Right to Trial Within a Reasonable Time: Compensation and Remedies in Protracted Cases

Compensation may be sought for an investigation or case that has dragged on, but it is not enough merely to state how many years have passed. The reasons for the delay, the applicant's conduct in the proceedings, the importance of the dispute and whether the application was made in time are assessed together. The current general route is an application to the Compensation Commission under Article 5/A of Law No. 6384. The application is made within one month at the latest, either while the proceedings are still continuing or from the date on which a final decision concluding the process is learned of. The redress sought through this route is non-pecuniary compensation. [3, Art. 2/3-a and 5/A]

An objection may be made against the Commission's decision, through the Commission, to the Ankara Regional Administrative Court within fifteen days of notification. After that route, where the conditions are met, an individual application to the Constitutional Court and then an application to the European Court of Human Rights come into consideration. In addition, from June 12, 2026, individual applications to the Commission can also be made through the UYAP Citizen Portal. The addressee of the application and the portal used and the type of application must match each other. [3, Art. 7/4; 5, Arts. 45–47; 7]

What does the right to trial within a reasonable time protect?

The constitutional guarantee and the right to an effective remedy

The right to trial within a reasonable time ensures that a person does not have to wait for an indefinite period for a dispute or a criminal accusation to be resolved. The right to a fair trial in Article 36 of the Constitution is interpreted together with the duty in Article 141 to conclude cases speedily. Article 40 of the Constitution requires an effective remedy that makes it possible to examine a claim of violation and to provide appropriate redress. Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights are also the international foundations of these guarantees. [1; 2; 13, §§ 43–59]

This right does not mean that the court must decide as quickly as possible in every circumstance. Time may be needed to prepare the defence, hear witnesses and collect the necessary evidence. The essential question is whether the time used can be explained by the needs of the dispute. Reducing the defence possibilities in order to speed up proceedings may violate other guarantees of a fair trial. The duty of the State is to establish a judicial system that protects procedural safeguards and prevents unnecessary waiting. [11, §§ 40–46; 16, §§ 90–96]

Is it necessary to win the case or be acquitted?

A complaint of unreasonable length is separate from a claim that the case itself is well founded. A person whose claim has been dismissed may also argue that his or her own proceedings were unnecessarily prolonged. The conviction of an accused does not justify every length of proceedings; an acquittal alone does not show that there has been no violation of the reasonable-time requirement. The whole process is assessed together with its outcome. [11; 12]

In the Constitutional Court's decision in B.E., the fact that the criminal case had lapsed because of the statute of limitations did not remedy the earlier delay. The waiting period of about six and a half years between the first statement and the indictment, the total duration and the characteristics of the file were examined, and it was decided that the right to trial within a reasonable time had been violated. The decision shows that the investigation stage is also part of the examination. By contrast, the direct application procedure of the Constitutional Court in that 2014 decision cannot be applied in place of today's Commission route. [12, §§ 34–44]

For which proceedings and persons can an application be made?

Criminal, civil and administrative case files

The direct application procedure under Law No. 6384 covers criminal investigations and prosecutions and proceedings under private law and administrative law. In files such as labour receivables, land registry, inheritance, family or commercial disputes, the duration of the proceedings may be examined. A case in the administrative courts and a disciplinary investigation within an institution are not the same thing: administrative investigations are excluded from the scope of the Law by Article 2(4). [3, Arts. 2 and 5/A]

The capacity in which the applicant is involved in the relevant file must be clearly stated. Status as claimant, defendant, suspect or accused is important for understanding which rights and interests are affected. Being only a complainant seeking the punishment of another person in a criminal file does not in every case suffice for the person to assert his or her own right to a fair trial. Where there is a connection with a civil right, and where there is a separate right such as the right to life, the safeguards of an effective investigation are assessed separately. At the Constitutional Court stage, the condition of the common scope of protection of the Constitution and the Convention is also required. [2, Art. 6; 5, Arts. 45–46]

Persons who are not citizens of Türkiye are not subject to a general exclusion merely on the basis of citizenship. The application must relate to a process for which Türkiye bears responsibility, and the person must show the effect on his or her own rights. Legal persons under private law may also apply in respect of rights suited to their nature; the power of representation for an application on behalf of a company must be documented. The Constitutional Court's decision in Star İnşaat concerns the process of a company that pursued a case against a Commission decision. Nevertheless, the standing to apply is not the same for every stage concerning legal persons or public legal persons; in particular, Article 46 of Law No. 6216 must be taken into account separately. [5; 8; 19]

Inheritance and the personal position in multi-party cases

The participation of several persons in the same case does not mean that a single, automatic compensation calculation will be made for everyone. The time of joining the file, the status of party, representation and the damage alleged must be shown for each person. Whether an heir has joined the proceedings in place of the earlier party may also be decisive.

In Abdurrahman Görken and others, the Constitutional Court found a violation in respect of some applicants because the time limit for the application had been wrongly assessed, but it found that the testators of some applicants had not been parties to the relevant proceedings and decided, in respect of them, that the applications were inadmissible for lack of standing ratione personae. That different outcomes can arise within the same application file shows that the list of applicants should not be compiled solely from population or heirship records. [17, §§ 20–26]

A lengthy trial and compensation for detention are not the same application

In a lengthy criminal trial there may be both a reasonable-time problem and damage arising from precautionary measures. However, Articles 5/A and 5/B of Law No. 6384 regulate different types of application. The general reasonable-time application concerns non-pecuniary compensation. In applications for precautionary measures attached to Article 141(1)(e), (f) and (l) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and referred to the Commission under Article 142(2), material and non-pecuniary damage may arise. Not every complaint of arrest or detention has been transferred to the Commission's jurisdiction. [3; 4, Arts. 141–144]

For example, the claim under Article 141(1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that a person lawfully detained was not brought before a judicial authority within a reasonable time, or that no judgment was given within that period, must be examined separately from the general complaint about the length of the proceedings. Where the request is based on that specific provision, the scope of duty of the High Criminal Court must not be overlooked. The subject of each request, the competent authority and its time limit should be stated separately; the same loss must not be claimed twice. [4, Arts. 141/1-d and 142]

When is a case deemed to have exceeded a reasonable time?

There is no fixed one-year limit applicable to every file

There is no general rule in the form "every case lasting more than three years is a violation" or "no application may be made before five years have passed". The reasonableness of the length is determined by assessing together the complexity of the dispute, the conduct of the applicant, the attitude of the judicial and other competent authorities, and the importance of the dispute for the person. A period that appears long in one file may be explained by necessary procedural steps in another. The reverse is also possible. [11, §§ 40–46; 13, §§ 44–51]

Target durations in the judiciary, or accelerating provisions in special laws, are useful indicators; however, they do not on their own constitute an automatic compensation schedule or a constitutional threshold of violation. In Nevriye Kuruç, the Constitutional Court emphasised the need to conduct labour cases speedily; it did not treat every overrun of the regulatory period as a violation in itself. In the concrete case, however, it found a violation after assessing a labour receivables case that had lasted more than seven years and was continuing, together with the fact that the file was not complex and that no significant delay could be attributed to the applicant. [13, §§ 44–52]

How are delays caused by the applicant treated?

If the applicant persistently delays procedural steps, or fails to provide the necessary documents without an explicable reason, this may weigh against him or her in the assessment. However, resorting to a legal remedy, lodging a reasoned objection to an expert report or requesting the time needed for the defence is not in itself an abuse. The conduct that caused each loss of time must be specified. [11, §§ 42–46 and 56–64]

The fact that the applicant contributed to a delay in one period does not mean that the public-sector waiting in the whole proceedings becomes insignificant. The correct method is to separate the periods and to show the reason for each. For example, a two-month adjournment requested by the applicant and the court's subsequent waiting for a year for the same reply to an official letter cannot be explained by the same reason. This example is hypothetical; the assessment is made on the actual records of the file.

Is workload and delay by an expert a sufficient explanation?

The multi-party nature of a file and the need for expert examination are taken into account; nevertheless, the court's duty to manage the process continues. Chronic workload and organisational problems do not remove the State's duty to ensure trial within a reasonable time. [11; 16, § 93]

In Güher Ergun and others, the features of a multi-party land registry case were examined, and delays arising from notifications, expert procedures and the transfer of the file were assessed together. The Constitutional Court accepted that the case was complex but did not explain all the waiting by reference to that complexity, and reached a finding of violation. It is therefore more useful in the application to show why the successive interlocutory decisions produced no result, rather than merely giving the number of hearings. [11, §§ 56–64]

How are the start and end of the period determined?

The start in a criminal investigation and prosecution

In criminal proceedings the reasonable time does not always begin with the acceptance of the indictment. The date on which the person was formally informed of the criminal accusation, or on which his or her situation was substantially affected by measures such as a search, an arrest or the taking of a statement, is important for determining the starting point. In a concrete file, the event that constitutes the start must be explained by means of process and notification documents. [12, §§ 34–36]

In the examination, the investigation, the first-instance proceedings and the relevant remedy stages may form a single whole. The assignment of a new docket number because of lack of jurisdiction, quashing or a retrial does not automatically remove earlier years from the calculation. However, separate investigations or the files of different persons should not be combined as though they were a single proceeding. [11; 12]

The total process in civil and administrative cases

In proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations, the general starting point is the date on which the action was brought. The effect on the calculation of mandatory preliminary procedures and of the enforcement stage is examined separately, by reference to the nature of the dispute and the applicable case law. If the proceedings are continuing, the period up to the time of the examination is important. Proceedings after appeal, cassation and quashing must be considered in their connection with the whole. [11, §§ 50–52; 13, § 46]

In Abdurrahman Görken and others, it had been accepted that the proceedings had ended for the applicants because they had not themselves appealed the first-instance decision. The Constitutional Court, taking into account that the proceedings continued on the applications of the other parties, regarded that assessment as an approach that led to a violation of the right. The lesson to be drawn from the decision is not that there is a single end date for all parties in every file; the date on which the decision became final must be determined from the file, by reference to the decision and the party concerned. [17, §§ 20–23]

Separating the non-enforcement of a decision from the length of the case

The enforcement of a court decision is linked to the trial process for the purposes of the guarantees of a fair trial. However, complaints that "my case ended late" and "the decision I won is not being enforced" do not fall within the same scope on every route of application. The enforcement complaints that Law No. 6384 provides for former ECtHR applications and for certain transitional files do not create an unlimited authority for every direct application under Article 2/3-a. [3, Art. 2 and transitional provisions; 20, §§ 196–198]

For this reason, waiting for a decision to be enforced should not be regarded as a method that automatically preserves the one-month application period for a concluded proceeding. The period for the delay in the proceedings should be monitored separately; the authority competent for enforcement or non-compliance and the appropriate application must also be determined separately. The presence of a word relating to enforcement on an official form does not extend the competence of the Law. [3; 8]

Where and how is an application made to the Compensation Commission?

The scope of the direct application and the Commission's role

With the amendment by Law No. 7499 that entered into force on March 12, 2024, a permanent and direct application to the Commission was introduced for complaints of unreasonable length. A new application under Article 5/A does not require a prior refusal decision from the Constitutional Court or the ECtHR. The application is also not a personal damages action against the judge conducting the proceedings; it is the use of the administrative remedy provided by the Law. [3; 10; 16, §§ 88–97]

The Commission's task is not to decide the merits of the case again or to determine whether the accused is guilty. In its decision E.2024/98, K.2025/149, the Constitutional Court assessed the administrative nature of this mechanism, its accessibility, its capacity to provide compensation and its judicial review, and rejected the request to annul Article 2/3-a of Law No. 6384. This result does not mean that every individual Commission decision is adequate or lawful. [16, §§ 94–97]

Physical application and submission through the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office

A direct application may be made by a signed petition with annexes addressed to the Presidency of the Commission. Where the application is made through the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, the date of application is the date on which it was submitted to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. A receipt or registration document showing the date on which the papers were delivered must be kept. Where the post is used, it should not be assumed that the date of posting alone will in every case be treated as the date of application; the status of delivery and registration must be monitored. [3, Arts. 5/4 and 5/A]

The contact address on the Presidency's official website was, at the time of research, given as Milli Müdafaa Cad. No:8 Kat:5, Bakanlıklar, Kızılay/Ankara. The current address and institutional announcements should be checked before sending. An official form may be used to prepare the application; however, for the description of the concrete events and the necessary annexes, it should not be sufficient merely to fill in the blanks of the form. [8; 10]

Electronic application through the UYAP Citizen Portal

According to the announcement of the Ministry of Justice dated June 15, 2026, citizens may make individual applications to the Compensation Commission through the UYAP Citizen Portal from June 12, 2026. The announcement explains login with e-Government identity verification, creating an application, uploading documents and monitoring the process online. [7]

In electronic proceedings, it should not be considered sufficient that the file has been saved only as a draft. It should be checked that the submission has been completed, that the correct type of application has been selected and that the annexes have been uploaded in legible form; the dated transaction and record information generated by the system must be kept. If a technical problem is experienced, a screen recording alone does not replace an application in time; if time permits, the application should be completed through the other channels that are legally valid.

The announcement of the Citizen Portal and the transactions that may be carried out through the Lawyer Portal must be assessed separately. The Commission's February 2025 announcement concerns file viewing by lawyers and citizens, whereas the June 2026 announcement expressly launches citizen applications. The ability to view a file does not by itself show that every representation or type of application can be sent from the same module. The lawyer should check the representation authority and the ability to complete the application in the current module in use. An individual application to the Constitutional Court through the AYM module and an application to the Compensation Commission are also different transactions. [7; 27]

Application to the wrong authority, and costs

A complaint to CİMER, sending an ordinary e-mail to an institution or giving only an expedition petition to the court hearing the case does not automatically take the place of a properly made application to the Commission. The application must be addressed to the correct authority and must meet the form requirements of the Law. There is no general guarantee that every petition sent to the wrong place will be forwarded and that the date of first submission will be preserved. The rule that certain applications for precautionary measures under Article 142(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are sent to the Commission cannot be extended to all wrongly addressed reasonable-time applications. [3; 4]

Representation by a lawyer is not compulsory. The application to the Commission is exempt from stamp duty and court fees; however, this does not mean that all representation and document costs are eliminated. The official announcement of the Commission states that a bar stamp for the original power of attorney, a bar stamp for the copy certified by the lawyer, and a fee for a certified copy of the power of attorney are required. The fee arising from the lawyer's engagement agreement and the litigation costs that the authority may award are separate matters; it must not be promised that if compensation is obtained all expenses will be automatically paid. [3, Art. 5/6; 9]

Application periods: the distinction between one month, fifteen days and thirty days

The period in a continuing and in a concluded file

In a criminal investigation or proceedings that are still continuing, there is no need to wait for the case to end in order to make a 5/A application. This possibility does not mean that every newly opened file immediately produces compensation; facts supporting the claim that reasonable time has been exceeded are still required. Where the process has concluded with a final decision, the last application period of one month from learning of it applies. [3, Art. 5/A]

The Law says "one month"; it is not correct to write this as "thirty days" in every case. Establishing the initiating event and calculating the month are two separate tasks. The calendar month, the nature of the last day and any special provision that may affect the period applicable to the concrete event must be checked together. It should not be assumed that the judicial recess automatically extends this administrative application period. The safest practice is to record the period as soon as the document evidencing learning is obtained and not to wait for the last day.

This table is not a list of periods that can be cumulatively added to a single application. In particular, the three-month period from the notification of the decision or judgment for applications for precautionary measures under Article 5/B and the one-year period following finality cannot replace the one-month period for a general reasonable-time application. [3, Art. 5/B; 5; 25]

Learning through UYAP and UETS notification

Article 5/A links the start of the period to learning, not to notification. For this reason, where the reasoned final decision or the definitive conclusion of the process has previously been learned of through file inspection or a UYAP transaction, relying only on a later notification is risky. It should be explained which record shows what; the uploading of a document to the system and the person's opening of that document are not the same fact. [3, Art. 5/A]

For an individual application to the Constitutional Court, the decision in Hüseyin Aşkan shows that records of the reasoned final decision being opened and read on UYAP may be used to determine the date of learning. The decision concerns the thirty-day period of the Constitutional Court; it does not convert the one-month period of the Commission into thirty days. [26, §§ 20–31]

For an objection to a Commission decision, however, Article 7/4 of Law No. 6384 takes as its basis the date of notification. Under Article 7(a) of Law No. 7201, electronic notification is deemed made at the end of the fifth day following the day on which it reaches the electronic address. In the Constitutional Court's decision in Star İnşaat, a notice that reached the electronic address on November 25, 2020 should have been treated as notified on November 30. Nevertheless, calculating the time limit from the first date and dismissing the objection of December 11 as late violated the right of access to a court. [3; 6; 19, §§ 13–21]

This guarantee cannot be read to mean that a five-day wait will apply in every case for an application based on learning to the Constitutional Court. Records of electronic arrival, legal notification, opening of the decision on UYAP and actual learning of the reasoning must be kept separate. No date should be chosen before determining which period is being calculated. [19; 26]

Excuse, deficiency and the three-month period for older files

Where an application under Article 5/A could not be made because of a valid excuse, it may be made within fifteen days from the end of the excuse. The existence of the excuse should be documented, as should the dates between which it prevented the application. Mere forgetfulness or any lapse in following the file does not automatically count as a valid excuse. The one-month period granted by the Commission for missing documents should not be confused with the period for the initial application. [3, Art. 5/A/1–3]

Provisional Article 2 regulates certain files pending before the Constitutional Court as of March 9, 2023; Provisional Article 3 regulates certain files before the Constitutional Court as of March 12, 2024, decisions of discontinuance, and certain ECtHR applications defined in the provision. The three-month period for applications in these groups begins according to the relevant transitional provision and the notification of the decision. A three-month period in an earlier refusal decision does not apply to every new Commission application made today. [3, Provisional Arts. 2–3]

How is an effective application file prepared?

The link between the event, the delay, the documents and the request

A well-prepared petition selects, for the reasonable-time examination, the facts that are necessary, rather than repeating the whole merits of the case from beginning to end. It shows clear identity and address details, representation information, the process subject to the application, the nature and amount of the damage alleged, and the documents. The petition is signed. The continuity of the file is made visible by stating all earlier and later docket numbers from the beginning. [3, Art. 5/A/2; 8]

For each important period of delay, the questions "what step was expected, how long was the wait, why was no result obtained, and what was the applicant's contribution to it?" should be answered. The relevant document should be reachable by an annex number. The Commission's power to request information and documents does not remove the applicant's burden of explaining his or her own claim and of submitting the documents in his or her possession. [3, Art. 4/5–6 and 5/A]

How should the requested outcome be framed?

The request should be made clear by a specific non-pecuniary compensation claim under Article 5/A. The length of the case, the periods of delay and the effect on the person are linked to the amount. Where the application relates to a continuing file, the fact that the proceedings are still ongoing and the current stage are stated, and the file information is given accurately for the notification and urgency arrangements under Article 8 of Law No. 6384. [3, Arts. 5/A and 8]

Instead of contenting oneself with general statements such as "all my rights have been violated" or "I want appropriate compensation", the alleged violation and the redress sought should be made concrete. Where there are separate issues in the same proceedings, such as the right of defence, a reasoned judgment, detention or the right to property, these should be separated. A reasonable-time application does not replace the ordinary remedies and periods required for other claims of violation. [5, Arts. 45–48]

For each represented person, the power of attorney and a separate statement of the effect on that person are checked. Contact details are kept up to date and the address to which notices of deficiency and decisions are sent is monitored. In a copy of the petition to be shared publicly on the internet, identity, health, child and third-party information should be anonymised; in the file submitted to the institution, the information necessary for the examination should not be cut down.

How much compensation is awarded, and what damage may be claimed?

There is no fixed annual tariff or automatic calculation

Law No. 6384 does not set a fixed amount for each year of delay. The Commission gives a reasoned decision, having regard to the case law of the Constitutional Court and the ECtHR. The length of the proceedings, the importance of the dispute, delays attributable to the applicant and personal effects are assessed together. Carrying over an amount from an earlier decision unchanged to the present, or merely increasing it for inflation and presenting it as a definitive result, is not a reliable method of calculation. [3, Art. 7/2; 18]

According to the ECtHR's decision in Scordino v. Italy (No. 1), there is a strong but rebuttable presumption that excessively long proceedings cause non-pecuniary damage. This approach does not make the submission of a medical report in every file an unchanging precondition. Nevertheless, the applicant's explanation of the personal effect strengthens the assessment. The fact that national compensation is lower than the ECtHR's amount is not by itself inadequacy; the speed, reasoning and effectiveness of the route also matter. [20, §§ 189–206]

Material damage and the depreciation of a receivable

The general reasonable-time application is limited to non-pecuniary compensation. If the loss of value of a receivable, loss of profit or other economic damage is alleged on account of the prolongation of the case, these are not automatically paid under Article 5/A. The connection between the economic loss and the interest on the underlying debt, a separate claim of damage, precautionary measures or another special liability regime must be established separately. This article does not propose a single competent court or a common time limit for all economic losses. [3; 4]

In the decisions in Güher Ergun and B.E., the acceptance of claims for material compensation required a demonstrated link between the violation and the loss alleged, and those claims were rejected. A finding of a non-pecuniary violation does not mean that every material amount claimed has been proven. [11, § 68; 12, § 48]

Mustafa Mahmut Soylu criticises in legal scholarship the gap concerning the redress of material damage and proposes that the Commission's competence be extended in this respect. This is a proposal of legal policy; it cannot be read as meaning that the current Article 5/A already permits material compensation. In the application, the rule in force and the proposal for reform should be kept separate. [22, pp. 17–18]

Objection against inadequate compensation

A payment determined by the Commission does not in every case show that all the consequences of the violation have been adequately remedied. In M.G. and others, the Constitutional Court assessed the compensation awarded by the Commission and in the objection process against its own criteria and those of ECtHR case law, and found a violation of the right to an effective remedy linked to the right to trial within a reasonable time, on account of the inadequacy of the redress. The redress it ordered was a retrial; it did not separately accept the compensation claimed from it. [18, §§ 17–27]

This decision does not produce the result "every amount I consider low will be increased". In an objection, the date of the precedent, the length of the proceedings, the type of file, the personal situation and the reason for the delay must be explained. Instead of merely showing the nominal size of an earlier amount, it should be demonstrated why there was inadequate redress in the concrete case.

The Commission's decision, payment and the position of the continuing case

Must the Commission conclude all applications within nine months?

No; the nine-month period does not apply to every Commission application. The nine-month decision period in Article 7(1) of Law No. 6384 expressly relates to the applications covered by the first and second paragraphs of Article 2. For certain Constitutional Court files, Provisional Article 2 provides a special period of sixteen months. For new direct reasonable-time applications under Article 2/3-a and Article 5/A, one of these periods cannot be stated as the general end date without distinguishing the scope. [3, Art. 7/1 and Provisional Art. 2/4]

The absence of a fixed special period does not mean that an application may be left pending indefinitely. The compensation route itself must be accessible and effective; the examination and payment process must not turn into a new excessive delay. The assessment of effectiveness in the ECtHR's decision in Scordino is not limited to the amount of compensation. [20, §§ 195–206]

When is compensation paid?

Article 7(5) of Law No. 6384 provides that the compensation determined is to be paid by the Ministry of Justice within three months from the date on which the decision becomes final. The dates of notification, objection and finality are therefore also important for monitoring payment. Current contact and payment information must be given accurately, and records of the decision and of delivery must be kept. The statutory payment period does not mean that every application will be concluded within three months. [3]

If payment is not made, the fact that the decision has become final and that the payment period has expired should be documented and the non-compliance should be separately assessed. Here the payment regime in the Commission's decision must not be confused with the operative provision on compensation that the Constitutional Court itself awards. Additional claims such as interest and compulsory enforcement are determined by the relevant decision and the procedure to be applied; no single automatic start date for interest is assumed for every file.

Does the application speed up the case or change the outcome?

Under Article 8 of the Law, a copy of the decision of the Commission or of the Ankara Regional Administrative Court that has become final is sent to the relevant judicial or administrative authority; if the process to which the application relates has not concluded, the relevant authority concludes it with urgency. This provision may be relied on in following a continuing proceeding. However, making the application does not by itself end the case, remove a conviction or secure automatic release. [3, Art. 8]

The applicant should continue to follow the hearings, the evidentiary steps and the time limits for remedies in the main case. Likewise, the fact that redress has already been given for one period does not mean that every later wait will automatically be separately compensated. In a new claim of delay, the earlier period of examination and payment should be stated, and the repeated redress of the same period should be separated from the problem that arose later.

Objection, the Constitutional Court and the ECtHR after the Commission

Objection to the Ankara Regional Administrative Court

An objection is made against the Commission's rejection decision or against the inadequacy of the compensation within fifteen days from notification, through the Commission, to the Ankara Regional Administrative Court. The objection is treated as a priority matter and decided within three months. If the court does not find the Commission's decision correct, it decides the merits of the matter; the decision given on the objection is final as regards the ordinary means of appeal. [3, Art. 7/4]

The objection petition should not be a repetition of the first application. It should explain why each reason for rejection was wrong, from which document the period is to be calculated, which delay or personal effect was not assessed, and why the compensation is inadequate. The Commission's decision and the notification document are attached. Where there is an incorrect calculation of notification, as in the Star İnşaat decision, the relevant electronic delivery and notification records should be shown directly. [19]

In what circumstances does one go to the Constitutional Court?

An individual application to the Constitutional Court arises after the Commission application and an effective objection remedy have been exhausted. As a rule the thirty-day period is observed from learning of the reasoned final decision. Rather than merely saying "the case lasted a long time" in the application, it should be explained why the Commission and the court did not provide adequate redress, or by what assessment they barred access to the application. The claim must previously have been presented to the relevant authorities in substance and documented. [5, Arts. 45–48; 17; 18; 26]

The application period, the personal and current effect, the common scope of protection, the proper exhaustion of the routes of application and the substantiation of the claims are separate admissibility conditions. The Constitutional Court is not an ordinary court of appeal. The claim must be framed around the constitutional violation and the redress appropriate to it. A finding of violation does not always result in additional compensation; a retrial may be considered adequate redress. [5, Arts. 45–50; 18, §§ 25–27]

Why must earlier decisions be read together with today's route?

The pilot judgment in Ümmühan Kaplan v. Türkiye identified a structural problem concerning lengthy proceedings and the lack of effective redress. In Nevriye Kuruç the Constitutional Court also demonstrated the need for a continuing effective route of application. The present importance of these decisions lies not merely in the fact that compensation was awarded in the past, but in their reasoning on the establishment of a redress system. [21, §§ 51–75; 13]

In Veysi Ado, an application was declared inadmissible because the Commission route had not been exhausted for files pending before the Constitutional Court as of March 9, 2023. This result is not an acceptance on the merits that the proceedings were reasonable. The applicant must first use the correct redress route. [14, §§ 35–51]

In Keser Altıntaş, the case was struck out because, having regard to the absence of a permanent route at that time and the functioning of the system, there was no reason justifying the continuation of the examination of the application. In the dissenting opinion of M. Emin Kuz, it was argued that the failure to establish an effective route could not justify not examining the applications. The majority also stated that a reassessment would be made if a new route of application were established. It is not correct to present the 2023 decision as meaning that "the Constitutional Court no longer examines any reasonable-time matter" without taking into account the permanent route established in 2024 and the decisions of 2025–2026. [15, §§ 79–86 and dissenting opinion; 16; 17; 18]

When does an application to the ECtHR arise?

After the effective domestic remedies have been properly exhausted, an application to the ECtHR may be considered where the claim of violation or inadequate redress continues. The general period for application is four months; the starting point is determined by the final domestic decision and the concrete circumstances of learning. The application form and documents submitted to the ECtHR must comply with Article 47 of the Rules of Court. It should not be assumed that an incomplete or informal application preserves the time limit. [2, Art. 35; 25]

Where adequate redress has been provided, the question of victim status may arise. The fact that less money than requested has been paid does not show that the application will be admitted. The adequacy of the compensation, the recognition of the violation in the national process, the implementation of the decision and the overall effect of the route are examined. The assessment in Scordino must be read together with the rule that an effective domestic remedy must be exhausted. [20, §§ 178–206]

Common errors made by lawyers and applicants

A significant proportion of application errors arises from grouping different routes of redress under a single period and petition. The following checks in particular should be carried out:

• Wrong task and type of application: The general reasonable-time application, compensation for precautionary measures and the claim that a decision has not been enforced must be classified separately.
• Wrong starting date: Records of the reasoned decision, finality, learning and notification must be kept apart. The five-day rule of UETS should not be carried over to every period tied to learning.
• Generalising the old transitional period: The three-month referral period under the Constitutional Court transitional provisions and the one-month period of a new direct application must not be confused.
• Assuming status as applicant: In a multi-party file and in inheritance, the connection of the person with the relevant proceedings must be shown separately.
• Writing only the total number of years: Periods without action, repeated steps and delays attributable to the applicant must be explained together.
• Representation or annex deficiency: The power of attorney, the necessary bar stamp and copy fee, legible decisions and notification records should be checked.
• Treating a draft as a submitted application: The transaction must be completed in the electronic system, and the registration information and uploaded annexes must be kept.
• Promising a fixed amount or a nine-month outcome: No fixed amount per year, no nine-month result for every application and no payment of all expenses should be promised.
• Neglecting objection or other rights: While the reasons in the Commission's decision and the fifteen-day objection period are followed, the periods of the main case and of other claims of violation must also be protected.

These checks are not made merely to create a formal order. A refusal of an application may occur not because the delay was genuinely justified but because of the wrong period, status, document or route. The aim in preparing a file is to construct a claim of violation that can be examined without unnecessarily repeating the substance of the dispute. [3; 8; 9; 14; 17; 19; 26]

Does compensation alone solve the problem of lengthy proceedings?

Compensation is directed at remedying the harm of the past waiting; it does not remove all the causes of delay in the judicial system. For this reason the urgency arrangement in Article 8 of the Law and the effective follow-up of the main proceedings are important. The ECtHR also explains that routes that prevent delay and routes that remedy a violation which has already occurred perform different functions. Nevertheless, a route that provides only compensation is not regarded as ineffective automatically for that reason alone. [3; 20, §§ 181–189]

İsmet Mazlum discusses the structure of the Commission from the standpoint of civil procedure law and develops criticisms of its legal nature. This academic debate should be presented separately from the fact that, in its 2025 norm review decision, the Constitutional Court accepted that the Commission process is administrative in nature. Sevimnur Üçüncü Kasımoğlu emphasises that the compensation route should be supported by preventive measures addressing the structural causes of the lengthening of proceedings. [23, p. 1973–1974; 16, § 96; 24, pp. 35–37]

For the practical consequence of this distinction for the applicant: while preparing a compensation claim, the necessary steps in the continuing file must also be followed. Criticism of the system does not automatically become a reason for not using a route of application that is existing and accepted as effective. Concrete deficiencies should first be submitted to the appropriate authority and, where necessary, taken to constitutional review. [14; 18]

For details, see our article on wrongful arrest and detention compensation.

Conclusion

In a lengthy proceeding, effective legal protection does not rest merely on counting the years that have passed. First the scope of the delayed process and the person's status as party must be determined; then the correct route of application must be chosen with the documents on the start, finality and learning. The current general route of application is the Compensation Commission; it may be used while proceedings are continuing and is limited to one month after the final result is learned of.

A file suitable for examination ties each significant wait to documents, relates the claim to the non-pecuniary harm and, where necessary, identifies the error in the Commission's decision through a concrete objection. Using the compensation route does not end the follow-up of the main case or of other violations of rights. Determining the correct period and documenting the claim of violation are two inseparable parts of the pursuit of rights.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I apply to the Compensation Commission before the case ends?

Yes. Article 5/A of Law No. 6384 permits an application while the process is continuing. However, the fact that the file is open is not by itself sufficient; the facts showing that a reasonable time has been exceeded must be explained. The details are in the section on application periods. Relevant explanation.

What is the application period after the case has ended?

It is at most one month from learning that the process has concluded with a final decision. This period should not be calculated as thirty days in every case, and it should not be assumed that only formal notification need be awaited. Relevant explanation.

Is compensation awarded for every case that has lasted five years?

No. There is no fixed five-year threshold. The complexity of the file, the conduct of the parties and the authorities, and the importance of the dispute to the person are assessed together. Relevant explanation.

Does a lengthy criminal investigation also fall within the scope?

Yes. A criminal investigation is also covered. The starting point is not the date of the indictment in every file; the steps by which the person was informed of the accusation or was substantially affected may be important. Relevant explanation.

Can an application to the Commission be made through UYAP?

Yes. Individual applications by citizens can be made through the UYAP Citizen Portal from June 12, 2026. The submission must be completed in the correct module and the dated transaction record kept. The current portal powers for lawyers' transactions should also be checked separately. Relevant explanation.

Is a lawyer required to make an application?

No. A person may apply personally. Where the person is represented by a lawyer, the requirements relating to authority and the power of attorney documents must be met. Relevant explanation.

Is the application entirely free of charge?

The application to the Commission is exempt from court fees and stamp duty. Lawyers' fees, the power of attorney and the costs of related documents are assessed separately; the exemption does not remove all costs. Relevant explanation.

How much compensation is received for each year of delay?

The Law sets no fixed annual tariff applying to everyone. The amount is assessed by reference to the concrete file and to the case law criteria; an amount in an earlier decision does not create a promise of definitive payment. Relevant explanation.

Can I claim the depreciation of my receivable through this application?

The general application under Article 5/A concerns non-pecuniary compensation. For depreciation of a receivable or other material damage, a separate legal basis, competence and period assessment are required. Relevant explanation.

Must the Commission decide within nine months?

The nine-month period relates to the groups of applications specified in Article 7(1) of the Law. It cannot be presented as the general time for conclusion applicable to all new direct reasonable-time applications. Relevant explanation.

Where is an objection made to the Commission's decision?

Within fifteen days from notification of the decision, through the Commission, to the Ankara Regional Administrative Court. The reason for rejection or the inadequacy of the compensation should be explained by concrete reasons. Relevant explanation.

Does the period for a decision that arrives through UETS start immediately?

For an objection based on notification to the Commission's decision, notification takes effect at the end of the fifth day following the day on which the electronic address is reached. For periods tied to learning, such as an application to the Constitutional Court, actual learning is also important; the two rules are not the same. Relevant explanation.

Can I apply to the Constitutional Court without going to the Commission?

In a current general complaint of unreasonable length, the effective route of the Commission and its objection must be used first. The specific routes and periods for other violations of rights are followed separately. Earlier direct Constitutional Court decisions do not remove the present route. Relevant explanation.

If I win compensation, does the case or the sentence disappear?

No. Redress for the reasonable-time violation does not automatically set aside the substantive judgment and does not secure automatic release. The statutory arrangement for urgent conclusion of a continuing proceeding may still be relied on. Relevant explanation.

When is the compensation determined by the decision paid?

Under Law No. 6384 it is paid within three months from the date the decision becomes final. This does not mean that the first application will be concluded within three months. Relevant explanation.

If too little compensation is awarded, will the Constitutional Court increase it?

The increase is not automatic. The objection route must be used first; afterwards, where the conditions are met, an application may be made to the Constitutional Court on the ground of inadequate redress. Even if the Constitutional Court finds a violation, it may consider a retrial sufficient rather than an additional payment. Relevant explanation.

Sources

[1] Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Arts. 36, 40, 141 and 148.

[2] European Convention on Human Rights, Arts. 6, 13, 34 and 35.

[3] Law No. 6384 on the Duties of the Compensation Commission and the Principles of Its Working Procedures, in particular Arts. 2, 4, 5, 5/A, 5/B, 6–8 and Provisional Arts. 2–3; consolidated text incorporating the amendments of Law No. 7499.

[4] Law No. 5271, Code of Criminal Procedure, Arts. 141–144.

[5] Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court, Arts. 45–50.

[6] Law No. 7201, Notification Law, Art. 7(a).

[7] UYAP, Applications to the Compensation Commission Now Online through the Citizen Portal, June 15, 2026; start of application June 12, 2026.

[8] Presidency of the Compensation Commission, Forms, petitions and annexes for direct applications.

[9] Presidency of the Compensation Commission, Mandatory Bar Stamp and Certified Copy Fee for Power of Attorney, announcement on the opinion of March 12, 2024.

[10] Presidency of the Compensation Commission, Our Duties and official contact details.

[11] Constitutional Court, First Section, Güher Ergun and others, Application No. 2012/13, July 2, 2013, in particular §§ 40–69.

[12] Constitutional Court, Second Section, B.E., Application No. 2012/625, January 9, 2014, in particular §§ 28–49.

[13] Constitutional Court Plenary, Nevriye Kuruç, Application No. 2021/58970, July 5, 2022, §§ 43–59, 82–115.

[14] Constitutional Court Plenary, Veysi Ado, Application No. 2022/100837, April 27, 2023, §§ 35–51.

[15] Constitutional Court Plenary, Keser Altıntaş, Application No. 2023/18536, July 25, 2023, §§ 79–86 and the dissenting opinion of M. Emin Kuz.

[16] Constitutional Court, E.2024/98, K.2025/149, July 10, 2025, §§ 80–98; Official Gazette December 31, 2025, No. 33124.

[17] Constitutional Court, First Section, Abdurrahman Görken and others, Application No. 2020/39937, May 27, 2025, §§ 20–30.

[18] Constitutional Court, First Section, M.G. and others, Application No. 2020/24097, January 6, 2026, §§ 17–27.

[19] Constitutional Court, First Section, Star İnşaat Taahhüt Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti., Application No. 2021/18493, January 7, 2025, §§ 13–21.

[20] ECtHR Grand Chamber, Scordino v. Italy (No. 1), Application No. 36813/97, March 29, 2006, in particular §§ 178–213.

[21] ECtHR, Second Section, Ümmühan Kaplan v. Türkiye, Application No. 24240/07, March 20, 2012, §§ 51–75; final June 20, 2012.

[22] Mustafa Mahmut Soylu, The Problem of Redress for Material Damage Arising from a Violation of the Right to Trial within a Reasonable Time and the Effect of the Compensation Commission on this Problem, Selçuk University Faculty of Law Journal, 33(1), 2025, pp. 1–21; in particular pp. 17–18; DOI: 10.15337/suhfd.1522809.

[23] İsmet Mazlum, The Structure of the Compensation Commission and an Assessment of Its Review on Reasonable Time from the Standpoint of Civil Procedure Law, Ankara University Faculty of Law Journal, 73(3), 2024, pp. 1933–1978; in particular pp. 1973–1974.

[24] Sevimnur Üçüncü Kasımoğlu, Is the Compensation Commission a Real Solution for Ensuring the Right to Trial within a Reasonable Time?, Trabzon University Faculty of Law Journal, 4(1), 2026, pp. 1–43; in particular pp. 35–37.

[25] European Court of Human Rights, Apply to the Court, application form, admissibility and explanations on Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.

[26] Constitutional Court, Second Section, Hüseyin Aşkan, Application No. 2017/15649, July 21, 2020, §§ 20–31.

[27] Presidency of the Compensation Commission, UYAP Lawyer Portal and UYAP Citizen Portal Now Available, file-viewing announcement of February 2025; the announcement of June 15, 2026 on electronic citizen applications has also been taken into account.

---