Right of Access to a Court: Bringing Proceedings, Remedies and Barriers to Filing

The right of access to a court guarantees that a person can bring a legal dispute before a competent court and request an effective judicial review. An unpredictable calculation of the time limit for bringing an action, the refusal of legal aid without examining the ability to pay, or the blocking of a review on appeal because of a curable deficiency may violate this right. By contrast, every refusal made in accordance with the procedural rules does not amount to a constitutional violation. The basis, purpose and manner of application of a concrete barrier, and the burden it places on the person, are assessed together. [1; 25; 14]

For an application to succeed, it is not enough to explain that one is right. The correct forum, the valid method of application, the time limit, the standing to apply, the court fees and the organisation of documents must all be considered together. Where a loss of rights has occurred, the ordinary remedies are considered first and then, if the conditions are met, an individual application to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court does not resolve every dispute again in place of the ordinary courts. [2; 3; 4; 9]

This article explains, as of October 12, 2026, the basic distinctions among civil, administrative and criminal proceedings in Türkiye. When assessing time limits and monetary thresholds, the specific provision applicable to the file and the dates on which amendments entered into force must also be taken into account.

The scope of the right of access to a court

Bringing an action, presenting a defence and obtaining an effective decision

Article 36 of the Constitution guarantees the right to present claims and defences as a claimant or defendant before the judicial bodies, and the right to a fair trial. Article 13 of the Constitution sets out the constitutional conditions for restrictions on rights. Access to a court is not limited to entering a courthouse or delivering a petition. The application must become capable of legal assessment, and there must be no barriers that render the exercise of the right meaningless. [1]

In Golder v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights examined the prevention of a prisoner from consulting a lawyer in order to bring a civil action for defamation. The Court accepted that, for the safeguards of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to be usable, access to a court must also be protected. The importance of the decision lies in protecting not only the manner in which a case is heard but also the possibility of initiating it. [25, §§ 35–40]

Access to a court does not guarantee that the case will be won, that all evidence will be admitted, or that every decision can be appealed. The discussion of evidence, a reasoned decision, trial within a reasonable time and the enforcement of the judgment are related but separate safeguards that require separate examination. The petition should explain which barrier affects which right. Legal scholarship also focuses on this relationship between access, obtaining a decision and enforcement of the decision. [14, §§ 45–46; 28, s. 39–40]

The position of the accused and the complainant in criminal proceedings

In criminal proceedings, a person against whom a criminal charge has been brought is within the fair trial guarantees if he or she can reach the court and use the defence and remedies granted by law. A complainant or victim also has statutory rights to object and to participate; however, these are not the same as the scope of protection of an individual application to the Constitutional Court. [4]

In the Onurhan Solmaz decision, the Constitutional Court (AYM) assessed an application that sought only the punishment of a third person outside the common scope of protection of the right to a fair trial. This approach does not mean that a victim can benefit from no constitutional protection at all. The right to life or the prohibition of ill-treatment, including the duty to conduct an effective investigation, is examined separately according to the nature of the event. The legal nature of the application must be correctly framed. In legal scholarship there are opinions criticising the exclusion of a complainant from the guarantee of a fair trial, but this criticism cannot replace the existing case law. [1, Art. 17; 24, §§ 23–27; 28, s. 39–40]

Which restrictions may amount to a violation of the right?

The right of access to a court is not unlimited. Time limits for bringing an action serve legal certainty; court fees serve the financing of the judicial service; the requirements for a petition serve the understanding of the dispute; and the right of defence of the opposing party is protected. However, the fact that a procedural rule exists in law does not mean that its concrete application is constitutional in every case. [14, §§ 48–71]

The examination must first determine what intervention made access more difficult. Was the action never able to be brought, was the petition rejected on procedural grounds, were the grounds of appeal not examined, or was the dispute examined on the merits and the claim found unfounded? In the last case, a legal problem different from the right of access may arise.

Then the legal basis and foreseeability are examined. There must be a provision and practice that allow the person to understand which step must be taken and within what time. A calculation of the time limit that contradicts the clear wording of the law may become a question of legality. At the final stage, a proportionate relationship between the legitimate aim and the means used is sought. Dismissing an entire case for a deficiency that could be cured by a lighter step is not the same as failing to perform a required procedural precondition at all. [16, §§ 11–24; 19, §§ 16–22]

The strong position of the opposing party is often the need for procedural security, prevention of delay and the ability to defend in time. For this reason, a claim of violation should not rest only on the statement that "excessive formalism was applied". It should be shown why the deficiency did not require a severe sanction, by what conduct it was cured, and which safeguard of the opposing party could be protected. [18, §§ 36–43; 26, §§ 85–99]

Where and how should an application be made?

The correct forum according to the type of dispute

Subject-matter jurisdiction (görev) indicates which type of court will examine the dispute; territorial jurisdiction (yetki) indicates which local court within the same type of court should be applied to. A civil action, an administrative action, a criminal complaint and an individual application cannot be used in place of one another. Changing the name of an application does not automatically correct the wrong route chosen. [2; 3; 4; 9]

The legal bases for the routes in this table are Articles 2, 4, 6, 336 and 445 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK); Articles 3–4 of İYUK; Article 158 of CMK; Articles 176–179 of the Attorneys Act No. 1136; and Article 47 of Law No. 6216. An administrative action petition may also be submitted at the delivery points stated in the law; leaving documents with an unauthorised public body does not produce the same result. [2; 3; 4; 8; 9; 10]

An application through the CİMER system, a general complaint e-mail sent to an institution, or a draft sent to a lawyer does not automatically constitute the bringing of an action. Whether a prior administrative application suspends the time limit for bringing an action is determined specifically under Articles 10–13 of İYUK and the relevant special law. It cannot be assumed that every administrative correspondence restarts the time limit. [3]

Consequences of applying to the wrong court

Where a decision on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or lack of territorial jurisdiction is given in civil proceedings, the two-week period for requesting transfer under Article 20 of HMK is important. The starting point depends on whether the decision is final when it is given, whether a remedy is pursued, and on notification. If the decision is final at the time it is given, the period runs from notification; if it becomes final without an appeal, from finality; if an appeal against the decision is rejected, from notification of the rejection. If transfer is not requested within the period, the action is deemed not to have been brought. [2, Art. 20]

Where a dispute falling within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts is brought before the civil courts, a separate rule applies. Article 9 of İYUK provides for the bringing of an action before the competent administrative court within 30 days following the day after the decision declaring lack of jurisdiction becomes final. Where the conditions are met, the original date of the first application is preserved. Even if this 30-day period has passed, the action may still be brought within that period if the original administrative time limit has not expired. Accordingly, there is no single time limit or automatic file-transfer rule for every error of jurisdiction. [3, Art. 9] For a file in which the result of an examination has been challenged by annulment of an administrative act, see the article Equivalent examination summons and the right to education.

In criminal proceedings, Article 264 of CMK provides that a mistake in identifying the legal remedy or the authority in an admissible application does not extinguish the rights. This safeguard is not a general amnesty that validates every application whose time limit has expired or which does not meet other admissibility conditions. [4, Art. 264]

Proving delivery in electronic proceedings

Under Article 445 of HMK, an action may be brought with a secure electronic signature and court fees and advances may be paid; in electronic proceedings the time limit ends at the end of the day. However, preparing the petition on a computer, uploading it to the system and completing and registering the application are separate stages. The record of completion, the file number, the date and time information and the payment receipt must be kept. [2, Art. 445]

Where a system failure is alleged, rather than relying only on a statement prepared later, the date of the failure, the error screen, any institutional announcement and a support request should be submitted together. The existence of these records does not by itself extend the time limit; the excuse or restoration conditions in the relevant procedural law are assessed separately. [2, Arts. 95–101; 4, Arts. 40–42]

Court fees, litigation costs and legal aid

When does the payment obligation become disproportionate?

Court fees, advances on costs, advances on evidence and attorney's fees are not the same item. A court fee is a financial obligation linked to a judicial act; an advance on costs is collected for the expenses of conducting the proceedings; an advance on evidence relates to the examination of a specific piece of evidence. The fee agreement between the lawyer and the client is also separate from the attorney's fee that may be awarded in favour of the opposing party. These distinctions determine the consequence of an incomplete payment. [2, Arts. 120, 323–326; 8, Art. 164]

For example, under Article 120 of HMK, a fixed period of two weeks is provided for completing an advance on costs. Failure to deposit an advance on evidence under Article 324 of HMK may, depending on the conditions, result in the relevant evidence being treated as abandoned. Not every deficient payment can be linked directly to the complete dismissal of the action. The nature of the amount requested and the content of the warning must be examined. [2]

In Kreuz v. Poland, the ECtHR found that a high court fee demanded without adequate examination of the applicant's ability to pay led to the dispute never being examined. The violation did not arise from the existence of the fee but from the fact that the amount was severe in relation to the person's situation and the stage of the proceedings. The Court did not accept that there is an unconditional right to free litigation in civil cases. Accordingly, in a claim of financial hardship, the amount of the fee, income, expenses and capacity to pay must be explained together. [27, §§ 59–67]

Conditions and documents for legal aid

Under Article 334(1) of HMK there are two basic conditions: the person is unable, without seriously endangering his or her own livelihood and that of his or her family, to pay in part or in full the costs required, and the claim is not manifestly unfounded. The applicant does not have to be entirely without assets. On the other hand, merely stating that "my financial situation is poor" is not sufficient. [2, Arts. 334–336]

The financial picture may be explained through salary or pension records, social security information, bank statements, land registry and vehicle records, rent, persons who must be supported, compulsory health expenses and concrete debts. This list does not mean that the same documents are compulsory in every file. What is requested from the court is an assessment of existing economic resources against the concrete cost of the proceedings. Where the person holds real estate, the share ratio, use, whether it produces income, and whether it constitutes an effectively usable resource should also be explained. [2, Art. 336; 14, §§ 67–71]

The legal and factual basis of the claim should also be shown. Documents relating to the foundation of the dispute, such as a contract, a payment record, a work accident document or an administrative act, may show that the claim is not wholly baseless. At this stage the burden of proving the dispute conclusively and the admission condition of legal aid should not be confused.

In the decision in Hasan Hüseyin Algün, a person claiming to have been defrauded requested legal aid for enforcement proceedings, relying on bank records and a criminal complaint. Although it was accepted that the person lacked the ability to pay, the request was rejected on the ground that he could not prove his claim, since no criminal case had yet been opened and the transfers contained no explanation. The Constitutional Court found it disproportionate to convert the condition that the claim is "not manifestly unfounded" into a heavier burden of proving the merits. This decision does not mean that the debt has become final or that the offence of fraud was committed; it only shows the limit of the legal aid review. [16, §§ 2–7, 20–28]

Representation by a lawyer, companies and foreigners

The fact that a person is represented by a lawyer does not by itself prove that he or she can pay the costs of the proceedings. In Fatih Kökçinar, the Constitutional Court stated that this categorical ground for refusal prevented the real financial situation from being assessed, and found a violation. The existence of a lawyer relationship should not be concealed; its relationship with the concrete financial situation should be explained. [15, §§ 3–5]

Repeating old texts is also problematic with regard to private law legal persons. By its decision of September 24, 2024, E.2024/78, K.2024/164, the Constitutional Court annulled Article 334(2) of HMK, and the annulment entered into force on August 21, 2025. For this reason, the generalisation that "commercial companies can never receive legal aid" is no longer current. Inability to pay must be substantiated with financial statements, audit reports and information on indebtedness. The annulment decision does not recognise automatic exemption for all companies. [2; 17, §§ 24–34]

In legal scholarship it has been suggested that the possibility of financing the costs of persons with an economic connection to a legal person should be considered in new legislation. This should not be presented as an independent condition expressly regulated in law. Academic proposals and the law in force must be distinguished. [29, p. 715]

For foreigners, the condition of reciprocity in Article 334(3) of HMK is examined together with the relevant international conventions and special provisions. For example, Article 81(2) of Law No. 6458 contains a specific safeguard on access to legal services in relation to the international protection applications it specifies. The court's exemption from fees and costs and the appointment of a lawyer by the bar are again separate assessments. [2; 11]

Application, objection and subsequent recovery of costs

Legal aid is requested from the court that will decide the main claim. In enforcement and bankruptcy proceedings, the application is addressed to the enforcement court at the place where the proceedings will be conducted. At the stage of appeal, a new request is made to the regional court of appeal or to the Court of Cassation. Under HMK, legal aid granted continues, as a rule, until the judgment becomes final; the court may limit the scope of the aid. In administrative proceedings, the reference in Article 31 of İYUK to legal aid is taken into account. [2, Arts. 335–336; 3, Art. 31]

Against the refusal of legal aid, the current objection period under Article 337(2) of HMK is two weeks from notification. A one-week period seen in older decisions or older guides should not be carried over to current applications. The objection petition is submitted to the court that gave the decision; the review is carried out by the other court indicated in the law. The refusal decision must explain why the information and documents submitted were not considered sufficient. [2, Art. 337]

Every decisive element of the grounds for refusal should be answered in the objection. If an assumption of income was made, the actual income documents should be submitted; if reliance was placed on property, the economic usability of that property should be shown; if the claim was considered unfounded, the concrete basis of the dispute should be shown. If there is a serious subsequent reduction in the ability to pay, a new request is possible. [2, Arts. 336–337]

Legal aid does not mean the complete cancellation of all costs. It may provide a temporary exemption, an advance and, where necessary, assistance from a lawyer; it does not cover costs incurred before the request. Recovery from the party who loses the case or the enforcement proceedings, instalment payments and, in cases of hardship, full or partial exemption are assessed separately under Article 339 of HMK. The appointment of a lawyer by the bar does not automatically secure the court's fee exemption. Academic commentary emphasises that financial relief and legal assistance should be considered together. [2, Arts. 335, 337, 339–340; 8, Arts. 176–179; 30, pp. 212–214]

Rejection of a petition and excessive formalism

A curable deficiency and the absence of a condition precedent to the action

In civil proceedings the petition must set out the parties, the facts, the evidence and a clear claim. For the deficiencies listed in Article 119(2) of HMK, a one-week fixed period for completion is provided. This provision does not grant an unlimited right to correct every deficiency in a petition. For curable deficiencies in a condition precedent to the action, Article 115 of HMK applies; for administrative action petitions, Articles 3, 5 and 15 of İYUK apply separately. In administrative proceedings, the 30-day period for filing a new petition after the rejection of a petition should not be confused with the rejection of the dispute on the merits. [2; 3]

When a notice of deficiency is received, the first step is to determine what is being requested, when the fixed period begins, and what the consequence of non-compliance is. If the explanation requested is considered unnecessary or unlawful, an objection to it should be submitted to the file. However, acting on the notice by ignoring it and relying only on a future application to the Constitutional Court creates a problem for the proper use of ordinary remedies. [9, Art. 45]

The current law must also be used as the basis for the value of the claim and for increasing it. On July 31, 2026, Article 107 of HMK was repealed; Article 109(4) introduced a provision under which, in a partial action, the claim may be increased once in the same action until the end of the examination stage, and without being subject to a prohibition on expanding the claim. For the part being increased, the statute of limitation is deemed interrupted as of the date of the action. The unchecked use of old "uncertain claim action" templates in new proceedings may cause errors as to the type of action and the claim. For proceedings opened earlier, completed acts and the application of the rule over time are examined separately. [2, Arts. 107, 109, 448]

Two separate deficiencies in mandatory mediation

The general operation of mediation is explained separately in the article What Is Mediation?. The following distinction is important for mediation as a condition precedent to litigation.

In a dispute where mediation is a condition precedent to litigation, not applying to a mediator at all is different from a case in which the process has been completed but the final minutes have not been attached to the petition. Article 18/A(2) of Law No. 6325 provides, where the minutes are not submitted, for a one-week fixed period and a warning. If it becomes apparent that the action was brought without applying to a mediator, the rule in the law is dismissal on procedural grounds for absence of a condition precedent. In labour disputes Article 3 of Law No. 7036 is also taken into account. [6; 7]

In Coşkun Arıcan and others, however, the issue was not simply the omission of mediation. The claimant had made an error in the employer's name among connected companies; the first-instance court found the mistake excusable and, after mediation with the actual employer had been completed, the case continued with a change of party. The appellate court dismissed the case for absence of a condition precedent without sufficiently assessing these features. [18, §§ 5–12]

The Constitutional Court found a violation, relying on the inadequacy of the balance struck in view of the connection between the companies, the excusability of the mistake and the possibility of changing the party, and on the excessive rigidity of the interpretation. The decision does not produce the result that "mediation may always be carried out after the action". Records showing that a party investigation was carried out, the cause of the mistake and the stage at which the deficiency was cured are important. The separate legal personality of the opposing company and its preliminary objection should also be discussed in light of these documents. [18, §§ 36–43]

Time limits, service and learning of decisions through UYAP

The starting point of the time limit differs for each application

Calculating a time limit requires four separate pieces of information: the provision that applies, the event that starts the time limit, the date on which that event occurred, and the last day. Notification, learning of the decision, its oral pronouncement and its finality are not required to be the same date. Calendar days and working days, or weeks and a specified number of days, should not be converted into one another; they must be calculated in accordance with the relevant procedural rule. Whether the last day falls on a public holiday and the effect of the judicial recess are examined under the provisions of the procedure concerned. [2, Arts. 90–94, 104; 3, Art. 8; 4, Art. 39]

The table shows the general rules. In special areas such as reinstatement, enforcement, deportation or urgent proceedings, different time limits may apply. A special time limit should be researched before acting on the general period in the table. [2, Arts. 337, 345, 361; 3, Arts. 7, 20/A, 20/B, 45–46; 4, Arts. 273, 291, Provisional Art. 6; 9, Art. 47]

The distinction between the fifth day in UETS and learning of the decision for the Constitutional Court

Under Article 7(a) of the Notification Law No. 7201, electronic notification is deemed to have been made at the end of the fifth day following the day on which it reaches the recipient's electronic address. Where the law links a time limit to notification, this legal notification date is important. For defective service, the learning rule in Article 32 and the raising of the defect in the relevant judicial remedy are assessed separately. [5]

In Star İnşaat Taahhüt Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti., the electronic notification reached the account on November 25, 2020, while the legal notification date was November 30. Even so, the Constitutional Court found that dismissing the objection as out of time on the basis of the first date, not the legal notification date, was contrary to the requirement of legality. The result of that decision concerns the time limit tied to notification in that application. [19, §§ 18–22]

Waiting only for the notification is not a safe approach for the 30-day time limit for an individual application to the Constitutional Court. If the final reasoned decision was previously opened and read on UYAP, the learning may have occurred on that date. The mere uploading of the decision to the system and a record showing that the applicant or the representative opened and read the decision are different things. [21, §§ 2–6]

In Umut Oruç, it was determined that the applicant had read the decision on UYAP on December 9, 2021 and made the individual application on January 13, 2022; the application was found inadmissible on account of being out of time. The fact that a person represented by a lawyer has himself or herself learned of the decision earlier is also important. For this reason, the firm's time-limit tracking should include the client's knowledge of the decision. [21, §§ 5–7]

Access to appeal and cassation

Monetary thresholds and the right to review of a judgment

Not every dispute must be reviewed by an unlimited number of higher courts. The ECtHR requires that existing remedies be applied in conformity with the guarantees of the Convention. In Turkish constitutional law, the right to request review of a judgment by another judicial body should be assessed separately in light of current Constitutional Court case law. These two assessments cannot be merged into the statement "appealing to a higher court is never a constitutional right". [26, §§ 80–85; 22, §§ 9–17]

The current texts of Article 1(2) of the Additional Provisions of HMK and Article 1(2) of the Additional Provisions of İYUK take as the basis, for the relevant monetary thresholds of appeal and cassation, the threshold at the date the action was brought. The value of the claim, the amount adverse to the party, partial actions and specific finality rules must also be examined. A single figure found on the internet today does not determine the appeal status of every file brought in the past. [2; 3]

The Constitutional Court's decision of February 26, 2026, E.2026/49, K.2026/48, annulled Article 362(1)(a) of HMK in respect of cases where the appeal is accepted in whole or in part. The Constitutional Court examined the fact that where the appellate court gave a different merits decision for the first time, that decision could not be reviewed. The subsequent amendment by Law No. 7589 must also be taken into account; it cannot be said merely from the annulment decision that all decisions are now open to cassation. [22]

Article 362(3) of HMK, which entered into force on July 31, 2026, provides for the possibility of cassation against decisions given on the merits again following partial or full acceptance of an appeal, on condition that the accepted or rejected part exceeds the appeal threshold. However, there are two important exceptions for decisions below the normal cassation threshold: where the difference between the new decision and the first-instance decision does not exceed the appeal threshold, and where the new decision concerns only litigation costs or the attorney's fee. The type of decision and these conditions must be examined together. [2, Art. 362]

Article 46(2) of İYUK, added on the same date, governs the possibility of cassation and its exceptions in cases outside the scope of the first paragraph, where the regional administrative court quashes the first-instance decision and gives a new decision. There are separate restrictions for cases heard by a single judge, certain special disputes specified in the law, decisions below a certain difference threshold, and decisions relating only to attorney's fees or costs. The rule in civil litigation cannot be applied verbatim to administrative litigation. [3, Arts. 45–46; 12]

Further, the annulment of Article 362(1)(a) of HMK concerning the determination of expropriation compensation takes effect on October 20, 2026. That date has not yet arrived at the date of this article's review of the legislation, October 12, 2026. The dates on which the annulment decision was given, published and entered into force must be kept distinct. [2; 23]

Applications without reasons and the lawyer's duty of care

In an appeal, it must be shown which material or legal assessment is wrong. Article 342(3) of HMK provides a safeguard that prevents a petition containing certain basic information from being rejected outright for other deficiencies; however, under Article 355 of HMK the review is limited to the grounds of appeal, which retains its importance. Review on public order grounds is carried out separately. [2]

In İbrahim Demirci, the applicant filed a petition expressing the intention to appeal within the time limit, but submitted the reasoned grounds of appeal after that period. The Constitutional Court found that expressing the intention to appeal did not create an opportunity to submit the grounds indefinitely, and found no violation. The old labour court time limits in that decision should not be used as the general time limit today; the principle carried into the present law is the obligation to submit the grounds of the application properly and in time. [20, §§ 40–49]

In the ECtHR's Grand Chamber decision in Zubac v. Croatia, the monetary threshold, the foreseeability of the route to follow and the source of the procedural error were assessed together. No violation was found because of the gravity of the errors that the applicant and the lawyer could have prevented. This decision should not be confused with the 2016 Chamber judgment and the 2018 Grand Chamber outcome. [26, §§ 109–125]

Special rules on criminal appeals

In criminal proceedings, under Articles 273 and 291 of CMK the current time limits for appeal and cassation are two weeks from notification of the reasoned judgment. However, under Provisional Article 6, the old time-limit regime must be checked specifically for decisions given before June 1, 2024. The old generalisation that "in criminal cases the time limit always starts at the hearing" is no longer current. [4]

The content requirements for appeal and cassation petitions are also not identical. Persons listed in Article 273(4) of CMK who do not state the grounds of appeal do not prevent review; however, for cassation, the provisions on stating reasons and rejection in Articles 294 and 298 are particularly important. The correct naming of the remedy is as important as meeting the content requirements of the relevant remedy. For applications by detainees, the special delivery facility in Article 263 of CMK is also taken into account. [4]

Common errors in applications and in legal practice

A lawyer's every error cannot be treated as a constitutional violation attributable directly to the State. It is examined whether the error arose from the conduct of the party or its representative, from the court's guidance, or from the judicial process itself. An incorrect notice of the legal remedy does not by itself create an unlimited new time limit; the statutory regulation, the diligence of the person and the concrete effect of the error are assessed together. [1, Art. 40/2; 20, §§ 37–48; 26, §§ 109–125]

• Using the old time limit: The current provision and the transitional regulation must be checked together; an old precedent's time limit at the date of the events should not be carried over to today.
• Confusing legal aid with a notice of costs: The two-week period for objecting to a refusal and the one-week fixed period under Article 344 of HMK for completing an incomplete appeal fee and costs must be tracked separately.
• Leaving financial incapacity undocumented: Income and compulsory expenses should be linked to the concrete cost of the proceedings.
• Treating a UYAP draft as a completed application: The signed submission, the registration of the application, the openability of the annexes and the payment status must be verified.
• Naming the wrong person or company as defendant: The party must be investigated on the basis of the contract, social security records, the trade registry and representation documents.
• Raising a new complaint for the first time before the Constitutional Court: The essence of the violation must be raised in time in the ordinary remedies that are capable of remedying it.
• Simply listing case names: The similarity of a precedent to the facts, the direction in which it departs and its effect on the desired result must be explained.
• Attaching the whole file without explanation: The facts and the violation should be set out in the application form, and annexes should be numbered so as to direct the reader to the decisive document. [2, Arts. 336, 344; 9, Arts. 45–49]

The purpose of these checks is not to eliminate entirely the possibility of rejection. It is to prevent errors that could lead to loss on procedural grounds, and, where a violation of rights has occurred, to make its cause open to review.

How is an effective claim of violation prepared?

The connection between facts, right, documents and the request

An access complaint should not begin by repeating the entire history of the case. First, it should be stated which decision or action prevented which review. Then the rule applied, the concrete effect of the barrier, the objection raised in the ordinary remedies and the remedy sought are explained. Points on which it might be argued that the applicant was at fault should also be answered. [9, Art. 47]

Documents must confirm the claim being made. The existence of a financial document alone does not prove that legal aid will be granted; an error screen alone does not prove absence of fault; and a sample petition alone does not prove timely delivery. The content of the record, its date and its connection with the relevant act must be explained.

Hypothetical example

A person seeking to bring an action in which an advance of 150,000 TL is demanded requests legal aid, documenting a limited pension, rent and compulsory health expenses. The court refuses the request merely on the ground that the person has a lawyer. The weight of the objection should be that the actual ability to pay was not examined, not that the claim will certainly be won. The fee relationship, income and expenditure documents and the amount of costs are presented together. On the other hand, if the file contains a usable deposit of a high amount, the same result cannot be reached automatically. This example is not a real firm file; it shows which information could change the assessment. [2, Arts. 334–337; 15]

Individual application to the Constitutional Court and the ECtHR route

Admissibility and the correct channel for an application

An application to the Constitutional Court must allege that a right within the common scope of protection of the Constitution and the Convention has been violated by a public authority. The applicant must be current and personally affected, and ordinary remedies that are accessible and effective must be properly exhausted. Merely disagreeing with the interpretation of the law or requesting a retrial of the case is not sufficient. [9, Arts. 45–49]

The form must contain the chronology of the facts, the grounds of violation, the remedies pursued, the date of learning and the requests. The decisions alleged to have violated the right, the applications made against them, the service or learning documents, the power of representation and the court fees document or a reasoned request for legal aid must be submitted. The possibility of curing a deficiency in the law does not mean that an application that contains no concrete complaint in time can be expanded without limit later. [9, Art. 47]

Since October 1, 2025, lawyers have been able to make individual applications to the Constitutional Court through the UYAP Lawyer Portal. This facility should not be read as meaning that a citizen can make a valid application by ordinary e-mail or any electronic form. The direct application under the law, the delivery routes through the courts and the overseas representations, and the rules of the electronic application itself are assessed together. [9, Art. 47; 10]

Because the application is subject to court fees, a person without the ability to pay must also explain the request for legal aid before the Constitutional Court with concrete documents. The fact that legal aid was granted or refused in the earlier proceedings does not make it unnecessary to assess the conditions of the individual application separately. [9; 14, §§ 24–25]

In a refusal of legal aid, is the end of the proceedings always awaited?

The general rule is that the ordinary process must be completed. However, in Tacettin Ceylan, the Plenary of the Constitutional Court accepted that an individual application may be made, after the objection to the legal aid refusal has also been rejected, solely in respect of that refusal decision. The continuation of the action or the difficult payment of costs did not necessarily require that this specific complaint be left until the end of the proceedings. [14, §§ 29–44]

The decision assessed the deterrent effect of paying costs on submitting evidence and continuing the proceedings. The dissenting opinion emphasised the need to show that costs were actually paid and that an excessive burden arose. For this reason, it cannot be concluded that "one may go immediately to the Constitutional Court against every interim decision". It must be determined separately which decision exhausted the process for which right, and which learning date started the 30-day time limit. [14, §§ 41–43, 68–72 and dissent]

Risks of inadmissibility and the route to the ECtHR

Expiry of the time limit, failure to exhaust remedies, a complaint outside the common scope of protection, the absence of a personal impact and manifest lack of foundation may prevent the examination on the merits from taking place. Umut Oruç is an example of expiry of the time limit; Onurhan Solmaz is an example of the common scope-of-protection issue. Inadmissibility does not mean that the material event alleged never took place; it means that the application does not meet the conditions for constitutional review. [9; 21; 24]

After the Constitutional Court, an application to the ECtHR is subject to its own admissibility and formal conditions. The general time limit is four months from the final decision in the domestic remedy that had to be exhausted. The application must be made within that time, with a complete form and annexes in accordance with Article 47 of the Rules of Court. Procedural defects that can be remedied in the Constitutional Court cannot be corrected by going to the ECtHR. [13]

What does a violation decision provide, and what does it not change automatically?

Where the Constitutional Court finds a violation, under Article 50 of Law No. 6216 it orders the violation and its consequences to be remedied. Where the violation arises from a court decision, the case may be sent back to the relevant court for a retrial to remedy the violation. This route is not entirely subject to the same conditions as the extraordinary retrial procedure in the procedural codes. [9; 14, §§ 74–80]

A violation of the right of access does not mean that the main action is automatically won. After a legal aid or time-limit barrier has been removed, the dispute is examined and decided on the evidence. The Constitutional Court stated this expressly in Hasan Hüseyin Algün. Where a retrial provides adequate redress, compensation may not be awarded separately; for a claim of pecuniary loss, the link between the loss and the violation must be shown separately. [16, §§ 26–28]

An individual application does not by itself stop enforcement, execution or an administrative act. Where necessary, a temporary protection in civil proceedings, a stay of execution in administrative proceedings, or protection under the relevant special procedure must be requested separately. The Constitutional Court's power to order interim measures is also subject to separate conditions; receipt of an application does not replace an order to suspend. [2, Art. 389 et seq.; 3, Art. 27; 9, Art. 49]

Conclusion

Protection of the right of access to a court requires more than the existence of the possibility of bringing an action on paper. The route of application must be understandable, the difficulty of payment must be assessed concretely, and procedural rules must not impose on the person an unreasonably heavy barrier. In addition, the party and its lawyer must monitor time limits, apply to the correct forum and submit the documents required.

The decisions examined show two limits at the same time. An automatic refusal of legal aid on the ground of representation by a lawyer, or a time-limit calculation that contradicts a clear provision of law in electronic notification, may lead to a violation. On the other hand, the failure to file reasoned grounds in time in an application, or overlooking the date of learning from UYAP in an application to the Constitutional Court, may not prevent the loss of rights. The strength of a concrete application arises from explaining these distinctions with documents and dates.

For this reason, in reviewing a file, the competent authority and preliminary application conditions must first be determined; then the time limit, financial burden, content of the petition and availability of the remedy. The constitutional complaint should also be prepared without separating it from the ordinary judicial process. In particular, in view of the 2025–2026 amendments, it should not be assumed that old templates and time-limit tables are current.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the right of access to a court?

It is the guarantee that protects the possibility of bringing a legal dispute before a competent court and requesting an effective judicial review. Disproportionate prevention of the exercise of the right through a court fee, time limit or formal rule may be examined within this scope. Winning the case is not guaranteed. Detailed explanation.

Does dismissal of a case on procedural grounds always amount to a violation of rights?

No. The basis, foreseeability, purpose and concrete effect of the procedural rule are assessed. Imposing a severe sanction for a curable deficiency and failing to fulfil a necessary condition through the person's own neglect may produce different results. Detailed explanation.

If I do not have the money to bring an action, where should I apply?

Legal aid may be requested from the relevant court for court fees and litigation costs. The legal aid office of the bar may also be applied to for the need to appoint a lawyer. These two mechanisms do not replace each other; the financial position and the bases of the request must be documented. Detailed explanation.

What is the time limit for objecting to a refusal of legal aid?

Under Article 337(2) of HMK the current time limit is two weeks from notification. The one-week period in older precedents should not be applied verbatim to current applications. The objection petition is submitted to the court that gave the decision. Detailed explanation.

Does having a lawyer prevent me from obtaining legal aid?

Not by itself. The Constitutional Court did not consider a refusal on the sole ground of representation by a lawyer to be sufficient. The actual ability to pay, compulsory expenses and the litigation cost claimed must be assessed together. Detailed explanation.

Can companies apply for legal aid?

The annulment of Article 334(2) of HMK, which categorically excluded private law legal persons, entered into force on August 21, 2025. Companies' requests must be assessed on their concrete circumstances. Being a company does not in itself create an automatic exemption; inability to pay must be explained with appropriate financial documents. Detailed explanation.

If legal aid is granted, are all costs erased?

No. Depending on the scope of the aid, a temporary exemption and an advance on costs may be provided. Who will bear the costs at the end of the case, instalment payment and exemption on grounds of hardship are assessed separately. Costs incurred before the request do not automatically fall within the scope of the aid. Detailed explanation.

If I bring an action in the wrong court, is my original filing date preserved?

This depends on the type of error and the relevant procedure. Under Article 20 of HMK there is a two-week period for requesting transfer of the file; under Article 9 of İYUK a 30-day period applies after certain decisions declaring lack of jurisdiction, for bringing an action before the administrative court. Not every wrong application is corrected automatically. Detailed explanation.

If I forget to attach the mediation minutes, will the action be dismissed immediately?

Where mediation has been carried out but the final minutes have not been submitted, the law provides for a one-week fixed period and a warning mechanism. Not applying to a mediator at all is different. Special circumstances, such as a mistake as to the party, are also assessed on their concrete facts. Detailed explanation.

Is a UETS notification deemed made on the day it arrives?

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. However, for the 30-day time limit for an individual application, earlier learning may start the time limit. The two rules are not the same. Detailed explanation.

Does reading the decision on UYAP start the time limit for the Constitutional Court?

A record showing that the final reasoned decision was opened and read by the applicant or his or her representative may be taken as the learning date. The date of uploading to the system and the date of actual learning must be distinguished. Where the person was previously represented by a lawyer, his or her own earlier reading is also important. Detailed explanation.

Can an application be made to the Constitutional Court through UYAP?

Since October 1, 2025, lawyers have been able to make individual applications through the UYAP Lawyer Portal. The form, annexes, representation, fee or legal aid and the conditions for completing the submission must all be satisfied. An ordinary e-mail submission does not replace this application. Detailed explanation.

Is it sufficient that the judgment states "final" at the bottom?

Whether a remedy exists is determined by the relevant law, the type of decision, the date of the action and the provisions on monetary thresholds. Particularly because of the 2026 amendments and the Constitutional Court annulment decisions, reliance on a single phrase at the end of a decision or on an old table is not appropriate. Detailed explanation.

Does filing a petition expressing the intention to appeal preserve all grounds of appeal?

Not in every case. In civil appeals, the reasoned grounds of appeal must be submitted within the time limit. Content rules for criminal appeal and cassation are different too. The specific provisions of the remedy used must be examined separately. Detailed explanation.

After a refusal of legal aid, must I wait for the case to end?

The Constitutional Court's approach in Tacettin Ceylan may allow an individual application solely in respect of the legal aid refusal once the objection has also been rejected. This special situation cannot be generalised to all interim decisions. The time limit and the remedy that must be exhausted must be determined separately. Detailed explanation.

If the Constitutional Court finds a violation, is my case definitely won?

No. A violation decision provides for the removal of the unlawfulness that prevented access and its consequences. The merits of the dispute are assessed by the relevant court in the retrial. Compensation or suspension of the act does not occur automatically either. Detailed explanation.

Sources

Legislation and official application sources

[1] Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Law No. 2709, in particular Arts. 13, 17, 36, 40, 125, 148 and 153. Current text.

[2] Code of Civil Procedure, Law No. 6100, in particular Arts. 20, 90–101, 107, 109, 114–120, 124, 323–340, 342–366, 389, 445, 448 and Additional Art. 1. Current text.

[3] Administrative Procedure Law, Law No. 2577 (İYUK), in particular Arts. 3–15, 20/A, 20/B, 27, 31, 45–48 and Additional Art. 1. Current text.

[4] Code of Criminal Procedure, Law No. 5271 (CMK), in particular Arts. 39–42, 158, 263–264, 273, 291, 294, 298 and Provisional Art. 6. Current text.

[5] Notification Law, Law No. 7201, Arts. 7(a) and 32. Current text.

[6] Law on Mediation in Civil Disputes, Law No. 6325, in particular Arts. 18/A–18/B. Current text.

[7] Labour Courts Law, Law No. 7036, in particular Arts. 3 and 9. Current text.

[8] Attorneys Act, Law No. 1136, Arts. 164 and 176–179. Current text.

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

[10] Constitutional Court, "Individual Applications Began to Be Received Through the UYAP Lawyer Portal", start of application October 1, 2025. Official announcement.

[11] Law on Foreigners and International Protection, Law No. 6458, Art. 81. Current text.

[12] Ministry of Justice, General Directorate of Legal Affairs, "Law No. 7589 on Amendments to Certain Laws Aimed at the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary Published in the Official Gazette", 2026; amendments of July 31, 2026. Official statement.

[13] European Court of Human Rights, information for applicants, four-month time limit and application form requirements. Official application page.

Constitutional Court decisions

[14] Constitutional Court Plenary, Tacettin Ceylan, Application No. 2017/39062, November 10, 2021; in particular §§ 29–44, 67–72, 74–81 and dissenting opinion. Full text.

[15] Constitutional Court Second Section, Fatih Kökçinar, Application No. 2021/52647, April 13, 2023, §§ 3–5. Full text.

[16] Constitutional Court First Section, Hasan Hüseyin Algün, Application No. 2022/50367, December 4, 2025; in particular §§ 20–28. Full text.

[17] Constitutional Court, E.2024/78, K.2024/164, September 24, 2024; in particular §§ 24–34. Official Gazette: November 21, 2024, No. 32729; annulment effective from August 21, 2025. Full text.

[18] Constitutional Court Second Section, Coşkun Arıcan and others, Application No. 2022/52228, February 18, 2026; in particular §§ 36–43. Official Gazette: August 6, 2026, No. 33332. Full text.

[19] Constitutional Court First Section, Star İnşaat Taahhüt Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti., Application No. 2021/18493, January 7, 2025, §§ 13–22. Full text.

[20] Constitutional Court Second Section, İbrahim Demirci, Application No. 2017/31717, June 30, 2020; in particular §§ 40–49. Full text.

[21] Constitutional Court First Section, Umut Oruç, Application No. 2022/3730, December 4, 2025, §§ 2–7. Full text.

[22] Constitutional Court, E.2026/49, K.2026/48, February 26, 2026, §§ 9–17. Official Gazette: May 21, 2026, No. 33260. Full text.

[23] Constitutional Court, E.2025/124, K.2025/203, October 8, 2025; in particular §§ 14–27. Official Gazette: January 20, 2026, No. 33143; annulment effective from October 20, 2026. Full text.

[24] Constitutional Court First Section, Onurhan Solmaz, Application No. 2012/1049, March 26, 2013, §§ 23–27. Full text.

European Court of Human Rights decisions

[25] ECtHR, Golder v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 4451/70, February 21, 1975, §§ 35–40. HUDOC full text.

[26] ECtHR Grand Chamber, Zubac v. Croatia, Application No. 40160/12, April 5, 2018; in particular §§ 80–99, 109–125. HUDOC full text.

[27] ECtHR First Section, Kreuz v. Poland, Application No. 28249/95, June 19, 2001, §§ 59–67. HUDOC full text.

Academic sources

[28] Kıran, Aleyna, "Examination of the Right of Access to Court in the Light of Constitutional Court Decisions", Trabzon University Faculty of Law Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2025, pp. 1–44; in particular pp. 39–40. Full text.

[29] Erzeybek, Hakan, "The Question of Legal Aid for Private Law Legal Persons in Civil Proceedings", Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Law Journal, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2024, pp. 697–719; in particular p. 715. DOI: 10.51120/NEUHFD.2024.137. Full text.

[30] Yılmaztekin, Ahmet Ertan, "Legal Aid in Civil Procedure", Journal of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations, No. 170, 2024, pp. 181–222; in particular pp. 212–214. Full text.

---