Qualified Rights and the Limitation of Fundamental Freedoms in Constitutional Court Decisions

Qualified rights are fundamental rights and freedoms whose exercise may be limited under specific constitutional conditions. However, the fact that a right may be limited does not grant public authorities unlimited power to interfere. The interference must have a legal basis, must have a legitimate constitutional aim, and must be shown, through concrete reasons, to be necessary, suitable and proportionate in a democratic society. If any one of these conditions is not met, the right concerned may be violated.

The publication of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM), Qualified Rights: Summaries of Decisions (Nitelikli Haklar Karar Özetleri), dated June 2025, brings together decisions in the fields of expression, assembly, trade union, education, religion and conscience, political participation and association. This article examines the full texts of selected decisions based on the subject framework of that compilation, and explains the conditions of limitation, the distinctions between rights and the effects on applications. The law at the date of the events and the current application procedure are kept separate. Blocks presented under the label "Direct quotation" are passages from the decisions reproduced verbatim. "Ruling of the Court" states the outcome of the decision, while "Legal assessment" shows the assessment of this article.

What are qualified rights and which rights do they cover?

A limitable right is not a right with weak protection

The word "qualified" in the concept of a qualified right does not mean that some rights are more valuable than others. The concept means that interferences with the exercise of a right are subject to specific conditions. Freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and freedom of association are clear examples. The presence of a limitation in law is the beginning of constitutional review, not its end.

Article 13 of the Constitution regulates the general guarantees of limitation in ordinary periods. The special regulation of the right is also taken into account. Although the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning statements of religion and belief, expression, and assembly and association raise similar review questions, the contractual regime of the rights to education and to elections is not wholly the same as these. A single limitation clause cannot be applied to all rights. Constitution, Art. 13; ECHR, Arts. 9–11 and Protocol No. 1, Arts. 2–3.

Constitutional bases of the rights and the subject of review

This table does not mean that every dispute will automatically be examined in an individual application. The application must also fall within the common area of protection of the Constitution and of the ECHR and its protocols to which Türkiye is a party. The existence of a constitutional right and the admissibility of a complaint for examination in an individual application are different questions.

Absolute protection areas must be distinguished from the freedom of outward manifestation

Absolute guarantees, such as the prohibition of torture, cannot be subjected to the same logic of limitation as freedom of expression. In the field of religion and conscience, too, a person's holding a belief, changing it or not believing, and conduct that manifests a belief must not be treated at the same level. The possibility of limiting the outward manifestation of belief in concrete circumstances does not mean that a person may be forced to abandon thought or belief.

A state of emergency does not remove all guarantees. Article 15 of the Constitution provides for separate review through international obligations, the measure required by the circumstances, and the core guarantees that continue to apply. The existence of a state of emergency does not by itself make every interference lawful.

Under which conditions may fundamental rights be limited?

The legal basis must be clear, accessible and foreseeable

The power of limitation must rest on a legal basis appropriate to the nature of the right concerned and of the interference. A person must be able to foresee with reasonable certainty what conduct may lead to what legal consequence. A regulation cannot leave an unlimited area in which the applying authority may decide arbitrarily.

In the Tuğba Arslan decision, the Constitutional Court expressed this threshold clearly:

"Under Article 13 of the Constitution, a law is indispensable for the limitation of fundamental rights."

Direct quotation: Constitutional Court, General Assembly, Tuğba Arslan, Application No. 2014/256, June 25, 2014, § 98.

In reviewing legality, it is not enough to show only an article number. The scope of the regulation, the manner of its application and the safeguards it provides against arbitrariness are assessed together. A court decision or a professional practice cannot automatically substitute for a statutory limitation that does not exist in the concrete case.

The legitimate aim must be connected with the specific regulation of the right

Grounds such as public order, national security or the rights of others cannot legitimize a limitation when merely repeated in the abstract. First, it must be identified which constitutional aim is applicable to the right concerned, and then it must be shown that the interference is actually directed at that aim.

After the 2001 amendment, Article 13 of the Constitution does not contain a general list of grounds for limiting all rights. The study by Kemal Gözler examining this amendment also distinguishes between the removal of general grounds and the importance of specific grounds. The conclusion to be drawn is that a limitation ground specific to one right cannot be carried over without justification to another right. For rights without a specific ground for limitation, constitutional integrity and competing guarantees are assessed separately. Saying "there is a public interest" does not remove the obligation to explain the applicable constitutional basis.

The necessity in a democratic society must be explained through concrete facts

An interference must rest on a pressing social need. Administrative authorities and courts must explain, with reasons linked to the facts, what danger arose, what interest would be protected and why the interference was necessary. Discomfort, being criticized or an abstract possibility is not sufficient on its own.

Relevant and sufficient reasoning does not simply mean a long decision. The applicant's decisive claims must be addressed, and it must be explained why the facts in his or her favor did not change the outcome. In the decision İnci Çiğdem Ertan, the legal basis and the legitimate aim were accepted, but the reasoning and the balance were found insufficient, which shows the independent importance of this stage (§§ 29–42).

Proportionality must be examined through three separate questions

The statement of the Constitutional Court in the Barış Yiğit decision separates these three elements (§ 38). For this reason, the fact that a measure is useful for the aim does not, on its own, prove that it is necessary and proportionate. In practices that make the right impossible to exercise in fact, the essence of the right and the other constitutional guarantees must also be respected.

Legal assessment: The subject of review is not only the aim the state wishes to reach. The necessity, severity and manner of application of the means chosen for that aim must also be justified.

In freedom of expression, the distinction between criticism, insult and defense

Harsh criticism cannot be regarded as an insult without examining context

Freedom of expression is not limited to positive, harmless statements or those accepted by the majority. However, the protection of a person's honor and reputation is also under constitutional guarantee. In balancing these competing interests, the whole of the statement, its subject, its addressee, the environment in which it is disseminated and its effect are important.

The factual allegation, which claims that an event occurred, must be distinguished from a value judgment about a conduct. It is not appropriate to demand proof of mathematical accuracy for a value judgment; however, the factual basis and context of a serious allegation directed at a person cannot be disregarded. Satire, professional defense, political criticism and direct personal attack cannot be placed in the same category.

Legal assessment: The fact that a statement is harsh does not in itself justify punishment; and calling something "criticism" does not give immunity to every statement either. The legal consequence must be established by examining the whole of the statement and the context of the event. For practices concerning political debate, the article of our firm on an individual application concerning criticism of a politician may also be read.

A lawyer's defense statement requires special protection

In the Kenan Gül (2) application, a disciplinary penalty was imposed on a lawyer for statements in the lawyer's petition. The Constitutional Court evaluated together the relationship of the statements to the dispute, the facts relayed by the client, whether the statements went beyond the court and whether the defense was conducted effectively (§§ 42–49).

Ruling of the Court: The Constitutional Court unanimously found a violation of freedom of expression and ordered that the decision be sent to the relevant court for retrial in order to remedy the consequences of the violation (§ 51 and operative part).

Legal characterization: The dispute is not about granting lawyers unlimited immunity for every statement. The question examined was whether a statement made in connection with the duty of defense had been taken out of its context and turned into a disciplinary sanction.

Legal assessment: If a sanction is based only on the word used in a petition, without considering the relationship of the statement to the subject of the case, the facts on which it rests and the setting in which it was made, the constitutional justification may be insufficient. It must also be considered that even a light disciplinary penalty may deter future defenses.

In press, internet, science and art, the characteristics of the medium matter

A newspaper article, a social media post, scientific research, a work of art, a banner or a poster are different ways of expressing thought. In the examination, the audience reached by the expression, the way it is reshared, the whole of the publication and its connection with public debate must be taken into account. The same sentence may have different legal contexts in a scientific debate, in a work of art and in a message containing a direct threat.

A problem with a particular item of content on the internet must be distinguished from the restriction of the entire publishing space. Whether a narrow interference is sufficient, the reasoning of the decision and the availability of an effective means of objection must be assessed. The past access-blocking decisions in the compilation do not mean that every current application may be made under the same statutory provision and by the same procedure. Historical case law cannot be used in place of the procedure currently in force. The examination of an access block affecting an entire platform from the standpoint of freedom of expression is explained in the article on access blocking to a social media platform and freedom of expression.

As regards requests for information, the nature of the requested document, its relationship to public debate and the purpose for which access is sought are important. The right to information under Article 74 of the Constitution and the question of whether a complaint may be examined within freedom of expression linked to the ECHR are not the same question. Not every refusal of an information request automatically constitutes a violation of freedom of expression.

Incitement to violence must be distinguished from dissenting opinion

In the context of combating terrorism, praising or encouraging the violent methods of an organization is different from criticizing official policies. The whole of the words used, their target audience and their connection with violence must be examined. The fact that an opinion is controversial or resembles the political views of an organization does not, on its own, produce the consequence of terrorist propaganda. On the other hand, it cannot be assumed that open incitement to violence will enjoy constitutional protection. The Constitutional Court's official compilation of principles on freedom of expression also emphasizes this contextual examination.

The right to peaceful assembly does not automatically lapse on the ground of procedural irregularity

A lack of notification and violence cannot be equated

In the Dilan Ögüz Canan decision, the Constitutional Court made the following finding:

"The fact that an assembly or demonstration march is not organized in full compliance with the procedures set out in the laws does not, on its own, remove the peaceful character of the assembly or march."

Direct quotation: Constitutional Court, General Assembly, Dilan Ögüz Canan, Application No. 2014/20411, November 30, 2017, § 41; the relevant part of the sentence.

This finding does not mean that the statutory rules on assemblies are unimportant. Notification may serve a function in protecting security and the rights of others. However, failing to give notice and the assembly involving violence are different facts. If there is a real danger to public order, a measure appropriate to it may be taken; but the severity of the interference must also be explained (§§ 39–41, 49–56). The review of administrative fines imposed for posting posters, from the standpoint of the right of assembly, is examined in the article on administrative fines for posting posters and the right of assembly.

A deterrent interference may arise even without a conviction

The application considered together the dispersal of the assembly, detention and a three-year period of supervision produced by the postponement of prosecution. Ruling of the Court: It was decided by majority that the right to organize an assembly and demonstration march had been violated (§§ 56–57). The outcome was not made conditional on the existence of a final prison sentence alone.

The dissenting opinion, however, emphasized the safety of the ceremony, the existence of warnings and the circumstances at the time of the event. This divergence of views shows the importance of how the concrete event is documented. In the majority's approach, the decisive point was that no conduct had been shown that proved the group in which the applicant was present had lost its peaceful character.

Legal assessment: Instead of general statements about the whole assembly, the conduct of the individual, the concrete danger, the timing of the warning and the form of the interference must be shown. Video recordings, minutes and the sequence of events are more decisive than an abstract debate on "public order."

Trade union activity and disciplinary liability must be assessed together

Even a light penalty may violate the trade union right

In the Tayfun Cengiz application, a teacher who did not come to work for two days following a trade union call was given a warning penalty. The Constitutional Court examined the circumstances of the act and the deterrent effect of the penalty on trade union activity.

"Accordingly, in interferences with the trade union right, it must be assessed whether the interference chosen is suitable, necessary and proportionate in order to achieve the aim pursued."

Direct quotation: Second Section of the Constitutional Court, Tayfun Cengiz, Application No. 2013/8463, September 18, 2014, § 54.

Ruling of the Court: It was unanimously decided that the trade union right under Article 51 of the Constitution had been violated. The fact that a light penalty was imposed did not, on its own, justify the interference (§§ 61–63).

A trade union decision does not in itself make every work stoppage lawful

In the Canan Gül and Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası decision, a different result was reached. The Constitutional Court assessed an act that had no direct connection with working life and the core field of activity of the union under freedom of association rather than the trade union right. Taking into account the effect on public service of a work stoppage with a predominantly political character, it found that no violation of freedom of association had occurred in respect of the natural person applicant (Application No. 2022/74477, December 18, 2024, §§ 11–15).

Legal characterization: That a trade union has taken a decision to act and that the act is constitutionally trade union activity are not the same thing. The purpose of the act, its connection with the economic and social interests of the employees, the nature of the duty and its effect on the service are examined.

Legal assessment: The defense must not be limited to submitting the trade union decision alone. The connection of the decision to professional demands, the duration of the act, the form of participation and how the service was affected must be explained. These two decisions show that no conclusion can be drawn from a single example for all work stoppages.

Legality and discrimination are examined separately in freedom of religion and conscience

In the Tuğba Arslan application, the hearing was postponed because a lawyer wearing a headscarf took part in it, and the client was given time to retain another lawyer. The Constitutional Court found that the interference did not satisfy the requirement of legality (§§ 98–99). It also examined whether an objective and concrete basis for the differential treatment had been shown (§§ 148–154).

Ruling of the Court: It was decided by majority that the freedom of religion and conscience and the prohibition of discrimination connected with that right had been violated. The absence of concrete facts showing that a belief statement obstructs the rights of others was important in the assessment.

Legal characterization: A restriction without a legal basis and the inability to justify differential treatment on religious grounds are separate constitutional problems. Discussing one of them does not make the other unnecessary.

Legal assessment: Abstract discomfort caused by a belief conduct is not a sufficient ground for exclusion. However, the decision must be remembered as having been given in a particular professional context; no conclusion of unlimited freedom should be drawn for all institutions, duties and conduct.

The right to education is protected even during a criminal investigation

In the Barış Yiğit application, the applicant asked for a copy in order to access a doctoral thesis stored on a seized computer; that request remained unresolved for about five years. The Constitutional Court examined the duration of the protective measure, its effect on the applicant's education and the fact that he could not benefit from procedural guarantees (§§ 45–54).

"No measure may be applied in a manner that is permanent or continuous regardless of any time limit or any criterion."

Direct quotation: First Section of the Constitutional Court, Barış Yiğit, Application No. 2016/67924, September 7, 2021, § 40.

Ruling of the Court: It was unanimously decided that the right to education had been violated. The decision does not include a finding that all search or seizure operations were unlawful. It emphasizes that the interference with the right to education continued and that the request was not assessed.

Legal assessment: Even if the conduct of a criminal investigation pursues a legitimate aim, the concrete effect on another fundamental right must be separately examined. A request for access to data required for education should be supported by documents showing which work the record relates to, the deadline for submission or thesis, and why a narrower solution is possible.

Association and political participation are not protected merely by formal recognition

A sanction for membership of an association requires a concrete justification

In the İnci Çiğdem Ertan application, a lawyer was given a warning penalty for membership of an association of businesspeople. The Constitutional Court did not consider it sufficient to conclude that the professional reputation had been harmed through the association's name, and required a concrete link between the membership and the alleged harm (§§ 37–41).

Ruling of the Court: It was unanimously decided that freedom of association had been violated (Application No. 2019/41440, October 19, 2023, § 42). The issue here is not that professional rules are entirely without effect. What matters is the justification of how a legitimate professional regulatory aim applies to concrete membership activity.

Legal assessment: A sanction cannot be imposed on the basis of the name of an association, a social perception or assumptions drawn from the professions of its members. The conduct of the person and the obligation that conduct is said to have breached must be shown.

The right to be elected also covers the effective performance of the representative duty

In the Kadri Enis Berberoğlu (2) decision, the legislative immunity of a re-elected member of parliament and the continuation of the proceedings were examined. The Constitutional Court criticized the extension of the scope of the exception in provisional Article 20:

"An exception cannot be interpreted broadly, and the scope of the exception cannot be extended."

Direct quotation: Constitutional Court, General Assembly, Kadri Enis Berberoğlu (2), Application No. 2018/30030, September 17, 2020, § 90.

Ruling of the Court: It was unanimously decided that the right to be elected and to engage in political activity, and the right to liberty and security, had been violated (§ 94 and operative part).

Legal assessment: The decision concerns a particular constitutional immunity regime. It is not a formula that produces an automatic result for all electoral disputes or all criminal proceedings. The basic criterion it applies is that an exception narrowing the guarantee of representation must not be extended to the detriment of the right.

Public officials, employees and detainees do not wholly lose their rights

The duty of impartiality of a public official, the disciplinary obligation of a soldier or a security requirement in a penal institution does not remove the review of rights. The nature of the duty, the connection of the statement with the duty, its impact within the institution and the severity of the interference are assessed together. For the same expression, the contexts of a teacher, a soldier, a journalist and a lawyer may differ.

In a private employment relationship, although the employer's decision is not regarded as a direct exercise of public power, the obligation of the courts that review the dispute to protect fundamental rights may arise. A reasoned balance must be struck between the employee's statement, the legitimate interests of the workplace and the sanction chosen. The existence of an employment contract does not mean that constitutional rights are wholly abandoned.

In restrictions on publication, correspondence, education or religious activities in penal institutions, concrete security grounds and less intrusive alternatives are also important. The status of a person is the starting datum of the examination; it is not the result that justifies all interferences. The common criteria in this section must be applied together with the legal regime specific to each status. The review of disciplinary penalties imposed for protest and hunger strikes in prison is separately addressed in the article on disciplinary penalties for prison protest and hunger strikes.

With which documents and by which route should an allegation of rights violation be raised?

First, the interference, the reasoning and the outcome must be identified

An effective legal application is not merely a list of right names. The act giving rise to the interference, the authority making it, the legal power used, the reasons given and the concrete effect on the person must be linked to one another.

Evidence must be obtained by lawful means and its originals must be preserved. Accessing another person's private correspondence without authority or publishing personal data unnecessarily cannot be justified by the pursuit of a claim. The text to be made public and the scope of the evidence to be submitted to a court do not have to be the same.

An individual application does not replace ordinary legal remedies

Under Article 148 of the Constitution and Articles 45–48 of Law No. 6216, the subject and admissibility of an individual application are examined separately. As a rule, the existing and effective administrative and judicial remedies must be exhausted. The substance of the rights allegation must be placed before the relevant authorities in these proceedings. It is not possible to request a new appellate review merely by stating that the court's decision is wrong.

The applicant must explain that he or she was currently and personally affected by the act alleged to have caused the violation. Private legal persons may apply only in respect of rights belonging to legal persons. In the Canan Gül and Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası decision, the finding of lack of standing ratione personae for the legal person, because it was not shown that the union's own right had been directly affected, makes this distinction concrete (§ 20).

The thirty-day period and the distinction between service and knowledge must be preserved

The general time limit for an application is thirty days. The period runs from the date on which the remedies were exhausted or, where no remedy is provided, from the date on which the violation was learned of. In determining when a final decision was learned of, one should not rely only on paper service. Records such as reading the decision on UYAP may be effective in determining the date of knowledge, depending on the circumstances. Law No. 6216, Art. 47(5); Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court (İçtüzük), Art. 64.

A person who could not apply within the time limit because of a justified excuse may apply, with evidence documenting the excuse, within fifteen days of the excuse ceasing. Whether the excuse was justified is assessed separately. This possibility is not a second period freely added to the application period.

Applications may be made directly to the Constitutional Court, with the required form and annexes, or through the intermediaries specified in the legislation. In addition, since October 1, 2025, lawyers have been able to make electronic applications through the UYAP Lawyer Portal. The official guide explains the steps for the electronic signature, the applicant's information, the power of attorney and the uploading of files. It should be verified that the application has been registered; preparing the form on a computer must not be confused with making the application.

The application is subject to a fee; the conditions for legal aid are assessed separately for those without the means to pay. A public fee and a lawyer's fee agreement are different items. This article contains no offer of costs or fees for any particular file.

Making an application does not in itself suspend the measure

Making an individual application does not automatically suspend the enforcement of a sanction or act. If necessary, the interim protection available in the relevant judicial route and a request for an interim measure before the Constitutional Court must be separately assessed.

Current regulation: Following the amendment of August 5, 2025, Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure bases the assessment on a serious danger to the applicant's fundamental rights, in particular to life or to material or non-material integrity. The need for a measure must be explained by the seriousness and proximity of the danger and supported by documents. It is not correct to rely on the old text to limit the review of measures to the right to life alone. Nor can it be concluded that a measure will be granted in every application.

The result of a violation finding is the remedy of the violation and its effects

A finding of violation by the Constitutional Court does not mean that the same remedy or compensation will be awarded in every case. Under Article 50 of Law No. 6216, the remedy is determined in line with the source of the violation and its continuing consequences. If the violation arises from a court decision, the decision is sent to the relevant court for retrial where necessary.

In the Kenan Gül (2) decision, a retrial and non-pecuniary compensation were awarded. In the Tayfun Cengiz decision, by contrast, the finding of violation was regarded as sufficient satisfaction and the compensation claim was rejected (§ 69). Accordingly, the existence of a violation and entitlement to compensation in a specific amount are not the same result.

A retrial following a Constitutional Court violation finding is not wholly the same institution as the reopening of proceedings in ordinary procedural law. The court concerned must act so as to remedy the violation identified by the Constitutional Court and its consequences. This obligation was also explained in the Barış Yiğit decision (§§ 65–66).

Legal assessment: Follow-up after a decision is not complete merely by placing the finding of violation on the file. Retrial, the consequences of the sanction, the correction of records or the performance of an ordered payment must be pursued according to the scope of the decision.

For details, you may also read our articles on the defense freedom of lawyers and statements in petitions, freedom of expression in prison, interferences with membership of associations and freedom of association, the legal limits of freedom of science and art, the balance between press freedom and honor and reputation and the boundary between freedom of expression and insult. For our firm's work in this area, see the page on Constitutional Court and ECtHR applications.

Conclusion

Interference with qualified rights cannot be made lawful merely by citing an article of a statute. A legal basis, an applicable legitimate aim, concrete necessity and proportionality must all be present. A justification that does not examine the context of a statement, the conduct of the person or the actual effect of the sanction may be insufficient for constitutional review.

The decisions examined show two separate duties in the protection of rights: public authorities must justify the interference concretely, and the applicant must set out the rights allegation by correct legal characterization, relevant evidence and a timely application. A strong claim of rights is built not by naming freedom, but by showing which interference violates which guarantee, and why.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are qualified rights unlimited rights?

No. They may be limited under specific conditions. However, the power of limitation is also subject to constitutional guarantees; the existence of the right cannot be left to the discretion of public authorities. For details, see the section on conditions of limitation.

Is every harsh criticism regarded as an insult?

No. The context of the statement, its connection with public debate, its addressee and its factual basis must be examined. A harsh tone is not on its own sufficient for punishment; and calling every word criticism does not guarantee protection either.

Does every assembly held without notification fall outside protection?

No. A procedural irregularity does not on its own remove the peaceful character of an assembly. The concrete danger, the conduct of the participant and the necessity of the interference are assessed separately.

Is not going to work on the basis of a trade union decision protected in every case?

No. The connection of the act with working life and professional interests, the nature of the duty and its effect on the service are important. That the decision was taken by the trade union is not, on its own, sufficient.

How many days is the period for an individual application to the Constitutional Court?

The general period is thirty days. Exhaustion of remedies, the date on which the final decision was learned of and any justified excuse must be assessed together. Overlooking an earlier date of knowledge while waiting for service may result in the loss of rights.

Does an individual application suspend the penalty or the act?

It does not do so automatically. Where appropriate, temporary protection in the competent judicial route and, if the conditions exist, a request for a measure from the Constitutional Court may arise separately. The serious danger under the current Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure must be made concrete.

When a violation is found, is compensation always paid?

No. Depending on the source of the violation and its consequences, a retrial, compensation or another remedy may arise. In some applications, the finding of violation may be regarded as sufficient satisfaction.

Does a decision in the compilation determine the outcome of my case?

Not on its own. The facts of the decision, the law applied, its reasoning and its operative part must be compared with your dispute. The presence of a similar word or rights heading does not mean that the facts are legally the same.

Sources and legal bases

• Constitutional Court, Qualified Rights: Summaries of Decisions (Nitelikli Haklar Karar Özetleri), editors Hüseyin Kaya and Ömer Gedik, Constitutional Court Publications, June 2025, ISBN 978-625-6318-07-6. Official compilation.
• Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, in particular Arts. 10, 13, 15, 17, 24, 26–28, 33–34, 42, 51, 67, 74, 83, 148 and 153. Constitutional Court legislation text.
• European Convention on Human Rights, in particular Arts. 9–11; Protocol No. 1, Arts. 2–3. ECtHR official Turkish text.
• Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court, Arts. 45–50. Constitutional Court legislation text.
• Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court (İçtüzük), Arts. 59–65, 73 and 79; for Art. 73, the amendment published in the Official Gazette No. 32977 dated August 5, 2025. Current text.
• Constitutional Court, General Assembly, Tuğba Arslan, Application No. 2014/256, June 25, 2014, §§ 98–99, 148–159 and operative part. Full text of the decision.
• Constitutional Court, First Section, Kenan Gül (2), Application No. 2018/24311, June 15, 2021, §§ 42–51, 55–59 and operative part. Full text of the decision.
• Constitutional Court, General Assembly, Dilan Ögüz Canan, Application No. 2014/20411, November 30, 2017, §§ 39–41, 49–57, operative part and dissenting opinion §§ 10–17. Full text of the decision.
• Constitutional Court, Second Section, Tayfun Cengiz, Application No. 2013/8463, September 18, 2014, §§ 54, 58–63, 69 and operative part. Full text of the decision.
• Constitutional Court, First Section, Canan Gül and Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası, Application No. 2022/74477, December 18, 2024, §§ 11–15, 20 and operative part. Full text of the decision.
• Constitutional Court, First Section, Barış Yiğit, Application No. 2016/67924, September 7, 2021, §§ 38–54, 65–67 and operative part. Full text of the decision.
• Constitutional Court, First Section, İnci Çiğdem Ertan, Application No. 2019/41440, October 19, 2023, §§ 29–42, 44 and operative part. Full text of the decision.
• Constitutional Court, General Assembly, Kadri Enis Berberoğlu (2), Application No. 2018/30030, September 17, 2020, §§ 90–94 and operative part. Full text of the decision.
• Constitutional Court, Compilation of Leading Decisions on Freedom of Expression, Complete List, principles on the distinction between fact and value judgment, information requests and statements on incitement to violence. Official compilation of principles.
• Kemal Gözler, "The Effects and Consequences of the Constitutional Amendment on the Restriction of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms: An Examination of the New Form of Article 13 of the Constitution" (Anayasa Değişikliğinin Temel Hak ve Hürriyetlerin Sınırlandırılması Bakımından Getirdikleri ve Götürdükleri: Anayasanın 13'üncü Maddesinin Yeni Şekli Hakkında Bir İnceleme), Ankara Bar Journal (Ankara Barosu Dergisi), year 59, issue 2001/4, pp. 53–67. Text published by the author.
• Constitutional Court, "Individual Applications Begin to Be Accepted Through the UYAP Lawyer Portal", October 1, 2025; also Guide to Preparing an Individual Application Form to the Constitutional Court via the UYAP Lawyer Portal (UYAP Avukat Portal Üzerinden Anayasa Mahkemesine Bireysel Başvuru Formu Hazırlama Kılavuzu). Announcement, official guide.

The official source for free searches by case details is the Constitutional Court Decisions Database. The full-text De Jure links above may require user login. Research control date for legislation and online sources: October 13, 2026.