Access to justice is not limited to the ability of a person seeking their rights to submit an application; it requires that they be able to explain their claim, obtain effective legal assistance, challenge the evidence and benefit from the consequences of the decision rendered. For this reason, respect for the defense is not merely a matter of courtesy but a rule-of-law criterion that guides the exercise of judicial authority. The independence of the judge, the public powers of the prosecutor and the professional independence of the attorney cannot take each other’s place; the proper separation of these duties ensures that the person’s rights are protected. The courthouse premises and working conditions are an important part of this whole; however, access to justice as a whole cannot be explained without examining economic barriers, procedure, language, the length of proceedings, reasoning and the enforcement of the decision. [1] [2] [3]
Respect for the law requires recognizing the person seeking their rights as the subject of the proceedings
“Respect for the law begins with respect for the person seeking their rights and for their defense.” This sentence is not merely a demand for more courteous courthouse language. It expresses an understanding of adjudication that places at its center listening to a legal objection, opening the relevant document to examination, granting the opportunity needed for an explanation and giving reasons for the answer provided. It stands against an understanding that leaves the person behind a file number, and the defense behind a formal step that simply has to be completed.
A person seeking their rights does not expect public authorities to set aside time for them as a favor. When applying to the courts, they are obliged to comply with the prescribed rules; in return, they are entitled to request that their application be assessed in law and that procedural safeguards be applied. The dignity of a judicial authority should be sought not in its being shielded from objection, but in its ability to assess the objection within the law.
The criticism here does not rest on a claim that all judges and prosecutors behave in a particular way. The criterion is not to pass collective judgment on people’s intentions; it is to review, in each specific act, what the person seeking their rights was able to say, what they were able to examine and on what reasoning the outcome was reached. The same criterion also covers the person without an attorney, the victim, the suspect, the plaintiff and the defendant.
The Turkish Declaration of Judicial Ethics (Türk Yargı Etiği Bildirgesi) lists human dignity, equality, impartiality and respectful conduct toward the person addressed among the requirements of judicial office. This approach is therefore not merely an expectation of courtesy directed at the judiciary from outside; it also has a counterpart within the judiciary’s own ethical framework. [4]
Access to justice begins with reaching a court; it gains meaning through the effective protection of the right
Access to a court is an important element of access to justice, but it does not exhaust it. In the narrow sense, access to a court concerns the ability to bring a dispute before the courts. The broader discussion of access, by contrast, addresses together the person’s ability to recognize their right, obtain assistance, participate in the process, attain effective legal protection and have the decision enforced. The handbook on European law relating to access to justice likewise examines legal aid, effective remedies and barriers restricting access as separate dimensions. [3]
This distinction matters: a person whose statement of claim has been accepted being unable to challenge the evidence, a person who cannot pay the application costs being able to step through the court’s door, or a person who has obtained a decision in their favor waiting years for it to be enforced may show different stages of the same problem. The fact that an application has been registered does not prove that all of these safeguards have been provided.
Article 36 of the Constitution governs the right of claim, defense and a fair trial; Article 40 governs the opportunity to apply against a violation of rights and the indication, in acts of the state, of the available legal remedies, the authorities to apply to and the time limits. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, for its part, guarantees a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal in disputes falling within its scope. The broad concept of access to justice should not be equated with the constitutional or Convention safeguard that may apply in a particular application. [1] [2]
Access to justice is not a guarantee of winning the case. The rejection of an unjustified claim, the non-acceptance of evidence on lawful reasoning or the application of a statutory application requirement does not by itself constitute a violation of access. The essential issue is that the rules must not be turned into an elimination mechanism that leads to an outcome without hearing the person, and that restrictions must be proportionate in the specific case. [3] [10]
Judicial authority does not establish a professional hierarchy over the defense
The duties of the judge, the prosecutor and the attorney are not the same. Different duties and powers do not mean that the defense is professionally subordinate to the prosecution or to the court. Article 1 of the Attorneyship Law (Avukatlık Kanunu) defines the attorney as the representative of independent defense, which is one of the constituent elements of the judiciary. The court’s conduct of the proceedings must be distinguished from directing the attorney’s legal opinion or professional independence. [6]
When conducting an investigation, the prosecutor’s office may carry out inquiries through judicial law enforcement and request information from public officials. The defense, by contrast, does not exercise the same public power. In the face of this difference in means, what is required is not to give the attorney all of the prosecutor’s powers, but to protect the defense’s ability to learn of the accusation, access the relevant evidence and challenge it effectively. The weight of public authority is not a reason to diminish the defense; it is a reason to apply procedural safeguards seriously. [2] [7]
Article 160(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) does not task the prosecutor solely with collecting incriminating evidence; it also requires the collection and preservation of evidence in the suspect’s favor and the protection of the suspect’s rights. For this reason, the success of an investigation cannot in every case be equated with reaching an indictment or a conviction. Investigating favorable possibilities is not a concession granted to the defense. [7]
The independence of the court is not protected solely against outside interference; the prosecutorial function must also be separated from the decision-making function. The Guide to the Turkish Declaration of Judicial Ethics issued by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (Hâkimler ve Savcılar Kurulu, HSK) further explains that judges and prosecutors should refrain from exchanging views on the merits of the case before or during the hearing, and that prosecutors should not take part in the deliberations on the decision. The same guide asks that matters not pursued through an attorney not be pushed into the background for that reason alone. These are explanations in an ethics guide; they are not a finding of violation rendered in a particular case file. [5]
Listening to the defense is more than formally allowing it to speak
The right to be heard is not merely being given the floor. Article 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) governs together being informed about the proceedings, the opportunity to make statements and to prove one’s case, the consideration of those statements and the concrete reasoning of the decision. Having one’s words entered in the record is important; however, it does not replace the assessment of the legal claim. [8]
An attorney being constantly interrupted while explaining a contradiction in a particular document is not the same as limiting repetitions unrelated to the dispute. In the first case, there may be a practice that prevents the essential claim from being understood; in the second, the aim may be the orderly conduct of the proceedings. The distinction should be drawn less by how many minutes the speech lasted than by what needs to be explained.
The HSK Guide uses a clear sentence on this point: “Judges and prosecutors give the parties sufficient time to express themselves.” The relevant explanations in the guide address together listening with reasonable patience and showing attorneys the respect befitting their professional position. Granting sufficient time does not mean allowing unlimited speech or letting the proceedings drag on. [5]
The court is not expected to write a separate response to every sentence. On the other hand, it must be possible to understand why a clear objection capable of changing the outcome was rejected. The word “considered” is not the consideration itself. Reasoning should not serve to have the party found right; it should enable the party also to understand why they were not found right. [8]
No effective defense can be prepared against evidence that has not been seen
In the Constitutional Court’s (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM) Rıdvan Batur, Application No. 2018/17680, December 3, 2020 decision, decisive documents were assessed without being made available to the applicant in an action brought against a decision not to appoint him on the basis of a security investigation. The Court found that the failure to provide a practical and effective opportunity to put forward views and objections regarding the documents was contrary to the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings. The Court concluded with a violation and a retrial; the claim for compensation was rejected. [9]
The significance of the decision lies not in ordering the unconditional disclosure of all classified documents, but in the necessity of effective procedural safeguards so that the data on which the judgment is based can be challenged. The decision is not about the unlawfulness of a particular courthouse desk or courtroom layout. However, it makes concrete the difference between a file officially existing and its being usable by the defense. [9]
Respect for the defense means protecting the attorney’s ability to work independently
The attorney’s ability to work on the file, to meet with the client in confidence and to make professional assessments without being under pressure does not concern only the attorney’s personal working comfort. These are the conditions for the represented person to receive effective legal assistance. Belittling the attorney’s function often results in belittling the ability of the person behind them to seek their rights.
The duty to assist in Article 2 of the Attorneyship Law and the file examination arrangements in Article 46 are part of this framework. However, examining the file, obtaining copies, electronic access and performing procedural acts in the file are not the same power. It would not be correct to turn the opportunity to examine a file without a power of attorney into a power to obtain every document or to act on behalf of everyone. The special provisions applicable in criminal investigations are also taken into account separately. [6] [7]
When independent defense is defended as the attorney’s personal privilege, the actual legal justification weakens. The demand is not to get ahead of other people or to use the staff’s authorized working area without limit; it is to be able to carry out the legal work undertaken properly. This understanding regards it as mandatory that a person without an attorney be heard with the same seriousness.
A defense being harsh and persistent is not by itself disrespect. A determined objection relating to the file must be distinguished from a personal insult. Likewise, professional independence does not give the attorney freedom to make statements contrary to the truth or to violate the rights of others. Mutual respect should not silence legal debate; it should prevent the debate from turning into a personal conflict.
Economic hardship should not stand in the way of the will to seek one’s rights
The existence of an avenue of application in the law does not make it actually usable for everyone. Court fees and the costs of experts, notification, travel, translation and representation should be assessed together in light of the person’s circumstances. Even an amount regarded as low may be significant for a person with a low income. For this reason, the effect of the financial burden cannot be explained solely by reference to tariffs or average income. [3] [10]
Legal aid requested from the court, the bar association’s legal aid service for the appointment of an attorney and the appointment of defense counsel in criminal proceedings are different mechanisms. Benefiting from one does not automatically produce all the consequences of another. The scope and conditions of the application and the subsequent collection of costs should be assessed separately; legal aid does not mean that all costs are waived in every case and permanently. [6] [7] [10]
In the Constitutional Court’s Çaçan Sirek and Trko Sirek, Application No. 2021/58761, March 26, 2025 decision, the manner in which the financial situation had been assessed was examined. With respect to Çaçan Sirek, the application was struck out because of death; with respect to Trko Sirek, the Court found a violation of the right of access to a court. The majority found the rejection of the legal aid request without a sufficient assessment of the person’s economic circumstances to be disproportionate. The fact that the applicant later paid the costs and won the main action did not make this examination unnecessary. [10]
The dissenting opinion argued that the burden of documenting the financial situation lies with the applicant and that the court cannot be burdened with an investigative duty not provided for by law. The practical implication of this debate is the following: Financial hardship should be explained clearly and with documents; the court, in turn, should assess the documents in the context of the person’s real living conditions. A single decision cannot be read as meaning that every undocumented request will be granted. [10]
Procedural rules cannot be stripped of their role as an order that protects rights and used to create obstacles
Rules on time limits, subject-matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction and the form of application are important for foreseeability, the protection of the opposing party and legal certainty. Their existence does not conflict with access to justice. The problem arises when a rule, detached from its purpose, turns into disproportionate formalism that results in the person’s main claim never being examined. For this reason, the European approach to access to justice assesses a procedural limitation together with its purpose and the burden it creates. [3]
It cannot be concluded from this that “every deficiency can be remedied later” or that “time limits do not matter.” If there is a provision allowing a deficiency to be remedied, it should be applied; with respect to time limits whose expiry cannot be made good, the applicant should be clearly informed. The obligation under Article 40 of the Constitution to indicate the legal remedy, the authority and the time limit is important in this respect. [1]
In particular, notifying decisions that result in a loss of rights to their addressee in an understandable manner cannot be regarded merely as a final bureaucratic step. If a person cannot understand which decision they can challenge, by which route and within what period, the relationship between formal notification and an effective opportunity to apply should be examined separately.
Courthouse premises are a matter of access to justice to the extent that they affect the exercise of rights
The connection between premises and rights is direct but conditional: If a power that can lawfully be exercised cannot be exercised effectively because of the physical layout, an architectural matter becomes a legal matter. Being unable to work comparatively on a file one is entitled to examine, being unable to hear the hearing, or being unable to hold the necessary meeting with the client are examples that explain this connection. These are not presented as the results of field research conducted at a particular courthouse.
For this reason, a request for a file examination desk is not merely about furniture; acoustic arrangements are not merely about comfort; an accessible service counter is not merely an architectural detail. On the other hand, it cannot be said that every missing desk automatically gives rise to a constitutional violation. The nature and duration of the deficiency, the alternative offered and its effect on the exercise of the relevant right should be made concrete. The fact that a violation is not automatic does not mean that the deficiency is unimportant.
Oğuz Ongun’s thesis abstract presents user-centered design as part of access
The institutional abstract of Oğuz Ongun’s 2019 thesis at Istanbul Bilgi University (İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi), titled Courthouse Architecture as an Access to Justice Issue: The Case of the Çağlayan Courthouse (Bir Adalete Erişim Meselesi Olarak Adliye Mimarisi: Çağlayan Adliyesi Örneği), contains the following assessment: “The failure to design the layouts and physical conditions of courthouses so as to increase the access of the individuals who will use the building is an access to justice problem.” [11]
The main idea of the abstract is that the ease with which judicial procedures are carried out should be considered together with the usability of the space in which these procedures take place. Since defense and investigation activities take place in a physical environment, design affects users’ participation in these activities. The abstract also states that it examines sample buildings and the Çağlayan Courthouse on the basis of criteria developed from the literature. This account is limited to the institutional record and the thesis abstract; no specific deficiency or field finding is asserted on the basis of inaccessible parts of the thesis. [11]
Mulcahy and Bybee make it possible to read space through participation and institutional communication
The publisher’s abstract of Linda Mulcahy’s 2007 article Architects of Justice: the Politics of Courtroom Design, as rendered in Turkish, focuses on “the relationship between the design of courtrooms and the notion of participatory justice.” It questions the view that treats judicial space as neutral ground; it focuses in particular on the position of the spectator. This approach helps to consider that the layout may affect who is able to listen and under what conditions they can participate in the process; it is not a finding concerning all courtrooms in Türkiye. [12]
The abstract of Keith J. Bybee’s 2012 review Judging in Place: Architecture, Design, and the Operation of Courts uses the expression “a socially contingent form of communication”; its Turkish equivalent is given as “a form of communication dependent on social conditions.” Bybee discusses judicial architecture in terms of how the institution expresses authority and its relationship with the user. The basis used here is the publisher’s abstract of the review. [13]
Reading these three approaches together, the conclusion we propose is the following: A courthouse should be designed as an institution that not only receives the person seeking their rights but also keeps them in a position to exercise their rights. To this end, what the person inside can actually do matters as much as what the building symbolizes.
In Türkiye, registry and hearing arrangements should be set up with regard to the function of the defense
Receiving a file at the counter and working on a file are not the same activity. Examination may require comparing dates, reading a report together with its annex and identifying a contradictory statement. A counter arrangement that protects the staff’s area may in practice make the work harder if it is not supplemented by a suitable examination space. The solution is not to remove the counter in every case, but to make a controlled area where examination can take place functional.
Article 50 of the Attorneyship Law provides that space sufficient for the need be allocated to the bar association in the courthouse and to attorneys in courtrooms and enforcement offices. This provision does not prescribe a special desk of specific dimensions in every registry. Nevertheless, it shows that the defense’s working needs must be taken into account in institutional planning. What matters is not the name of the allocated space but that it can be used for its purpose. [6]
In the courtroom, the assessment is broader: Can the party hear what is said? Can the attorney open their file and take notes? Can they communicate with the client when needed? Can the question put to the witness and the answer given be understood? If a remote connection is used, are the audio, the video and the opportunity to ask for the floor uninterrupted? Being present in the courtroom or on the screen is not effective participation itself.
The height of the bench or a particular seating arrangement is not by itself regarded as proof of a violation in every case. However, it should be investigated whether the design and its actual use create exclusion or communication difficulties between prosecution and defense. The security of staff and the confidentiality of other files are legitimate; one should not act as if there were a forced choice between these and the defense’s ability to work.
The Council of Europe CEPEJ’s 2014 guidelines address areas where attorneys can confer confidentially with their clients and a courthouse layout that supports the actual exercise of the right of defense. The guidelines are not a domestic legal norm making a particular counter dimension mandatory in Türkiye, but a guiding source in terms of design and service organization. [14]
Applying the same procedural form to everyone does not always ensure equal access
Language, disability, age, health status and digital literacy may change a person’s ability to understand the process and to express themselves. Equality does not mean ignoring these differences. An accommodation suited to the need should be regarded not as a privilege that makes one party win the case, but as a tool that enables them genuinely to exercise their procedural right.
Article 202 of the CMK governs interpretation for a defendant or victim who does not know Turkish sufficiently, and the explanation of essential matters to persons with disabilities in a manner they can understand. The separate option of a defendant presenting their defense in another language in which they can express themselves better is not the same thing; the conditions and the cost regime may differ. [7]
Digital services should be assessed by the same criterion. Even where electronic channels are useful, a working solution must exist for illegible documents, missing annexes, access authorization problems or technical outages. CEPEJ’s work on user-centered justice, while addressing clear communication and digital tools, places importance on not excluding people who cannot access them. [15]
Technical capability becomes a legal capability only when the person can use it. Directing the user to a screen they do not understand, or stating that a document they cannot access is in the system, does not by itself show that the service has been completed.
Reasonable time is a criterion for preventing unnecessary delay, not for shortening the defense
The prolongation of proceedings is not merely a calendar issue. It may lead to consequences such as the loss of evidence, the erosion of economic value or the person’s life plans being left in uncertainty. The solution, however, cannot be to reduce the defense to a formal stage. Reducing delay and eliminating the necessary explanations and debate on the evidence are different things.
Article 141 of the Constitution makes it the duty of the judiciary to conclude cases at the lowest possible cost and as quickly as possible. Article 6 of the Convention likewise guarantees reasonable time within the framework of a fair trial. These obligations cannot be fulfilled by giving up the quality of the examination. [1] [2]
Workload and staff shortages are serious management problems; the solution must be sought through planning, capacity and a proper allocation of duties. Making an institutional deficiency invisible by constantly narrowing the person’s procedural rights is not a sustainable quality policy. The avenues that may be pursued to remedy delay should also be determined separately according to the type of file and the current regime to be applied.
Rendering a judgment is not enough; it must be enforced together with its reasoning
The value of a judicial system cannot be measured solely by the number of decisions it renders. If it is not understood why a decision was rendered, reviewing it becomes difficult; if it is not enforced, benefiting from its consequences becomes difficult. A right won on paper but left ineffective in practice is not completed legal protection.
In the Constitutional Court’s Mehmet Şakir Onur, Application No. 2019/4825, October 23, 2024 decision, the failure to properly implement annulment decisions rendered against acts relating to the school principalship was examined. The majority found a violation of the right to the enforcement of court decisions and ordered a retrial. The difference between implementing a decision in form and implementing it in line with its reasoning and purpose is decisive. The claim for compensation was rejected; the reasonable time complaint, on the other hand, was found inadmissible because remedies had not been exhausted. [16]
The dissenting opinion argued that, once the re-evaluation procedures and the final judicial process are taken into account, it cannot be said that a judgment remained unenforced. Accordingly, the decision does not mean that every new administrative act is contrary to the earlier judgment. The question to ask in practice is whether the new act actually remedies the unlawfulness that the earlier decision required to be remedied. [16]
The same idea also applies to legal remedies. Higher review is not merely the transfer of the file to another authority; it is the assessment of the essential unlawfulness raised, within the scope of the relevant legal remedy. Not every decision is open to unlimited recourse or necessarily to the same level of review; the real function of the existing remedy must be preserved.
Quality in the justice service should strengthen the exercise of rights without weakening independence
The quality debate is not about asking the judge to render decisions that will please the parties. Dissatisfaction with the outcome of a case cannot be confused with the lawfulness of the service. Independence is not an obstacle to measuring quality; it is its indispensable limit. CEPEJ’s 2021 study likewise emphasizes that communication and evaluation tools must not undermine judicial independence. [15]
The evaluation framework we propose for Türkiye is set out below. This table is neither a binding national standard in force nor a measurement carried out in all courthouses; it is a proposal for a rights-focused institutional review.
| Area to be examined | Concrete question to ask | Value to be protected |
|---|---|---|
| Information and financial access | Can the person understand the route, the time limit, the cost and the appropriate channel of assistance? | Actual usability of the application |
| Defense and evidence | Can the relevant document be examined and the essential objection explained? | Effective participation and equality of arms |
| Registry and courtroom arrangements | Are examination, listening, note-taking and the necessary meeting possible? | A workable and accessible courthouse |
| Judicial communication | Is the applicant heard without being belittled, and is the reason for rejection explained? | Human dignity and reasoned assessment |
| Time and enforcement | Is unnecessary waiting prevented, and is what the decision requires carried out? | Timely protection that produces results |
These headings should be assessed with the participation not only of attorneys but also of courthouse staff and applicants with different needs. The existence of a room does not in itself show that the file has been brought there; a complaint record does not show that the problem has been resolved; a digital screen does not show that the procedure can be carried out. Quality is understood by how the arrangement put in place actually works.
An obstacle affecting a right should be established through a concrete request and a verifiable record
When an access problem arises, the first step is to identify clearly which right could not be exercised because of which act. The file, the document, the status, the upcoming hearing or time limit, the application made and the response given should be recorded together. The request should be directed toward having the necessary step taken rather than toward a personal dispute.
For example, a statement such as “I request that the annexes to the report be made available to me and that a suitable opportunity for examination be provided so that I can examine them and prepare an explanation; if this is not considered possible, I request that the reasons be communicated to me” makes the problem concrete through its legal function. This example is not by itself a finished petition that can be used in every file.
Review of a judicial decision, an administrative service complaint, professional support from the bar association and a disciplinary application do not take each other’s place. Which authority to apply to should be determined according to whether the obstacle arises from a court decision, an act of the prosecutor’s office or the organization of services. Applying to the HSK or another complaint channel cannot be used as a basis for assuming that a legal remedy has been used or that its time limit has been preserved. [1] [2]
Creating a record also does not grant a power to make unlimited audio and video recordings. The confidentiality of other files and personal data must be protected; the incident should, as far as possible, be established through lawful applications, official reports and document records. A request for institutional improvement and a particular person’s criminal, disciplinary or compensation liability are subject to different conditions.
Related articles: Right of access to a court: bringing proceedings, remedies and barriers to filing; An attorney’s freedom of defense and statements in petitions; Right to a reasoned judgment; Right to trial within a reasonable time and compensation.
Conclusion
Respect for the defense does not mean the judiciary giving up its authority, but exercising its authority within the law. The judge contributes to the protection of rights not by regarding the power to decide as superior to objection, but by assessing the objection independently and with reasons; the prosecutor, by directing public power not merely toward producing accusations but toward investigating the truth; and the attorney, by exercising their independence with professional care.
For access to justice, the building, the counter and the courtroom matter; but the issue is not limited to them. When information, legal assistance, evidence, being heard, a timely decision and the enforcement of the decision are not attained, an open courthouse door alone is not enough. The physical layout and the culture of adjudication should serve the same purpose of protecting rights.
A procedure that diminishes the person seeking their rights, an arrangement that renders the defense ineffective and a practice that nullifies the outcome of the decision cannot be legitimized by the rhetoric of respect for the law. Respect for the law begins with respect for the person seeking their rights and for their defense.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are access to justice and access to a court the same thing?
Not exactly. Access to a court focuses on the possibility of applying to the courts; the broader discussion of access to justice also covers legal information, assistance, effective participation, remedies and the enforcement of the decision. In a specific allegation of a violation, which safeguard is relied on is determined separately. [1] [2] [3]
Does respect for the defense mean that every request of the attorney is granted?
No. A request may be rejected on lawful grounds. What matters is that the relevant claim is understood and assessed, and that the reason for rejection is explained with respect to matters affecting the outcome. [8]
Does the prosecutor’s public power create hierarchical authority over the attorney?
The prosecutor’s investigative powers and the attorney’s duty of independent defense are different. The ability to collect evidence does not turn the defense into a subordinate professional element; the prosecutor should also take into account evidence in the suspect’s favor and the suspect’s rights. [6] [7]
Do the HSK’s ethics texts automatically set aside a specific court decision?
No. Ethical principles are important in assessing judicial conduct; however, they do not replace an appeal (istinaf), an appeal on points of law (temyiz) or other statutory avenues of review. The legal effect of the specific act is examined within the appropriate procedure. [4] [5]
Is the absence of an examination desk in the registry an automatic violation of rights?
It is not an automatic outcome. The volume of the file, the need for examination, the duration of the obstacle and the alternatives matter. However, where the deficiency prevents the actual exercise of a right, that takes it outside a simple debate about comfort. [6] [14]
Can an applicant without an attorney be subjected to a lower standard of service?
No. Representation status does not remove the person’s need to be heard and treated with respect. The HSK Guide also explains that matters pursued without an attorney should not be set aside for that reason. [5]
Does legal aid provide a definitive exemption from all costs?
No. Legal aid granted by the court, the bar association’s legal assistance service and appointments in criminal proceedings are examined separately. The scope, the conditions and the subsequent collection of costs may vary according to the type of application. [6] [7] [10]
Does the non-enforcement of a decision in a case that was won also concern access to justice?
Yes. Effective enforcement of the decision ensures that legal protection produces results. When enforcement is assessed, one looks not merely at whether a new act has been carried out, but at whether the reasoning of the judgment and what it requires have been complied with. [16]
Does the existence of a digital system end the need for physical or alternative services?
No. Whether the system can actually be used, the legibility of documents and the resolution of access problems matter. Digital tools should facilitate the exercise of rights and should not exclude those who cannot use them. [15]
Does a complaint stop the time limit for bringing an action or pursuing a legal remedy?
A general suspensive effect cannot be assumed. The type of application and the applicable statutory provision should be examined separately; the fact that a complaint has been made should not be regarded as replacing the required procedural step.
Sources and legal bases
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası). Articles 36, 40, 138 and 141; right to seek legal remedies, information on remedies, independence, reasoning and speed. Link
- European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6; context of an effective remedy with Article 13. Turkish text of the European Court of Human Rights. Link
- FRA / Council of Europe, Handbook on European law relating to access to justice (2016). Legal aid, financial/procedural barriers, effective remedies and the scope of access to justice. It is a guide. Link
- HSK, Turkish Declaration of Judicial Ethics (2019). Human dignity, equality, independence and, in particular, 7.2–7.3 on respect, courtesy and quality of service. Link
- HSK, Guide to the Turkish Declaration of Judicial Ethics (Türk Yargı Etiği Bildirgesi Rehberi) (2025). Printed p. 28, application examples 19–20; pp. 56–57, examples 18–20. Listening, respect for attorneys, applicants without an attorney and the separation of the functions of judges and prosecutors. Link
- Attorneyship Law No. 1136 (Avukatlık Kanunu). Articles 1–2, 46, 50 and 176 et seq. Text of the legislation published by the Bursa Bar Association (Bursa Barosu). Link
- Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu). Articles 149–154, 160–161, 201–202; text of the Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı). Provisions on defense, investigation and interpretation. Link
- Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), Article 27. Right to be heard. Provision as in the text adopted by the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM); it is not a current consolidated version of the entire law. Link
- AYM, Rıdvan Batur, Application No. 2018/17680, December 3, 2020. In particular §§33–42, 49–50 and the operative part. Equality of arms and adversarial proceedings; violation and retrial, rejection of the claim for compensation. Link
- AYM, Çaçan Sirek and Trko Sirek, Application No. 2021/58761, March 26, 2025. In particular §§19, 26–38, the operative part and the dissenting opinion. Striking out with respect to Çaçan; violation of the right of access to a court with respect to Trko. The operative part awards 10,000 Turkish lira (TL) in non-pecuniary damages. Link
- Oğuz Ongun, Courthouse Architecture as an Access to Justice Issue: The Case of the Çağlayan Courthouse (Bir Adalete Erişim Meselesi Olarak Adliye Mimarisi: Çağlayan Adliyesi Örneği) (2019). Istanbul Bilgi University; institutional record and Turkish thesis abstract. The quotation is from the thesis abstract. Link
- Linda Mulcahy, Architects of Justice: the Politics of Courtroom Design (2007). Social & Legal Studies, 16(3), 383–403. DOI: 10.1177/0964663907079765. Publisher’s abstract. Link
- Keith J. Bybee, Judging in Place: Architecture, Design, and the Operation of Courts (2012). Law & Social Inquiry, 37(4), 1014–1028. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2012.01327.x. Publisher’s abstract; English quotation and Turkish equivalent. Link
- CEPEJ(2014)15, Guidelines on the organisation and accessibility of court premises. December 12, 2014; in particular §§5–6 and 99. Premises suited to the exercise of the right of defense and a confidential attorney–client meeting area. Link
- CEPEJ(2021)6, For a better integration of the user in the judicial systems. June 17, 2021; user-oriented communication, plain language, digital access and quality evaluation that protects independence. Link
- AYM, Mehmet Şakir Onur, Application No. 2019/4825, October 23, 2024. In particular §§48–58, 60–64, the operative part and the dissenting opinion. Violation of the right to the enforcement of court decisions; retrial; different procedural outcome of the reasonable time complaint. Link