BEFORE YOU BEGIN
Go straight to the section you need.
Each decision is arranged in its own section in the same pattern: facts, reasoning, short quotation, outcome and practice note. You can open the headings to read them and move between decisions from the section menu.
Scope of the guide and the year of the decisions
SCOPE
This guide explains 19 of the individual application decisions of the Constitutional Court (AYM) that appear in the 2025 selected decisions book, covering the facts, reasoning, a short quotation, the outcome and a practice note. 2025 is the compilation year of the AYM book; the selection includes decisions dated 2024 and 2025.
The guide was prepared on the basis of the official decision texts, separately from the AYM’s book. The quotations have been verified against the official full text. The explanations relate to the historical context of the decisions; later legislative and case-law changes must be reviewed separately.
The decision year and the selection year show different information
The year in the application number is the year the individual application was registered. The decision year is the year in which the AYM gave its ruling. The year of the selected decisions book is the compilation year of the publication series. These fields must not be used in place of one another.
For example, the Aydın Gelleci application bears the number 2018/18910 and the decision date is September 5, 2024; the decision appears in the 2025 selection. The fact that the same decision appears in different contexts does not mean there are two separate decisions.
How to read and cite the decisions
USE
Case details
Verify the applicant’s name, the application number, the decision date and the deciding body together. Keep anonymized names exactly as they are.
Subject of the application
The subject text describes the applicant’s allegation. The phrase “relates to the alleged violation” does not mean that the AYM found a violation.
Outcome by right
In the same decision, one complaint may be inadmissible because of the lapse of time, while another may end with a finding of violation. Do not settle for the general outcome label.
Reasoning and operative part
Read together the paragraph to be used as precedent, the particulars of the case, the admissibility assessment and the operative part. Do not present a dissenting opinion as the majority view.
Redress
State retrial, damages, dismissal and other forms of redress separately. Do not present the outcome of a retrial directly as an acquittal, reinstatement or collection of a specific receivable.
Current practice
Do not use historical monetary thresholds, postponements in a pilot judgment or former legislation as time limits and amounts that apply today. In a specific file, current legislation and later case law are reviewed separately.
Citation example: Constitutional Court, Kadir Toprak, Application No: 2022/2407, October 9, 2024, § 31. If a quotation is to be used, the full context of the paragraph and its effect on the operative part are checked. Do not put summary explanations in quotation marks and present them as the original sentence of the decision.
N.E.: Removal of a member of the judiciary from the profession during the state of emergency (OHAL) and the ByLock finding
Application No. 2022/62466 · May 29, 2025 · Plenary Assembly
Right to respect for private life was not violated
The AYM examined the removal of a member of the judiciary from the profession in terms of the specific ByLock finding and the judicial safeguards, and found it proportionate under the conditions of the state of emergency.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
In the action brought against the removal from the profession, individualized findings on ByLock use were taken as the basis. The AYM found the reasons based on these findings relevant and convincing; it assessed that the applicant had been able to access the documents and put forward objections. The examination was carried out within the framework of the state of emergency criteria in Article 15 of the Constitution.
“in order to say that the measure taken, and the result reached by the judicial authorities in this context, were to the extent required by the situation, it must first of all not involve arbitrariness.”
Outcome of the decision
It was unanimously decided that the right to respect for private life, assessed together with Article 15 of the Constitution, was not violated. The complaint concerning reasonable time was found inadmissible because of non-exhaustion of remedies. No retrial or damages were ordered; a complete exemption from litigation costs was granted within the scope of legal aid.
Practice note
This decision should not be used as an automatic outcome regarding a criminal conviction. In a removal from the profession, the person-specific technical findings, the possibility of objecting to those findings and the state of emergency proportionality assessment must each be examined separately.
Basis: §§ 130, 139–149, 150–152; operative part C–F | 2025 compilation, printed p. 3
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
A.S.: The effect of ByLock connection findings on a removal from the profession
Application No. 2023/30928 · May 29, 2025 · Plenary Assembly
Right to respect for private life was not violated
The AYM concluded that a removal from the profession justified by specific technical findings did not exceed the extent required by the state of emergency.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
In the administrative courts, the ByLock subscriber record, device and connection findings were assessed, and it was accepted that the applicant had installed and used the application. The AYM found these reasons sufficient for the assessment of contact and affiliation. It also took into account that access to the documents and the means of defense were provided. The examination concerned the constitutional review of the measure of removal from the profession, as distinct from a finding of guilt in a criminal case.
“Therefore, in the present application, it has been concluded that the extent required by the situation was observed under the conditions of the state of emergency.”
Outcome of the decision
It was unanimously decided that the right to respect for private life, assessed together with Article 15 of the Constitution, was not violated. The complaint concerning reasonable time was found inadmissible because of non-exhaustion of remedies. No retrial or damages were ordered; a complete exemption from litigation costs was granted within the scope of legal aid.
Practice note
It must be shown to which person and device the technical data was linked and how the court assessed the objections. The decision should not be generalized to mean that every connection record would produce the same result without any further examination.
Basis: §§ 143–152, 153–155; operative part C–F | 2025 compilation, printed p. 81
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
Halit İnciroğlu: Specific reasons for a removal from the profession and the assessment of evidence in the applicant’s favor
Application No. 2023/38006 · May 29, 2025 · Plenary Assembly
Right to respect for private life was violated
A witness statement based on personal opinions and the fact of appointment to a higher post were not considered sufficient for a removal from the profession without discussing the evidence in the applicant’s favor.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
The administrative court relied on one witness’s statement and on the applicant’s appointment as an inspector at the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK). The AYM determined that the witness had not described any specific organizational act, that the appointment having been made for an organizational purpose was not supported by other evidence, and that the statements of two members of the judiciary in the applicant’s favor had not been assessed. The explanation regarding the family health grounds for the appointment request had also not been examined.
“Therefore, it has been concluded that the interference with the right to respect for private life arising from the applicant’s removal from the profession was not to the extent required by the situation under the conditions of the state of emergency.”
Outcome of the decision
It was decided that the right to respect for private life was violated and that a retrial would be held before the Fifth Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay). The claims for damages were dismissed. The complaint concerning the presumption of innocence was found inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, and the complaint concerning reasonable time was found inadmissible because of non-exhaustion of remedies. The ruling was given unanimously.
Practice note
All statements, both favorable and unfavorable, and the specific reasons for the change of post must be presented together. A finding of violation is not directly a ruling of reinstatement; in the retrial, the deficiencies in assessment that led to the violation must be remedied.
Basis: §§ 147–156, 157–169; operative part A–D | 2025 compilation, printed p. 161
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
Aydın Gelleci: Limits of freedom of the press in the text of a reply and correction
Application No. 2018/18910 · September 5, 2024 · Plenary Assembly
Freedom of expression and the press was violated
The right of reply and correction does not give a person the ability to compel publication of personal attacks unrelated to the news item or of texts that are clearly disproportionate in length.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
A reply published in response to a column went beyond answering the criticisms and contained statements targeting the writer. The AYM explained its review, which consists of the stages of the emergence of the right of reply, whether the text genuinely has the character of a reply and correction, and proportionality. It determined that the first condition was reasoned, but that the irrelevant content and excessive length impaired the editorial freedom of the press.
“Therefore, to reiterate, the right of correction and reply is granted to an individual only in exceptional circumstances, and its scope is limited to the news item concerning the individual.”
Outcome of the decision
It was unanimously decided that the freedoms in Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution were violated. Since the text had already been published, no legal interest was found in a retrial. The applicant was awarded net 10,000 TL in non-pecuniary damages.
Practice note
In an objection, the relevant part of the news item and the reply text should be shown together; it should be explained which statements of the text exceeded the subject and why it is disproportionate in length. The existence of the right of reply and the lawfulness of the submitted text are separate questions.
Basis: §§ 54–63; operative part A–C | 2025 compilation, printed p. 249
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
Muammer Bulut: Advance payment of the expropriation price
Application No. 2020/9066 · November 21, 2024 · Plenary Assembly
Right to property was violated
The fact that the full real value was not paid when the expropriated immovable passed to the administration was examined in terms of the guarantee of advance payment.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
The value of some structures was initially not added to the price of an immovable expropriated for road construction. After the reversal, the price was increased; the administration did not deposit the additional amount. Although the registration had taken place and the immovable was in use, the real price had not been paid in full. The AYM determined that this situation was contrary to the guarantee in Article 46 of the Constitution.
“it is understood that the expropriated immovable was in fact used by the Administration but the real price was not fully paid in the expropriation.”
Outcome of the decision
Article 35 of the Constitution was violated. A retrial before the 1st Civil Court of First Instance of Çarşamba and notification to the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM) of the problem arising from the law were ordered. The claims for damages were dismissed. The complaint concerning reasonable time was found inadmissible because of non-exhaustion of remedies.
Practice note
The dates of price determination, registration and payment should be examined in the same schedule; the missing structure values should be shown separately. The decision should not be reduced to the allegation that the price was low.
Basis: §§ 67–72, 76–82; operative part B–E | 2025 compilation, printed p. 285
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
Hasan Durmuş: Attorney fee burden in compensation for cancellation of a title deed
Application No. 2019/19126 · January 23, 2025 · Plenary Assembly
Right to property was violated
Although the State’s liability for compensation had been accepted, the attorney fee imposed on the applicant reduced the compensation significantly and upset the fair balance.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
The applicant, whose title deed was cancelled because of its forest character, increased the claim on the basis of the court’s expert report. After the reversal, lower compensation was awarded. The attorney fee totaling 11,383.43 TL that the applicant would pay to the Treasury amounted to 29.55% of the compensation of 38,521.12 TL. The AYM found this burden disproportionate in the specific circumstances.
“In other words, it must be examined whether an excessive and disproportionate burden has been imposed personally on the applicant who was deprived of property.”
Outcome of the decision
It was decided that the right to property was violated and that a retrial would be held before the 1st Civil Court of First Instance of Yalova. The applicant’s claim for damages was dismissed.
Practice note
The increase based on the expert report and the net compensation remaining with the applicant should be assessed together. This decision does not mean that every attorney fee award against a party automatically constitutes a violation.
Basis: §§ 62–69, 72–74; operative part B–D | 2025 compilation, printed p. 317
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
Musa Özalp: Responsibility of the authorizing officer for public loss
Application No. 2020/5754 · May 15, 2025 · Plenary Assembly
Right to property was not violated
Not being a party to the social balance agreement did not remove the authorizing officer’s duty to examine whether the payment complied with the legislation.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
The applicant, an authorizing officer at a municipality, was held responsible by the Court of Accounts (Sayıştay) for public loss because of payments made to retired personnel. The AYM assessed the duty to ensure the lawfulness of the expenditure instruction, the possibility of objection in the proceedings, and the ability to resort to legal remedies against those concerned. It concluded that the interference did not create an excessive personal burden.
“the authorizing officer must assess whether the expenditure complies with the legislation.”
Outcome of the decision
It was decided that the right to property within the scope of Article 35 of the Constitution was not violated.
Practice note
The existence of the agreement should not be regarded as sufficient on its own; the authority to pay, the legislative basis and the expenditure instruction should be examined together. This decision, in which no violation was found, is important for understanding the limits of responsibility.
Basis: §§ 46–54 | 2025 compilation, printed p. 342
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
Kombassan Kağıt Matbaa Gıda ve Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.: Increase of the amount at the appeal stage in a full remedy action
Application No. 2019/30300 · July 18, 2024 · Second Section
Right of access to a court was violated
Not giving the claimant, who learned the actual receivable amount through service of the decision, the opportunity to increase the claim at the first-instance stage made the rejection of the request on appeal disproportionate.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
In an action for the refund of late-payment interest collected in excess, the court ruled on the basis of a claim of 500,000 TL without serving on the company the information on the amount it had obtained from the administration. When the company learned that the actual amount was 606,163.19 TL, it requested an increase together with its appeal. The AYM determined that no fault could be attributed to an applicant who could not make an increase because the court had not provided the information, and that the failure to examine the request created an excessive burden.
“Therefore, there is no fault that can be attributed to the applicant.”
Outcome of the decision
It was unanimously decided that the right of access to a court was violated and that a retrial would be held before the 1st Tax Court of İzmir. The applicant had requested a retrial; no separate payment of damages was ordered.
Practice note
When the actual amount of the receivable was learned and why the increase could not have been made earlier should be documented. The decision should not be read as meaning that every full remedy action carries an unconditional right to increase the claim at the appeal stage.
Basis: §§ 18–24; operative part A–C | 2025 compilation, printed p. 373
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
A.Ö.: Appeal threshold in an action on the legal liability of a judge
Application No. 2019/15444 · September 5, 2024 · Plenary Assembly
Right of access to a court was not violated
The application of the general appeal threshold in an action on the legal liability of a judge, heard by the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) sitting as a court of first instance, was found proportionate in the specific case.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
The appeal request against the dismissal of a compensation action of 12,000 TL was not examined because it fell below the threshold of 47,530 TL in the year of the decision. The majority of the AYM assessed that Article 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) only specifically designates the appellate authority and that the application of the general rules to the other procedural conditions was foreseeable. It also regarded the direct hearing of the case before the higher court as a counterbalancing safeguard.
“Therefore, the application of the general provisions with respect to the other procedural rules concerning appeal is a normal situation.”
Outcome of the decision
The complaint concerning the right of access to a court was found admissible; it was decided, with the dissenting opinion of three members, that there was no violation on the merits. No retrial or damages were ordered; the litigation costs were left with the applicant.
Practice note
The appeal threshold should be determined on the basis of the rule in force on the date the decision was given; the 2018 amount in the decision should not be used as the current threshold. The reasoning of the dissenting opinion should not be presented as the binding outcome of the majority.
Basis: §§ 38–51; operative part B–D | 2025 compilation, printed p. 381
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
Kadir Toprak: Defense counsel’s health excuse and the defense against the opinion on the merits
Application No. 2022/2407 · October 9, 2024 · Plenary Assembly
Right to adequate time and facilities for the defense was violated
Convicting the defendant without giving defense counsel, whose health excuse had been rejected, and the defendant the opportunity to respond to the opinion on the merits violated the right of defense in the specific circumstances.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
At the hearing for which an excuse was submitted on suspicion of COVID-19, the court gave up hearing the complainant; it obtained the prosecutor’s opinion and delivered a final conviction. The AYM assessed the pandemic conditions and the fact that the test result could not be obtained immediately. It regarded as decisive that no opportunity for defense was given against the new substantive steps and that there was no safeguard to remedy the disadvantage.
“it must be accepted that excuses should not be rejected categorically even if they are not documented.”
Outcome of the decision
It was unanimously decided that the right to adequate time and facilities for the defense was violated and that a retrial would be held before the 8th Criminal Court of First Instance of Adana. The other alleged violations were not examined separately; the claim for non-pecuniary damages was dismissed.
Practice note
The sudden onset of the excuse, the reason the document could be submitted later and the substantive steps taken at the same hearing should be shown. The decision does not make it mandatory to accept every excuse; it is based on whether the defense was used effectively as a whole.
Basis: §§ 27–37; operative part A–D | 2025 compilation, printed p. 407
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
Sani Bayar: Right to a reasoned decision in an objection to unlawfully obtained evidence
Application No. 2021/26642 · November 21, 2024 · Plenary Assembly
Right to a reasoned decision was violated
Leaving unanswered an objection to evidence capable of changing the outcome, and not explaining a departure from settled case law, violated the right to a reasoned decision.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
Records of communications monitoring in an organization investigation were used in a conviction for other offenses. The applicant argued that, for offenses falling outside the catalog on the relevant date, this evidence could not be relied on. The AYM determined that the objection was substantive and that it had not been explained in the appeal review why a result different from earlier case law had been reached.
“Therefore, the obligation of the court to examine the allegations or objections affecting the outcome of the decision, to clarify them and to reflect the situation in the reasoning has not been fulfilled.”
Outcome of the decision
It was decided that the right to a reasoned decision within the scope of Article 36 of the Constitution was violated and that a retrial would be held before the 18th Criminal Court of First Instance of Antalya. The claim for damages was dismissed.
Practice note
In the objection, it should be made concrete which record was used for which offense, the rule on the date of the event, and the effect of the evidence on the judgment. This finding of violation is not directly a judgment of acquittal.
Basis: §§ 50–54; operative part | 2025 compilation, printed p. 423
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
Ömer Oral: Loss of the right of appeal on points of law because of a reversal by the appellate court
Application No. 2023/33667 · January 9, 2025 · Plenary Assembly
Right of access to a court was violated
The appellate court’s issuing of a reversal for a reason not provided for by law prevented the applicant from reaching appellate review on points of law.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
The acquittal by the first-instance court was reversed on appeal. In the retried case a conviction was handed down; the subsequent appeal was finally rejected. The AYM determined that sending the file back where the appellate court itself should have ruled eliminated the possibility of appeal on points of law, and that the interference had no statutory basis.
“In other words, with this decision of the Appellate Chamber, an interference without a statutory basis was made with the applicant’s right of access to a court.”
Outcome of the decision
The right of access to a court was violated. For the retrial, the decision was sent to the 4th Criminal Chamber of the Samsun Regional Court of Appeal. The other complaints were not examined separately.
Practice note
The type of each decision and the recourse it gives rise to should be shown in the remedies schedule. The argument should be built not only on the correctness of the conviction but on the effect of the chosen procedure on the right of appeal on points of law.
Basis: §§ 51–60; operative part | 2025 compilation, printed p. 449
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
Selçuk Arslan: Right to examine witnesses and hearing via SEGBİS
Application No. 2020/19752 · February 6, 2025 · Plenary Assembly
Right to examine witnesses was violated
The fact that the statements of witnesses who could not be examined were the sole evidence, and that no safeguards were provided to counterbalance the deficiency in the defense, impaired the fairness of the proceedings.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
In a conviction for membership of an organization, witness statements taken by other courts were used. It was not explained why the witnesses were not heard at the hearing or through the audio-visual information system (SEGBİS). The AYM assessed together the reason for the witness’s absence, the weight of the statement in the conviction and the counterbalancing safeguards.
“Thus, the reliability of the witnesses’ statements could not be tested.”
Outcome of the decision
The right to examine witnesses within the scope of Article 36 of the Constitution was violated. A retrial before the 2nd High Criminal Court of Tekirdağ was ordered; the claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages were dismissed.
Practice note
Why the witness was decisive, the requests to examine and the hearing method that could have been used should be visible in the file. Not every witness who is not heard automatically means a violation; the decision also does not directly produce an acquittal.
Basis: §§ 91–100 | 2025 compilation, printed p. 475
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
Menduh Ataç (2): Examination of substantive defenses when a penalty is imposed on an upper-tier dealer
Application No. 2021/20360 · April 17, 2025 · Plenary Assembly
Right to a reasoned decision was violated
Leaving outside the assessment defenses capable of affecting the outcome, without setting out a specific reason explaining the criminal liability of the upper-tier dealer’s representative, constituted a violation.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
The applicant argued that the unauthorized subscription contract had been drawn up by the sub-dealer, that the applicant had only carried out the line activation, and submitted precedent decisions. The court imposed a penalty, regarding the upper-tier dealer’s approval as sufficient. The AYM determined that the link between the applicant’s acts and criminal liability had not been sufficiently explained.
“In other words, it has been observed that the trial court did not set out a specific reasoning that clearly demonstrates the liability of the upper-tier dealer.”
Outcome of the decision
The right to a reasoned decision was violated. A retrial before the 9th Criminal Court of First Instance of Bakırköy was ordered. The claims for damages were dismissed.
Practice note
The company title or authority of representation should be distinguished from the personal act. The capacity of the defense to change the outcome should be explained; what the precedent decision has in common with the dispute should be shown.
Basis: §§ 25–36; operative part B–D | 2025 compilation, printed p. 515
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
Sait Görmüş: Long-term annotation of a precautionary measure on the vehicle registry and the compensation remedy
Application No. 2022/19376 · December 12, 2024 · Plenary Assembly
Right to an effective remedy in conjunction with the right to property was violated
The absence of an effective remedy to redress the damage arising from an annotation of a precautionary measure lasting approximately thirteen years in the vehicle traffic registry was regarded as a structural problem.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
An annotation was placed on the vehicle’s registry without the vehicle being physically taken; this restriction continued throughout the proceedings. The AYM determined that, in the existing case law, requiring actual seizure for compensation under Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) did not provide effective redress for damage arising from a registry annotation. The problem concerns a long-term restriction on legal disposition in the traffic registry.
“However, where damage beyond what is unavoidable is caused, an interference with the right to property places an excessive burden on individuals.”
Outcome of the decision
It was unanimously decided that there was a violation and that the pilot judgment procedure would be applied; the structural problem was notified to the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM). Net 30,000 TL in non-pecuniary damages was awarded; the claim for pecuniary damages was dismissed. The decision provided for a four-month postponement of examination of similar applications, running from publication in the Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete); no retrial was ordered.
Practice note
The duration of the registry annotation, how it restricted disposition and the specific damage should be documented. The four-month period in the decision is a historical postponement of examination; it is not an application time limit to be used today.
Basis: §§ 57–63, 73–79; operative part A–G | 2025 compilation, printed p. 529
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
Ferihan Beyoğlu: Starting date of interest on compensation increased in a full remedy action
Application No. 2020/20382 · January 9, 2025 · Plenary Assembly
Right to an effective remedy was violated
Starting the interest on the increased portion of the same damage much later prevented adequate redress in an action brought because of medical negligence.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
The applicant sought compensation for paralysis following surgery. Interest on the increased amount was started from the service of the petition for increase, instead of from the date of the application to the administration in the initial claim. The difference of approximately nine years in between led to a loss of value. The AYM also noted the same approach to the starting date of interest in the Council of State’s unification-of-case-law decision dated October 24, 2024.
“by calculating the interest starting from a later date (in the specific case, approximately 9 years later), it caused a loss of value.”
Outcome of the decision
Article 40 of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 17, was violated. A retrial before the Tenth Chamber of the Council of State and net 55,000 TL in non-pecuniary damages were ordered; the other claims for damages were dismissed.
Practice note
The initial claim, the increase, the service and the interest starting dates should be shown on separate lines; the effect of the interest difference on the redress of the damage should be calculated. Litigation costs and compensation should not be confused with each other.
Basis: §§ 33–39; operative part C–E | 2025 compilation, printed p. 557
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
Caner Şafak: Loss of value of a receivable due to inflation and consequential damage
Application No. 2024/41763 · July 8, 2025 · Plenary Assembly
Right to an effective remedy was violated · Pilot judgment
The failure to provide effective redress against the erosion of a private-law receivable by inflation was treated as a structural problem.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
The applicant sought consequential damages (munzam zarar) for a loss exceeding the statutory interest on a receivable collected late. The claim was dismissed on the ground that specific damage had not been proven. The AYM examined, in conjunction with the right to property, the absence of an effective remedy that would redress the loss of value.
“is ensuring that the structural problem is corrected by eliminating the source of the violation”
Outcome of the decision
Article 40 of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 35, was violated. A pilot judgment and notification to the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye were ordered; the claim for damages was dismissed. For similar applications, a six-month postponement was provided, running from publication in the Official Gazette dated September 29, 2025.
Practice note
This historical postponement should not be used as a current application calendar. The maturity of the receivable, its collection, the interest applied and the loss of value should be documented; the decision should not be presented as automatically producing a specific amount of compensation.
Basis: §§ 60–69, 74–83; operative part B–F | 2025 compilation, printed p. 573
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
Hülya Şimşek: A white-collar employee’s benefit from a collective labor agreement
Application No. 2022/18821 · March 20, 2025 · Plenary Assembly
Right to organize (trade union right) was violated
The mere fact that an employee is considered white-collar did not constitute sufficient grounds for excluding the employee from the collective labor agreement.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
An accounting supervisor who was a union member was treated as out-of-scope personnel and was not allowed to benefit from receivables based on the collective labor agreement (TİS). The AYM explained that the status of acting as an employer’s representative, or of taking part in collective bargaining on behalf of the employer, must be investigated concretely. It found insufficient that the courts, without examining duties and powers, relied solely on the same practice having been applied to other white-collar employees.
“The right to conclude a collective labor agreement covers not only the right to make a contract in the formal sense but undoubtedly also the right to benefit from this contract.”
Outcome of the decision
It was unanimously decided that the right to organize was violated with respect to the State’s obligation to provide effective judicial protection. A retrial before the Civil Court of First Instance of Çayeli, sitting as a labor court, and net 34,000 TL in non-pecuniary damages were ordered; the other claims for damages were dismissed.
Practice note
Rather than settling for the job title, the actual duties, authority of representation, union membership and position in collective bargaining should be examined. The decision does not by itself determine the amount of employment receivables; it requires that judicial review be specific and reasoned.
Basis: §§ 34, 39–48; operative part A–D | 2025 compilation, printed p. 633
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
A.E. and Others: Artificial multiplication of lawsuits and abuse of the right of individual application
Application No. 2024/5814 · May 28, 2025 · Second Section
Dismissal for lapse of time and abuse
Applications in which disputes were found to have been artificially multiplied in order to obtain attorney fees were examined in terms of the limits of the freedom to seek legal remedies.
Facts and the Constitutional Court’s assessment
A large number of lawsuits were filed over the Banking and Insurance Transaction Tax (BSMV) deducted from very low-value gold transactions. Assessing the pattern of transactions and lawsuits, the AYM determined that the abuse was clear in the specific case. It also emphasized, however, that the filing of a large number of lawsuits alone would not suffice for this conclusion.
“The filing of a large number of lawsuits on a single matter by one person does not in every case show that the right to bring an action and the right of individual application have been abused.”
Outcome of the decision
Of the 379 proceedings that were the subject of the application, the part concerning 13 was found inadmissible because of lapse of time; the part concerning 366 was dismissed because of abuse. A disciplinary fine of 2,000 TL was imposed on each applicant separately.
Practice note
A genuine and separate legal interest should be distinguished from artificial fragmentation; the dates of learning and of application should also be checked separately. No general tax conclusion regarding current BSMV practice should be drawn from the decision.
Basis: §§ 31–48; operative part | 2025 compilation, printed p. 657
Full text of the decision (Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank)
BASIS AND CURRENCY
Sources and review information
- Constitutional Court (AYM) Decisions Information Bank
- Constitutional Court — Selected individual application decisions
Each section’s source note is kept at the end of the relevant text.
The guide provides general information. The explanations relate to the historical context of the decisions; for a specific file, current legislation and later case law must be reviewed separately.