The summaries in the detention order were not considered sufficient to discuss the reliability and context of the statements. The European Court, while accepting the need to protect the investigation, did not consider that the weakening of the defence's position in the review of detention was justified, and found a violation of Article 5(4). [9, §§ 44–48]

In Nedim Şener v. Türkiye, B. No: 38270/11, decided on 8 July 2014, the inability to access a significant part of the documents on which detention was based for about six months was examined. Since the documents had already been obtained by the authorities, it was not made concrete how access would create a risk of harm to the evidence. Knowledge of some documents did not remedy the lack of access to the decisive part of the file, and a violation of Article 5(4) of the ECHR was found. [10, §§ 82–86]

These decisions require that the importance of the requested document for detention be explained. It must be shown how the defence would challenge the accuracy, date or consistency with other records of a statement it does not know. Where a summary has been provided in the file, it should be shown which decisive information the summary leaves out.

Assessing the Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and Ceviz decisions together

In Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and Others v. Türkiye, B. No: 14332/17 and other applications, decided on 8 November 2022, the European Court did not consider restriction of access to the file, based on reasons that merely repeated the law, sufficient. The public interest justifying the restriction had not been shown, and it had not been established that the difficulty caused to the defence had been adequately remedied. A violation of Article 5(4) was found because the applicants could not effectively challenge the grounds for their detention. [11, §§ 573–584]

By contrast, in Ceviz v. Türkiye, B. No: 8140/08, decided on 17 July 2012, the complaint about access to the file was expressly found to lack any basis. The Court considered that the applicant and defence counsel knew the content of the telephone conversations and surveillance records, expressly referred to them in the objection to detention, and were able to submit the necessary objections. This result relates only to the access complaint; the decision has different outcomes for other complaints. [12, §§ 41–44]

It therefore cannot be assumed that every restriction order will produce the same result. The importance of the document, the information actually provided, the reason for the restriction and the defence's real opportunities are examined together. Drawing from an old inadmissibility decision the conclusion that general notification of the accusation is always sufficient would also narrow the scope of current review. [5, 11]

Time limit for objecting to a restriction order and the competent authority

Article 267 of the CMK governs the objection route against judicial decisions. An objection to a restriction order is made, under Article 268 of the CMK, as a rule within two weeks from the day the decision is learned of. The two-week period applies to decisions issued on or after 1 June 2024; for earlier decisions, the transitional provision is examined separately. The seven-day period found in older sources should not be treated as the basis for current decisions. [1, Art. 268 and provisional Art. 6]

It is not correct to tie the start of the period only to service. A UYAP record showing the day on which knowledge was obtained, the copy of the decision given, a record or a petition is important. The rules on calculating time limits under Article 39 of the CMK, and the rule that a last day falling on a public holiday moves to the next working day, also apply. If a copy of the decision cannot be obtained, this should be documented, and an objection should be prepared within the time limit on the basis of the information available, together with a request for a reasoned copy. It should not be assumed that subsequent repeated requests for removal renew the time limit for objecting to the original decision. [1]

The objection is submitted to the authority that issued the decision. If that authority finds the objection justified, it corrects its decision; if not, it sends the objection, within three days at most, to the authority competent to review it. The three-day period does not mean that a final decision on the objection will necessarily be given within three days. Article 271 of the CMK provides that the objection must be decided as soon as possible. [1, Arts. 268(2) and 271]

For a restriction objection, the distinction between Article 268(3)(a) of the CMK and Article 268(3)(b) for arrest and judicial control orders in the investigation is important. Where there are several criminal judgeships of peace, a restriction objection is as a rule examined by the judgeship following the file number; in situations such as a single judgeship or the judgeship with the last number, the special authority order of the law applies. A single court name should not be written for all applications until the particular court arrangement of the courthouse has been determined. [1]

An objection does not automatically stop the implementation of the decision. Under Article 269 of the CMK, a request to defer the execution of the decision may also be made separately. Urgency should be linked in particular to an imminent interrogation or detention review. A detained person may also file the remedy through the penal institution; the date of handover and registration should be preserved. [1, Arts. 263 and 269]

When does a restriction end, and how is a UYAP problem handled?

For the purposes of Article 153(4) of the CMK, the decisive stage is the acceptance of the indictment by the court. Writing the indictment or sending it to the court is not the same as the decision to accept it. From acceptance, defence counsel may review the content of the file and the evidence held in custody; it may obtain copies of records and documents without fees. A restriction arising during the investigation cannot be continued on the same basis after this stage. [1; 8, § 75]

Even before acceptance, the grounds for restriction may change. The gathering of evidence, the completion of the relevant act or a change in the legal character of the offence may form the basis for a request to lift or narrow the restriction. The CMK, in Article 153, does not set a general maximum number of days. However, this does not mean that the initial grounds are sufficient for the whole investigation without review. The current necessity of the restriction and its effect on the defence must be shown. [1, 5]

The fact that a document does not appear on UYAP does not by itself show that a lawful restriction order exists. The document may not yet have been scanned, or there may be an incorrect representation record or an access authorisation problem. The electronic application record should be preserved; where necessary a physical inspection or a copy of a particular document should be requested, and the reasons for any refusal should be put in writing. Where the indictment has been accepted, the date of acceptance and the defence counsel record should also be notified. [4, Art. 137]

This explanation does not remove other legal protections. For example, the disclosure of the identity of a protected person and whether a statement relied on for detention can be discussed by the defence are separate questions. The lifting of an earlier restriction order cannot be read as meaning that everyone may access without limit all data relating to third parties. The basis of a special measure in the file and its relationship to the right of defence are examined separately. [1; 5, §§ 95–96]

How to prepare an effective access request and objection file

An effective application must show a clear link between the facts, the document, the defence need and the request. When asking for a restriction order to be lifted, merely citing general constitutional principles may not be enough to explain the concrete deficiency. Documents that cannot be accessed should be described as precisely as possible; firm claims about content that is not yet known should not be made.

Hypothetically, suppose a message said to be on the suspect's phone is the basis of the arrest. Rather than simply stating "we cannot see the file", the defence may explain that, without seeing the whole message, it cannot discuss the context, date and attribution of the conversation. It should also state whether the requested document is an expert report and in which order the message is used. In this way the access request rests on concrete defence need rather than abstract curiosity.

The request may be framed in the following order, depending on the file:

1. Lifting of the restriction order, identified by its date and number, for the concrete statutory and specific reasons shown.
2. If that request is not accepted, narrowing of the restriction to the documents and acts that are necessary, while explaining the access that meets the basic needs of the defence.
3. Provision of copies of specific records and reports within the exception in CMK Article 153(3).
4. Access to other named or described documents that are essential for discussing the lawfulness of detention.
5. If there are grounds of urgency, separate consideration of a request to defer execution of the decision under CMK Article 269.

This order is not a petition tailored to one person. Which requests are raised together and to which authority they are submitted depends on the file. In particular, a release request and a request for access to the file should not be substituted for one another. Lifting of the restriction does not in itself lead to release, acquittal or a finding that evidence was unlawful; those outcomes have their own conditions. [1, 5]

The problem of access must also be recorded in the record during questioning and the interrogation. The suspect's rights to silence and to the assistance of defence counsel are explained under Article 147 of the CMK. The fact that the file is closed does not create a single statement strategy that applies in every case. Which statement should be made should be determined by weighing the unknown evidence and the person's need for a defence. [1]

Separating complaints in an application to the Constitutional Court and the European Court

An individual application is not a usual objection route for an access complaint that was never put to the first-instance authorities and is raised for the first time. Available and effective remedies should normally be used. The objection petition against the restriction order, the rejection decision, the record of learning and the effect on the defence of documents not provided should all be in the application file. The section of the decision in Adnan Erol, §§ 66–72, explains the function of this objection route. [8, 13]

For an application to the Constitutional Court, the thirty-day period is assessed according to the exhaustion of the relevant application route or, where no route is provided, the learning of the violation. The right to an effective objection to detention and the complaints of unfair trial relating to the whole proceedings should not be treated as subject to the same timetable. In a current complaint of access arising from deprivation of liberty, waiting in every case until the criminal case becomes final may result in loss of rights. By contrast, for complaints about the fairness of a conviction, the exhaustion of the ordinary remedies is especially important. [2, Arts. 19, 36 and 148; 13, Arts. 45–47]

The distinction shown by the Muhammed Cihad Cemre decision

In the decision of the Constitutional Court in Muhammed Cihad Cemre [2nd Section], B. No: 2022/84854, dated 30 April 2025, two complaints were resolved differently. On the complaint that detention was unlawful, the Court found that the route of application had not been exhausted because of the compensation remedy available after an acquittal. The complaint that access to the file had been restricted was examined separately; applying the principles of the Hüda Kaya decision, the Court found a violation of Article 19(8) of the Constitution. [7, §§ 10–24]

The decision shows the drawback of the view that "one and the same route is sufficient for all claims relating to detention". The unlawfulness of detention from the outset, the lack of access in the review of detention and the fairness of the proceedings should be framed under separate headings. Which route must be exhausted is determined by the stage at which the application is made and by current case law.

In the Hüda Kaya and Muhammed Cihad Cemre decisions, the dissenting opinions also contain different assessments on whether the compensation route must be exhausted. These views are important for understanding the debate; they must not be confused with the finding of violation on the access complaint. The later opening of the file does not mean that the earlier access problem never occurred; the type of redress and the continuing interest are assessed separately. [5, 7]

For an application to the European Court, the exhaustion of the relevant effective domestic remedies and a four-month period from the final decision are observed. As a rule, for Türkiye, the Constitutional Court route must also be assessed. The description of the violation should show, in chronological order, the document that was not provided, its role in the detention, the requests made and the answers of the national authorities. Attaching only the earlier petitions does not remove the need to set out clearly the complaint under the Convention. [14, Arts. 34–35]

Conclusion

In a criminal investigation, access to the file is the basic working tool of the defence. A restriction order must be reviewed for its statutory list of offences, the competent authority, concrete justification and current necessity. The documents that the law keeps open to access, and the evidence fundamental to discussing the lawfulness of detention, must also be identified separately.

An effective objection makes visible the document that has not been provided and its effect on the defence. In current decisions, the two-week period, the record of learning and the distinction between the correct authorities should be preserved; where an individual application is to be made, the route each complaint must exhaust should be shown separately. The review indicated by the Hüda Kaya and Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu decisions is directed less at the name of the restriction than at its reasons and at the real opportunity left to the defence.

Frequently Asked Questions

If an investigation is confidential, can a lawyer never see the file?

No. The confidentiality under Article 157 of the CMK does not by itself remove the authority to review under Article 153. If a specific restriction order exists, its conditions and the documents outside its scope are examined separately.

Can a prosecutor alone issue a restriction order?

Under Article 153(2) of the CMK, a judicial order on the prosecutor's request is required. The prosecutor's request or a police explanation does not by itself take the place of that order.

Can a restriction be applied to all offences?

No. The list of offences in Article 153(2) of the CMK is limited. Even where an offence is on the list, a danger to the purpose of the investigation must be justified.

Can my own statement record and an expert report be withheld?

These documents are among the exceptions in Article 153(3) of the CMK. Their being closed to access on the ground of a general restriction order may be challenged on the basis of that provision.

Is the objection period seven days or two weeks?

For decisions issued on or after 1 June 2024, the general period for objection is two weeks from learning of the decision. The transitional provision is examined for older decisions.

If I objected to detention, have I also objected to the restriction?

This should not be assumed automatically. The subject of the decisions and the reviewing authorities may differ. The access complaint must be expressly raised and the relevant route of objection followed.

Is the file opened immediately when an objection is made?

An objection has no automatic suspensive effect. Requests to lift the order, narrow its scope or defer its execution are assessed separately.

Does the restriction end when the indictment is prepared?

The decisive date is the date on which the court accepts the indictment. Preparing the indictment and sending it to the court are not the same as the decision of acceptance.

If I cannot see the file on UYAP, is there necessarily a restriction order?

No. There may be a recording, representation, scanning or authorisation problem. The legal or technical reason for the access barrier should be identified in writing.

Does the Hüda Kaya decision lead to a violation finding for every restriction?

No. The decision provides for a review based on concrete justification, necessity and remedying of the difficulty for the defence. The documents in each file and the access actually provided are assessed separately.

Must one wait for the criminal case to end before applying to the Constitutional Court?

The same answer cannot be given for every complaint. The routes and time limits for a current access problem that prevents an effective objection to detention must be separated from those for a complaint about the fairness of a conviction.

If the restriction is lifted, is release or acquittal mandatory?

No. Opening the file provides the opportunity for defence. The continuation of detention, the lawfulness of the evidence and the proof of the offence are each assessed on their own terms.

Sources and legal bases

[1] Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), in particular Arts. 39, 63, 100–101, 147, 149–154, 157, 160, 263, 267–271 and provisional Art. 6. Official consolidated text.

[2] Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), in particular Arts. 19, 36 and 148. Official consolidated text.

[3] Attorneys Act No. 1136 (Avukatlık Kanunu), Arts. 2, 36 and 46. Official consolidated text.

[4] Regulation on the Administrative and Clerical Services of the Regional Courts of Appeal, First-Instance Courts and Chief Public Prosecutors' Offices (Bölge Adliye ve Adlî Yargı İlk Derece Mahkemeleri ile Cumhuriyet Başsavcılıkları İdarî ve Yazı İşleri Hizmetlerinin Yürütülmesine Dair Yönetmelik), Art. 137. Official Gazette of 6 August 2015, No. 29437. Ministry of Justice text.

[5] Constitutional Court (AYM), Hüda Kaya [General Assembly], B. No: 2023/102251, 25 February 2025; in particular §§ 83–99, redress and dissenting opinions. Decision.

[6] Constitutional Court (AYM), Hidayet Karaca [General Assembly], B. No: 2015/144, 14 July 2015; §§ 105–110. Decision.

[7] Constitutional Court (AYM), Muhammed Cihad Cemre [2nd Section], B. No: 2022/84854, 30 April 2025; §§ 10–26 and dissenting opinion. Decision.

[8] Constitutional Court (AYM), Adnan Erol [1st Section], B. No: 2020/27934, 15 March 2022; §§ 64–78. Decision.

[9] European Court of Human Rights (AİHM), Lietzow v. Germany, B. No: 24479/94, 13 February 2001; §§ 44–48. HUDOC.

[10] European Court of Human Rights (AİHM), Nedim Şener v. Türkiye, B. No: 38270/11, 8 July 2014; §§ 82–86. HUDOC.

[11] European Court of Human Rights (AİHM), Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and Others v. Türkiye, B. No: 14332/17 and others, 8 November 2022; §§ 573–584. HUDOC.

[12] European Court of Human Rights (AİHM), Ceviz v. Türkiye, B. No: 8140/08, 17 July 2012; §§ 41–44. HUDOC, Ministry of Justice Turkish translation.

[13] Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kuruluşu ve Yargılama Usulleri Hakkında Kanun), Arts. 45–47 and 50. Official consolidated text.

[14] European Convention on Human Rights (Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi), Arts. 5(4), 34 and 35. European Court, Turkish text.

[15] Volkan Aslan, "The Effect of Restricting Access to the Investigation File on the Right to Liberty and Security in Light of Recent Constitutional Court Decisions" ("Anayasa Mahkemesinin Güncel Kararları Işığında Soruşturma Dosyasına Erişimin Kısıtlanmasının Kişi Hürriyeti ve Güvenliği Hakkına Etkisi"), Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(2), 2025, pp. 1277–1294; in particular pp. 1285–1292. Article and full text.