An individual application to the Constitutional Court in a criminal case is not simply a restatement that the defence was not heard or that the conviction was wrong. The applicant must show which judicial act or omission violated which fundamental right and how, where the complaint was raised during the proceedings, and which documents establish the violation. The main subjects of this review are the narrowing of the opportunity to prepare the defence, the impossibility of questioning a decisive witness, the lack of an effective opportunity to challenge evidence, and the leaving of an argument capable of affecting the outcome unanswered in the reasoning.
Procedure is as decisive as the substance of the application. The available and effective remedies must be exhausted in accordance with the rules, and as a rule the 30-day individual application time limit must be observed. In an application made after the time limit, or in one that does not connect the ordinary appeal objections to a constitutional problem, the seriousness of the alleged injustice alone does not secure examination on the merits. This guide addresses how this connection is established for the accused and the defence counsel in criminal proceedings. [1] [2] [3]
Scope of the individual application: from cassation review to constitutional review
Under Article 148 of the Constitution and Article 45 of Law No. 6216, an individual application may be used for alleged violations by public authority of rights within the common protection area of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights and the additional protocols to which Türkiye is a party. The basic guarantees of a fair trial in criminal proceedings are Article 36 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the Convention. For the reasoned judgment, Article 141 of the Constitution is of particular importance; for findings obtained unlawfully, Article 38 is also significant. [1] [2] [4]
The Constitutional Court, as a rule, does not determine again which witness is telling the truth, nor does it re-evaluate the elements of the offence or all the evidence as a cassation court would. However, where the use of evidence has rendered the defence ineffective, where a decisive objection has been left unanswered, or where the assessment reaches the level of manifest arbitrariness or a clear error of judgment, constitutional review may arise. The petition must be able to move from objection to the conviction result to this procedural question. [1] [2] [8]
| Route of application | Focus of review | Importance for the individual application |
|---|---|---|
| Appeal (istinaf) and cassation (temyiz) | Substantive and legal review of the judgment according to the scope of the relevant remedy | Available and effective remedies are exhausted by raising the substance of the rights complaint. |
| Individual application to the Constitutional Court | Whether public authority has violated fundamental rights | A concrete constitutional deficiency is explained instead of a new assessment of guilt. |
| Retrial under the CMK | Grounds for reopening listed in the law after a final judgment | A request for reopening does not, as a rule, suspend the Constitutional Court time limit for the earlier final decision. |
Pursuing these routes in parallel does not mean submitting the same petition to three bodies. For example, in an appeal it may be argued that an expert report is wrong. In an individual application, however, the obstruction of access to the report, the failure to give sufficient time to present a counter-opinion, or the failure to examine a decisive objection to the reliability of the report must be concretised. [2] [5]
Admissibility: who may apply, and for which violation?
The applicant must be currently and personally directly affected by the violation alleged. That other defendants' rights have been violated is not sufficient without showing an effect on the applicant's own proceedings. Public legal persons cannot make individual applications; private legal persons may apply only in respect of rights belonging to legal persons. Foreign nationals may benefit from the common protection area only in respect of rights other than those granted to Turkish citizens. [2]
A different distinction is necessary for the complainant in a criminal case. A person's request that a third party be punished does not, on its own, create an individual application right within the scope of the right to a fair trial. Separate guarantees, such as the duty to conduct an effective investigation under the right to life or the prohibition of ill-treatment, are assessed on their own conditions. This guide on the defence rights of the accused does not replace these separate types of application. [1] [5]
As to the Constitutional Court's temporal competence, the 23 September 2012 limit applies; competence as to subject matter, person and place, exhaustion of application routes, time limits and whether the claim has been sufficiently substantiated are examined together. In addition, the criteria of constitutional importance and significant disadvantage in Article 48 of Law No. 6216, and the assessment of manifest lack of foundation, come into play. For this reason, citing a single constitutional article is not sufficient for admissibility. [2] [5]
The application must be presented honestly, with the facts and documents selected fairly. Withholding the reasoning adverse to the applicant, failing to report that the challenged act was later changed, or providing incorrect information may affect the assessment; where the conditions are met, the question of abuse of the right to apply may arise. Important developments in the file after the application, and changes of contact details, must also be reported. [2] [3]
Manifest lack of foundation: the basis of the violation must be shown as well as its name
In the official admissibility statements of the Constitutional Court, failure to substantiate the alleged violation is treated as a separate risk of rejection. It is not sufficient in the application merely to say "my right to defence was violated" or to attach the entire file. It must be explained which request was refused, at which hearing and on what reasoning; how the defence was affected by this; and which document confirms the claim. The complaint about an appeal remedy must be separated from an unproven rights complaint; the application form must not become a pile of documents in which the rights violation is left for the Court to search for in the annexes. [18]
Exhaustion of application routes: the substance of the violation must first be raised in the criminal proceedings
Under the principle of subsidiarity, the ordinary judicial authorities must be given the opportunity to prevent or remedy the violation. This does not mean merely filing an appeal or cassation petition. It requires that the available and effective remedy be exercised in good time and in accordance with the rules, that the substance of the relevant complaint be submitted to that authority, and, as a rule, that its outcome be awaited. A remedy whose ineffectiveness can be concretely demonstrated may not be required to be exhausted; the mere view that a negative result will follow does not constitute this exception. [2] [5]
A defence counsel who asks for a witness to be heard must explain which fact the witness will clarify; upon refusal of the request must put the reasoned objection into the record or the petition; and must pursue this objection on the appropriate remedy. Saying for the first time before the Constitutional Court that "the witness was not heard" creates a problem with the exhaustion requirement where this opportunity was not used in the earlier stages of the proceedings. Conversely, where the violation arose only with the final judgment, it must be explained that it could not have been raised earlier.
The application routes and time limits of independent rights complaints arising during proceedings, such as detention, must also be dealt with separately. It cannot be said that for these claims one must always wait for the conviction to become final. The presence in the same file of a complaint about the fairness of the conviction and a complaint about detention does not merge their procedural conditions. [2] [5]
The fact that the article number of the Constitution was written at every stage is not by itself decisive; what matters is that the substance of the complaint is presented in an understandable way. The general statement "we object to the report" and the explanation "date and attribution checks cannot be carried out because the digital files on which the report is based were not provided" are not the same. The second formulation both enables the court to assess the matter and shows the limits of the later constitutional complaint. [5] [8]
Distinguishing the Compensation Commission for a complaint about a reasonable time
A complaint about length of proceedings, witness examination or reasoned judgment should not be treated as subject to the same application route. Under the current Articles 2 and 5/A of Law No. 6384, there is a route to apply to the Compensation Commission for non-pecuniary compensation for a criminal investigation and prosecution not concluded within a reasonable time. The application is made within one month at the latest, either while the process continues or from learning that it has ended with a final decision. The objection route against the Commission's decision under the law, and the transitional provisions applicable to the concrete file, are assessed separately. This one-month period is not identical to the Constitutional Court's 30-day period. [6]
In Veysi Ado [Plenary], B. No: 2022/100837, 27/4/2023, the Constitutional Court found the reasonable-time complaint inadmissible because the subsequently introduced Commission route had not been exhausted. The subject of the decision was an employment dispute, and the transitional arrangement of that period was applied to applications then pending before the Constitutional Court on 9 March 2023. The lesson for a criminal file is not to repeat this historical arrangement verbatim, but to determine separately, for each rights complaint, the current remedy for redress. [7]
The 30-day application time limit and proof of the date of knowledge
Under Article 47(5) of Law No. 6216, the application is made within 30 days from the date on which the application routes were exhausted or, where no application route is provided, from the date on which the violation was learned. In calculating the period, it is not sufficient to look only at the finality note in the file. The date on which the content of the final decision was learned by the applicant or their counsel must be assessed together with the notification documents and UYAP records. [2] [3] [9]
Knowledge obtained through UYAP may start the time limit before a later notification
In Ümran Özkan [Plenary], B. No: 2019/13338, 8/3/2023, the applicant was held to have learned of the final decision through UYAP on 27 March 2019. The application dated 30 April 2019 was found inadmissible for being out of time, even though notification was later made to counsel. The decision concerned an administrative dispute; the principle used here is that the individual application period starts from knowledge. [9]
This approach does not mean that the period starts automatically in every file merely because the decision has been uploaded to the system. The concrete fact of knowledge and its record matter. However, waiting on the belief that no official notification has arrived is also not safe. For the applicant and the defence counsel, the dates of access, reading, notification and file inspection should be established together; where there is doubt about the starting point, application preparation should proceed on the basis of the earlier date out of caution. Given the duty of care, the conditions under which the decision could have been learned must also not be disregarded. [9]
The record of actual opening or reading of electronic notification must be examined separately. In official precedent statements of the Constitutional Court on time-limit violations, it is stated that the date on which the electronic notification was opened may start the time limit. For this reason, an automatic calculation based solely on the day on which the notification is legally deemed made is not safe. The UETS record, the UYAP document-processing register and the knowledge information of the applicant and counsel must be assessed together. [19]
| Situation | Approach to the time limit | Record to be kept |
|---|---|---|
| Decision ending the ordinary remedies | 30 days assessed according to the facts of knowledge and notification | Final decision, notification certificate or UETS record, UYAP access information |
| Violation for which there is no application route | 30 days from learning of the violation | Document showing the act and the date of knowledge |
| Justified excuse | Application within 15 days from the cessation of the excuse, with excuse documents | Records showing the obstacle and the date on which it ended |
| Extraordinary request for legal remedy | As a rule, does not suspend or renew the Constitutional Court time limit for the earlier final decision | Dates of the request and decision; separate Constitutional Court time calculation |
| Judicial recess | Does not automatically extend the Constitutional Court individual application time limit | Calendar prepared without assuming an extension |
The request for the operation of the objection route to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office of the Court of Cassation, the request for reversal in the interest of the law or the application for retrial are, as a rule, not ordinary routes that must be awaited. Resorting to them does not restart the time limit for the earlier final decision. If a genuinely new judicial process and a new violation later arise, they are assessed separately; this possibility does not automatically cure the loss of the earlier time. [5]
An excuse must be linked to, and documented by, the circumstance that actually prevented the application. Where a serious illness is invoked, not only the diagnosis but also why the application could not be made and when the obstacle ceased must be explained. The fifteen-day excuse period is not an additional period granted to all applicants. In calculating the last day, holidays and the conditions for completing an electronic application must be checked separately; it should not be forgotten that saving a draft is not the same as making the application. [2] [3] [10]
In what circumstances does a restriction of the right to defence raise a constitutional problem?
The mere formal existence of a defence does not by itself show that effective opportunities for defence were provided. Knowledge of the accusation, access to the decisive documents in the file, the use of sufficient time and facilities to prepare the defence, the assistance of a defence counsel, and the safeguards to respond to the charge are examined across the proceedings as a whole. The nature of the restriction, its reasons and the disadvantage it caused are important. [1] [4]
For example, where it is alleged that no time was given to respond to the prosecutor's opinion on the merits, it must be shown when the opinion was submitted, the volume of the file, whether the opinion contained a new charge or assessment, how much time the defence counsel requested and the reason given for refusal. Rather than abstractly stating that "no time was given to the defence", the concrete defence step alleged to have been impossible to prepare must be explained. It must also be considered whether effective redress was provided at a later stage.
The court may argue that the request was intended to prolong the proceedings or that the document requested is unrelated to the dispute. An effective application does not ignore this counter-reasoning: it explains to which element of the offence the document relates, why it could not previously be examined, and why the time requested was necessary. Not every procedural deficiency that has no effect on the outcome automatically constitutes a constitutional violation; but nor can every restriction be presumed ineffective.
For a complaint about the right of defence, hearing minutes, requests for access, interlocutory decisions, records of the appointment or attendance of defence counsel, and the appeal petitions must be assessed together. It may become difficult to prove later that a request not recorded in the minutes was made. For this reason, it is important that the request and the reason for refusal are recorded in the proceedings while they are ongoing. [3] [5]
The right to examine a witness: reading a statement and examining the witness are different
The ability of the accused to put questions to the person who has made a statement against them, to point out inconsistencies in the account and to contest its reliability is one of the fundamental guarantees of a fair trial. Reading out the witness's earlier statement at the hearing does not in every case provide this opportunity. However, it is also not compulsory in every file for the witness to be physically present in the same courtroom; where adequate safeguards are provided, video and audio link may be important. [4] [11] [12]
The Constitutional Court evaluates three interrelated questions in respect of an unexamined statement of a witness against the accused: Is there a valid reason why the witness was not made available at the hearing? Is the statement the sole or decisive evidence of the conviction? Were counterbalancing safeguards provided that compensate for the difficulty faced by the defence? This assessment is not mechanical; the fairness of the proceedings as a whole is the essential criterion. The existence of a valid reason is not sufficient on its own, and its absence does not in every case by itself lead to a violation. [11] [12]
Selçuk Arslan: a general opportunity to defend is not by itself a sufficient guarantee
In Selçuk Arslan [Plenary], B. No: 2020/19752, 6/2/2025, the witnesses on whose statements the conviction rested were heard through letters rogatory (istinabe), and the applicant could not question them. The Constitutional Court assessed that the fact that the witnesses were outside the court's jurisdiction did not concretely justify depriving the applicant of the opportunity to question them. A violation was found because the statements were the sole evidence and no adequate compensating safeguards existed. [12]
The decision emphasises that giving the accused the opportunity to present their own account does not by itself create a sufficient counterbalance. The applicable method for the applicant is not merely to state that the witness was not heard, but to show the questions that should have been asked, the inconsistencies in the account, the weight of the statement in the judgment and why effective questioning could not be carried out by a method such as SEGBİS. If a claim of waiver is made, it must also be examined whether it was explicit and safeguarded. [12]
Orhan Güleryüz: a valid excuse does not remove the need to test a decisive statement
The decision in Orhan Güleryüz [1st Section], B. No: 2019/30221, 28/12/2021 concerned a sanction regulated under domestic law as an administrative fine. It must therefore not be presented as a classic example of a criminal conviction. The Constitutional Court applied the witness-examination guarantees within the constitutional meaning of the charge. Although the witness's being abroad was accepted as a valid reason, a violation was found because sufficient safeguards to test the reliability of the decisive account were not provided. [11]
A request for a witness in favour of the defence requires separate explanation. The defence must state which concrete fact the witness will explain and why it is important. The court may reject irrelevant or repetitive witness requests with reasons. In the application to the Constitutional Court, instead of listing all rejected witnesses with equal weight, the importance of the witness who could affect the outcome and the insufficiency of the reasons for refusal must be shown. [8]
Objections to evidence: unlawfulness, reliability and the opportunity to debate
A claim that evidence was obtained unlawfully is different from a claim that its content is unreliable. Article 38(6) of the Constitution and Articles 206 and 217 of the CMK contain guarantees concerning unlawfully obtained evidence. The authenticity, attribution or technical accuracy of evidence may be separately disputed. Where these objections are confused in the application, it becomes unclear which guarantee was violated and why. [1] [13] A Constitutional Court decision in which meetings and expressions of opinion were treated as evidence in a membership-of-an-organisation case is examined in the article how expression and meeting activities are assessed in the offence of membership of an organisation.
For the Constitutional Court, what matters is whether the opportunity to object to the evidence and present a counter-view genuinely existed. The unlawfulness of a search or of the interception of communications may also raise a separate complaint concerning private life or freedom of communication. Within the right to a fair trial, however, the weight of the evidence in the judgment, the testing of its reliability and its effect on the proceedings as a whole must be explained. It is not right to treat every allegation of unlawfulness as requiring the conviction to be declared constitutionally invalid without separate examination.
In Sencer Başat and Others [Plenary], B. No: 2013/7800, 18/6/2014, defence claims concerning the reliability of digital evidence, technical reports and witnesses whose hearing was requested were examined. The fact that technical objections of consequence raised in reports submitted by the defence had not been sufficiently discussed was important for the guarantees of a reasoned judgment and equality of arms. The decision does not require that every private expert opinion be accepted by the court; it requires that a decisive technical objection be examined and, if it is rejected, that the rejection be understandably reasoned. [8]
In a hypothetical file where an objection is raised to digital evidence, and an expert opinion disputing the attribution of the data to the accused has been submitted but the judgment rests only on the first report, the application must show on which concrete issue the two reports diverge. Technical matters such as file dates, the relationship with a device or the integrity of records must not be left within a general claim that "the evidence is fabricated".
The right to a reasoned judgment: a decisive defence must receive an understandable answer
The right to a reasoned judgment does not require the court to answer each sentence of the defence individually, nor necessarily to adopt the position of the defence. The court must examine the essential claim, capable of changing the outcome, and make clear within the judgment as a whole why it was accepted or rejected. The length of a judgment and the adequacy of its reasoning are not the same measure. [1] [8]
In preparing this complaint three points must be distinguished: that the defence was genuinely raised; that it was decisive for the dispute; and that there is no adequate answer in the judicial reasoning. For example, where a record was raised showing that the accused was not at the scene, the petition and record in which it was submitted must be shown, and how it could affect the court's assessment of time and place must be explained. The applicant should assess not only the part favourable to them, but also the statements of the court that may be regarded as an answer to this claim.
The reason why defences concerning the reliability of digital data gained importance in Sencer Başat and Others is that they were directly connected with the evidence underlying the conviction. The method to be drawn from this is not to say "the reasoning is insufficient", but to set side by side the basis of the defence and the deficiency of the judgment in the face of that basis. [8]
It is not in itself a violation for an appellate authority to adopt the reasoning of the first-instance court. However, where a decisive objection unanswered in the first judgment has also been left unanswered in the appellate review, this deficiency must be separately demonstrated. Whether a procedural problem arising for the first time on appeal or cassation was brushed aside with an ordinary sentence of affirmance is also examined on the concrete decision. What is expected of the Constitutional Court is not to find the defence right, but to review whether the constitutionally required assessment was carried out. [8]
Preparing an effective application: the connection between event, violation, document and request
An application form must not be a random summary of a long file. Each rights complaint should be prepared as a clear narrative, starting from the event that gave rise to it and ending at the redress requested. Separating the chronology of events from the assessment of the violation prevents the effects of the same event on different rights from being confused. [2] [3]
| Complaint | Concrete deficiency to be shown | Document to be attached | Constitutional consequence to be explained |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preparation of the defence | Refusal of the request for necessary time or access | Request petition, hearing minutes, interlocutory decision | Which defence step could not be taken, and why |
| Witness examination | Absence of an opportunity to test the decisive statement | Witness statements, examination request, refusal decision, judgment | The weight of the statement and the guarantees that were missing |
| Objection to evidence | Failure to present or effectively discuss a technical opinion | Expert reports, access records, objections | The concrete disadvantage suffered by the defence |
| Reasoned judgment | Failure to answer an essential defence | Defence petition, relevant annex, relevant part of the decision | Why the claim could have affected the outcome |
The order of steps that may be followed in preparation is as follows:
- Determine the final decision and the evidence of knowledge, and link the time calculation to a separate record.
- For each violation, write the date of the event, the relevant act of public authority and the right affected.
- Show where the complaint was raised in the stages of the proceedings and the remedies.
- Match each claim with the name, date and page of the relevant annex, and explain what point the document shows.
- Build the ground of violation by assessing the court's reasons for rejection and the contrary data in the file.
- Set out the claims for a finding of violation, retrial and any compensation separately and with reasons.
A hypothetical application narrative may follow this logic: a request to examine the decisive witness was made at a specified hearing; the request was rejected on the ground that the statement in the file was sufficient; the same statement was the decisive basis of the conviction; and the objection raised on appeal remained without result. The applicant requests a finding of violation of the right to examine witnesses and a retrial as redress, showing the concrete questions that should have been asked and the contradictions revealed by the existing documents. This narrative is not a sufficient form on its own; each element must be verified against the real documents in the file.
Precedent decisions must be used together with a concrete allegation of violation
Two groups of decisions on the Constitutional Court's official website should be reviewed together: precedents on violations of rights, which show how a guarantee has been applied; and admissibility precedents, which show for what reason an application may not reach a substantive examination. In a criminal file, the group "right to a fair trial — charge of a criminal offence" should in particular be selected; examples from civil disputes must not be presented as if they were criminal conviction decisions. [18] [20]
When a decision is assessed, the name, number and date of the application should be stated together with the relevant paragraph, the type of dispute, the result reached, and the similarity or difference with the present file. For example, the existence of a violation concerning witness examination does not automatically render every rejection of a request to hear a witness contrary to the Constitution. A precedent should support the reasoning without being substituted for the concrete facts of the event. [8] [11] [12]
Application form and annexes: how is the ten-page rule applied?
The current official form of the Constitutional Court and the relevant procedural rules must be used for the application. Identity and representation details, the facts, the rights complaints, the application routes, the information showing the time limit, and the requests must be completed. The final decisions, the relevant petitions and minutes, the document showing the date of knowledge, the court fee receipt or legal aid documents and, where necessary, the power of attorney must be attached. Where a mandatory document cannot be accessed, the reason why it could not be submitted must be explained. The annexes must be legible and consistent with the references in the form. [3]
Under Article 60(2) of the Rules, the form is prepared legibly and with concise information on the merits. Exceeding ten pages, excluding annexes, is not an absolute bar to the application; in that case a summary of the facts must be attached separately. To reduce the volume, instead of removing the decisive defence or the information on exhaustion, repetitions should be merged and the chronology of events kept clear. [3]
In the annex list, each document should be given a sequence number; the explanation in the form should be linked to the relevant annex and page. For example, the pages on which the request to examine a witness and the refusal decision appear in the same minutes may be indicated. Conditions for the document or certified copy must be checked against the application procedure applicable; it should not be assumed that every document in the file will automatically reach the Constitutional Court. This arrangement serves the applicant's duty to concretise the claim. [3] [18]
Filling in a PDF form is not the same as completing an electronic application
The Constitutional Court's Individual Application Electronic Form page describes downloading the fillable PDF form, completing it, saving it, and preparing a signed printout for a physical application. Completing and saving the form on a computer does not mean that it has been sent to the Court. This preparatory step must be distinguished from the electronic application that lawyers can make through UYAP. [15]
A physical application may be made directly to the Constitutional Court, through the courts, or through Turkish representations abroad. Since 1 October 2025, lawyers have been able to make electronic individual applications through the UYAP Lawyer Portal. This facility should not be confused with viewing the status of a file through e-Devlet. In an electronic procedure, the record showing that the submission has been completed must be kept; in a physical procedure, the delivery and registration receipt must be kept. [3] [10]
Application fee and legal aid
For 2026, the Constitutional Court individual application fee is TRY 6,024.10. This amount is not the sum of attorney's fees or other costs. A person who lacks the means to pay the fee may request legal aid with documents setting out their circumstances; acceptance of the request is not automatic. Because the fee may change each year, the official tariff on the date of the application should be checked. In its official statements, the Constitutional Court requires documents showing financial position for legal aid; the mere assertion of payment difficulty is not enough. [3] [14] [16]
Notice of deficiency and administrative rejection: the objection period must be separately protected
If a deficiency is found in the application form or its annexes, a final period not exceeding fifteen days is given for its completion. The period to be applied is the one stated in the deficiency letter; it should not be assumed that every file carries an additional fifteen days. Failure to complete the deficiencies without a valid excuse may lead to administrative rejection. An objection may be made to the Commission against the administrative rejection decision within seven days of notification; the decision given on that objection is final. In the objection, it should be explained, with the relevant records, that the notified deficiency was remedied in time or why the reason for rejection was not justified. [17]
This route is not a general right of objection against an inadmissibility decision given by the Commission or the Section. The first filing period of the application, the period for completing deficiencies and the period for objecting to an administrative rejection must each be monitored separately. [2] [17]
Where a deficiency notice has been given, the period granted must be complied with. However, the opportunity to complete deficiencies is not a safeguard for adding a new rights complaint after the period has passed, or for leaving all claims not substantiated at the outset to an uncertain future. The application should be understandably constructed and documented from the start. Where it is requested that identity not be made public, the concrete reason for this must be stated separately; the entire file does not become confidential automatically through a request for confidentiality. [3]
The outcome of a violation decision: retrial, compensation and interim measures
Where the Constitutional Court finds a violation, it orders the redress necessary to remove the violation and its consequences. Where the violation arose from a court decision and the redress requires a retrial, the decision is sent to the relevant court. This retrial, based on Article 50 of Law No. 6216, must not be treated as the same procedure as the extraordinary institution of retrial under the CMK. The steps to remedy the violation are determined according to the reasoning of the Constitutional Court decision. [2] [11]
A finding of a violation of witness examination does not mean that an acquittal is automatically issued. The relevant court must remedy the consequences of the violation and carry out a new assessment consistent with the constitutional guarantees. In the case of a violation of the duty to give reasons, merely rewriting the former result may not be sufficient; the decisive defence left incomplete must genuinely be assessed. The concrete scope of the retrial is determined with reference to the nature of the violation and the reasoning of the decision. [2] [8] [11]
Where pecuniary compensation is sought, the causal link between the loss and the violation must be documented, and the amount and calculation must be explained. The basis of a claim for non-pecuniary compensation must also be shown separately. Since the Constitutional Court may consider that adequate redress has been provided through a finding of violation or a retrial, compensation is not an automatic consequence of every violation. Litigation costs must also be addressed in the claim for relief. [2] [3]
The lodging of an individual application does not by itself suspend the execution of the judgment. The amended version, as of 5 August 2025, of Article 73 of the Rules, provides for the possibility of an interim measure in cases of serious danger to fundamental rights, in particular to life and to material or moral integrity. For this reason, the assessment must be made under the current regulation rather than narrowed by the wording of earlier texts. An interim measure is an exceptional protection that requires the serious danger to be concretised. Being in prison or claiming that the conviction is wrong does not by itself require an interim measure; the risk, urgency and documents must be explained separately. [3]
A decision of inadmissibility by the Constitutional Court does not mean that the injustice alleged is correct on the merits; the merits may not have been reached because of a deficiency of time or exhaustion. However, the finality of these decisions increases the importance of procedural errors in preparing the file. The conditions of any other international application route must also be examined separately; a deficiency of time or exhaustion before the Constitutional Court should not be assumed to be cured automatically in a later application. [1] [2]
For details on this subject, you may read our article objection under CMK Article 308/A to a final appellate decision.
Conclusion
An effective individual application in a criminal case connects the objection to the conviction with a specific constitutional guarantee. The applicant must show with documents which defence opportunity they were deprived of, which decisive witness they could not question, which decisive evidence they could not effectively challenge, or which essential claim remained unanswered. The reasons given by the court to the contrary must also be assessed, and the effect of the violation on the proceedings as a whole must be explained. Complaints about protective measures are separately structured from the substantive proceedings, as illustrated in the article judicial control and freedom of expression.
This preparation does not begin after the final decision. Recording requests made at the hearing, pursuing objections on the appropriate remedies and documenting the dates of knowledge form the basis of the constitutional defence. An application whose time limit is preserved, whose remedies have been properly exhausted and in which every request is tied to a concrete violation makes visible the constitutional question the Constitutional Court must examine.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many days is the time limit for an individual application to the Constitutional Court in a criminal case?
As a rule, 30 days. The starting point is determined by learning of the outcome of the remedy that must be exhausted and by the characteristics of the file. Knowledge through UYAP before notification may change the time calculation. [2] [9]
Can an application be made to the Constitutional Court before a criminal case is concluded?
Complaints about the fairness of a conviction may be made once the available and effective ordinary remedies have, as a rule, been concluded. The routes and time limits for separate rights complaints such as detention are assessed under their own conditions; it is not assumed that the criminal case must end for all complaints. [2] [5]
Does requesting a retrial suspend the Constitutional Court time limit?
As a rule, no. A request for retrial or another extraordinary remedy against an earlier final decision does not suspend or restart the individual application time limit for that decision. An independent violation arising in the new process is assessed separately. [5]
Is every witness who is not heard a ground of violation?
No. The nature of the witness, the importance of the statement, the reason the witness was not heard and the guarantees provided to the defence are examined. The contribution a favourable witness could have made to the outcome must also be concretised. [8] [11] [12]
Must the court answer every defence individually?
Every detail does not require a separate answer. However, the reason why an essential claim capable of affecting the outcome was not accepted must be understood within the judgment as a whole. The application should show the claim left unanswered and its decisive character. [8]
Can an application be made without a lawyer or over the internet?
Representation by a lawyer is not compulsory. Physical application routes may be used. The possibility for lawyers to make electronic applications through the UYAP Lawyer Portal has existed since 1 October 2025; a status check on e-Devlet is not the same as making the application. [3] [10]
If the Constitutional Court issues a violation decision, does the sentence disappear immediately?
Every violation decision does not automatically produce an acquittal or release. Retrial and other redress are applied according to the nature of the violation and the reasoning of the Constitutional Court decision. Lodging an application does not itself suspend execution. [2] [3] [11]
Is a complaint about trial within a reasonable time taken directly to the Constitutional Court?
The Compensation Commission route under Law No. 6384 for compensation for a reasonable time, and the objection possibility, should be assessed. It should not be assumed that this route is the same as complaints about the defence or the reasoning of the judgment. [6] [7]
Is filling in the Constitutional Court's PDF form enough to make an application?
No. Completing and saving the file is a preparatory step. For a physical application, a proper delivery is required; where a lawyer applies through UYAP, the transmission must be completed. The record of the application must be kept. [10] [15]
Can an administrative rejection decision be objected to?
An objection may be made to the Commission within seven days of notification of the administrative rejection decision; the decision given on that objection is final. The same seven-day objection route should not be assumed to exist for a decision of inadmissibility. [2] [17]
Sources and legal bases
[1] Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, in particular Arts. 36, 38, 141, 148 and 153. Official text of the Constitutional Court.
[2] Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, in particular Arts. 45–51 and provisional Art. 1/8. Official text of the Constitutional Court.
[3] Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, in particular Arts. 59–66 and 73. Official text of the Constitutional Court.
[4] European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 6. ECtHR, text of the Convention.
[5] Constitutional Court, Guide to the Admissibility Criteria for Individual Applications; sections on exhaustion of application routes, time limits and complaints about ordinary appeal routes. Official guide. See also decisions on non-exhaustion of application routes.
[6] Law No. 6384 on the Duties and Working Procedures of the Compensation Commission, in particular Arts. 2, 5/A, 7 and transitional provisions. Ministry of Justice, current legislation.
[7] Constitutional Court, Veysi Ado [Plenary], B. No: 2022/100837, 27/4/2023, in particular §§ 46–51. Official decision record. For the full text of the decision, a secondary full-text transcription was used.
[8] Constitutional Court, Sencer Başat and Others [Plenary], B. No: 2013/7800, 18/6/2014, in particular §§ 31–39, 44–72 and 75–85. Official decision record. For the full text of the decision, a secondary full-text transcription was used.
[9] Constitutional Court, Ümran Özkan [Plenary], B. No: 2019/13338, 8/3/2023, in particular §§ 27–43. Official decision record. For the majority reasoning, a secondary summary of the decision was used.
[10] Constitutional Court, "Individual Applications Begin to Be Received Through the UYAP Lawyer Portal" and the UYAP Lawyer Portal application guide; start of application 1/10/2025. Official announcement, official guide.
[11] Constitutional Court, Orhan Güleryüz [1st Section], B. No: 2019/30221, 28/12/2021, in particular §§ 33–50. Official decision record. For the full text of the decision, a secondary full-text transcription was used.
[12] Constitutional Court, Selçuk Arslan [Plenary], B. No: 2020/19752, 6/2/2025, in particular §§ 61–69 and 85–96. Official decision record. For the full text of the decision, a secondary full-text transcription was used.
[13] Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure, in particular Arts. 180, 181, 201, 206, 217, 230 and 311 et seq. Ministry of Justice, current legislation.
[14] Revenue Administration, General Communiqué on the Law on Fees (Series No: 98), Official Gazette No. 33124 of 31/12/2025, 5th repeated issue; Tariff (1), A/I/4, individual application fee for 2026. Official tariff.
[15] Constitutional Court, Individual Application Electronic Form; explanations on downloading the PDF form, completing it and the signed printout. Official form page.
[16] Constitutional Court, Frequently Asked Questions; application form, annexes and documents concerning financial position. Official statements.
[17] Constitutional Court, Admissibility Criteria: Precedent Decisions — Administrative Rejection; explanations under Law No. 6216 Art. 47/6 and Rules Art. 66/3. Official precedent and procedure page.
[18] Constitutional Court, Admissibility Criteria: Precedent Decisions — Manifest Lack of Foundation; substantiation of claims and complaints about ordinary appeal routes. Official explanations.
[19] Constitutional Court, Admissibility Criteria: Precedent Decisions — Time Limit Violation; electronic notification and knowledge through UYAP. Official explanations.
[20] Constitutional Court, Precedent Decisions on Violations of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms — Right to a Fair Trial (Charge of a Criminal Offence), complete list. Official compilation of principles and decisions.