Application to the ECtHR in a Criminal Case: Admissibility Conditions, Time Limits and Effective File Preparation

In a criminal case, to apply to the European Court of Human Rights it is necessary to use the effective domestic remedies properly for each alleged violation of rights and, as a rule, to submit a complete application within four months of the last effective domestic decision. In complaints about the fairness of criminal proceedings in Türkiye, this process generally also includes an individual application to the Constitutional Court after the ordinary remedies open in the file. The text to be sent to the ECtHR must not be a repetition of the appeal petition written against the conviction: it must show which Convention guarantee was violated, by which act, and in what way the violation affected the defence. [1–6]

Effective preparation establishes the connection between the event, the violation, the raising of the matter in domestic law, the documents and the request. An unfavourable decision from the Constitutional Court does not on its own show that a violation will be found before the ECtHR, just as a finding of violation by the Constitutional Court does not in every case close the Strasbourg route. The scope of the application, the redress provided and the continuing prejudice are assessed separately. This guide explains the defence and application strategy in criminal files through real ECtHR decisions.

What does the ECtHR examine in a criminal file?

The distinction between the correctness of a conviction and a violation of the Convention

The ECtHR is not a court of appeal that replaces the national courts and redetermines guilt. The statements "the witness lied", "the expert assessed incorrectly" or "I should have been acquitted" are not sufficient unless a concrete Convention problem is explained. On the other hand, the fact that no opportunity was ever given to question the decisive witness on whose evidence the conviction rests, that the defence was denied access to important evidence, or that an argument capable of changing the outcome was left unreasoned, may be examined from the standpoint of the fairness of the proceedings. Problems at the level of manifest arbitrariness or denial of justice are also different from an ordinary objection to the assessment of evidence. [6–7]

The applicant must explain not only why the evidence should be interpreted in their favour, but how they were deprived of an effective opportunity to challenge the evidence. When the relevant page of the national decision, the hearing minutes and the rejected request are shown together, the legal question the ECtHR will examine becomes clear. Not every step requested by the defence produces a violation; the necessity of the step, the reasons for the refusal and the effect on the proceedings as a whole are assessed.

Who may apply and against whom is the application directed?

An application is made by a person who alleges that they are a victim of a violation of a right protected by the Convention or by protocols to which the State concerned is a party. In a criminal file, the applicant is most often a suspect, an accused or a convicted person. Although the complaint may arise from an act of a judge, a prosecutor or the police, the respondent before the ECtHR is the State Party concerned; no criminal case is opened against the official personally. Being a Turkish citizen is not a general precondition for an application. [1, Arts. 1 and 34]

A victim of crime may base an application on different legal grounds. For example, the duty to carry out an effective investigation may arise under the right to life or the prohibition of ill-treatment. However, the Convention does not grant a general right to a person to demand that someone else be punished. The defence rights of the accused and the complaint of a victim about an investigation must not be placed in the same application framework. [7]

How are domestic remedies and the Constitutional Court stage assessed?

The content of the complaint matters as much as the use of the remedies

For the fairness of a criminal conviction, the effective appeal (istinaf) and cassation (temyiz) remedies available in the file, as well as the individual application to the Constitutional Court, must as a rule be exhausted. Since not every criminal decision is open to appeal, the remedy regime of the concrete decision is determined instead of applying an automatic "first instance–appeal–cassation" sequence. The substance of the complaint to be raised before the ECtHR must be submitted in good time to the competent domestic authorities. Merely writing the Convention article is not sufficient; but not writing the article number is not by itself decisive if the substance of the complaint has clearly been discussed.

Hasan Uzun v. Türkiye, No. 10755/13, inadmissibility decision of 30 April 2013, shows the importance of the Constitutional Court route. In this case, which arose from a property dispute, the ECtHR examined the accessibility of the individual application and the powers to provide redress, and found the application inadmissible because the Constitutional Court had not been approached. The decision is not about a criminal conviction; the aspect used here is that the Constitutional Court is, as a rule, a redress route that must be exhausted. The Court also reserved its power to review the practical effectiveness of this route. [8, §§ 52–71]

In Vučković and Others v. Serbia [GC], Nos. 17153/11 and others, judgment of 25 March 2014, the decisive question was that the complaint of discrimination concerning the daily payments to reserve soldiers had not been properly raised in domestic law. The Grand Chamber concluded that the available effective remedies had not been exhausted. The lesson for a criminal file is clear: the fact that an appeal or a Constitutional Court petition was submitted does not mean that a violation that is not raised at all in that petition has been exhausted. [9, §§ 69–77, 85–90]

Sicilianos and Kostopoulou explain the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies as the procedural expression of the principle of subsidiarity, which gives national authorities the opportunity to prevent or remedy the violation. For this reason, file preparation must not be limited to collecting the final decisions; what the defence requested at each stage must also be visible. [10, p. 45]

Why must the reasons for the Constitutional Court's rejection be read?

If the Constitutional Court has dismissed the application on the merits, the ECtHR may make an independent assessment under the Convention. By contrast, failure to apply to the Constitutional Court in time, failure to make the necessary statement, or failure to raise a complaint at all may lead to an objection that the effective domestic remedy has not been properly exhausted. It must not be enough to see that a Constitutional Court decision says "inadmissible" in its heading; the ground for the rejection and the applicant's procedural conduct must be examined together.

The general thirty-day period for an individual application to the Constitutional Court and the four-month period of the ECtHR are independent of each other. Missing the Constitutional Court period cannot be corrected by applying to the ECtHR within four months. For the Constitutional Court, the time limit is calculated separately according to the criteria of exhaustion of the application routes under Article 47 of Law No. 6216, or, where no route exists, of the date on which the violation was learned. [11]

The claim that a remedy is ineffective cannot rest only on the reasoning "I think no result will be obtained". The applicant must explain with concrete facts why the remedy could not address their complaint. Where it is shown that the remedy indicated by the State is accessible and effective both in theory and in practice, and it was not used, the burden of explaining the reason may pass to the applicant. [9, §§ 73–77]

Not every complaint is tied to the same timetable

The lawfulness of detention, the conditions of imprisonment and the fairness of the conviction proceedings may be subject to different procedures and redress routes. For a complaint concerning the right to liberty, waiting for the whole case to end through all the remedies may cause the relevant application period to be missed. The compensation routes available after release and the routes that may end a continuing detention are also not the same.

Where the complaint is only that the proceedings were not concluded within a reasonable time, the route of the Compensation Commission under Law No. 6384 must also be separately considered in Türkiye. The length of the proceedings and an inability to question a witness are problems of fairness that do not have the same remedy. For each complaint, the questions "which effective route, which final decision, which starting date?" must be answered separately. [6, 12]

How is the four-month time limit calculated and preserved?

The final decision, notification and the date of knowledge

Under Protocol No. 15, the four-month period applies to applications where the final domestic decision was given on 1 February 2022 or later. The old six-month period used under the previous regime does not mean that a current application may be made within six months. For transition purposes, what matters is not the date of the ECtHR decision but the date of the relevant final domestic decision. [13]

When the starting point is determined, the date on which the last effective decision was sufficiently learned by the applicant or their representative, and the system of notification under domestic law, are examined. Where the decision must be notified of its own motion, the notification date is important. A decision already known to counsel is not made a new period merely because the client learns of it later. The notification document, the electronic notification record and, where available, access information through UYAP must be examined together; the reason why the date legally adopted is that date must be explained. [6, §§ 200–205]

Ahmet Akkurt v. Türkiye, No. 40796/19, judgment of 28 February 2023, shows the importance of the date document. In an application concerning the failure to send a fax letter from prison, the Constitutional Court decision was notified on 19 December 2018 and the ECtHR application was lodged on 17 July 2019. The six-month period applicable to that file expired on 19 June 2019, so the application was found inadmissible for being out of time. The State submitted the signed notification document. The judgment was communicated on 23 March 2023, but the date of the decision is 28 February 2023. [14, §§ 5–10]

Four months is not 120 days; a holiday does not automatically extend the period

The period is calculated by calendar months. It starts to run on the day following the triggering event and ends at the end of the corresponding day of the fourth month. If the last day falls on a Saturday, a Sunday or an official holiday, the rules of Turkish procedural law do not automatically apply to the ECtHR period.

Hypothetical example: If the legally adopted notification/knowledge date of the final decision is taken to be 11 June 2026, the four-month period ends at the end of 11 October 2026. If that day were a Sunday, the period would not be moved to Monday. The example assumes that the starting date is undisputed; it does not replace the determination of the date for a particular file.

Sabri Güneş v. Türkiye [GC], No. 27396/06, judgment of 29 June 2012, concerned an application in which the last day fell on a Sunday and the application lodged on Monday was found out of time. The case arose from an administrative-court dispute and applied the former six-month regime. What is useful for a current application is not the length of the period but the principle of calendar calculation and the fact that a holiday does not produce an automatic extension. [15, §§ 43–62]

Extraordinary applications and continuing consequences

An attempt at an extraordinary appeal in the interest of the law (kanun yararına bozma) or a request for re-trial does not, as a rule, suspend the ECtHR time limit or revive a past period. In a genuinely reopened trial, re-examination of a Convention question may require a different assessment; the mere filing of a request petition is not equivalent to this. Whether the Constitutional Court route is necessary and effective for the concrete complaint is also assessed in this framework. [6, §§ 191–199]

The continuation of the effects of a conviction or of a measure does not always mean a "continuing violation". The nature of the violation must be distinguished from the continuation of its consequences. Even though the Court's approach to calculating time may change in very exceptional circumstances, an application plan must not be based on the expectation of an extension or of acceptance of an excuse.

The procedural consequences in the table are based on Rule 47 of the Rules of Court and the practice direction on the making of applications. Exceptions the Court may accept are not a unilateral power of the applicant to extend the time. [2, 4]

How is a violation in criminal proceedings made concrete?

Access to a defence counsel and the opportunity to prepare the defence

In a complaint about the assistance of a defence counsel, the start and duration of the restriction, the stage of the investigation at which it was applied, its reasons, the place in the conviction of the statement taken and the safeguards subsequently provided must be explained. The request for a meeting, the refusal decision, the statement minutes, the form notifying the right and the reasoning of the conviction are linked together. Where time or access to the file for the defence was insufficient, the work that could not be done must also be stated; it is not enough to say "I could not prepare".

Salduz v. Türkiye [GC], No. 36391/02, judgment of 27 November 2008, examined the use in conviction of the statement of a child applicant who had not been given the assistance of a defence counsel in custody. The subsequent provision of legal assistance did not remedy the initial deficiency, and a violation of Article 6(1) read together with Article 6(3)(c) was found. The applicant's age and the decisive effect of the first statement are important features of the concrete case. [16, §§ 50–63]

However, in Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], Nos. 50541/08 and three other applications, judgment of 13 September 2016, the results differed. For the first three applicants, who were subjected to urgent security interviews, the fairness of the proceedings as a whole was found acceptable and no violation was found; a violation was found for the fourth applicant. The Grand Chamber examined separately the compelling reasons for the restriction and its effect on the whole proceedings. The absence of compelling reasons requires very strict scrutiny; the assessment is not reduced to an automatic formula. [17, §§ 257–265, 274, 294, 311]

This comparison requires the applicant also to discuss the State's probable defence: that the restriction was exceptional and temporary, that the statement was used in a limited way, or that adequate compensating safeguards existed. The file must show why these explanations were not convincing in the applicant's own case.

The right to question a witness

If a witness against the accused did not attend the hearing, three matters must be explained in the application: whether there was a valid reason for the witness's absence, whether the statement was the sole or decisive evidence, and what safeguards compensated for the disadvantage to the defence. The request to summon the witness, the attempts made by the court, the earlier statements and the weight the judgment gave to those statements are documented.

Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], No. 9154/10, judgment of 15 December 2015, held that the inability of the applicant to question two important witnesses at any stage of the proceedings, in the absence of sufficient counterbalancing safeguards, led to a violation. The court's careful assessment of witness accounts and the existence of other evidence did not suffice to remedy the deficiency in the concrete file. [18, §§ 100–131, 153–165]

On the other hand, the use of a statement that could not be questioned, or the absence of a witness, is not in every case in itself a violation. The reason shown for the failure to bring the witness and the other opportunities given to the defence are assessed together. If the applicant also explains which contradiction the questions they wished to put would have revealed, the reason why the request to question was important becomes understandable.

Access to digital evidence and effective objection

Instead of merely saying that a digital record is wrong, the data or report requested for examination, the purpose of the request, the restriction of access and the court's answer must be shown. Where the attribution of the records to the applicant, their accuracy, integrity or method of evaluation is disputed, each objection must rest on concrete documents in the file. Rather than putting forward technical conclusions as if the defence already knew information it cannot access, the applicant should explain what examination the lack of access prevented.

Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC], No. 15669/20, judgment of 26 September 2023, examined the opportunity to make an effective objection to ByLock data and the approach of the courts to decisive allegations; a violation of Article 6(1), together with other violations, was found. The judgment does not say that all raw data must be disclosed unconditionally: it accepts that there may be legitimate reasons for non-disclosure; however, it requires sufficient procedural safeguards to compensate for the disadvantage to the defence. [19, §§ 328–332, 344–356]

The Article 7 examination in the same judgment concerns the presumption of the material and mental elements of the offence without an individual assessment. That aspect is separate from the complaint about access to evidence. When using the judgment in another file, the similar legal problem must be explained; it must not be asserted that every conviction based on different evidence and reasoning will automatically produce the same result. [19, §§ 262–271]

The right to a reasoned judgment

In a complaint about the reasoning of a judgment, the applicant must show the unanswered argument, where that argument was submitted, and why it could have changed the outcome. The relevant paragraph of the defence petition and the relevant part of the judgment may be assessed side by side. A court's summary of the defence does not necessarily mean that it genuinely discussed the substance of the argument; on the other hand, it is not compulsory to give a separate and lengthy answer to every argument.

Boldea v. Romania, No. 19997/02, judgment of 15 February 2007, examined the reasoning of an administrative fine applied in criminal proceedings concerning statements alleged to have damaged reputation. The failure of the courts to discuss sufficiently the elements of the offence and the evidence submitted, and the failure of the appellate authority to remedy that deficiency, led to a violation of Article 6(1). [20, §§ 28–35]

By contrast, in Baydar v. the Netherlands, No. 55385/14, judgment of 24 April 2018, the summary rejection, with a short statement of reasons, of a request for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union in the cassation review of a criminal file was not found to be a violation. The result was reached in the context of the accelerated cassation procedure of that system and the fact that the decision was not arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable. Baydar is not a general permission that validates all short decisions; in a complaint about reasoning it shows the importance of the context of the file. [21, §§ 39–53]

The right to liberty and other rights

In a complaint about arrest, reasonable suspicion under Article 5, the legal basis for the detention, the grounds for its continuation and the speed of judicial review are separate matters. Detention after conviction may rest on a different legal basis for the Convention. The dates of arrest, detention, release and the first-instance conviction must be shown separately in the chronology. [1, Art. 5]

A complaint of ill-treatment may require the tests under Article 3; the interception of communications under Article 8; a punished expression under Article 10; and unforeseeable criminal liability under Article 7. The same "proportionality" text is not applied to every right; for example, the prohibition of ill-treatment is of an absolute nature. Instead of adding many articles to the application, complaints linked to the facts must be set out clearly.

How is the application form and its annexes prepared?

The official form must be sufficient in itself

The application is prepared on the current form obtained from the official application page of the Court. The facts, the violations, and the explanations on the exhaustion of domestic remedies and on time limits must be contained in the sections of the form reserved for them. The statement "explanations are in a supplementary petition" does not replace those sections. The supplementary explanatory text may be used to develop the complaints in the form; it may not exceed twenty pages in total. Judgments and other evidentiary documents are not included in that twenty-page limit. [2–4]

If a supplementary explanation is being prepared, the rules on A4 size, a left margin of at least 3.5 cm, at least 12-point type in the main text, at least 10-point type in footnotes and one-and-a-half line spacing are observed. Pages and paragraphs are numbered. These rules are for the supplementary petition to be submitted to the ECtHR; they must not be confused with the publication format of a law article. [4]

In the section on complaints, for each violation the facts, the legal guarantee, the concrete deficiency and the effect on the defence are briefly explained. In the admissibility section, too, it is shown in which petitions and decisions the same complaint was dealt with in domestic law. Keeping a new complaint only in an additional text, or adding it after the time limit has passed, does not mean that it is protected by the first application.

The connection between event, violation, document and request

The table below does not replace an application form; it shows a working arrangement that can be used when preparing the file.

Hypothetical narrative example: "I asked for a witness who showed that the person accused of the statement was not at the scene to be heard. My request was refused at the stated hearing. The conviction gave decisive weight to that statement; at the earlier stages I had no opportunity to put questions. I explained the same complaint in my appeal and Constitutional Court petitions with the relevant document numbers." This narrative is not a claim ready for use without documents; it must be supported by dates, requests and decisions that genuinely correspond to the event.

Signatures, representation and the organisation of documents

The identity and contact details of the applicant and the representative must be written in full. If the application is made through a lawyer, the necessary dates and original (wet) signatures must be in the authorisation section of the form. It is not assumed that a general power of attorney issued under domestic law will perform the same function on its own. The Rules of Court allow exceptional acceptance where the compelling reasons are explained and the original signed authority form is submitted within a reasonable time; merely leaving things until the last day is not a sufficient explanation. [2, Rule 47(1)(c); 4]

Complete and legible copies of the decisions, not only the pages with the result, the relevant objection and appeal petitions, the Constitutional Court application form, the Constitutional Court decision and the time documents must be prepared. The annexes are listed by date and by the order of the proceedings, and their pages are numbered consecutively. Documents must not be stapled, bound or taped. When the signed original form is sent, copies of the evidentiary documents are used; the Court does not return documents. [3–4]

Where a document cannot be accessed, the reason and the attempts made to obtain it must be explained. Instead of keeping the document or concealing the gap, a rejection letter or a record showing the access barrier is submitted. Even for texts prepared with auxiliary tools, including artificial intelligence, the case citations, facts and references must be checked against their real sources. Responsibility for the accuracy of the application cannot be transferred to the tool used. [3]

Where is the application sent, and is a lawyer or fee required?

The first application form and its annexes are sent by post. The address on the Court's official page is: The Registrar, European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, 1 avenue de l’Europe, 67075 Strasbourg Cedex, FRANCE. Before sending, it is appropriate to check the address and the form version again on the official page. [5]

eComms is the electronic correspondence tool that the Court may introduce at the stage of notification to the respondent State; it does not remove the postal requirement for the general initial application. The Rule 39 interim measures portal is also not used to send the ordinary application form. The postmark, the postal tracking document and an exact copy of the dispatched set must be kept. [2, 5, 22]

At the beginning a lawyer is not compulsory, and the application may be prepared in Turkish. After notification of the application to the Government, the rules of Rules 34 and 36 apply to representation and the language of correspondence; as a rule, an appropriate representative and correspondence in English or French is required, subject to permitted exceptions. The ECtHR does not charge a fee; postage, translation and lawyers' costs may arise separately. [2–3]

Legal aid from the Court does not mean that a free lawyer is automatically appointed for everyone when an application is being prepared. Under Rules 105–110, conditions such as the needs of the proceedings and financial inadequacy are assessed after the Government's observations have been obtained or the time allowed for them has expired. [2]

Grounds of inadmissibility and interim measures

Problems preventing an examination of the merits of the application

In addition to time limits and exhaustion, the status of victim, the Court's jurisdiction ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae, whether the application is manifestly ill-founded and the other admissibility conditions are examined. Where the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage, and respect for human rights does not require an examination on the merits, the application may be found inadmissible. The disadvantage here is not reduced merely to a monetary amount. [1, Arts. 34–35]

The disclosure of identity to the Court and a request for identity not to be made public are different matters. An anonymous application cannot be made; however, an anonymity request with stated reasons may be submitted. Earlier ECtHR applications and applications to other international review bodies must be disclosed. Where the matter is essentially the same and no relevant new information is contained, the bar in Article 35(2) on repeated applications may arise. [1–3]

The Constitutional Court's recognition of a violation and the provision of adequate redress may remove the status of victim. On the other hand, the mere existence of a finding of violation does not mean that the examination is complete where the redress has not been applied or is insufficient for the concrete complaint. The applicant must explain which prejudice continues and why; they must not withhold from the Court new developments such as compensation received, a retrial or release.

A distinction must be drawn between non-registration of an application for failure to comply with Rule 47 and a judicial decision of inadmissibility. The possibility of making a complete application again for a deficient form does not mean that the four-month period starts again. There is no ordinary appeal against a judicial decision of inadmissibility; sending the same complaint again does not overcome that result. [2–3]

Does a request for interim measures automatically suspend execution of the sentence?

An application to the ECtHR does not automatically suspend detention or the execution of a sentence. An interim measure under Rule 39 is for exceptional situations in which there is a risk of imminent and irreparable harm. Merely regarding the conviction as disputed or requesting release is not enough. In a claim of a serious health risk, current reports, the proximity of the risk and urgent steps taken in domestic law are important. [2, 22]

A request for an interim measure is transmitted through the Rule 39 portal determined by the Court or through the other methods indicated in the official guidance. The applicant's situation, the date on which the measure would take effect, the danger to be averted and the documents must be clear. The making or acceptance of an interim measure request does not mean that the admissibility of the main application has been decided; the form and time-limit obligations are followed separately.

The process after the application and the consequences of the decision

Assignment of a file number and notification to the Government

The assignment of a file number or barcode is not a decision on admissibility or violation. The application may be dealt with by a single judge, a committee or a chamber. Some files based on settled case law may be concluded by a committee; admissibility and merits are not always examined as two separate decisions. Information and documents requested by the Registry must be submitted within the period specified. Changes of address and important new developments must be notified. [1–3, 5]

After notification to the Government, friendly-settlement negotiations, observations of the parties and claims for just satisfaction may arise. The confidentiality of friendly-settlement negotiations must be observed. A unilateral declaration and a friendly settlement are different; the content of an accepted text must be examined with care in relation to the violation, the redress and the consequences in domestic law. There is no fixed time for conclusion or a fixed amount of compensation for every application.

How must a claim for just satisfaction be framed?

Claims for pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage and costs under Article 41 of the ECHR must be explained separately. For pecuniary loss, a causal link with the violation must be shown; for costs, their reality, necessity and reasonableness must be shown. A fee agreement, proof of payment, translation and postal invoices may support the claim. It is also possible for a finding of violation alone to be regarded as sufficient satisfaction; compensation is not an automatic result. [23]

It is not enough to write a general request for compensation at the beginning; itemised claims and documents must be submitted at the stage and within the time set by the Court. Failure to comply with Rule 60 may lead to the claims being rejected in whole or in part. Instead of demanding exactly the amount awarded in another judgment, the applicant should explain their real loss and costs. [2, 23]

Grand Chamber, re-trial and execution

Referral of a Chamber judgment to the Grand Chamber may be requested under Article 43 of the ECHR within three months from the date of the judgment, in exceptional circumstances. This route is not an appeal against every inadmissibility decision. Whether the request for referral is accepted is assessed separately; when the Chamber judgment becomes final is determined under Article 44. [1]

A final ECtHR finding of violation binds the State; its execution is supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The judgment does not automatically annul the criminal judgment. Article 311(1)(f) of the CMK provides, as a ground for reopening, the determination by a final ECtHR judgment that the criminal judgment was given in breach of the Convention and is based on that breach. The same paragraph also covers the case in which the application against the criminal judgment lapses as a result of a friendly settlement or a unilateral declaration. The request for reopening is made within one year from the date on which the ECtHR judgment became final. [24]

Not every violation concerning the duration of detention or proceedings necessarily requires the conviction to be re-examined in the same way; the relationship between the violation and the criminal judgment must be established. For older files, the provision of Article 311(2) on time is examined separately. Under Article 312 of the CMK, a request for reopening does not automatically defer execution; a request for deferral or stay of execution must be separately justified. A reference by another person to an ECtHR judgment does not replace an automatic reopening decision in the applicant's own file.

For details of this subject, you may consult our article application to the execution judge.

Conclusion

An effective application to the ECtHR in a criminal file requires more than repeating that the decision was unjust: it requires showing, with documents, which Convention guarantee the defence was deprived of. A complaint raised in time in domestic law, case law relevant to the concrete event and a real claim for redress must be combined within the same legal account.

Before the file is sent, the last effective decision and the start of the time limit for each complaint must be determined; the official form, the original signatures, the decisions and the index of annexes must be checked together. What makes the violation visible is not the volume of the file, but the connection between the event alleged and the relevant legal guarantee and verifiable document.

Frequently Asked Questions

The Constitutional Court rejected my application; can I go to the ECtHR?

You may, but the ground for rejection, the four-month time limit, the proper exhaustion of domestic remedies and the other admissibility conditions will be examined. An application rejected by the Constitutional Court for being out of time may give rise separately to a problem of exhaustion before the ECtHR. For details, see the section the Constitutional Court stage.

Is the time limit for an ECtHR application four months or six months?

For applications where the final domestic decision was given on 1 February 2022 or later, it is four months. The reference to six months in older decisions does not apply directly to a current file. The transition distinction in the section calculating the four-month period is important.

If the last day is a Sunday or an official holiday, is the period extended?

No; there is no automatic extension to the next working day because of a holiday. Four months is not calculated as 120 days either. The complete form must be posted on time.

Can I apply in Turkish and without a lawyer?

At the first stage, yes. After notification to the Government, the rules on representation and language may change. The absence of a fee does not mean that postal, translation and lawyers' costs will not arise at all. Details are explained in the section dispatch and representation.

Can I start the application by e-mail or through eComms?

The general initial application is made by post. eComms is a later correspondence tool introduced by the Court. Sending by fax does not preserve the four-month time limit; the Rule 39 portal is for requests for interim measures only.

If the supplementary petition is twenty pages, are copies of the decisions included in that limit?

No. The twenty-page limit relates to the supplementary explanatory text; it does not apply to decisions and evidentiary documents. Nevertheless, the mandatory sections of the form must be sufficient in themselves. See the section form and annexes.

Does an ECtHR application secure release or suspend execution?

The application does not produce these results automatically. For an interim measure, exceptional conditions such as a risk of imminent and irreparable harm are required. Requests for release and for stay of execution under domestic law are assessed separately.

If the Constitutional Court has found a violation, is it impossible to apply to the ECtHR?

The recognition of a violation and the provision of adequate redress may remove the status of victim. If the redress has not been applied or is inadequate, the continuing prejudice may be separately explained. Merely being dissatisfied with the compensation is not an automatic ground of violation.

Does the assignment of a file number mean that the application has been accepted?

No. Registration, admissibility and examination of the merits are different. It is necessary to answer the Court's requests for information on time and to notify developments affecting the file.

If the ECtHR gives a violation judgment, is the criminal case automatically reopened?

No. Under the conditions of CMK Article 311(1)(f), reopening is requested within one year from the date the judgment becomes final. A request for reopening does not automatically defer execution. The distinctions in the section the consequences of the judgment apply.

Sources and legal bases

[1] Council of Europe, European Convention on Human Rights, in particular Arts. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 27–29, 34–35, 39, 41, 43–46. Official text.

[2] ECtHR, Rules of Court, text of 15 September 2025; in particular Rules 34, 36, 39, 47, 60, 105–110. Rules of Court.

[3] ECtHR, Notes for filling in the application form, ENG–2026/1, pp. 1–11. Application notes.

[4] ECtHR, Institution of Proceedings, practice direction including the changes of 1 February 2022, §§ 1–17. Direction.

[5] ECtHR, Apply to the Court. Application, form and dispatch information.

[6] ECtHR Registry, Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria, update of 28 February 2026; in particular the sections on domestic remedies, time limits and victim status. Guide.

[7] ECtHR Registry, Guide on Article 6: Right to a fair trial (criminal limb), update of 28 February 2026. Guide to fair trial in criminal matters.

[8] ECtHR Second Section, Hasan Uzun v. Türkiye, 10755/13, 30.04.2013, inadmissibility; §§ 52–71. Full text on HUDOC.

[9] ECtHR Grand Chamber, Vučković and Others v. Serbia, 17153/11 and others, 25.03.2014, preliminary objection; §§ 69–77, 85–90. Full text on HUDOC.

[10] Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos and Maria-Andriani Kostopoulou, Individual Application under the European Convention on Human Rights: Procedural Guide, Council of Europe, Turkish edition, February 2021, p. 45. Book.

[11] Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, Arts. 45 and 47. Official consolidated text.

[12] Law No. 6384 on the Duties and Working Procedures of the Compensation Commission, in particular Arts. 2 and 5/A. Official consolidated text.

[13] ECtHR Registry, announcement of 03.01.2022 on the four-month time limit, ECHR 003 (2022). Transition explanation.

[14] ECtHR Second Section Committee, Ahmet Akkurt v. Türkiye, 40796/19, 28.02.2023; communicated 23.03.2023, §§ 5–10. Full text on HUDOC.

[15] ECtHR Grand Chamber, Sabri Güneş v. Türkiye, 27396/06, 29.06.2012, §§ 43–62. Full text on HUDOC.

[16] ECtHR Grand Chamber, Salduz v. Türkiye, 36391/02, 27.11.2008, §§ 50–63. Full text on HUDOC.

[17] ECtHR Grand Chamber, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom, 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09, 13.09.2016, §§ 257–265, 274, 294, 311. Full text on HUDOC.

[18] ECtHR Grand Chamber, Schatschaschwili v. Germany, 9154/10, 15.12.2015, §§ 100–131, 153–165. Full text on HUDOC.

[19] ECtHR Grand Chamber, Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye, 15669/20, 26.09.2023, §§ 262–271, 328–332, 344–356. Full text on HUDOC.

[20] ECtHR Third Section, Boldea v. Romania, 19997/02, 15.02.2007; final 15.05.2007, §§ 28–35. Full text on HUDOC.

[21] ECtHR Third Section, Baydar v. the Netherlands, 55385/14, 24.04.2018; final 24.07.2018, §§ 39–53. Full text on HUDOC.

[22] ECtHR, Requests for Interim Measures, practice direction on Rule 39. Interim measures guidance.

[23] ECtHR, Just Satisfaction Claims, practice direction including the changes of 9 June 2022. Just satisfaction guidance.

[24] Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure, Arts. 311–312. Official consolidated text.