An open courthouse door does not mean access to justice is complete
If a person cannot find the right office, a witness cannot learn in which courtroom the hearing will be held, an applicant with a disability cannot approach the service counter, or a lawyer cannot work on a file that he or she is permitted to inspect, the problem does not concern only the use of the building. How the activity of seeking justice will actually be carried out has itself become the problem. These are not field findings claimed to have been made in a particular courthouse, but example situations that should be considered in order to test the quality of the service.
Coming to the courthouse means reaching the place where a service will be received. Access to justice, by contrast, means that a legally available avenue can actually be used under the person's own circumstances. When this distinction is overlooked, the entrance door, the information desk, the registry, the courtroom and the electronic system are managed as disconnected units. Yet what the user needs is to get his or her application to the right place and to be able to understand what happens next.
Article 36 of the Constitution guarantees the right to claim and defend and the right to a fair trial; Article 141 guarantees reasoned decisions and the conclusion of cases at the least possible cost and as quickly as possible. The goal of speed cannot be turned into a management approach that treats the preparation of the defense as unnecessary. When the system for seeking justice is evaluated, one should look not only at whether a procedure exists but also at its function. K1
The approach taken here does not belittle the economic and legal-aid dimensions of access to justice. Court fees, representation, language or livelihood difficulties require separate examination. Space and service organization are an important but, on their own, insufficient dimension of this broader issue. Improving the physical arrangement does not mean that all judicial problems have been solved.
The quality of justice services is not only a matter of building size or case numbers
Assessing quality solely through new buildings, the number of courtrooms, the volume of electronic transactions or the number of concluded cases would be an incomplete measurement. These indicators can provide information about capacity, but they do not on their own explain whether a person was able to reach his or her document, understood the information provided, or was given sufficient opportunity to prepare a defense.
Likewise, the satisfaction of the person who wins a case and the dissatisfaction of the person who loses are not direct measures of the correctness of justice. The task of a court is not to issue decisions that please the parties but to apply the law independently and impartially. A service assessment must separate approval or disapproval of the outcome of a decision from whether the process was conducted in an accessible, understandable and respectful manner.
The 2021 work of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) of the Council of Europe on user-centered justice and plain language places particular emphasis on understandable communication, on evaluating the user experience and, when dealing with digital tools, on protecting judicial independence. This approach shows that a quality review must not be turned into pressure on a judge to decide in a particular direction. K3
Within this framework, three separate questions should be asked: What is the legal nature of the decision? How were the guarantees of the proceedings applied? Did the administrative and physical organization of the service support the use of those guarantees? Seeking the answer to the last question is not an attempt to decide in place of the court. On the contrary, it is a way of questioning the institutional conditions under which judicial activity can be carried out soundly.
Judicial space policy: architecture and daily rules of use must be considered together
Judicial space policy is not built on design drawings alone. Which door is kept open, where each transaction is carried out, how identity and authority checks are conducted, where files are left and where those who wait stand also determine how a space is used. A space that is favorable in architectural terms can become dysfunctional through a wrong decision on use, while a limited space can be made more usable through good organization.
In the publisher's abstract of Linda Mulcahy's 2007 article Architects of Justice: the Politics of Courtroom Design, the idea that the courtroom is a neutral ground is challenged, and the relationship of design to participation and, in particular, to the position of the spectator is examined. No direct empirical conclusion about a registry counter in Türkiye can be drawn from this. It does, however, offer a useful conceptual starting point for questioning the effect of spatial arrangement on participation. K4
The abstract of Keith J. Bybee's study Judging in Place: Architecture, Design, and the Operation of Courts likewise treats judicial architecture as a form of communication that acquires meaning within its social context. The study dates from 2012; it should not be confused with the later online publication date shown on the publisher's platform. K5
For Türkiye, the accessible abstract of Oğuz Ongun's 2019 thesis at İstanbul Bilgi University links courthouse architecture and physical conditions to access to justice. This reference is limited to the scope of the thesis's institutional record and abstract; no conclusions are drawn from parts that were not seen. K6
On the basis of these sources, our assessment is as follows: A courthouse must also take into account the usage conditions that the legal order requires for the role it assigns to each person. A lawyer should not be treated only as someone who drops off papers and leaves, a witness only as a name waiting in the corridor, or a citizen only as a visitor expected to decipher guidance signs.
File inspection is a broader professional activity than merely seeing a document
File inspection is the work of comparing dates, assessing earlier statements, examining whether the annexes corroborate each other and determining the basis of a legal claim. Being able to read a record standing up is not the same need as being able to compare documents within a voluminous file.
For this reason, handing a file to a lawyer does not of itself show that all the conditions for an effective inspection are met. The size of the file, the purpose of the inspection, the need to take notes, the approaching procedural step and the space available must be considered together. Being forced to apply repeatedly and unnecessarily for the same task is also part of the assessment.
On the other hand, recognizing the need to work does not require that staff desks be used, that unlimited access be given to all service areas, or that the file be taken out without supervision. What should be requested is not a privileged freedom of movement but a working arrangement suitable for the inspection that the law permits.
A suitable area may be set up inside the registry, in a controlled section near it, or in a shared inspection room. The success of the choice is shown not by the name of the room but by whether the file is delivered on time and whether the room allows genuine inspection. The existence of a distant room does not solve the problem if the file cannot be brought there. These criteria are not a statutory provision declaring a particular room model mandatory; they are an assessment of the function of the service.
The legal limits of a lawyer's right to inspect files must be determined correctly
The right to inspect, taking copies and the authority to represent are not the same thing
Article 46 of the Attorneyship Law (Avukatlık Kanunu) regulates the ability of a lawyer or trainee lawyer to inspect case and enforcement files without a power of attorney and the fulfillment of an inspection request. The same provision treats the issuance of copies or photocopies without presentation of a power of attorney separately. The duty of assistance in Article 2 of the Law is also assessed subject to special statutory provisions. K7
These provisions distinguish professional inspection from an ordinary visitor's request. It cannot, however, be generalized to mean that all investigation documents can be accessed in every case without any capacity being required. Inspection, obtaining copies of documents, electronic access and performing procedural acts in the file may involve different powers and conditions.
Article 161 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) regulates the inspection of the file by the parties and the intervening party under the supervision of the court clerk, and the proof of interest and the judge's permission for other persons connected with the case. Separate permission is also provided for documents and records that have been ordered to be kept confidential. The lawyer's authority under the special law should not be equated with the position of these groups of users. K8
In criminal procedure, Article 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) is the starting point. The defense counsel's authority to inspect the file and obtain copies free of charge during the investigation may be restricted by a judge's decision under the conditions set out in the law; Article 153(3) lists documents that are exempt from this restriction. Access during the prosecution phase and the position of the counsel of the victim of the offense are regulated separately. The confidentiality of the investigation in Article 157 CMK also contains the proviso that the rights of defense must not be harmed. An abstract statement that "the file is confidential" does not replace an examination of which legal restriction is being applied. K9
What does the provision on setting aside space for lawyers show?
Article 50 of the Attorneyship Law provides that adequate space must be set aside for lawyers in the bar room of the courthouse, in the courtroom and in the enforcement office. Meeting places in prisons and law enforcement units are also regulated separately. This shows that the spatial needs of the defense are not left entirely without a counterpart in the legal order. K7
However, the provision does not literally require that every registry have a desk of a specific size reserved for a single lawyer. It would not be correct to claim such a detail as if it were written in the law. The concrete solution should be built by considering together the right to inspect, the duty of assistance, the relevant procedural rules and the actual need.
Protecting the file is legitimate; the method of protection must not render inspection ineffective
The decision of the Plenary Assembly of Administrative Litigation Chambers of the Council of State (Danıştay İdari Dava Daireleri Kurulu) dated November 7, 2024, E.2022/1966, K.2024/2716, is important from the standpoint of this balance. The dispute concerns Article 70(3), which regulates the file inspection record, and Article 70(5) of the regulation on the court registry offices of the administrative courts. K10
In the decision, the approach was upheld that the inspection record signed by the lawyer or trainee lawyer and the court clerk serves the orderly safekeeping of the file and the documentation of the inspection, and that this procedure does not in itself restrict the right to inspect. The Plenary Assembly affirmed the judgment of the relevant Chamber. It therefore cannot be said that every record, signature or supervision measure automatically violates the right of defense. K10
However, the result concerning Article 70(5) is that there is no need to rule because of a provision that had been annulled in an earlier case. This part cannot be reported as a finding that the permission regulation in question was found lawful on the merits. Moreover, the decision was not issued on the question of a lawyer being forced to inspect a file standing up or of there being no inspection desk. K10
The measured conclusion that can be drawn from the decision is that file security and the right to inspect can be protected together. The lawfulness of an inspection record does not of itself justify every delay or unsuitable working condition in practice. The effect of the regulation and the effect of its concrete application must be examined separately.
Counter, security and privacy: the solution is not to set the sides against each other
A counter or a physical divider may be used to protect the staff's work area, documents that are not open to access, and security. By contrast, if the same arrangement prevents a person with a hearing impairment from communicating or confines file inspection to a narrow strip of paperwork, a different solution should be sought.
The 2014 CEPEJ guidelines on court buildings state that security equipment separating staff from the public must not impair communication and service quality. The same guidelines also address spaces reserved for lawyers and the need for private consultation with the client. These are not provisions that directly prescribe a particular desk size in Türkiye, but principles that offer guidance for institutional design. K2
At this point the needs of the defense and the needs of staff are not competing. A controlled area in which the lawyer can work may also reduce constant interruptions to staff desks. A regular delivery record can remove uncertainty about where the file is. Secure storage and a usable inspection place should be set up as parts of the same organization.
Privacy, too, is not merely a matter of keeping the file in a cabinet. Identity details visible on someone else's screen, health details announced aloud, petitions left out in the open or documents forgotten on a shared device are separate risks. The recommended measures are presenting documents in line with the level of access authority, screen and desk layout, meeting areas where others cannot overhear, and securely putting away records when the work is finished.
An accessible courthouse must be designed together with persons with disabilities and special needs
The accessibility statements of the Ministry of Family and Social Services cover, besides the built environment, transportation, information and information and communication technologies. It is stated that, within the framework of Law No. 5378, accessibility must be taken into account in planning and inspection processes. This approach means that the existence of a ramp should not be taken as proof that the entire service is accessible. K11
The recommended practical audit should follow the route that the person will actually use, starting from the outer entrance. If use is interrupted at any point between the door, the elevator, the counter, the queue system, the restroom, file inspection and the hearing area, an entrance arrangement alone is not enough. The conditions of persons with visual, hearing, mobility or comprehension needs must not be reduced to one another.
In service design it should also be considered separately that children, older people, pregnant women or persons with serious health problems should not have to stand for long periods, and that the necessary seating and accompaniment arrangements should be put in place. Their implementation should be determined by the person's need and the nature of the procedure. Imposing the same physical arrangement on everyone does not always provide the same opportunity to benefit.
Risks such as a victim of violence being directed, without control, to the same waiting area as the person he or she fears should also be addressed in advance. A proposal for separate waiting areas or supported guidance does not remove the presumption of innocence and does not proclaim an automatic right to a separate room in every case. The aim is to assess concrete security and participation needs together with the procedural guarantees of the parties.
Understandable information and a predictable waiting arrangement are part of the service
Whether statements such as "go to another floor," "check the system" or "come back later" are sufficient should be measured by what procedure the user can make out of them. If the name of the procedure, the responsible unit, the required documents, the delivery channel and the method of follow-up are not clear, giving verbal guidance does not solve the problem.
CEPEJ's 2021 work treats plain language, information tools and drawing on users' experiences together. In practice, this means explaining technical concepts where necessary and telling the person what is expected of him or her in terms of the procedure. Clarity does not mean changing the legal meaning for the sake of simplification. K3
For example, explaining where the responsible unit is located is not the same as telling someone which case will be won. Institutional guidance must not turn into generating legal strategy for one of the parties. The need for legal assistance can be addressed separately by referring the person to suitable service and representation channels.
Realistic information should also be given about waiting. If the reason for a delay and the method of follow-up can be explained, a more predictable process can be established than one in which the user is left in a corridor without certainty. Instead of promising that every procedure will be completed at an exact time, the queue, priority and delay information must be managed consistently. It is especially important to indicate the available avenue of application for procedures whose time limits are about to expire.
Digitalization must not be used as a justification for abolishing physical service
With regard to UYAP and other electronic channels, the real question is not only whether a file exists in the system. Does the user have authorized access, can the necessary annex be viewed, is the file legible, and is a verifiable record created when the procedure is completed? A screen that technically exists does not by itself mean a legal avenue that can be used.
Where the electronic file can be accessed, this possibility may reduce the need for physical applications. However, how disputes or access problems are to be resolved where an annex has no digital copy or where the original document needs to be examined must be determined separately. The measure of digitalization is not to keep the person away from the building but to enable him or her to complete the procedure without losing a right.
CEPEJ's 2021 guide expressly states that persons who cannot access electronic tools or have difficulty using them must not be excluded. Digital assistance and, where necessary, an accessible alternative procedure should therefore be considered together. K3
If a shared inspection computer is to be set up, access authority, closing of the session, protection of downloaded documents and preventing the next user from reaching the previous file must be part of the design. This proposal does not require that personal account passwords be given to officials or third parties. A technical error should not automatically be treated as an extension of time either; the concrete error and the attempts made to apply should be recorded.
Sustainable service quality cannot be built until staff working conditions improve
Explaining a service shortcoming only through the behavior of the official at the counter may make inadequate capacity or a wrong division of labor invisible. The source of the shortcoming may be the job description, staff allocation, file placement, non-functioning equipment, contradictory instructions or a procedural order that is not explained to the user. Which of these is at work must be determined by examining the concrete workflow.
The CEPEJ guidelines on court buildings recommend that the opinions of lawyers, as well as judges, staff and security personnel, be obtained during the design process, and that appropriate working conditions for employees be taken into account. This is a perspective that considers user benefit and employee benefit together. K2
The proposal of this article is an orderly working system rather than a service that stays on its feet through the constant extraordinary effort of individuals. It must be clear who receives which request, who delivers the file, how the record is kept when the work is completed and who takes over the duty in case of absence. Training should not be limited to courtesy; it should also cover access authority, confidentiality, disability, conflict management and correct guidance.
Protecting staff does not mean accepting unjustified obstruction. Protecting a lawyer's right likewise does not justify threatening staff or forcing one's way into unauthorized areas. An institutional problem should be solved through a process that can be documented and brought to the competent unit without generating personal tension.
Which shortcomings may be service problems and which may be rights violations?
Not every lack of seating is automatically a constitutional violation. By contrast, the continuing obstruction of effective inspection even though a file is legally accessible may seriously hinder the preparation of a defense within the time limit. The assessment must focus not only on the object but on the actual result.
The recommended review consists of five questions: Which right was to be exercised? What was the obstacle and how long did it last? What legal or factual reason was given? Was a usable alternative offered? How did the shortcoming affect the defense, participation or the time limit? These are not a ready-made court test or an automatic violation formula, but questions that serve to document the event correctly.
A wait explained by a short-term rush is not the same as being turned away repeatedly without being shown any working area. A vague inspection request must also be distinguished from an explicit request based on authority that is left unanswered. An approaching hearing, the volume of the document and earlier attempts may show the concrete weight of the matter.
Proving bad faith is not the first requirement for criticizing an obstacle. However, if disciplinary, criminal or compensation liability is to be asserted against a particular person, the conditions of the relevant liability regime must be shown separately. Asking for the improvement of a service is not the same as characterizing every shortcoming as a crime.
How should an application and documentation proceed when a problem arises?
First, the request should be made concrete: Which file or document, in what capacity, for which procedure and by when is it to be inspected? One may expressly ask that a suitable inspection place be indicated, that an accessible section be provided, or that the reason for a restriction be explained. The date of the conversation, the unit applied to, the answer given and the alternatives offered should be recorded truthfully.
For example, in a record or application a person may use a procedure-focused statement such as "In order to be able to inspect comparatively the report and annexes in the file, I request that a suitable working place be indicated; and, if the request cannot be fulfilled, that its reason and the alternative that can be used be communicated to me." This statement is not a complete petition template but an example of how a request can be made concrete.
The next step is determined by the source of the problem. For access to the file or a procedural restriction, the act of the relevant judicial authority; for building and service organization, the duty of the competent administrative unit; and for protecting the professional right, the support of the bar association should be assessed separately. An application to the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK), an administrative complaint and a legal remedy are not general solutions that replace one another.
For concrete shortcomings in accessibility, there is a channel of application, through the Provincial Directorate of Family and Social Services, to the relevant monitoring and inspection commission. This application does not replace the necessary procedural request in a pending case. K11
The time limit and the reviewing authority to which an application is subject are determined by the legal nature of the act. It cannot be assumed that applying to the bar association, to the building management or to a complaint channel automatically stops the time limits for filing a case and for legal remedies. In an urgent file, first protecting the existing time limit and submitting the necessary procedural request to the competent authority should be considered. Giving a single objection period for every event is not safe.
The aim of proving the event does not give rise to unlimited authority to take video or audio recordings. Instead of unnecessarily recording and publishing the personal information of other files, staff or applicants, lawful documents and application records should be used.
A measurable improvement model for quality in justice services
The table below is not a single measurement system claimed to be applied in all existing courthouses or required by law. It is a proposed model that can be used in institutional assessment. It should be adapted to each courthouse's workload, user groups and security conditions.
| Area of review | What can be measured | Intended improvement |
|---|---|---|
| Access to the right unit | Number of unnecessary referrals and repeat applications for the same procedure | The first referral being clear and correct |
| File inspection | Time taken to fulfill the request, availability of a suitable area, record of annexes not provided | The right of inspection being actually exercisable |
| Accessibility | Uninterrupted use from the entrance to the point of service and the outcome of needs notifications | The person being able to carry out procedures safely and as independently as possible |
| Waiting and communication | Giving information about delays, understanding of documents and the next step | A predictable and understandable service |
| Privacy and file security | Unauthorized visibility, session and document delivery problems | Protecting confidentiality together with inspection |
| Staff and workflow | Division of duties, interruptions, equipment failures and recurring bottlenecks | A sustainable working order |
| Feedback | Responding to reports, implementing corrections and recurrence of the problem | A complaint leading not merely to a record but to improvement |
Measurement should not be done by averages alone. While the average wait seems reasonable, certain user groups may constantly experience difficulty. Time data should be broken down by type of procedure and need, and where the problem is concentrated should be identified without increasing the collection of personal data.
User opinions must not be made a means of interfering with judicial outcomes. The question "Are you satisfied with the decision?" differs from the questions "Did you understand where to apply, were you able to submit your document, was the information given to you clear?" Similarly, separate sets of questions can be prepared for lawyers and staff. The existence of a survey does not prove that the results were reviewed or that corrections were made.
In the first stage, small but concrete changes can be chosen: a controlled inspection place, up-to-date guidance, a clear delivery record and an accessible queue arrangement. Afterwards, use should be observed, problems corrected, and shortcomings requiring more extensive investment included in the budget plan. For each measure, it is recommended that the responsible unit, the completion target and the verification method be determined.
It is important that lawyers, courthouse staff and users with different needs take part in this work. A check carried out only through a tour of an empty building may not show the intensity of a hearing day or the real flow of files. The improvement should be assessed not through a photograph of the space but through the way the procedure is actually carried out.
Conclusion
The quality of a justice service is not visible only at the moment a decision is given. It also emerges in whether the person reaches the right unit, can understand what to do, can submit his or her document, whether the lawyer can work on the file, and whether staff can carry out these procedures safely.
For this reason, requests for a work desk, an accessible counter, clear guidance or a private meeting area should not be belittled. However, the solution cannot be sought in removing security and file order altogether. The essential matter is to bring protective rules and the exercise of rights together in the same service system.
Building a system in which the defense can work, the citizen can understand, the person with a disability can use and the staff can sustain is a fundamental responsibility regarding the quality of justice services. A large courthouse does not by itself constitute a strong system of access to justice when these needs are left unmet.
The reputation of justice depends not only on the size of the building but also on how the people inside it are able to exercise their rights.
Frequently Asked Questions
Must a lawyer always present a power of attorney in order to inspect a file?
Article 46 of the Attorneyship Law provides for the possibility of inspecting case and enforcement files without a power of attorney. Taking copies, performing procedural acts in the file and access to an investigation file may be subject to different rules. A single answer therefore cannot be given for all procedures. K7 K9
Does the law expressly state that every registry must have a desk reserved for lawyers?
Article 50 provides that adequate space must be set aside for the bar and lawyers in certain judicial premises; it does not prescribe a special desk or its dimensions in every registry. Nevertheless, the need to establish an arrangement in which the file inspection permitted by law can actually be carried out must be assessed separately. K7
Is having an inspection record signed unlawful in itself?
No. In the decision of the Plenary Assembly of Administrative Litigation Chambers of the Council of State (İDDK) that was reviewed, the dismissal of the annulment request concerning the rule on the record documenting the inspection of an administrative court file was affirmed. This result does not mean that every practice that actually obstructs inspection is lawful. K10
Is it a rights violation in every case for a lawyer to inspect a file standing up?
No such conclusion can be drawn automatically. The time limit, the size of the file, the concrete need, the alternative working possibilities and the effect on the preparation of the defense must be examined together. A service deficiency and the violation of a specific right are separate assessments.
Does the presence of the file in UYAP completely remove the need for physical inspection?
No. The accessibility of the document, the completeness of the annexes, the need to examine the original document and the person's ability to carry out the procedure are assessed in the concrete file. Digital tools should be part of the solution that ensures usability.
Is accessibility only a matter of building a ramp for persons with disabilities?
No. Besides physical use, transportation, information and information and communication services must also be accessible. Reaching the relevant service point and being able to use the service must be considered together. K11
Does complaining about a courthouse service stop the time limit for filing a case?
It cannot be accepted that it stops the time limit automatically. A complaint, an administrative application and a legal remedy are different procedures. Whether there is a provision affecting the time limit must be examined according to the concrete application.
Does quality assessment interfere with the independence of the judge?
It causes serious drawbacks if it turns into determining the direction of the decision or putting pressure on the judge through satisfaction scores. Evaluating access, comprehensibility and service organization, however, can be carried out without interfering with the judicial outcome. CEPEJ also stresses the protection of independence. K3
Sources and legal bases
K1 Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Arts. 36 and 141. anayasa.gov.tr — The right to seek justice, reasoned decisions, and the principles of cost and speed.
K2 CEPEJ(2014)15 — Guidelines on the organisation and accessibility of court premises, December 12, 2014. rm.coe.int — In particular paragraphs 1–7, 65–69, 99 and 101. Guidance document.
K3 CEPEJ(2021)6 — For a better integration of the user in the judicial systems, June 17, 2021. rm.coe.int — Plain language, independence, digital access and quality measurement; in particular pp. 29–31.
K4 Linda Mulcahy, Architects of Justice: the Politics of Courtroom Design, Social & Legal Studies, 16(3), 2007, pp. 383–403. journals.sagepub.com — DOI: 10.1177/0964663907079765. Publisher's abstract and citation details.
K5 Keith J. Bybee, Judging in Place: Architecture, Design, and the Operation of Courts, Law & Social Inquiry, 37(4), 2012, pp. 1014–1028. cambridge.org — DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2012.01327.x. Publisher's abstract and citation details.
K6 Oğuz Ongun, Courthouse Architecture as a Matter of Access to Justice: The Example of the Çağlayan Courthouse (Bir Adalete Erişim Meselesi Olarak Adliye Mimarisi: Çağlayan Adliyesi Örneği), İstanbul Bilgi University, 2019. openaccess.bilgi.edu.tr — Institutional record and abstract; no conclusions have been drawn from parts of the thesis that were not seen.
K7 Attorneyship Law No. 1136 (Avukatlık Kanunu), Arts. 2, 46 and 50. bursabarosu.org.tr — Core provisions on inspection, assistance and the setting aside of space. This copy has not been used as the current consolidated version of the Law as a whole.
K8 Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), Art. 161. mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr — Ministry of Justice UYAP legislation record.
K9 Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), Arts. 153 and 157. alternatifcozumler.adalet.gov.tr — Text published by the Ministry of Justice; inspection and confidentiality of the investigation.
K10 Plenary Assembly of Administrative Litigation Chambers of the Council of State (Danıştay İdari Dava Daireleri Kurulu), E.2022/1966, K.2024/2716, November 7, 2024. app.dejure.ai — Full-text record. Access may require a subscription. The text of the decision is provided in full in a separate annex.
K11 Ministry of Family and Social Services, Accessibility — Frequently Asked Questions. aile.gov.tr — Scope and inspection within the framework of Law No. 5378; in particular questions 1–4.