What Is the Right to an Effective Remedy? Scope, Cases of Violation and Routes of Application

The right to an effective remedy means that a person who argues, on arguable grounds, that a fundamental right has been violated can reach a competent authority that can examine the complaint and provide a solution appropriate to the nature of the violation. The existence of a court case or an objection procedure in the law is not enough. For the route to be usable in practice, it must be able to prevent a violation where necessary, halt a continuing violation or repair the damage caused. [1, Art. 40] [2, Art. 13] [3, §§47–51]

An effective application does not mean that it will necessarily succeed. The question to be examined is not first whether the person obtains a decision in his or her favour, but whether the claim can be carried into a genuine examination and whether a mechanism capable of providing appropriate redress actually works. The Constitutional Court's decisions in 2026 continue to maintain this distinction. [5, §§18–25] [6, §§19–30]

This guide addresses the scope of the right, examples of violation, the authorities to which an application may be made in Türkiye, time limits and mistakes made in preparing a file. The conditions for an individual application to the Constitutional Court (AYM) and for an application to the European Court of Human Rights are kept separate. The explanations are prepared on the basis of the legislation and case law examined as of 11 October 2026.

Legal basis and scope of the right to an effective remedy

Article 40 of the Constitution contains three connected guarantees: that a claim of violation can be brought to the competent authority without delay; that the State indicates, in its acts, the legal remedy, the authority and the time limit; and that damage arising from unlawful acts of public officials is redressed by the State within the framework of the law. The last guarantee does not mean that every administrative act automatically gives rise to compensation. The conditions of liability, the competent authority and the applicable procedure are determined separately. [1, Art. 40]

Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guarantees that, for arguable complaints concerning the rights and freedoms in the Convention, there is an effective remedy at national level. The authority to which a claim is made does not need to be a court in every case; however, its powers, its independence, the procedural safeguards it offers and the effect of the decision it may give are important. In some cases, several routes together may provide sufficient protection. [8, §157] [15, §§78–80]

This right is not limited to criminal proceedings. It may arise in connection with different rights such as private life, correspondence, property, bodily integrity, life and trial within a reasonable time. Even in a dispute between private persons, the inadequacy of the protection mechanism provided by the State may raise a constitutional problem. However, the target of an individual application to the AYM is not a private person; the link between an act, action or omission of public authorities and the protection of the fundamental right must be explained. [4, §§43–50] [17, Art. 45]

Connection with another right and an arguable claim

The right to an effective remedy is complementary in nature. It is not enough for the petition merely to say "my application was rejected, and Article 40 of the Constitution was violated". It must show which fundamental right's protection is sought, the facts on which this claim rests, and why the existing route has been inadequate. In an individual application to the AYM, the relevant right must also lie within the common field of protection of the Constitution, the ECHR and the additional protocols to which Türkiye is a party. [11, §§37–43] [17, Art. 45]

An arguable claim does not mean that the violation is conclusively proven in advance. The person must ground the complaint on a serious legal and factual basis. The fact that the connected right has not yet been found to have been violated does not in itself remove the examination of the right to an effective remedy. For example, being denied access to a genuine examination of a risk of deportation may be assessed without waiting for ill-treatment to actually occur. [3, §§43–49]

In doctrine, Bezar Eylem Ekinci also distinguishes between the complementary nature of the right and the requirement that the violation of the connected right has been established beforehand. The practical meaning of this distinction is as follows: the applicant must first connect the right to the link, and then specify the deficiency in examination or redress. Adding only an article number does not replace this explanation. [16, pp. 15–18]

The difference between access to court, fair trial and effective remedy

These guarantees support one another, but they do not answer the same question. A fair trial concerns the fairness of the judicial process and its procedural safeguards; an effective remedy concerns the existence of an examination and redress route appropriate to a complaint about a fundamental right. The same facts may sometimes be assessed together; it is not necessary in every case to deliver a separate finding of violation for every right. [8, §§146–156]

The table is based on a joint reading of Articles 36, 40 and 148 of the Constitution and Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR. For an example of the conduct of proceedings, the firm's review of the right to a fair trial in the light of an AYM decision may also be consulted. [1] [2]

In what conditions is an application route considered effective?

Effectiveness cannot be inferred from the name of the route or from the number of authorities it involves. A concrete link must be established between the protection sought and the complaint. In a debt dispute, default interest and compensation may be meaningful, whereas where there is an imminent danger of ill-treatment, a money decision given years later does not provide adequate protection. [3, §§46–51] [5, §§21–25]

Accessibility and the possibility of a genuine examination

The route must be sufficiently certain; the person must be able to learn the competent authority, the procedure and the time limit. Lodging the petition, obtaining the necessary documents and setting out the claims must be practically possible. Conditions such as language, representation, economic situation or deprivation of liberty may affect access in a concrete file. However, not every difficulty amounts to a violation directly; it must be explained to what extent the obstacle rendered the application ineffective. [1, Art. 40] [15, §§79–81]

The State's duty to indicate the correct legal remedy does not remove the applicant's duty of care and diligence. Where there is an incorrect indication, the relevant part of the decision, the service document, the action taken in reliance on the information given and the reasons for the rejection must be examined together. The statement "the decision did not state a time limit" does not by itself create an unlimited time limit for an application. [1, Art. 40] [13, §§20–24]

The authority must have the power to address the substance of the complaint. Registering the application or giving a standard reply is not sufficient in every case. It must be possible to understand from the reasons which facts were examined, why the decisive objection was rejected and why an enforceable redress was not provided. Conversely, a negative decision given after a relevant and adequate examination does not in itself show that the route was ineffective. [4, §§49–59] [6, §20]

Timely protection and appropriate redress

An effective route must be able to provide protection within a meaningful time. As the process lengthens, whether the alleged violation becomes irreversible is decisive for the assessment of effectiveness. The applicant should therefore explain not only the unlawfulness of the act but also the concrete consequence of waiting. A health report, a notified date for the act to be carried out or a record showing imminent danger may establish this connection. [15, §§80–83, 93–100]

Redress may take the form of suspension, re-examination, retrial or compensation. It is not necessary for all of these to be granted together in every case. The remedy sought must be appropriate to the source of the violation and to whether it is still continuing. A process that, despite a finding of violation, does not change the outcome or leaves a substantial part of the damage unexplained may be examined separately. [10, §§32–42] [14, §§54–60]

Cases in which the right to an effective remedy was violated, according to actual decisions

Protection before the deportation act: Y.T. and De Souza Ribeiro

In Y.T. [Plenary Assembly], B. No: 2016/22418, 30 May 2019, the applicant claimed that there was a risk of ill-treatment in the country to which he would be sent. The legal amendment in force at that date had removed the automatic suspension of a deportation act while the action was pending for certain persons. The AYM assessed the absence of a guarantee allowing the person to remain in the country so that the risk claim could be examined as a structural problem; it found a violation of the right to an effective remedy and ordered the application of the pilot judgment procedure. [3, §§48–62, 73–82]

In the separate concurring reasons attached to the decision, M. Emin Kuz agreed with the outcome of violation but drew attention to the discretion of the legislature in determining the method of solution. The common outcome of the decision and the approach to how the solution should be regulated are therefore separated. This historical decision should not be presented as though it were the present limitation period or the current text of the law. [3, separate concurring reasons]

Under Article 53(3) of the current Law No. 6458, an application to the administrative court against a deportation decision must be made within seven days of service. Subject to the consent of the foreigner, there is a guarantee that he or she will not be deported during the period of the action and, where recourse is had to the judicial route, until the proceedings are concluded. The application to the court is also notified to the authority that issued the deportation decision. This rule is not a general suspension rule applicable to all administrative acts. [22, Art. 53/3]

In De Souza Ribeiro v. France [Grand Chamber], No. 22689/07, 13 December 2012, the person who brought his claim about family and private life before the courts was deported shortly after his application. The ECtHR found a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8, because the authorities had not left any opportunity for a genuine examination. The Court distinguished the need for automatic suspension in complaints about deportation involving the risk of life and ill-treatment from complaints based solely on family life. The decision cannot be generalized to mean that every objection automatically suspends enforcement. [15, §§82–100]

Narrow interpretation of the compensation route for communication records: Murat Haliç

In Murat Haliç, B. No: 2017/24356, 8 July 2020, it was claimed that interception recordings that should have been destroyed after a non-prosecution decision were kept and transferred to different case files. The applicant claimed compensation under Article 141(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) on the basis of these acts; the courts dismissed the claim, stating that the conditions had not been met. [4, §§9–18]

The AYM found that no sufficient explanation had been given as to why these events were not dealt with within the scope of the provision, and that the objection concerning decisions in favour of similar persons had not been assessed. The right to an effective remedy linked to private life and correspondence was violated, and the redress of retrial was adopted. The practical lesson is that the petition must separately show the act, the use of the records, the basis of liability and the damage caused. The decision does not mean that every interception measure is unlawful, or that every request for a protective measure must be addressed to the same authority. [4, §§51–67]

Disregard of an existing claim: Hayriye Uyar

In Hayriye Uyar, B. No: 2021/50281, 10 February 2026, although the petition in the action for the award of an old-age pension contained a claim for interest, the interest was removed in the appeal review on the ground that no such claim had been made. The AYM held that, with this interpretation, the route capable of compensating for the loss of value of about fourteen years of accumulated pension payments had become unworkable, and found a violation of the right to an effective remedy linked to the right of property. [5, §§5–9, 22–27]

This decision shows that an existing claim in the petition must be assessed across the whole text. Nevertheless, in practice, stating interest, its starting date and other claims clearly in the concluding part reduces disputes of interpretation. If a claim has genuinely never been put forward, the same result does not follow automatically. The AYM decision is not a general rule that removes the responsibility of a party to frame its claims. [5, §24]

Failure to have a complaint's substance examined across judicial routes: Ali Suat Ertosun (17)

In Ali Suat Ertosun (17), B. No: 2020/35114, 13 January 2026, a claim for non-pecuniary damages arising from newspaper publications was dismissed in the civil courts on procedural grounds under the provisions of the decree-laws (KHK); the administrative route subsequently pursued also gave no result, on the basis of the reasoning about the nature of the claim. The AYM held that these interpretations left no route by which the complaint concerning the person's honour and reputation could be examined on the merits. [6, §§2–10, 22–30]

In the concrete case, retrial was not regarded as useful redress, and, depending on the claim, TRY 30,000 of non-pecuniary damages was awarded. This amount is not a tariff for other files. The decision does not deny the existence of competence and procedural rules; it questions whether the joint application of those rules left the fundamental rights complaint completely outside examination. [6, §§37–39]

Compensation awarded but redress found inadequate: Ferihan Beyoğlu

In Ferihan Beyoğlu [Plenary Assembly], B. No: 2020/20382, 9 January 2025, compensation was awarded for damage arising from a medical intervention. However, the start of interest on the increased part of the compensation being run from a later date produced a difference of about nine years for part of the same damage. The AYM considered that, together with the length of the process, this interpretation prevented adequate redress. In addition to retrial, non-pecuniary damages were awarded for the irremediable damage arising from the process. [10, §§33–42]

In this example, the issue is not only whether the claim was accepted; the relationship between the protection given and the concrete damage is also important. However, the decision does not mean that the AYM will redo every interest calculation. The application must explain which interpretation rendered the redress ineffective. The AYM also pointed in paragraph 38 of its decision to the Council of State unification-of-case-law decision of 24 October 2024 on the same starting point for interest; the earlier, different practice should not be presented as the single current rule. [10, §§36–38]

Effective remedy in prolonged proceedings and the Compensation Commission

In Kudła v. Poland [Grand Chamber], No. 30210/96, 26 October 2000, the ECtHR examined separately the length of the proceedings and the absence of an effective domestic remedy concerning that length. Because no route was shown by which the applicant could prevent the delay or appropriately redress the damage caused, a violation of Article 13 was found. The partly dissenting opinion of Judge Casadevall emphasized the risk that a new layer of application would impose an additional burden on the applicant. The approach adopted by the majority is that protection should be provided primarily within the national system. [8, §§146–160 and partly dissenting opinion]

In Türkiye, the pilot decision in Nevriye Kuruç [Plenary Assembly], B. No: 2021/58970, 5 July 2022 revealed the lack of a permanent and effective redress route, available before applying to the AYM, for violations of the reasonable time requirement. The situation at the time that decision was given must be distinguished from the present application system. Article 5/A, added to Law No. 6384 by the 2024 amendment, introduced a direct right to apply to the Compensation Commission in respect of investigations, prosecutions and proceedings that are not concluded within a reasonable time. [7, §§82–99] [20, Art. 2/3-a and 5/A]

Under the current general rule, this application may be made while the process is continuing, or at the latest within one month from learning of the final decision. The one month in the law should not automatically be written as thirty days. Where there is a valid excuse, the law provides for an application with supporting documents within fifteen days from the removal of the excuse. The petition may be submitted directly to the Commission or through the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office; this application is not subject to court fees. Identity, address, the act, the nature of the damage and supporting documents must be provided. [20, Art. 5/4–6 and 5/A]

An objection to a Commission decision may be made within fifteen days from service, through the Commission, to the Ankara Regional Administrative Court. The decision on the objection is final. Where it is considered that the violation has not been remedied, the AYM's time limits and other admissibility conditions are then separately assessed. The special application periods in the transitional provisions are not the general time limits applicable to all new applications. [20, Art. 7 and transitional Arts. 2–3]

In Ahmet Kartalkuş, B. No: 2019/39635, 19 March 2024, the complaint about a reasonable time was found inadmissible because the Commission route had not been exhausted. In the same application, however, a finding of violation was made in respect of the complaint about access to court. This distinction is important: different complaints about rights in the same file may be subject to different application routes and different outcomes. [12, §§24–42 and operative part]

The fact that the Commission is generally regarded as effective does not mean that all of its practice is free of violations. In Davut Kabasakal and others, B. No: 2019/27223, 10 May 2023, the time assessment that disregarded the enforcement stage of the process of partition of joint ownership deprived the applicants of redress. The AYM found a violation of the right to an effective remedy and requested that the Commission carry out a re-examination. The decision concerns the former transitional arrangement; it does not establish a new time limit for all present applications. [9, §§24–42]

Where and how should an application be made?

The starting point is the legal protection sought. Annulment of an act, examination of evidence, effective conduct of an investigation, redress of damage or cessation of a continuing danger may each be subject to different procedures. The jurisdiction, standing, parties and, where applicable, the mandatory preliminary application are determined separately according to the type of action. Relying on the right to an effective remedy does not by itself remove these conditions. [17, Art. 45–48] [21, Art. 2–3, 7, 11–13]

The table does not replace a determination of competence; once the subject of the file has been identified, it shows which route should be examined. For compensation for protective measures, after 2024 the division of competence between the Commission and the high criminal court is also made according to the relevant provision of the law invoked. Not all CMK Article 141 claims can be directed to a single authority. [20, Art. 2/3-b and 5/B] [27, Art. 141–142]

Do CİMER, petitions and oversight applications take the place of an action?

Writing to CİMER or to another administrative unit is neither bringing an action alone nor pursuing a legal remedy. The authority to which the application reaches, its content and the special regulation to which it is subject must be examined. Waiting for a reply to a petition does not mean that the thirty-day period before the AYM is automatically suspended. [17, Art. 47/5]

On the other hand, it cannot be said that all administrative applications have no effect on time limits. A higher-authority application made within the time limit for bringing an action, complying with the conditions of Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK), suspends the administrative action period that has begun to run. After a refusal or an implied refusal, the remaining period is calculated; the period that has elapsed is not erased. An application to the Ombudsman Institution made within the period for bringing an action also has an effect on the action period under Article 17(8) of Law No. 6328. These special provisions are not rules that generally suspend the time limits for the AYM or the ECtHR. [21, Art. 11] [23, Art. 17 and 21]

Physical application to the AYM and the UYAP Lawyer Portal

An application to the AYM must be prepared in accordance with the published individual application form. Identity and representation details, chronological events, the explanation of the violation, the routes exhausted, the date of learning and the claims are shown on the form. The relevant decisions, earlier petitions, documents showing the time limit and the document of representation are attached. Extending a general petition with numerous decisions does not replace completing the mandatory fields of the form. [17, Art. 47] [18, Art. 59–60] [25]

According to the AYM's official announcement, applications may be made directly to the Court; through the courts, penal enforcement institutions or overseas representations. Since 1 October 2025, lawyers have also been able to make individual applications through the UYAP Lawyer Portal. This facility does not mean that every citizen can do the same through an e-Devlet account. Accessing the electronic form page and submitting a completed application through the authorized system are different operations. [18, Art. 63] [19]

For an electronic procedure, a record showing that the application was completed, and the final version of the form and attachments as submitted, should be kept. It should not be assumed that ordinary e-mail or fax may be used in place of the authorized application channel. Where representation by a lawyer is not compulsory but exists, the document of authority must be complete. An AYM application is subject to court fees; where there is difficulty in paying, a request for legal aid may be submitted with supporting documents. The current fee should be checked against the official tariff at the date of application. [17, Art. 47] [18, Art. 61–63]

Time limits and admissibility: which error bars an application?

Exhaustion of application routes means the proper use of the routes that are accessible and capable of remedying the violation. The complaint about a right must, in substance, be submitted first to the competent authorities. Failing to object within the time limit and then saying "there is no route left" does not satisfy the exhaustion requirement. Where it is argued that the ordinary route is ineffective, that result must be justified by the concrete file and the practice; a mere expectation of failure is not sufficient. [17, Art. 45] [12, §§26–40]

The bases of the table are Article 47(5) of Law No. 6216, Article 64 of the AYM Rules of Procedure, Articles 5/A and 7 of Law No. 6384, Article 35 of the ECHR, Articles 7–8 of the İYUK and Article 53 of Law No. 6458. Each row belongs to its own route; the periods cannot be added together to make a single overall period. [2] [17] [18] [20] [21] [22]

Learning through UYAP and service through UETS are not the same thing

In Hüseyin Aşkan, B. No: 2017/15649, 21 July 2020, the date was determined from the record showing that the lawyer had opened and read the final Court of Cassation decision on UYAP. The AYM did not wait for a later date of service; it found the application inadmissible as out of time, on the basis of the time calculated from the date of learning. [13, §§20–31]

In relation to UETS, electronic service is deemed to have been made at the end of the fifth day following the day on which the notice reached the addressee's electronic address. However, because of the learning-based approach in the AYM's individual application procedure, the record showing that the reasoned decision was learned of earlier is also important. The legal service date under UETS and the date on which the UYAP document was opened and read should not be recorded as one and the same. These dates and documents should be kept separate in the file, and the time calculation should not rest only on the latest date. [24] [13]

Complaint outside scope, insufficient explanation and a bare objection to a legal remedy

In E.D., B. No: 2019/41024, 19 January 2022, a request for the punishment of third persons was not considered within the scope of the right to a fair trial. The related complaint of an effective remedy connected with that right was also found inadmissible for lack of competence in subject matter. The complaint about the applicant's liberty was regarded as manifestly ill-founded because it was not sufficiently substantiated. Two different grounds of inadmissibility exist in the same file. [11, §§30–43]

This result does not mean that there is no effective investigation obligation within the scope of the right to life or the prohibition of ill-treatment. Where such a claim exists, the relevant substantive right, the gravity of the event and the specific shortcomings in the investigation must be built upon. The view that every decision of non-prosecution may be brought before the AYM merely under the label "fair trial" is mistaken. [1, Art. 17] [28, sections on life and ill-treatment]

The AYM does not replace the appellate or cassation court by re-evaluating all the evidence from the beginning. The application must show an act or deficiency that renders the constitutional guarantee ineffective, beyond the claim that a wrong result was reached. The current and direct effect on the personal right, the competence as regards person and subject, the scope in time, and the criteria of constitutional importance and personal damage are also separately assessed. Being within the time limit does not show that the other conditions are met. [17, Art. 45–49 and transitional Art. 1/8]

Constitutional importance and personal damage criteria must be considered together: the law allows applications to be declared inadmissible where they are of no importance for the application or interpretation of the Constitution or for determining the scope of fundamental rights, and the applicant has not suffered significant damage. A small monetary value should not be presented alone as an automatic reason for rejection. Manifest lack of foundation is, by contrast, a separately examined ground of inadmissibility. [17, Art. 48/2]

Legal persons under private law may apply only for violation of rights attaching to their legal personality; public legal persons cannot make individual applications. Foreigners also may not rely only on rights granted to Turkish citizens. Individual application cannot be made directly against legislative acts or regulatory administrative acts; the concrete violation arising from their application to a person is assessed separately. As to time, the AYM may examine final acts and decisions that became final after 23 September 2012. [17, Art. 45/3, 46 and transitional Art. 1/8]

Does an application suspend the act in urgent cases?

An individual application to the AYM does not automatically suspend the enforcement of a conviction or an administrative act. The need for interim measures must be explained separately and concretely. Article 73 of the AYM Rules of Procedure, as amended on 5 August 2025, allows the necessary measures in cases of serious danger to the applicant's fundamental rights, in particular to life or to material or non-material well-being. The competent authority and the examination procedure for an interim measure are subject to this special provision. [18, Art. 73]

A request for an interim measure should explain how imminent the danger is, when the act will be carried out, the result of waiting, the authority first applied to and the scope of the protection sought. Current reports and documents should be attached; the formula "irreparable damage will be caused" alone should not be relied upon. Why the ordinary protective route is not sufficient should also be shown by reference to the file. [3, §§58–61, 79–82] [18, Art. 73]

In administrative actions, the general rule is also that bringing an action does not suspend enforcement. Under Article 27 of the İYUK, for a stay of execution, a manifest unlawfulness together with the conditions of serious or impossible-to-repair damage are assessed together. Special rules, such as those for tax actions and deportation decisions, are examined separately. A route being "effective" is therefore not the same as being "automatically suspensive" in every file. [21, Art. 27] [22, Art. 53]

How should an application file be built, and which mistakes should be avoided?

A well-prepared application makes the constitutional problem visible before narrating the events at length. For each complaint, the relationship event → connected right → ineffective route → document → appropriate claim should be established. Petitions submitted to earlier authorities should show that the complaint later raised was indeed raised before. [17, Art. 47/3] [18, Art. 59–60]

In a hypothetical example, suppose the person claims that his or her private correspondence has been kept unlawfully. The application should not simply name the right to private life. It describes by what act the records were kept, which route was taken to have them removed or the damage redressed, the reason the authority gave for not examining the matter, and why that reason does not offer an appropriate solution. The claim is linked either to re-examination of the status of the records, depending on whether the event continues, or to compensation. This is not a petition template; it is an example of the preparation method drawn from the Murat Haliç decision. [4]

The method in the table reflects the formal obligations of the law and the translation of the decisions examined into practice; it does not guarantee admission on its own. The lawyer's file management should, in particular, ensure consistency between the time record, the document of representation, legible attachments and the result claimed. If a document cannot be obtained, the reason it could not be obtained and the steps taken to procure it should be explained. [11, §§30–34] [18, Art. 59–60]

What does a finding of violation provide, and when can the ECtHR be approached?

Where the AYM finds a violation, it determines what must be done to remedy the consequences. The approach in Mehmet Doğan [Plenary Assembly], B. No: 2014/8875, 7 June 2018 is based on restoring, as far as possible, the position before the violation. Where the violation arises from a court decision and retrial is useful for redress, retrial becomes an option. This route is not a re-admission examination subject to the same conditions as retrial of proceedings under the ordinary procedural laws. [14, §§54–60] [17, Art. 50]

However, not every violation leads to a retrial, and not every retrial automatically leads to acquittal or to the acceptance of the claim. In the Hayriye Uyar decision retrial was regarded as appropriate; in the Ali Suat Ertosun (17) decision, compensation; and in the Davut Kabasakal decision, re-examination by the Commission. The claim must explain which of these different forms of redress can remove the cause of the violation. [5] [6] [9]

Implementation of a finding of violation is also part of the protection. Which authority the decision is sent to, whether a new act has been performed, and whether the compensation has been paid in accordance with the procedure in the operative part should be monitored. The binding force of AYM decisions includes the obligation of the relevant authorities to take account of the reasons for the violation. The conditions of payment and re-examination should be read from the concrete operative part; the time limits and amounts of different decisions should not be transferred to one another. [1, Art. 153] [14] [17, Art. 50]

An application to the ECtHR is assessed in respect of violations within the scope of the ECHR and after the effective domestic routes have been exhausted. For Türkiye, an individual application to the AYM is, as a rule, an important stage of this examination; a claim that a route was ineffective for the specific complaint must, however, be proven separately. The four-month period, complete proper application and Article 47 of the Rules of Court must be considered together. Sending an incomplete letter or skipping available effective routes is not a safe method of preserving the time limit. [2, Art. 34–35] [26]

The ECtHR's standard individual application form and its attachments are sent by post to Strasbourg, in the manner set out in the official notices. The UYAP channel of the AYM cannot be used for the ECtHR. Article 13 of the ECHR, which governs the right to an effective remedy at national level, and Article 34, which governs the right of individual application to the ECtHR, are also different from each other. [2] [26]

For further detail, see also our articles Refusal Decisions on the Right of Access to Information and Effective Remedies and Prohibition of Torture and Ill-Treatment.

Conclusion

The essence of the right to an effective remedy is that a complaint about a fundamental right can be genuinely examined by a competent authority and that a timely solution appropriate to the nature of the event can be obtained. The existence of a route in law, the registration of a petition or the giving of any reply does not show that this guarantee has been provided in every case. Equally, rejection of an application is not in itself a violation.

A sound application shows not only which right has been affected but also why the existing route has become ineffective. Application to the correct authority within time, the documentation of earlier objections and a claim matched to the source of the violation should be built together. Where the link between the right to be protected, the timing of the application and the redress sought is clear in the file, the constitutional question can also be examined.

Frequently Asked Questions

In which articles is the right to an effective remedy regulated?

In Türkiye the basic foundation is Article 40 of the Constitution; in the Convention system it is Article 13 of the ECHR. The specific basis for an individual application to the AYM is Article 148 of the Constitution and Law No. 6216. Legal basis and scope.

Is the rejection of my action a violation of the right to an effective remedy?

Not by itself. The manner in which the claim was examined, the competence of the authority and the possibility of appropriate redress are assessed. A negative decision with reasons given must be distinguished from an arbitrary approach that excludes the complaint from examination. Conditions of effectiveness.

Can I rely only on Article 40 of the Constitution?

In an individual application to the AYM, a link must be established with another fundamental right that is alleged not to have been effectively protected. A general dissatisfaction with the outcome is not sufficient. It is also not necessary that the violation of the connected right has been established in advance. Arguable claim.

Can an application to the AYM now be made through UYAP?

Yes. Since 1 October 2025, lawyers have been able to make individual applications through the UYAP Lawyer Portal. This channel cannot be generalized to mean that a citizen can carry out the same operation simply by having an e-Devlet account. Application channels.

For a decision I read on UYAP, can I wait for the service notice?

In an application to the AYM, this approach may lead to a loss of time. A UYAP record showing that the reasoned final decision was learned of earlier may be relied upon. The legal service date under UETS should also be kept separately. Distinction between UYAP and UETS.

Should I go directly to the AYM because my case is taking too long?

In a complaint about reasonable time, the current Compensation Commission route and the objection procedure relating to it should be examined. An application to the AYM made without exhausting this route may be found inadmissible. Commission route.

Does writing to CİMER stop the application time limits?

As a general matter, such a result cannot be assumed. Whether the petition falls within a special procedure such as Article 11 of the İYUK is assessed. A provision suspending a specific administrative action period does not automatically suspend the period for the AYM or the ECtHR. Administrative applications.

When I apply to the AYM, does enforcement or the administrative act stop?

It does not stop automatically. If the conditions for an interim measure exist, they must be requested separately, with the serious danger documented. Special suspensory provisions in some ordinary routes apply within their own scope. Urgent protection.

Is a decision of non-prosecution alone sufficient for an application to the AYM?

No. The violation of one's own fundamental right and the specific deficiencies in the investigation must be explained. Merely asking for a third person to be punished does not create a claim within the scope of the right to a fair trial. Scope and admissibility.

Is it compulsory to retain a lawyer and pay court fees?

Application to the AYM in person is possible; a lawyer is not compulsory. The application is subject to court fees, and where the conditions are met, a documented request for legal aid may be made. An application to the Compensation Commission for reasonable time is exempt from court fees. AYM application procedure.

If a finding of violation is made, will I necessarily receive compensation?

No. Appropriate redress may be retrial, re-examination or compensation. The type and amount of compensation, its link with the damage and the claim sought are assessed on the file. Remedying the violation.

Is an application to the ECtHR, as a continuation of the AYM route, made through UYAP?

No. The ECtHR has its own form, a general four-month period and transmission rules. An ordinary application is sent to the official postal address with the proper form and attachments. Passage to the ECtHR.

Sources

[1] Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, in particular Arts. 17, 36, 40, 125, 148 and 153. Official text.

[2] European Convention on Human Rights, in particular Arts. 6, 13, 34 and 35. ECtHR Turkish text.

[3] AYM, Y.T. [Plenary Assembly], B. No: 2016/22418, 30 May 2019, §§43–62, 73–85 and separate concurring reasons. Decision.

[4] AYM, Murat Haliç, B. No: 2017/24356, 8 July 2020, §§9–18, 43–67. Decision.

[5] AYM, Hayriye Uyar, B. No: 2021/50281, 10 February 2026, §§5–27. Decision.

[6] AYM, Ali Suat Ertosun (17), B. No: 2020/35114, 13 January 2026, §§2–10, 19–39. Decision.

[7] AYM, Nevriye Kuruç [Plenary Assembly], B. No: 2021/58970, 5 July 2022, in particular §§82–99. Decision.

[8] ECtHR, Kudła v. Poland [Grand Chamber], No. 30210/96, 26 October 2000, §§146–160 and the partly dissenting opinion of Judge Casadevall. HUDOC.

[9] AYM, Davut Kabasakal and others, B. No: 2019/27223, 10 May 2023, §§24–42. Decision.

[10] AYM, Ferihan Beyoğlu [Plenary Assembly], B. No: 2020/20382, 9 January 2025, §§23–42. Decision.

[11] AYM, E.D., B. No: 2019/41024, 19 January 2022, §§30–43. Decision.

[12] AYM, Ahmet Kartalkuş, B. No: 2019/39635, 19 March 2024, §§24–42 and operative part. Decision.

[13] AYM, Hüseyin Aşkan, B. No: 2017/15649, 21 July 2020, §§20–31. Decision.

[14] AYM, Mehmet Doğan [Plenary Assembly], B. No: 2014/8875, 7 June 2018, §§54–60. Decision.

[15] ECtHR, De Souza Ribeiro v. France [Grand Chamber], No. 22689/07, 13 December 2012, §§78–100. HUDOC.

[16] Bezar Eylem Ekinci, "Elements Concerning the Right to an Effective Remedy in Constitutional Court Individual Application Decisions" (Anayasa Mahkemesi Bireysel Başvuru Kararlarında Etkili Başvuru Hakkına İlişkin Unsurlar), Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, Year 17, No. 66, April 2026, pp. 1–34; in particular pp. 15–18. DOI: 10.54049/taad.1858674. Article.

[17] Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court (6216 sayılı Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kuruluşu ve Yargılama Usulleri Hakkında Kanun), Arts. 45–50 and transitional Art. 1/8. Official text.

[18] Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi İçtüzüğü), Arts. 59–64 and 73, including the amendment on interim measures dated 5 August 2025. Official text.

[19] Constitutional Court, "Individual Applications Begin to Be Received Through the UYAP Lawyer Portal" (Bireysel Başvurular UYAP Avukat Portalı Üzerinden Alınmaya Başlandı), 1 October 2025. Official announcement.

[20] Law No. 6384 on the Duties of the Compensation Commission and the Principles of Its Working Procedures (6384 sayılı Tazminat Komisyonunun Görevleri ile Çalışma Usul ve Esasları Hakkında Kanun), Arts. 2, 5, 5/A, 5/B, 7 and transitional Arts. 2–3. Ministry of Justice text.

[21] Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İdari Yargılama Usulü Kanunu), in particular Arts. 2–3, 7–13 and 27. Legislation Information System.

[22] Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection (Yabancılar ve Uluslararası Koruma Kanunu), Art. 53/3; text as amended by Law No. 7533 dated 21 November 2024. Legislation Information System.

[23] Law No. 6328 on the Ombudsman Institution (Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumu Kanunu), Arts. 17 and 21. Legislation Information System.

[24] PTT, "E-Notification Frequently Asked Questions" (E-Tebligat Sıkça Sorulan Sorular); explanation of the date of service under Art. 7(a) of Law No. 7201 on Notification. Official explanation.

[25] Constitutional Court, "Individual Application Electronic Form" (Bireysel Başvuru Elektronik Formu). Official form page.

[26] ECtHR, "Notes on Completing the Application Form"; Rules of Court, Art. 47, and the transmission procedure. Official notes.

[27] Law No. 5271 on the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu), in particular Arts. 141–142 and 172–173. Legislation Information System.

[28] ECtHR, Guide on Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights — Right to an Effective Remedy, updated 28 February 2026; general principles and the sections on life and ill-treatment. Official guide.