The right to a reasoned judgment ensures that the reasons for a court's decision can be understood and that the decision can be effectively reviewed. A long judgment, a large number of statutory quotations or a summary of every petition is not sufficient on its own. The real question is whether the claims and defenses that could affect the outcome were assessed with relevant and adequate reasoning. [1; 2]
This right does not mean that the court must accept all of a party's submissions. The court may reject a decisive objection after examining it, for a legally understandable reason. In an application to the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM), it is not enough to say "the decision is unjust." The applicant should show where the point was raised and how it could change the result. [2; 3]
Legal basis of the right to a reasoned judgment
Article 36 of the Constitution (Anayasa) on the right to a fair trial and Article 141 on the requirement that court decisions be reasoned are read together. Article 230 of Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure (CMK) is relevant in criminal proceedings, Article 297 of Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (HMK) in civil proceedings, and Article 24 of Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure (İYUK) in administrative litigation, for the content of the decision. [1; 4; 5; 6]
The reasoning must explain the acceptance of the facts, the evaluation of the evidence and the link between the applicable law and the result. A lack of reasoning may amount to a breach of procedural law, but not every error of form or writing is automatically a constitutional violation. In an application, the concrete effect of the omission on the fairness of the proceedings must be shown. [2; 3]
Which claims must the court answer?
Claims that affect the outcome and were clearly raised
Whether a claim is decisive depends on whether, if accepted, it could change the judgment. A statute-of-limitations defense, a payment document that could change the result, a technical objection to a decisive expert report, or evidence that undermines the basis of an accusation may be of this kind. However, the function of each document and each defense is assessed separately in every file.
The party must show in which section of which petition or hearing the point was raised. A claim raised for the first time before the Constitutional Court, and never submitted to the ordinary court, may raise issues under the principle of subsidiarity. Saying that the court did not answer a defense that was not properly submitted to it is usually not enough. [2; 7]
Does every sentence require a separate answer?
No. Repetitive statements, details that do not affect the outcome, and matters already answered by the main reasoning do not require a separate paragraph. The decision is read as a whole. A reasoning that is shorter than the party expected is not, on its own, a violation. [3, §§ 66–68]
However, a serious objection at the centre of the dispute cannot be brushed aside with general phrases. Expressions such as "the case file as a whole," "the existing evidence" or "the claims are not well-founded" should be checked for whether they are accompanied by an evaluation that explains the concrete dispute. [2]
Reasoning review in criminal cases
Evidence on which a conviction rests
Under Article 230 of the CMK, a reasoned conviction sets out the claims and defenses, the discussion of the evidence, the grounds for accepting or rejecting them, and the legal conclusion reached. Where a claim of unlawfully obtained evidence, the reliability of digital data or a fundamental contradiction in a witness statement affects the outcome, it must be understandable why the defense was rejected. [4]
A technical objection to the dates or creation conditions of a digital document may call into question the core basis of a conviction. In that case, the mere presence of the document in the file does not mean the objection was answered. By contrast, a dispute over a secondary record may not be decisive where there is independent and strong other evidence.
The Sencer Başat and Others decision
In the Sencer Başat and Others decision, the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court addressed defense objections to digital evidence and expert assessments that were important for the conviction. The failure to adequately assess defenses that could affect the outcome led to a finding of a violation of the right to a reasoned judgment. The decision also examined the hearing of witnesses, equality of arms and adversarial proceedings. [2]
It cannot be concluded from this decision that every objection to digital evidence is a violation. In an application, the specific property of the evidence that the technical objection questions, the weight of that evidence in the judgment and the court's answer should be shown together. Citing the name of the decision without connecting it to the concrete defense problem does not make an effective constitutional complaint. [2]
Reasoned judgments in civil and administrative proceedings
In a civil case, issues such as payment, release, limitation, standing (husumet) or the interpretation of a contract may determine the outcome. In administrative litigation, concrete objections on the reason for the act, competence, procedural safeguards and proportionality may be important. Although the type of proceedings differs, the basic question is the same: was the claim that affects the outcome examined in an intelligible way? [5; 6]
Adopting an expert report is not a problem in every case. However, if there is a concrete objection to the data used in the report, its calculation method or a decisive assumption, the court's approach to that objection should be visible. The phrase "according to the expert report" does not by itself resolve all serious objections to the report.
The reasons given in an administrative act and the court's reasoning must be kept apart. The subject of this article is primarily the reasoning of judicial decisions. Whether an administration's lack of reasoning is examined depends on the type of act and the applicable procedure; not every administrative act is subject to the same formal requirements. An example in which the reasoning of an administrative act is examined in the context of exam security can be found in the article on summons to an equivalent exam and the right to education.
Is a short appellate or cassation decision a violation?
An appellate court may adopt the sufficient reasoning of the first-instance court. It is not necessary to repeat every explanation for the same dispute and the same objections. However, if a decisive objection left unanswered by the lower court was also not addressed on appeal, a general reference to the first decision may not be enough. [2; 3]
In Tahir Gökatalay, the Constitutional Court found that the applicant's claim concerning the signature on the summons record had been assessed by the first-instance court under the relevant special provision on service. Because the appellate court adopted this reasoning, the complaint about the reasoning of the judgment was found manifestly ill-founded. [3, §§ 64–68]
This example shows that where an applicant disagrees with a view, it cannot be said that the view was never assessed. When the applicant claims the answer was inadequate, the reason for that claim should be explained separately.
The difference between lack of reasoning and an objection to the assessment of evidence
The Constitutional Court is not a general appellate body that substitutes itself for the ordinary courts and reweighs the evidence in every file. A disagreement over which witness is more credible or which contract interpretation is preferred does not, on its own, constitute a violation of the right to a reasoned judgment. Situations requiring constitutional review, such as manifest arbitrariness and manifest error of assessment, are considered separately. [7]
| Complaint | What must be shown | Insufficient wording example |
|---|---|---|
| Decisive defense left unanswered | Place of the defense, its basis, its effect on the outcome | "My defense was not taken into account." |
| Technical objection not examined | The data objected to and its function in the judgment | "The expert report is wrong." |
| Appellate reasoning inadequate | A problem left unresolved in the first decision too | "The appellate decision is very short." |
| Contradiction in the reasoning | Acceptance and result that cannot be reconciled | "The decision is illogical." |
| Reasoning not accessible | Attempts to access it and the effect on the remedy | "I saw the decision late." |
How should the application file be built?
First, the judgment, the reasoned decision, the hearing minutes, the decisive petitions and the decisions on remedies are arranged chronologically. Then, for each claim, a short matching is prepared: where the claim was raised, which document supports it, how the court answered, and how the omission affected the result.
A strong application does not come from repeating the entire file. Among many annexes, the pages central to the application should be clearly indicated. Instead of presenting the parts where the court did answer as if they were entirely unanswered, it should be explained, where an answer exists, why it did not resolve the decisive problem.
Ordinary legal remedies
Where appropriate, lack of reasoning should be raised on appeal or cassation. The time limit depends on the type of decision, service and the specific regulation. A single legal remedy and a single time limit should not be assumed for criminal, civil and administrative judgments. [4; 5; 6]
Failing to apply within the deadline for a decision open to appeal may later cause a problem of exhaustion of remedies before the Constitutional Court. The notice of legal remedies in the decision should also be checked against the current relevant provision. [7]
Individual application to the Constitutional Court
After effective ordinary remedies have been exhausted, an individual application is generally made within thirty days of learning of the final decision. Service, learning of the decision through UYAP and the representation relationship should be assessed according to the concrete file. The application should include the substance of the complaint and documents showing that it was raised at the earlier stages. [7]
Lawyers can apply through the UYAP Lawyer Portal. Completing the form, uploading the annexes and completing the submission are separate checkpoints. The application record should be kept; the calculation of the time limit should not be left to an expected later notification. [8]
For further detail, see our articles on the Constitutional Court application deadline, UYAP and UETS and on the right to a fair trial.
What happens if a violation is found?
The Constitutional Court may find a violation and decide on its consequences. Where the violation arises from a court decision and there is a legal interest in a retrial, the file is sent back to the relevant court. The redress under Article 50 of Law No. 6216 cannot be reduced to the same conditions as a retrial under the ordinary procedural laws. The Mehmet Doğan decision is important for this distinction and for effective redress. [7; 9]
A violation of the right to a reasoned judgment does not mean that the applicant will certainly win the case or be automatically acquitted in a criminal case. The court must re-examine the matter in a way that removes the violation and its consequences. Any claim for compensation must be linked to the damage and the need for redress; the same monetary outcome does not arise in every violation. [7; 9]
Making appellate review visible
M. Nedim Bekri's study on the right to a reasoned judgment emphasizes the relationship between an appellate court's ability to refer to the first decision and its actual review of the main appellate grounds. From the perspective of an application, the problem is not limited to whether the affirming text is short. It must be shown whether the core objection left unresolved in the first-instance decision also remained unanswered on appeal. In this way, the complaint about reasoning is separated from mere dissatisfaction with the outcome. [10]
Claim–document–answer table for reviewing reasoning
How is the decisive claim selected?
Listing every detail the court did not discuss, with equal weight, may obscure the real problem. First, the claim that could change the outcome is identified; then it is shown in which petition or hearing it was raised. A claim being in the file is different from the court actually assessing it. Mentioning a petition in the decision does not mean that the substantive objection in it was answered. [2; 3]
| Review question | Where to show it in the file | Function in the application |
|---|---|---|
| What was the claim? | Concrete statement in the petition or minutes | Prevents the complaint from being vague. |
| Why did it matter? | Link to the element or evidence on which the judgment rests | Explains its effect on the outcome. |
| How was it supported? | Report, record, witness or legal norm | Separates it from an abstract objection. |
| What did the court say? | The relevant section of the reasoned decision | Shows the absence or inadequacy of an answer. |
| What happened on appeal? | The appeal petition and the decision | Shows whether the omission was remedied. |
A concrete technical problem in an objection to an expert report
Saying only "we do not agree because it is against us" is not the same as showing a decisive data or calculation error in the report. The objection should be built on an unexamined record, an incorrect assumption, the method used, or an inconsistency within the report. The court may reject the objection; however, it should be understandable why a concrete objection that could affect the outcome was not accepted. The importance of technical defenses in the Sencer Başat decision follows this line. [2]
The objection should also be linked to the action sought from the court: obtaining the document, putting a question to the expert, obtaining a supplementary report, or not relying on the existing report in the judgment. In this way, the lack of reasoning is presented as a problem clearly raised in the earlier proceedings, not as a dissatisfaction produced after the fact.
What might the appellate reasoning have remedied?
It should be examined whether the deficiency in the first-instance judgment was remedied on appeal. If the appellate court genuinely assessed the decisive claim, relying solely on the brevity of the first decision may not be enough. On the other hand, if an objection the first decision did not answer was also dismissed in formulaic language by the higher court, the whole proceedings are examined. The applicant should show at which stage which answer was missing. [2; 3]
The lesson from the Tahir Gökatalay decision is that a short reasoning is not insufficient in every case. What matters is not the length of the text but whether the central issue of the dispute is resolved in an intelligible way. Rather than ignoring the answer the court actually gave, the application should explain why that answer does not address the concrete claim.
When the same reasoning is repeated after a violation finding
A retrial cannot be reduced to repeating the earlier ruling in the same words. The deficiency identified by the Constitutional Court must be remedied. Nevertheless, it cannot be said with certainty that the retrial will produce, on the merits, the result the applicant wanted. It is checked whether the new decision carries out an examination in line with the reasons for the violation finding and whether it discusses the decisive claim. The redress approach in the Mehmet Doğan decision is one of the main foundations of this stage. [9]
Failure to answer and rejection of a claim are not the same
The court's not adopting the applicant's view does not, by itself, show a violation of the right to a reasoned judgment. If the reasons for not accepting the claim are understandable, the applicant's view that those reasons are wrong is a separate debate. By contrast, if no assessment at all was made of an explicit claim that could affect the outcome, a reasoning problem may arise. The petition should distinguish these two situations: "the court did not agree with me" and "the court did not examine this decisive issue at all" are not the same complaint. [1–3]
An answer is sometimes found not in a single sentence of the decision but in its overall assessment. For that reason, it is not enough to look only at whether a particular word appears in the decision. The facts the court accepted, the rule it applied and the result it reached should be read together. However, it cannot be assumed from general statements that an examination which in fact was not carried out did take place. The applicant can strengthen the complaint by explaining why other parts of the decision did not answer the claim.
In a dismissal on procedural grounds, the subject of the reasoning changes
If a case has been dismissed on grounds such as expiry of a time limit or another procedural bar, the court must first explain that bar with adequate reasoning. In such a decision, the fact that every claim on the merits was not separately examined is not, in itself, a lack of reasoning. The applicant may show that decisive objections concerning the start of the time limit, service, the date of filing or the procedural rule applied remained unanswered. The complaint should be directed at the reasoning on which the decision actually rests. [1, 4–6]
For example, if it is claimed that a document affecting the start of the time limit is in the file, the date of the document and the petition by which it was submitted should be stated. If the court relied on a different document, the difference between the two documents should be explained. A lengthy account of the merits must not obscure the reasoning problem in a dismissal on procedural grounds. The same approach applies to appellate decisions: is the issue the merits, a condition of the application, or whether the remedy was open at all?
Personalization in files with several defendants or parties
In joint files, a common description of the events may be used; however, the link between each person's liability or claim must be established. In criminal proceedings, the meaning that evidence against one defendant has for another defendant must be explained. In civil or administrative proceedings, if the parties' different claims and legal positions affect the outcome, they should not be overlooked. Being in the same decision does not automatically justify evaluating all persons with the same evidence and reasoning. [4–6]
The applicant should clearly separate their own position. Which evidence does not concern them? Which defense was raised only by them? Which personal circumstance affects the outcome? These questions can be answered with specific pages and documents. Pointing out the gap in reasoning concerning the person, rather than making a general critique of the entire file, fits better with the nature of an individual application. An abstract assessment on behalf of all defendants or all parties cannot be requested from the Constitutional Court.
Difference between the Sencer Başat and Tahir Gökatalay decisions
In the Sencer Başat and Others decision, the way decisive technical defenses were handled is important. That decision does not mean that every report in the file must necessarily be accepted. The essential point is that serious objections capable of affecting the reliability of the judgment are visibly addressed in the proceedings. The applicant should explain which conclusion of the report in their file they objected to and why the judgment might have changed had the objection been accepted. [2]
The inadmissibility outcome in the Tahir Gökatalay decision, on the other hand, shows that a short reasoning, or reasoning the applicant did not want, is not always a violation. If the aim is to reach a different conclusion on a point the court has answered, the limits of the constitutional complaint must be kept in mind. Read together, the two decisions show that the right to a reasoned judgment means neither a separate paragraph for every claim nor merely a long decision. [2, 3]
Access to the reasoning and preparation of remedies
Knowing the reasons for a decision is important for preparing an effective legal remedy. Learning the operative part and obtaining access to the detailed reasoning may not happen at the same time in every case. The lawyer should track separately the viewing of the decision on UYAP, obtaining a copy, and the service information in the file. These records matter in calculating time limits and in explaining when a claim could be raised. The same time limit should not be applied to all procedures on the assumption of a single date. [4–8]
After a violation finding, a retrial is not complete merely by formally lengthening the earlier reasoning. In line with the redress approach of the Mehmet Doğan decision, the deficiency that caused the violation must actually be removed. In the new decision, the decisive claim may have been examined yet the same result reached; this alone does not mean the violation finding was disregarded. What matters is whether the deficiency in the assessment that gave rise to the violation has been remedied. [9]
For more on these subjects, see our articles on the right to be tried within a reasonable time and the right to a trial before an independent and impartial tribunal. For our firm's work in this field, see the page on Constitutional Court and ECtHR applications.
For more on this subject, see our article on improper service and restoration to the previous state.
Conclusion
The right to a reasoned judgment makes visible not only the result of a decision but also the decisive assessment that leads to it. An effective application establishes a clear link between the concrete claim, the supporting document, the court's answer and the effect of the deficiency on the outcome. This distinction properly delimits a complaint about ordinary legal remedies from a claim of constitutional violation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Must the court answer every claim one by one?
No. Claims that affect the outcome and require a separate answer are the ones that need particular assessment.
Is a short decision always an unreasoned decision?
No. What matters is relevant and adequate reasoning that explains the dispute, rather than length.
Can an appellate court adopt the reasoning of the lower court?
Yes. However, it is examined whether a decisive, unanswered issue was assessed in the proceedings as a whole.
Does the Constitutional Court reassess the evidence?
The Constitutional Court is not a general appellate body; it examines deficiencies that affect constitutional guarantees.
Does a violation finding automatically result in an acquittal?
No. Redress is determined according to the nature of the decision and the consequences of the violation.
What is the most important document in an application?
Rather than a single document, the petition in which the decisive claim was raised should be submitted together with the relevant section of the court's decision.
Sources and legal bases
- [1] Constitution (Anayasa), Art. 36, 141. Text.
[2] Constitutional Court, General Assembly, Sencer Başat and Others, Application No. 2013/7800, June 18, 2014. Decision.
[3] Constitutional Court, Tahir Gökatalay, Application No. 2013/1780, March 20, 2014. Decision.
[4] Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure (CMK), Art. 230, 260 et seq. Text.
[5] Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (HMK), Art. 297, 341 et seq. Text.
[6] Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure (İYUK), Art. 24, 45 et seq. Text.
[7] Law No. 6216, Art. 45–50. Text.
[8] Constitutional Court, UYAP Lawyer Portal application guide. Guide.
[9] Constitutional Court, General Assembly, Mehmet Doğan, Application No. 2014/8875, June 7, 2018. Decision.
[10] M. Nedim Bekri, "Right to a Reasoned Judgment" (Gerekçeli Karar Hakkı), Ankara Bar Association Journal (Ankara Barosu Dergisi), 2014/3. Study.