An individual application to the Constitutional Court (AYM) allows a claim that a public authority has violated a fundamental right to be examined for compliance with constitutional guarantees. For the application to be examined on its merits, the correct person must apply, the appropriate effective remedies must be exhausted, the 30-day time limit must, as a rule, be observed, and the violation must be explained with concrete facts. Dissatisfaction with a court decision does not, on its own, satisfy these conditions. [1] [2]
There is an important development in the method of application: since October 1, 2025, lawyers have been able to make individual applications to the AYM through the UYAP Lawyer Portal. Physical application channels also remain available. The electronic system makes the transmission of the file easier; it does not change the time limit, the requirement that remedies be exhausted or the requirement that the claim be substantiated. This guide has been prepared on the basis of the source check of October 11, 2026. [5]
For which disputes can an individual application be used?
Common protection sphere and the requirement of public power
The right relied on must be protected both by the Constitution and by the European Convention on Human Rights or the additional protocols to which Türkiye is a party. The right to life, the prohibition of ill-treatment, personal liberty, the right to a fair trial, respect for private life, freedom of expression and the right to property may all arise in this framework. The nature of the right is as important as the question whether the dispute falls within the scope of that right. For example, not every administrative dispute falls, in all its aspects, within the scope of the right to a fair trial. [1] [2] [4]
The complaint must be directed at an act, action or omission of a public authority. Where the dispute is with a private employer or another person, the AYM is not the first body to determine directly the liability of that person. However, the examination may cover whether the State has provided the legal order protecting the right, or effective judicial protection. The applicant must not merely describe the conduct of the private person; he or she must show which protective obligation the administration or the courts failed to fulfil.
Where equality or the right to an effective application is relied on, a connection must also be established with another right within the protected sphere. Rather than listing several articles of the Constitution, the guarantee to which each complaint relates must be explained. In this way, repeated narratives of the same event are avoided, and the real constitutional problem becomes visible. [2] [4] [8]
Claims outside the jurisdiction of the AYM
Direct individual applications cannot be made against legislative acts or regulatory administrative acts. Acts that the Constitution excludes from judicial review by the AYM cannot be reviewed directly through this route either. A statement that a law is wrong or unjust cannot be turned into an individual application without being linked to a personal violation. However, a violation of rights arising from the application of a law in a concrete case may be examined once the necessary remedies have been exhausted. [2]
As regards time, the competence of the AYM is based on final acts and decisions that became final from September 23, 2012 onwards. A belated, ineffective petition about a dispute that ended earlier does not, by itself, create the AYM's competence ratione temporis. In continuing violations, however, the nature of the complaint must be assessed separately. This threshold date is different from the 30-day time limit in the applicant's own file. [2] [8]
Who may apply? Victim status and representation
The applicant must be currently and personally directly affected by the violation alleged. Simply drawing attention to a general unlawfulness, or asserting another person's right in his or her own name, is not sufficient. The right holder must explain how he or she was affected by the measure and why any subsequent decision that was intended to remedy the violation was inadequate. Where the violation is acknowledged and sufficient redress is given, that may change the assessment of victim status. [2] [8]
Private legal persons may apply only in respect of rights that belong to them as legal persons; public legal persons cannot make individual applications. In a measure affecting the assets of a company, the rights of the company and of its shareholder are examined separately. The shareholder's economic connection with the company does not, in every case, make the shareholder a direct victim. Foreigners may also apply, but they have no right to apply in respect of rights recognised only for Turkish citizens. [2]
Representation by a lawyer is not compulsory. The application may be made by the person himself or herself, by a legal representative or by a lawyer. The document of representation must be in the file, and in the case of a legal person the authority to represent must be clearly shown. Where proceedings are conducted through a lawyer, the consequences of notifications being sent to the attorney must be taken into account. However, the date on which the final decision was learned of by the applicant earlier is also important for the time-limit case law described below. [3] [10]
How is exhaustion of remedies assessed?
The essence of the complaint must first be submitted to the competent authority
Individual application is a secondary means of protection. Ordinary remedies that are accessible, effective and capable of preventing or redressing the violation must be used. It is not enough merely to have filed an appeal or cassation petition: the substance of the complaint to be brought before the AYM must have been raised in a manner that the competent authority could consider, and in accordance with procedure. Although it is not always necessary to quote the constitutional article verbatim, the concrete problem affecting the right must be apparent in the earlier process. [1] [2] [9]
For example, if the court is said to have failed to examine a decisive objection, the petition in which that objection appears and the evidence that supported it must be shown. Where a piece of evidence that could have been submitted in time is withheld without reason and first produced before the AYM, the earlier authorities lose the opportunity to examine it. Where the violation emerged only from the final decision, the reason it could not be raised earlier may be explained.
A belief that a remedy would be ineffective requires a concrete justification. The statement "the outcome would anyway have been the same" does not, by itself, remove the obligation to exhaust. The capacity of the remedy to remedy the violation, its accessibility and the reason why it could not be used in the circumstances of the case must be shown by documents. Conversely, bringing a remedy that is not provided for the particular dispute or is ineffective merely in order to make more applications does not preserve the AYM time limit.
Ayşe Zıraman and Cennet Yeşilyurt: an ordinary remedy not yet concluded
In the decision in the case of Ayşe Zıraman and Cennet Yeşilyurt, Application No. 2012/403, March 26, 2013, the AYM found that the applicants had applied individually before their requests for correction of the decision, which were available at that time, had been concluded. The application was declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust the remedies. The principal lesson of the decision is that a constitutional application should not be brought before an ordinary procedure capable of remedying the violation has been completed. [9]
This decision cannot be read as meaning that every civil case in 2026 has a request for correction of decision or that such a request must always be used. The available route must be determined by the date of the decision, the time at which the decision became final and the procedural regime to which the file is subject. Likewise, using an extraordinary remedy does not, as a rule, restart the time limit for an individual application relating to the earlier final decision.
Different complaints in the same file may follow different routes
Fairness of the trial, detention and the length of proceedings may arise in the same file; however, the remedies to be exhausted and the start dates of the time limits may not be the same. For a complaint about detention, it cannot always be said that the criminal case must first become final. For each complaint, the remedy that can redress the violation and the decision that concluded that remedy must be determined separately.
For complaints of unreasonable length of proceedings, the Compensation Commission route under Law No. 6384 must be examined separately. In Veysi Ado [Plenary], Application No. 2022/100837, April 27, 2023, the AYM stated that application to the Commission had to be exhausted under the transitional regulation then in force, and therefore declared the application inadmissible. Because of the subsequent 2024 amendments creating the current application system, it is not sufficient to rely only on this earlier transitional decision; Article 5/A of the current Law and the relevant transitional provisions must be considered together. [12] [13]
Under the current Article 5/A regime, an application to the Commission for unreasonable length of proceedings may be made while the proceedings continue or within one month at the latest from the date the conclusion of the matter became known. Accordingly, it cannot be stated as a general rule that an AYM refusal must first be obtained for this complaint. Special transitional provisions are assessed separately. The time limit for application to the Commission and the 30-day time limit for the AYM must not be confused. [13]
Individual application time limit: from what date do the 30 days run?
Final decision, knowledge and service distinguished
As a rule, the application must be made within 30 days from the exhaustion of remedies or, where no remedy exists, from the date the violation became known. The date on which the final decision became known is decisive in calculating the time limit. For this reason, it is not sufficient to keep only the service receipt in the file; it must also be checked whether the applicant or the lawyer learned of the decision earlier. [2] [3] [10]
The claim of knowledge is assessed with reference to access to the reasons of the decision and the records that establish it. The date on which the decision was uploaded to the file is not the same fact as the date on which the person opened and read it. UYAP case-management records, electronic service records and any statements in earlier petitions by the lawyer may be important in the time-limit examination. Rather than selecting the most favourable date for the application, all the different dates must be explained in a consistent way.
Ümran Özkan: learning from UYAP before service on the lawyer
In the decision in the case of Ümran Özkan [Plenary], Application No. 2019/13338, March 8, 2023, the applicant learned of the final reasoned decision through UYAP on March 27, 2019. The decision was served on the applicant's lawyer on April 6, 2019, and the individual application was made on April 30, 2019. The majority of the AYM, taking the applicant's earlier date of knowledge, found that the time limit that expired on April 26 had been exceeded. [10]
In the dissenting opinions, it was discussed whether the applicant, who was following the matter through a lawyer, was entitled to rely on service on the lawyer and whether the start of the time limit was foreseeable. These views did not change the majority's outcome. The safe working method in practice is to examine together the dates on which the applicant and the lawyer learned of the decision, and not to disregard an earlier knowledge record. The decision shows that learning through UYAP and making an application through UYAP are different transactions, even though it was given before the electronic application system came into use.
How should the time-limit file be prepared?
| Fact to check | Record to examine | Effect on the application |
|---|---|---|
| Which decision was the last effective remedy | The final decision and the earlier appeal petition | Allows the exhaustion and the start of the time limit to be assessed together. |
| Earlier knowledge of the applicant or representative | UYAP records, petitions, service documents | Prevents a wrong time calculation based on a later service. |
| Excuse said to have affected the time limit | Dated medical report or official record showing the impediment | Shows the nature of the impediment and when it ended. |
| Date on which the application was actually completed | Acknowledgment or electronic application record | Distinguishes the drafting date from the application date. |
This table is not a time-limit calculator. The procedure applicable to the file, public holidays and disputes about knowledge must be examined separately. In particular, "one month" and "30 days" must not be treated as the same, and it must not be assumed that the judicial recess automatically gives additional time. Not leaving the preparation of the application to the last day, and resolving electronic transaction problems in advance, provides time to respond.
What to do if there is a valid excuse
If the application could not be made within time because of a valid excuse, such as force majeure or serious illness, it may be made within 15 days from the cessation of the excuse, together with documents proving the excuse. This possibility is not an automatic extension of time. It must be explained how the impediment prevented the application, the period during which it lasted and when it ended. [2] [3]
Heavy work commitments, lack of knowledge of the application route, or an unsubstantiated account of a technical problem are not, in themselves, valid excuses. Where a system fault is asserted, the error record showing the date and time, the attempts to apply and the effect of the problem must be preserved. Whether an excuse is accepted is determined by the AYM on the circumstances of the file.
How is an individual application made through UYAP?
The Lawyer Portal, the electronic form and file inquiry are different
The AYM's announcement of October 1, 2025 states that lawyers may make electronic individual applications through the UYAP Lawyer Portal. This announcement does not mean that everyone can make the same application through the e-Government or UYAP Citizen Portal. Although representation by a lawyer is not compulsory, the electronic channel announced is directed at lawyers. [5]
The "Individual Application Electronic Form" on the AYM's website is a form that can be completed on a computer. Downloading the form or saving it to a computer does not in itself constitute an application. Similarly, checking the status of a file electronically is not the same transaction as creating a new application. The applicant must distinguish whether the screen in use serves the purposes of preparation, inquiry or transmission. [7] [8]
Preparing and sending the electronic file
According to the official UYAP guide, the lawyer's portal account, electronic signature, the applicant's details and the power of attorney must be ready. The application screen is reached from the menu Opening Proceedings → AYM Individual Application. The guide specifies a limit of 40 MB for a single file and a limit of 150 documents that may be added. The screen at the time of application and the current guide must also be checked. [6]
The application includes stages covering identity and representation details, facts, grounds of violation and evidence, the last remedy used, other information, the result sought, fees, preview and confirmation. The application should not be assumed to be registered until all the stages have been completed. Giving meaningful names to the files and matching attachment numbers with the text make it easier to notice a wrongly uploaded document. [6]
Before sending, it should be checked that a document named, for example, "Annex-04_Final-Decision.pdf" is in fact the correct document for the relevant court and file. The pages must be legible, correctly oriented and complete. Making the text unreadable in order to reduce file size weakens the evidentiary value of the application. After sending, the date, number, attachments and any payment record of the application must be kept. This final check is a practical recommendation on file preparation; it does not replace a decision on admissibility.
Do the physical application channels continue?
An application may be made directly to the AYM, or through courts, penal institutions and foreign representative offices. The electronic channel has been added to these methods. For a physical application, the record of delivery and registration must be kept, and the signature on the form and the representation and attachment documents must be checked. An ordinary email or sending the form by post alone must not be relied on as an application in the procedure prescribed. [3] [5] [8]
Application form, attachments, fees and legal aid
What should be described in the form, and which documents should be attached?
In the facts section, rather than repeating a long litigation history without distinction, the events that affect the assessment of the violation should be set out in chronological order. In the section on the violation, the constitutional reason for each complaint should be separately stated. Leaving the basic explanations necessary to understand the application only in additional petitions makes the form unclear. [3] [7]
Identity and representation documents, the final decision, the knowledge or service document, the relevant appeal petitions, the record showing the violation and other documents should be submitted with an orderly list of attachments. The documentary and confirmation requirements of the Rules of Procedure must be observed. Where a document cannot be obtained, the document, the reason it could not be submitted and the steps taken to obtain it must be explained. It must not be assumed that the AYM will find all documents on its own because they are said to be in the file. [3]
If the form excluding the attachments exceeds ten pages, a summary of the facts must be added in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. This rule should not be understood as meaning that "every application longer than ten pages is rejected". The aim is that the essential facts and complaints of the file are presented in an understandable way. Using brevity as a reason to omit a decisive fact, or transcribing the whole file without distinction, both weaken the preparation. [3]
The 2026 application fee and inability to pay
The AYM individual application fee for 2026 is TRY 6,024.10. The basis is item A/I/4 of Tariff (1) annexed to the General Communiqué on the Law on Fees (Harçlar Kanunu Genel Tebliği), Serial No. 98. This amount is not a lawyer's fee; for an application made in another year, the tariff for that year must be checked. A fee receipt, or a request for legal aid made in accordance with the law, must be in the file. [14]
An applicant without the means to pay may request legal aid. The request must be supported by documents showing financial position and living conditions. It must not be assumed that a decision to accept will be given merely because the applicant says he or she "cannot pay the fee". If legal aid was granted in earlier proceedings, the relevant decision must be submitted, and the claim to the AYM and its grounds must be stated expressly. [3] [8]
How is a confidentiality request justified?
Where concealment of identity is sought in publicly available documents, the reasons must be explained in the form. The concrete consequences that may arise in particular in relation to health, family life or security must be stated, and the necessary documents submitted. A request for the identity not to be disclosed publicly does not mean that the AYM will not be given the identity and representation information of the right holder. The request and the obligation to submit documents must be considered together. [3]
Grounds of inadmissibility and the difference from administrative rejection
A defect of form is not always a rejection on the merits
Where a remediable defect is identified in the preliminary examination, the applicant or the representative may be given a period not exceeding 15 days to remedy it. It should not be assumed that the full 15 days are always granted for each defect; the definite period stated in the notice must be observed. Failure to remedy the defect properly and on time may result in an administrative rejection. [2] [3] [16]
Against an administrative rejection decision, an objection may be made to the Commission within 7 days from notification; the Commission's decision on that objection is final. This special objection route does not mean that there is a general objection or appeal against all decisions of inadmissibility of the AYM. The applicant must first determine the type of decision notified to him or her. [16]
Principal admissibility problems
| Problem | What should be explained in the application | Probable consequence of the defect |
|---|---|---|
| Competence ratione personae, materiae, loci or temporis | Right holder, connection with public power, protected sphere and date | Inadmissibility for lack of competence |
| Failure to exhaust effective remedies | The remedy used, the complaint raised in it and the decision concluding it | Inadmissibility for failure to exhaust remedies |
| Failure to observe the time limit | Knowledge records, calculation and any documented excuse | Inadmissibility for expiry of the time limit |
| Claim not substantiated, or merely an ordinary appeal complaint | Concrete constitutional problem, facts and supporting document | Inadmissibility as manifestly ill-founded |
| Constitutional and personal importance conditions | Importance of the constitutional question and serious effect on the applicant | Inadmissibility where both conditions are not met together |
The table is not an automatically applied assessment tool. For example, where the State is alleged to be liable for an act performed outside Türkiye, competence ratione loci is examined separately. The statement "one cannot apply because one does not live in Türkiye" is not a correct generalisation. Similarly, a finding of no violation on the merits and a declaration of inadmissibility are different decisions. [2] [8]
Why does the AYM not carry out a fresh appeal review?
The weight of evidence, the way in which the event occurred and the interpretation of the law are primarily the task of the ordinary courts. Saying to the AYM only that "the court evaluated the matter incorrectly" is not sufficient for a constitutional examination. The applicant must show a guarantee problem, such as manifest arbitrariness, the failure to answer a decisive argument, or the inability to object effectively to evidence. The constitutional character of the judicial process leading to the outcome must also be explained separately, not merely the outcome itself. [1] [2]
In Sencer Başat and others [Plenary], Application No. 2013/7800, June 18, 2014, the AYM clarified this distinction in relation to the right to a reasoned judgment. It held that courts do not have to answer every detail, but that the examination of essential arguments capable of affecting the outcome is important, and found a violation of the right to a reasoned judgment in the case. In an application, it is not enough to show a single unanswered sentence; it must also be explained why that argument was decisive for the judgment. [15]
K.V.: constitutional importance and personal harm are assessed together
In K.V. [Plenary], Application No. 2014/2293, December 1, 2016, the AYM stated that the criteria of constitutional importance and personal importance must be present together. In complaints concerning collection proceedings, the applicant did not explain why the total loss of TRY 1,058.85 was important in light of his own financial circumstances. Those complaints were declared inadmissible for lack of constitutional and personal importance. A complaint concerning a fine for an earlier request for correction was rejected for lack of competence ratione temporis. [11]
The amount in this decision is not a fixed application threshold applicable to every file. The effect of the loss on the applicant's income, profession or other rights must be explained. Consequences that cannot be measured in money may also be explained. As regards constitutional importance, it must be shown which principle requires clarification or application; it is not enough to say that the dispute is distressing for the applicant.
Abuse of the right of application
Concealment of an important development affecting the outcome of the application, provision of misleading information, or use of the right of application contrary to its purpose are separately examined. Article 51 of Law No. 6216 provides for sanctions. Where it is learned that a document has since changed or that the claim has been satisfied by another route, that development must be disclosed in good faith. Not every material error is an automatic abuse; however, persisting in the application after the error has been noticed may aggravate the problem. [2]
Effective application: the connection between facts, violation, document and claim
The application form must be prepared in such a way that a reader who has never seen the file can understand the complaint of violation. For each complaint, the conduct of the public authority, the guarantee affected, the objection raised earlier, the court's answer and the continuing consequence must all be visible. The examples below are hypothetical and do not indicate that a violation exists in any real file.
| Hypothetical complaint | Connection to be established in the file | Claim to be explained |
|---|---|---|
| The decisive defense was not examined in the reasoning | The relevant section of the defense petition, the supporting document and the reasoning of the decision are compared | Finding of violation and, where conditions are met, retrial |
| A document affecting the outcome could not be answered | The date on which the document entered the file, the request for access, the refusal and its use in the decision are shown | Redress that will secure the opportunity to defend |
| Disproportionate burden placed on property | The measure, the price or loss of use, the objections and the personal effects are presented together | Redress appropriate to the nature of the violation and a reasoned claim for compensation |
When the complaint is drafted, counter-arguments should also be considered. The court may state that the defense was answered in another part of the judgment, that the disputed evidence did not affect the outcome, or that the applicant did not object in time. Rather than ignoring these possibilities, the applicant should explain from the records in the file why the assessment was not adequate. A strong application is one that can discuss the legal effect of the adverse documents, not one that hides them.
Where compensation is sought, the type of loss, its connection with the violation and the basis for the claim must be stated. Where retrial is sought, it must be shown which judicial deficiency could be remedied through that route. Rather than a list of unrelated claims, each claim should be tied to the violation whose finding is sought. The conclusion of the application should be a natural continuation of the facts and reasons explained. [2] [3]
Interim measures, finding of violation and enforcement of the decision
Lodging an individual application does not, by itself, suspend the execution of the impugned decision or the enforcement of a sentence. Interim measures are assessed separately. The text of Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure, as amended on August 5, 2025, is based on the existence of a serious danger to the applicant's fundamental rights, in particular to life or to material or moral existence. The request for interim measures must explain the currency of the danger, its seriousness and why the measure sought is necessary, with supporting documents. [3]
The examination is largely conducted on the file, and there is no guarantee applicable to all files as to the period in which the application will be concluded. Where information or documents are requested, they must be provided within the time allowed. Monitoring changes in address, representation and developments affecting the outcome of the dispute is as important as preparing the initial form. [3] [8]
A finding of violation does not, in every case, mean acquittal, release or direct annulment of an administrative act. Under Article 50 of Law No. 6216, the removal of the violation and its consequences is assessed. Where the violation arose from a court decision and it is considered necessary, the file is sent to the relevant court for retrial; where there is no legal interest in a retrial, compensation or proceedings in the ordinary courts may be considered. The retrial ordered by the AYM should not be treated as the same institution as the grounds for reopening ordinary proceedings. [2]
In applying the decision, the operative part and the reasoning for the violation must be read together. A retrial may not on its own be sufficient to remedy the violation; the deficiency that caused the violation must be remedied. Where compensation is ordered, the payment provisions and relevant notices must be followed. The applicant's objective should be not merely to obtain a finding of violation but also to monitor the concrete consequences of the decision.
For further details, see our article on rights of a particular nature in AYM decisions. For the notification and time-limit issues concerning deportation decisions, see also notification and the seven-day period in deportation decisions.
Conclusion
Effective preparation for an individual application to the Constitutional Court begins with identifying the correct complaint and the correct applicant. For each complaint, the remedy to be exhausted, the final decision, the date of knowledge and the time limit must be checked separately. The constitutional problem must then be explained through the connection between the facts, the earlier objection, the document, the personal consequence and the claim.
The UYAP Lawyer Portal provides the means of completing the application electronically. The benefit of this convenience emerges through an orderly and legible file. As the real AYM decisions show, even a serious allegation of unfairness cannot itself overcome problems of time limit and exhaustion; on the other hand, specifying a decisive procedural guarantee is the basis of constitutional examination.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many days is the time limit for an individual application to the Constitutional Court?
As a rule, 30 days. Exhaustion of remedies and the learning of the final decision are examined together; where there is no remedy, the date the violation became known is used. The time limit cannot be determined in every file solely from the date of the last service. [2] [3] [10]
Can an AYM individual application be made through UYAP?
Yes. Lawyers have been able to apply through the UYAP Lawyer Portal since October 1, 2025. The scope of the official announcement is directed at lawyers; it must not be concluded that the same application authority exists through the citizen portal or e-Government. [5]
Is completing the electronic form sufficient for an application?
No. Saving the fillable form on the AYM's website does not amount to sending the application. Depending on the method used, the signature, attachments, fee or legal aid, and delivery or electronic confirmation steps must be completed. [3] [6] [7]
Is it compulsory to retain a lawyer?
No. A person may apply himself or herself, through a legal representative or through a lawyer. Whether representation by a lawyer is compulsory is a different question from the electronic channel opened for lawyers. [3] [5]
What is the individual application fee in 2026?
Under the 2026 tariff it is TRY 6,024.10. This is an application fee, not a lawyer's fee. If an action is taken in another year, the new tariff must be checked. [14]
Can a person who cannot pay the fee apply?
Such a person may request legal aid. The inability to pay and the financial position must be explained with documents; deadlines for notices and for remedying defects must not be overlooked on the assumption that the request will be accepted. [3] [8]
Is it safe to wait for service after reading the decision on UYAP?
Not in every case. In the decision in the case of Ümran Özkan, the earlier knowledge of the applicant was taken as the basis, and an application made late by reference to service on the lawyer was held out of time. [10]
Does a request for reversal in the interest of the law or retrial extend the AYM time limit?
Extraordinary applications do not, as a rule, suspend or restart the time limit relating to the earlier final decision. Whether such an application has in fact created a new process, or whether an independent violation is alleged, must be examined separately. The earlier time limit must be protected. [2] [3] [8]
If the case has taken a long time, can one go directly to the AYM?
For a complaint of unreasonable length, the Compensation Commission route under Law No. 6384 and the related objection procedure must first be considered. The date of the application and the transitional provisions are important. Other rights complaints in the same file are examined separately. [12] [13]
Is a period of 15 days always given for missing documents?
No. A period not exceeding 15 days may be given to remedy a defect; the specific period in the notice must be observed. This possibility does not turn an application that was not made in time into one made in time. [2] [3] [16]
Does an individual application suspend enforcement or execution?
It does not do so automatically. A legal basis, a serious danger and the necessary measure must be explained for an interim measure. Making a request and an interim measure being granted are not the same thing. [3]
Can a decision of inadmissibility be objected to?
The AYM's decisions of inadmissibility are final. The seven-day objection to the Commission against an administrative rejection is a separate and limited procedure. The type of decision notified must be identified with care. [2] [16]
Sources and legal bases
[1] Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, in particular Arts. 36, 148 and 153. AYM — text of the Constitution.
[2] Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court, in particular Arts. 45–51 and Provisional Art. 1(8). AYM — Law.
[3] Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, in particular Arts. 59–66, 73 and 84; including amendments published in the Official Gazette No. 32977 dated August 5, 2025. AYM — Rules of Procedure.
[4] European Convention on Human Rights and the additional protocols to which Türkiye is a party. ECtHR — Turkish text of the Convention.
[5] Constitutional Court, "Individual Applications Begin to Be Received Through the UYAP Lawyer Portal", October 1, 2025. Official announcement.
[6] Constitutional Court, guide to individual applications through the UYAP Lawyer Portal; preparation conditions and stages of application. Official guide.
[7] Constitutional Court, "Individual Application Electronic Form". Form and explanations.
[8] Constitutional Court, "Frequently Asked Questions", statements on the scope, procedure and consequences of individual applications. Official statements.
[9] AYM, Ayşe Zıraman and Cennet Yeşilyurt, Application No. 2012/403, March 26, 2013, §§14–21. Official decision record. Full text used for the decision: secondary full-text reproduction.
[10] AYM, Ümran Özkan [Plenary], Application No. 2019/13338, March 8, 2023, §§27–46 and dissenting opinions. Official decision record. Full text used for the decision: secondary full-text reproduction.
[11] AYM, K.V. [Plenary], Application No. 2014/2293, December 1, 2016, in particular §§37–43, 54–80 and operative part. Official decision record. Full text used for the decision: secondary full-text reproduction.
[12] AYM, Veysi Ado [Plenary], Application No. 2022/100837, April 27, 2023, in particular the assessment on the claim of unreasonable length and the Compensation Commission. Official decision record. Full text used for the decision: secondary full-text reproduction. The decision was applied in the context of the 2023 transitional regulation.
[13] Law No. 6384 on the Duties and Working Procedures of the Compensation Commission, in particular Arts. 2, 5/A and 7 and the transitional provisions; amendments by Law No. 7499. Ministry of Justice legislation record. Law No. 7499, in particular Arts. 24, 28 and 32 — TBMM.
[14] Revenue Administration Presidency, General Communiqué on the Law on Fees (Harçlar Kanunu Genel Tebliği), Serial No. 98, dated December 31, 2025, Official Gazette No. 33124, 5th repeated issue; Tariff (1), item A/I/4. 2026 official tariff.
[15] AYM, Sencer Başat and others [Plenary], Application No. 2013/7800, June 18, 2014, in particular §§31–39, 44–72 and 75–85. Official decision record. Full text used for the decision: secondary full-text reproduction.
[16] Constitutional Court, Precedent Decisions on Admissibility Criteria for Individual Applications, "Administrative Rejection". Official statements and decisions.