In an application against an interference with a home, the type of act must be identified first. A search in a criminal investigation, an eviction by a municipality and unauthorized entry by a landlord are not subject to the same route of application. An individual application to the Constitutional Court (AYM), in turn, is as a rule made after effective ordinary remedies have been exhausted, within thirty days of learning of the final decision. Filing a complaint with the public prosecutor’s office does not by itself suspend the period for another action or objection. 2 3
Which places and persons does inviolability of the home protect?
A title deed record and the constitutional concept of the home are not the same
At the center of the protection in Article 21 of the Constitution is the space in which a person can lead a private life. What matters is the real relationship with the place. A rented home, a living space of a continuing nature and, depending on the circumstances, a place of temporary accommodation may fall within this assessment. That an address is not the official place of residence does not by itself remove the protection; conversely, merely owning a property that is never used does not in every case bring the right to the home into play. 1; 4, § 54
The applicant must explain his or her personal connection with the place interfered with. A lease agreement, the period of use, a residence document, bills, personal belongings and witness accounts can show this connection. The right to property, respect for private life and inviolability of the home may arise together in the same event; yet for each of them it must be shown separately which interest the interference harmed.
In homes used jointly, the limit of one person’s consent also matters. Admitting an ordinary visitor into the shared living space is not the same act as having another person’s private room or belongings searched. From whom the consent was obtained, the person’s authority to use the place, the purpose of the entry and whether the consent was given freely should be made concrete. Marriage or kinship does not give unlimited access to all of the other person’s private spaces.
Workplaces and professional offices can also be protected
The AYM does not limit the concept of the home to places of dwelling. Professional offices, company headquarters, branches and working rooms that not everyone can freely enter may also be assessed as falling within the scope of protection. By contrast, parts of a workplace that are open to the public and carry no element of privacy may be treated differently. For this reason, inspecting the sales floor of a shop and inspecting closed cabinets in its back office are not interferences of the same intensity. 4, §§ 54–59
In a workplace application, a plan showing the use of the space, entry authorizations, the door or access system and the nature of the inspected documents are useful. If the public authority argues that the area is open to the public, the applicant should not be content with writing the workplace address; he or she should show in which room and on which device or record the inspection was carried out. Carrying on commercial activity does not wholly remove the constitutional guarantee of privacy.
What are the constitutional conditions for an interference with the home?
A statutory basis and a competent decision are required together
Articles 13 and 21 of the Constitution apply together. The interference must have a statutory basis; it must rest on one of the purposes set out in Article 21 and be proportionate. A general statement of public interest does not replace the decision procedure prescribed by law. That law enforcement has the duty of investigating crime likewise does not mean that it may enter any home whenever it wishes. 1
The constitutional rule is a duly issued judge’s decision. Where delay would be prejudicial, a written order of an authority empowered by law may come into question. For this exception to apply, the danger that delay would cause must be concrete. There is a significant difference between a decision merely saying “evidence may be lost” and one explaining why a particular item of evidence is at risk in a way that cannot wait.
The decision of the competent authority must be submitted to the competent judge for approval within twenty-four hours. If seizure is involved, the judge announces his or her decision within forty-eight hours of the seizure; otherwise the seizure is lifted automatically. The forty-eight-hour result does not make a search carried out in the past as if it had never taken place. The lawfulness of the search, the use of the evidence obtained and the return of the items taken are separate issues. 1; 4, § 62
Proportionality is not assessed only at the moment of entry
The existence of a valid decision does not automatically make the whole execution lawful. The duration and scope of the search, its being carried out at night, damage to belongings, the environment in which children are present and the examination of unrelated private documents are also assessed. Searching places unrelated to the nature of the item sought, or destroying belongings when it is not necessary, are interferences that need separate explanation.
The public authority may invoke the risk of flight or of destruction of evidence. Faced with this reasoning, the applicant should show, on the concrete facts, why lighter methods would have been sufficient. For example, taking the whole personal archive while searching for a particular dated commercial record may be questioned as to scope and screening safeguards. That evidence of a crime is later found does not by itself cure the absence of the authority and procedural conditions that were necessary at the outset.
How should a home search be carried out in a criminal investigation?
The powers of the public prosecutor and of the law enforcement superior differ
Under Article 119 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), a search of a home, a workplace and closed areas not open to the public may be carried out by a judge’s decision or, where delay would be prejudicial, by the written order of the public prosecutor. The general provision on the written order of a law enforcement superior cannot be substituted for the public prosecutor’s order in these places. The search decision must clearly state the act, the person or place to be searched and the period for which the decision is valid. 2
CMK Article 116 as to a suspect or defendant and CMK Article 117 as to other persons are assessed separately. Living in the same apartment building as the suspect is not by itself sufficient for an unlimited search of all the apartments. The basis for the person or evidence sought being in the specific place, and the conditions the law requires for the relevant group of persons, must be checked.
A night search is, as a rule, prohibited under CMK Article 118; flagrante delicto, cases where delay would be prejudicial and the other exceptions set out in the article are assessed separately. The statement “the operation was carried out at night” does not alone suffice for a finding of violation, just as saying “it was an operation” does not prove the exception. The hour, the course of events and the reasoning shown in the decision are examined together.
Presence during the search, witnesses and record safeguards
CMK Article 119 provides that, when a home, workplace or other closed place is searched without the public prosecutor being present, two persons from the council of elders (ihtiyar heyeti) or from among the neighbors must be present. The owner of the place to be searched or the possessor of the item may be present at the search; in his or her absence, one of the persons specified in CMK Article 120 is made present. The presence of the person’s lawyer at the search cannot be obstructed. 2
In practice, recording the objection is important. The record should make clear at what hour the search began, who was present, whether the decision was shown, which items were taken and whether damage occurred. When the record is signed, a statement or an objection note may be requested. It should not be assumed that signing means consent to the whole procedure in every case; the content of the record and the context of the signature are assessed.
The special guarantees of CMK Article 130 apply to a search of a lawyer’s office. For documents relating to professional secrecy and the defense relationship, general statements about the search are not sufficient. In the examination of computers and digital records, CMK Article 134 may also come into play. The authority to enter the place where a device is physically located is not, by itself, a basis for unlimited examination of all the data on the device.
How do administrative inspections and eviction affect the right to the home?
The Ford decision in competition inspections and the subsequent review of the provision
In the decision Ford Otomotiv Sanayi A.Ş. [GK], Application No: 2019/40991, 23/3/2023, the AYM assessed an on-site inspection at a company’s workplace within the scope of inviolability of the home. The working areas that not everyone can enter and the documents taken from computers were significant. A finding of violation was reached because the guarantee of a judge’s decision was made dependent only on obstruction of the inspection and there was no adequate subsequent judicial review. The decision shows why the approach that “workplaces are never homes” is mistaken. 4, §§ 54–68
In a current assessment, the AYM’s review-of-legislation decision dated 6/11/2025, E.2023/174, K.2025/224 should also not be overlooked. In this decision, published on 17 February 2026, the objection to the phrase “in cases it deems necessary” in Article 15 of Law No. 4054 was rejected on the merits; the application concerning the second sentence of the third paragraph was rejected for lack of jurisdiction. It is wrong to say that the whole article was annulled. The majority assessed the phrase under review in terms of Articles 2 and 167 of the Constitution and did not see a connection with Articles 13 and 21. 5, §§ 19–26 and operative part
The dissenting opinions discuss the difference of approach that emerged with the Ford decision and the guarantees for the home. It is not correct to present the reasoning of a dissenting opinion as the binding conclusion of the majority. When the two decisions are considered together, the applicant should not be content with citing the Ford decision’s name; he or she should explain the scope of the concrete inspection, its decision, the conditions of consent, the possibility of sanctions and judicial review. A rejection in a review of legislation likewise does not mean that every concrete application is compatible with rights.
There is no automatic finding of violation in eviction and expropriation
Evacuating a home can have a serious effect on a person. However, losing a property dispute or facing a lawful eviction is not by itself a constitutional violation. The basis of the eviction, the proceedings in which the person could present objections, and the timing and manner of its execution should be examined. An urgent eviction and an eviction notified in advance and subjected to judicial review cannot be assessed in the same way.
In the decision Hayrettin Aktaş, Application No: 2013/1205, 17/9/2013, a home complaint concerning eviction from an expropriated property was found manifestly ill-founded and declared inadmissible. The Court regarded the concrete eviction as the expected result of the expropriation and saw no disproportion. This is not procedurally the same as a decision on the merits that there was “no violation”; nor does it show that all evictions fall outside constitutional review. 6, §§ 50–57
What routes are available in the case of unauthorized entry by private persons?
That a landlord is the holder of the title deed does not by itself justify entering, without permission, a house used by a tenant. Article 116 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) regulates entry against consent or failing to leave after entering with consent. The basic forms of the offense and the aggravating circumstances such as night, force, threat or others are assessed separately. The complaint requirement is not the same for every event; for forms dependent on a complaint, the six-month period in TCK Article 73 is linked to learning of the act and of the offender. 7
The application should answer questions such as who entered which area and when; whether there was consent; whether the person was asked to leave; and how the key was obtained. Records such as camera footage, messages, neighbors’ accounts and door damage are important. Entering third parties’ accounts without permission, or using a method that may constitute another offense, in order to obtain evidence may give rise to new legal problems.
Depending on the specific event, alongside the criminal complaint, routes for preventing the interference, protecting personality rights and obtaining compensation may also be considered. A direct AYM application is not made against a private person. In the constitutional review, it is discussed whether the State has fulfilled its obligations of protection, investigation and effective judicial assessment; for this, the appropriate ordinary remedies must be used. 3
How are the authority, the time limit and the request determined?
| Dispute | First assessment and route | Important distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Search or seizure in a criminal investigation | CMK objection in accordance with the decision; request for return and, if necessary, compensation | An objection, an objection to evidence in the criminal proceedings and compensation are not the same request. |
| Inspection or eviction by an administrative act | Annulment before the competent administrative court, a stay of execution if the conditions are met, and a full remedy action | Unless there is a special period, the general period for an action before the administrative court is sixty days. |
| Unauthorized entry by a private person | Complaint to the public prosecutor’s office or law enforcement; a civil action depending on the conditions | The form of the offense subject to complaint and the date of learning must be determined. |
| Constitutional violation not remedied at the end of the ordinary remedies | Individual application to the AYM | As a rule, thirty days from learning of the final decision. |
The general objection period in CMK Article 268, where there is no separate provision, is two weeks from learning of the decision. The seven-day information in old sources should not be applied directly to current applications. Filing an objection does not by itself stop the execution of the act; a request for a stay, if the conditions are met, is assessed separately. 2
CMK Article 141/1-i provides for a claim for compensation on the ground of disproportionate execution of a search decision. This provision should not be used as a general route that resolves all search complaints within the same scope. The appropriate compensation route, the nature of the claim and the relevant current rules on jurisdiction should be examined together. The provision in CMK Article 142 of three months from notification of finality and, in any case, one year following finality is also assessed within the framework to which the specific claim is subject. 2
In an administrative action, the conditions of a clear unlawfulness and of damage that would be difficult or impossible to remedy if the act is executed are sought together for a stay of execution. Filing the action does not stop the eviction automatically. For a claim of damage arising from an administrative action, the preliminary application provision in İYUK Article 13 should be addressed separately; for damage arising from an administrative act, İYUK Article 12. It should not be assumed that choosing the wrong route and later switching to the other will preserve all the time limits. 8
How is an effective file prepared?
A link must be built between the event, the documents and the request
The backbone of the application should be a short chronology: the date of the decision, the hour of execution, the scope of the interference, the date of the objection, the answer given and the learning of the final decision. Next to each allegation, the relevant document should be indicated. Instead of the sentence “our home was searched unlawfully,” it should be explained, for example, that the decision covered another address, that the prosecutor’s order was not in writing, or that the item seized was not on the list.
The claim of damage should also be broken down. The repair invoice for a broken door may support material loss; the home being unusable, a temporary accommodation expense; and a serious effect on family privacy, a claim for non-pecuniary damage. The connection of each expense with the interference should be established, and hypothetical amounts should not be presented as definite loss. The aims of requests for return of items, compensation, a finding of violation and retrial are different.
Mistakes that lawyers and applicants should avoid
Merely listing statutory articles; confusing the search decision with the execution record; failing to explain the personal connection with the home; adding unrelated precedents one after another; and going to the AYM without exhausting the effective route all weaken the application. The procedural complaint must have been raised in its substance before the earlier courts, and the answers given must be shown. The AYM is not a general court of appeal that re-examines every error in the application of law. 3
Lawyers have also been able to make individual applications through the UYAP Lawyer Portal since 1 October 2025. Technically logging into the system or saving a draft does not mean that the application has been completed. The submission, the attachments and the application record should be verified. Electronic records of learning and notification dates should be kept separately; it should not be thought that a later notification will in every case start a new thirty-day period. 9
How is the correct request built on an example case?
Suppose that a decision issued for searching accounting records in a home is executed, and that during the search the device holding family photographs and the computer used for work are taken together. In this hypothetical example, the first question is whether all the devices were taken on the same legal ground. The search decision, the seizure record and, if there is one, the digital examination decision should be read separately. That the search was necessary does not by itself explain examining the entire personal archive within the same scope. 2
The applicant should state to whom the devices belong, which was used for what purpose and why return is requested. If it is claimed that the activity stopped because the work computer was seized, it should be explained that the work really depended on this device and whether a lighter method existed. The public authority may rely on the risk of the data being altered; against this, appropriate copying, screening or limited examination options can be discussed in the file. It should not be assumed that the technical options are workable in every event.
If a separate criminal case has been brought because of the search, the objection concerning evidence alleged to have been obtained unlawfully must be made concrete in those proceedings. The outcome of the complaint about the right to the home and the effect of the evidence on the judgment are distinguished. On one side, the constitutional guarantees of the interference are examined; on the other, the evidentiary regime of the proceedings and their fairness as a whole. Reducing the request merely to the word acquittal or merely to the word compensation may leave unclear the problem that is sought to be remedied.
If the alleged violation has been remedied afterward, the scope of this should also be explained. Return of the device may end the continuing obstruction, but it does not necessarily remedy the loss of past use or the unnecessary examination of private data. Conversely, an appropriate authority’s acknowledging the violation and providing sufficient redress may affect victim status at the AYM stage. The file should honestly show not only the first interference but also the later redress. 3
Representation, form of application and costs
The applicant must explain how the interference was directed at his or her own living space or the private part of the workplace. For a tenant, the relationship of use is shown; for a company, the place inspected and the person authorized to represent it. Being the title-deed owner of a property is not the same as asserting in one’s own name all the rights concerning another person’s private living space during a search. In an application with a lawyer, the power of attorney and the applicant’s details must be correct; the powers of the company organ and of the attorney must not be confused.
An AYM individual application is prepared with the application form and the necessary attachments. The final decision, the record of learning and the results of the ordinary applications should be presented in an orderly way; instead of the form, general references to long petitions in the attachments should not be made. The application is subject to a fee; those without the means to pay may request legal aid if the conditions are met. Fees and expenses and the lawyer’s fee agreement are separate items. The amount on the date of application and the payment receipt should be checked; the previous year’s tariff should not be used. Paying the fee or requesting legal aid does not by itself cure an incomplete form, an application out of time or an unexhausted remedy. 3
Conclusion
Effective protection of inviolability of the home begins with correctly identifying the nature of the place and the type of interference. The judge’s decision, the reason of urgency, the proportionality of the execution and subsequent review must be examined together. The application should be built on a document-based account of the facts and a correct request for redress, rather than an abstract allegation of unlawfulness. This text is for general information; in a concrete file, jurisdiction, time limits and the route to be used are assessed separately.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a tenant benefit from inviolability of the home?
Yes. The protection is not based only on ownership. The tenant’s real connection with the living space and the authority to use it matter; the landlord’s title deed does not create a general authority for unauthorized entry.
Is every inspection carried out at a workplace a home search?
No. Whether the place is open to the public, its private nature and the powers used are examined. The home guarantees may come into play for closed working rooms and private records.
Can a home be searched on the order of a law enforcement superior?
For a home search under CMK Article 119, a judge’s decision or, where delay would be prejudicial, the written order of the public prosecutor is required. The general authority granted to a law enforcement superior cannot be substituted for this special rule.
Can a lawyer be prevented from taking part in the search?
CMK Article 120 provides that the presence of the person’s lawyer at the search cannot be obstructed. The time and reason for any concrete obstruction and whether it is reflected in the record should be documented.
Does finding evidence in a search cure all the deficiencies?
No. The authority and procedural conditions at the outset are examined separately. The admissibility of the evidence in the criminal proceedings and the violation of the right to the home may require different legal assessments.
Does filing an objection automatically stop the eviction or the search?
Generally no. Depending on the type of act, a request for a stay of execution or enforcement and the legal conditions for it must be assessed separately.
Can one apply directly to the Constitutional Court?
As a rule, effective ordinary remedies must be exhausted. Skipping an available objection or court route may lead to inadmissibility. The thirty-day period must also be protected separately.
Did the Ford decision annul the relevant article of the Competition Law?
No. Ford is an individual application decision. In the subsequent review-of-legislation decision E.2023/174, K.2025/224, the objections raised were also rejected on different grounds; the current concrete act should be examined with regard to the scope of both decisions.
Sources
1. Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, in particular Articles 13, 20, 21, 36, 40 and 148. Official legislative text.
2. Law No. 5271 on Criminal Procedure, in particular Articles 116–121, 127, 130, 134, 141–142 and 267–269. Official legislative text.
3. Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, Articles 45–50. Official legislative text.
4. AYM, Ford Otomotiv Sanayi A.Ş. [GK], Application No: 2019/40991, 23/3/2023, in particular §§ 54–68. Decisions Information Bank.
5. AYM, E.2023/174, K.2025/224, 6/11/2025; Official Gazette 17/2/2026, 33171, in particular §§ 19–26, the operative part and the dissenting opinions. Official decision record.
6. AYM, Hayrettin Aktaş, Application No: 2013/1205, 17/9/2013, §§ 50–57. Decisions Information Bank.
7. Law No. 5237, Turkish Penal Code, in particular Articles 73, 116 and 119. Official legislative text.
8. Law No. 2577 on Administrative Procedure, in particular Articles 7, 11–13 and 27. Official legislative text.
9. AYM, Individual Applications Began to Be Accepted via the UYAP Lawyer Portal, 1/10/2025. Official announcement.