What Is the Right to a Fair Trial? Scope, Violations and Application Routes

The right to a fair trial guarantees that a person, when a decision is taken on his or her rights and obligations or on a criminal charge against him or her, can access an independent and impartial court, can take effective part in the proceedings, and receives a decision based on reviewable reasons. Being able to defend oneself, to learn of and challenge the evidence submitted by the other side, to have decisive witnesses examined, to obtain a decision within a reasonable time and to have a binding decision enforced are different aspects of this guarantee. [1, Arts. 36 and 141] [2, Art. 6]

Losing a case does not, on its own, show a violation of rights. The real question is by what procedure the court reached its result, and whether the party could effectively defend himself or herself in that process. Nevertheless, constitutional review of procedure does not mean that decisions containing manifest arbitrariness, or leaving substantial objections unanswered, cannot be examined in any way.

This guide addresses the basic guarantees in criminal, civil and administrative proceedings together with real decisions of the Constitutional Court (AYM), the preparation of documents and the current routes of application. The examples of decisions include not only cases where a violation was found but also complaints found not to disclose a violation or declared inadmissible.

Basis and scope of the right to a fair trial

The Constitution, the ECHR and procedural laws are read together

Article 36 of the Constitution protects the right to seek justice and the right to a fair trial; Article 37 protects the right to a lawful judge; and Article 38 sets out the presumption of innocence and other guarantees for criminal proceedings. The independence of the courts, the reasoned judgment and the binding force of decisions complete this constitutional protection. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) covers disputes concerning civil rights and obligations and the determination of criminal charges. [1] [2]

These guarantees take concrete form in everyday procedure. The right to be heard under Article 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK); the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) on defense, defense counsel, evidence and hearings; and the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) on examination of the file, judgments and remedies must be read together. In a petition, it is not enough to cite a constitutional article; it must be explained how a particular procedural opportunity was prevented. [3] [4] [5]

Scope differs in criminal, civil and administrative cases

In criminal proceedings, the defense guarantees of a person facing a charge are particularly important. Protection does not begin only at the hearing on the verdict; the effect of a statement taken during the investigation on a later conviction is also assessed. In civil cases, by contrast, the opportunities of the claimant and the defendant to obtain information, to make statements and to adduce evidence on the dispute are at the forefront.

The fact that an action in administrative law is brought against a public body does not, in itself, take Article 6 of the ECHR outside its scope. For example, some disputes concerning a person's professional or financial rights may fall within civil rights. On the other hand, a dispute solely about tax liability, or about entry into the country and deportation of foreigners, does not automatically fall within the same scope. In administrative sanctions of a punitive nature, the nature and severity of the measure are examined, not merely its name in domestic law. Falling outside the scope of Article 6 does not mean that there is no protection for other fundamental rights. [26, scope section] [27, criminal charge section]

Does a complainant have a right to have someone else punished?

In the case of Onurhan Solmaz, the AYM examined a complaint about the failure to act on a criminal complaint arising from a newspaper publication. The focus of the application was the punishment of third persons. The Court held that the right to a fair trial does not, by itself, confer on an individual a right to demand that others be convicted, and declared the complaint inadmissible for lack of competence as to its subject matter. [8, §§18–26]

It does not follow that victims of crime have no constitutional guarantees at all. The determination of a right to compensation, the right to life, the prohibition of ill-treatment or the duty of effective investigation concerning private life may require a different examination. In an application, the applicant's status in the proceedings must be determined, as well as which right he or she is in fact seeking to protect.

Right of access to court and application of procedural rules

Access to court means that the substance of a dispute can be submitted for judicial examination. Time limits for bringing an action, jurisdiction, court fees and formal requirements may regulate this right. However, these conditions must not be applied in an unforeseeable manner or in an excessively formalistic way so as to destroy the essence of the right. On the other hand, not every time limit or formal rule amounts to a violation of a constitutional right; the regular functioning of proceedings and legal certainty are legitimate aims. [26, access to court section]

In the case of Muammer Tatar, an application by a person who relied on the time limit for an appeal indicated by the court was rejected on the ground that a shorter period existed under the law. The AYM considered that the consequences of the court's misdirection could not be placed on the applicant, and held that the right of access to court had been violated. [9, §§48–52]

That decision cannot be read as meaning that every incorrect notice of a remedy gives rise to an unlimited right of application. The clarity of the notice, the foreseeability of the legislation, the applicant's conduct and the circumstances of the dispute all matter. The historical time limits in that decision are also not time limits applicable to all current cases.

When such a complaint is prepared, the notice of the remedy in the judgment, the service record, the acknowledgment of receipt and the rejection decision must be submitted together. If access was prevented by court fees or costs, the ability to pay, the amount requested, the application for legal aid and the response to it must be documented. Being dissatisfied with the outcome of a case is a different problem from an unreasonable obstacle having been placed in the way of examining the case.

Guarantee of a lawful, independent and impartial court

Independence concerns the making of judicial decisions free from external pressure and instructions. Impartiality concerns the judge not holding a preconceived attitude towards one of the parties or towards the outcome of the dispute. In examining impartiality, not only personal bias but also circumstances that may objectively give rise to legitimate doubt are important. The guarantee of a lawful judge requires that the dispute be heard within the system of courts, jurisdiction and competence fixed by law. [1, Arts. 37 and 138]

In the case of Tahir Gökatalay, the applicant argued that the judge who continued the proceedings was not impartial. The procedure of recusal in the file and the notice given by a party to the judge did not, on their own, show that impartiality had been lost. The AYM found the complaint manifestly ill-founded, because no concrete and sufficient basis had been put forward. [10, §§58–63]

For this reason, an interim decision against a party, the rejection of a request for an expert, or losing the case is not, on its own, evidence of bias. On the other hand, personal connection with the file, a firm opinion on the outcome of the dispute expressed in advance, or the application of different standards to the parties must be specified as facts. The procedure for recusal of a judge under the relevant procedural law must be used in time if its conditions are met, and the record, statements and decisions on recusal must be retained.

Right of defense and effective participation in the proceedings

Learning the accusation, preparing and consulting a lawyer

The right of defense is not satisfied merely by giving the person an opportunity to speak. The opportunities to learn the factual and legal basis of the accusation, to access the necessary documents, to have sufficient time to prepare and to obtain legal assistance must also be provided. Whether an additional defense is required when the legal characterization of the charge changes is assessed separately. In criminal proceedings, the guarantees of the right to remain silent and not to be compelled to make self-incriminating statements are also important. [2, Art. 6(3)] [4, Arts. 147, 149, 150, 153, 154 and 226]

In the case of Emre Kunt [Plenary], the applicant and the defense counsel assigned to him were in different provinces. The applicant's requests to meet his counsel were not granted, and no confidential and effective alternative means of communication was provided. The use of his statement given during the investigation to his detriment at conviction, together with the failure to remedy the deficiency at later stages, was considered together. The AYM held that the right to benefit from the assistance of defense counsel had been violated. [29, §§58–66]

The practical lesson of this decision is that the mere presence of a lawyer's name in the file is not sufficient. Requests for meetings, their dates, the answers given, and the subject on which the defense was unprepared must be shown. Not every lawyer error can be attributed directly to the State; whether the public authorities knew or ought to have known of a serious inadequacy and what they did about it is assessed separately. Where participation is difficult because of language or disability, the need must be explained concretely and appropriate procedural support requested.

Is use of SEGBİS in every case a violation?

In the case of Şehrivan Çoban [Plenary], the applicant wished to attend in person the hearings at which essential procedural steps were taken. The AYM found that the refusal relied on general security statements, without concrete consideration of less restrictive alternatives, and held that the right to be present at the hearing had been violated. [12, §§90–104]

That result does not mean that remote participation is entirely prohibited. The nature of the hearing, the reason why participation has to be remote, the sound and image quality, communication with the lawyer and whether a valid waiver exists are all examined together.

In the decision in the case of Emre Kunt, a violation was found regarding assistance of counsel, while the complaint about being physically absent from the hearing was declared manifestly ill-founded because of an implied waiver assessed on the concrete circumstances. Thus two complaints in the same application had different outcomes. [29, §§67–76] For this reason, recording an objection to the form of participation, the connection problem and any procedural step that could not be carried out in the minutes is important.

Equality of arms and the adversarial principle

Equality of arms requires that a party be able to present its claims and defense without being placed at a significant disadvantage compared with its opponent. The adversarial principle protects the opportunity to learn of, respond to and discuss opinions and evidence that may affect the decision. Parties do not need to have identical powers; the assessment is made on the concrete balance within the proceedings.

For example, the use in a judgment of a technical report submitted by the other side, where that report was not communicated to the party, may create a problem. However, in a complaint of violation, the content of the report, when it became known, whether there was an opportunity to respond, and the extent to which the judgment relied on the report must be explained. A genuine subsequent opportunity to respond and to examine may remedy some deficiencies.

In the case of Sencer Başat and others [Plenary], technical objections to the reliability of digital evidence and the expert opinions submitted by the defense were important. The AYM found a violation of the right to a reasoned judgment and of the principle of equality of arms, because those objections had not been adequately answered and the technical assessments submitted by the parties had been treated unevenly. [11, §§55–72]

In civil proceedings, under HMK Article 281, objections to an expert report are, as a rule, to be made within two weeks of notification. Where the matter is difficult or involves technical work, a single additional period not exceeding two weeks may be granted, provided it is requested within that period. Accordingly, rather than simply stating "we do not accept the report", missing data, a methodological error or a contradiction must be shown; the need for supplementary explanation, a supplementary report or a new expert must be justified. [3, Arts. 280–282]

Challenging evidence and the right to examine witnesses

Lawfulness of evidence and its weight are different questions

Article 38 of the Constitution and the relevant provisions of the CMK provide safeguards against the use in criminal proceedings of findings obtained unlawfully. An allegation that evidence was obtained unlawfully must identify the rule breached by the search, seizure, recording or taking of a statement. An allegation that the evidence is unreliable may concern the accuracy, integrity or method of evaluation of the content. These objections may be raised together in the same file. [1, Art. 38(6)] [4, Arts. 206 and 217] An AYM assessment of the use of unlawfully obtained recordings is discussed in the article freedom of expression of soldiers.

In an application to the AYM, the constitutional problem must be shown. The applicant must explain why the evidence is unreliable, at what stage the objection was raised, how the court responded and why the objection matters for the judgment. This does not diminish the importance of evidentiary prohibitions under domestic law; it separates the function of ordinary appellate review from that of individual application.

For digital evidence, the use of technical terms alone is not sufficient. The method of obtaining it, the source of the records, integrity checks, the date and user connection, the opportunity for inspection and expert reports must be addressed in a manner specific to the file. Rejection of a request for a new expert does not in every case amount to a violation; what matters is whether a decisive technical contradiction was left unanswered.

Witness who could not be examined: one violation and one no-violation decision

Where a witness statement is used for a conviction, three connected questions arise. Was there a valid reason for the witness's absence from the hearing? Was the statement the sole or decisive evidence? Were sufficient safeguards provided to compensate for the difficulty faced by the defense? The examination takes into account the real weight of the statement and the whole proceedings. [13, §§19–26]

In the case of Mehmet Bozan Karayılan, the testimony of a witness who could not be examined played an important role in the acceptance that the applicant had taken part in certain activities. The absence of the witness was not sufficiently explained, and there was no effective opportunity for the defense to examine him. The AYM did not regard the other elements in the file as sufficient on their own and found a violation of the right to examine witnesses. [13]

In the case of T.C., by contrast, the majority did not treat the statement of the witness who could not be examined as the sole or decisive evidence in light of the other findings in the file, and found no violation. In a dissenting opinion, Kenan Yaşar assessed differently the importance of the witness statement for the conviction and the determination of the sentence. [14, §§15–23 and dissent]

These two decisions do not show that the existence of other documents in the file automatically resolves the problem. What matters is what fact those documents prove independently of the witness's account. In an application, it must be explained which sentence of the witness's statement carries which finding of the judgment, and the questions the defense wished to put and the rejections must be shown.

When does a change of judge or panel become significant?

In the case of Erdal Sonduk [Plenary], the panel that heard the witnesses on whom the conviction was based was different in majority from the panel that delivered the judgment. The new panel, in assessing the credibility of the witnesses, used impressions based on direct observation; and no sufficient reasons or compensating safeguards were given for not re-hearing the decisive witnesses. The majority of the AYM held that the right to a fair trial had been violated. [15, §§56–72]

The Court also expressly stated that not every change of judge automatically constitutes a violation. In the dissenting opinions, it was debated whether the complaint had been raised sufficiently in the ordinary proceedings and whether the existing safeguards were adequate. This distinction shows the importance of making a request for re-hearing in good time and on a concrete ground.

For the aspects of this subject specific to criminal proceedings, our firm's review of the principle of immediacy and the right to a fair trial may also be consulted.

Right to a reasoned judgment: which arguments must be answered?

The court does not have to answer every sentence separately. However, the reasons why clear and specific arguments capable of changing the outcome of the dispute were accepted or rejected must be understandable. The judgment must establish a reviewable link between the facts, the evidence, the law to be applied and the result. The right to a reasoned judgment cannot be measured by the length of the decision alone. [1, Art. 141] [11, §§31–39]

The failure to answer the decisive technical objections in the case of Sencer Başat and others is an example. By contrast, in the case of Tahir Gökatalay, the relevant argument had been answered in the reasoning of the first-instance court, and the appellate body had adopted that reasoning; the complaint about the reasoned judgment was therefore held manifestly ill-founded. [10, §§64–68]

For this reason, the applicant must show where in the petition the argument said to have gone unanswered appears, and explain what legal consequence would change if it were accepted. Where the court has answered the argument, rather than simply disagreeing with the answer, it must be shown that the reasoning was apparent, that the contradiction was not resolved, or that the decisive issue was in fact not examined.

Appealing before learning the reasons

In the case of Vesim Parlak, the file of a reinstatement action was sent for appellate review before the reasoned judgment had been served on the applicant, and the decision was upheld. The applicant had not had an opportunity to submit detailed objections to the reasons. The AYM found this incompatible with the right to a reasoned judgment. [16, §§33–42]

The old employment proceedings time limits in that decision should not be used as the current time limit for an application. The principle carried forward to the present day is that the reasons for a decision must be known so that a remedy can be effectively used. In academic writing, reasoning is also linked to the reviewability of a decision and the ability of the parties to apply effectively; M. Nedim Bekri's study examines this connection in detail. [25, pp. 209–211 and 227]

Public hearing and the presumption of innocence

Public hearings allow the proceedings to be open to public scrutiny. However, restrictions may arise on grounds such as the protection of children, private life or other legitimate reasons provided for by law. The reason for and scope of any restriction must be examined. Moreover, it cannot be said that an oral hearing must be held in every stage of every civil or administrative dispute; the nature of the dispute and the relevant procedural guarantees are important. [2, Art. 6(1)] [3, Art. 28] [4, Art. 182] [5, Art. 17]

The presumption of innocence prevents a person from being treated as guilty before guilt has been established by law. The language used in disciplinary or administrative proceedings connected with criminal proceedings may also matter in this respect. However, the requirements of criminal liability and of professional disciplinary liability are not the same.

In the case of Galip Şahin, the AYM examined whether an administrative court decision attributed criminal guilt to the person. It found that the disciplinary assessment had been carried out on its own terms, and that when the expressions used were read together, the presumption of innocence had not been violated. [19, §§39–55]

In an application, the mere statement that "a disciplinary penalty was imposed while the criminal proceedings were continuing" may not be sufficient. It must be shown which expression in the administrative decision amounts to a definitive finding of guilt, how the criminal judgment was used, and whether the measure rested on independent disciplinary reasons. The fact that the decision concerned a judicial body that had previously acted does not mean that the body is the one to which applications are made today.

Right to trial within a reasonable time and the Compensation Commission

There is no single one-year limit for reasonable time applicable to everyone

The length of proceedings is assessed by reference to the complexity of the file, the conduct of the parties, the actions of the judicial authorities and the importance of the dispute for the person concerned. Some steps may take time in a multi-party or technical file. On the other hand, long periods without action, repeated fruitless correspondence and unexplained adjournments must be assessed separately.

In the case of Güher Ergun and others, a long-running land dispute was examined. Although the large number of parties made the file more complex, delays in the procedures on addresses, succession and expert reports did not justify the total length of the proceedings. The AYM held that the right to trial within a reasonable time had been violated. [17, §§39–61]

The application procedure in force at the time of that decision is not the same as the current procedure. An earlier violation decision must not be relied on to bypass the current route of application.

Current route: bringing the complaint to the Compensation Commission

Article 5/A of Law No. 6384 provides for applications to the Compensation Commission (Tazminat Komisyonu) for investigations, prosecutions and proceedings that have not been concluded within a reasonable time. The application may be made while the proceedings continue, or within one month at the latest from the date on which the conclusion of the matter became known. Where there is a valid excuse, it is assessed with the special fifteen-day period running from the cessation of the excuse, supported by the relevant documents. [23, Arts. 2(3)(a) and 5/A]

In the case of Ahmet Kartalkuş, the AYM stated that the route created by the new legislation must be exhausted in respect of a complaint of unreasonable length of proceedings, and declared that part of the application inadmissible. A complaint about access to court in the same file was examined separately and resulted in a finding of a violation. [18, §§24–40] Thus it can be seen that not all complaints in one application follow the same procedure.

The application must set out the starting point of the file, its stages, the waiting periods and the harm suffered. An application may be made directly to the Commission or through the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office; the law provides that the procedure for electronic applications is to be determined by the Ministry. The proceedings are exempt from fees. The one-month period given for missing information and documents must be observed. An objection to the Commission's decision may be made within fifteen days of notification, through the Commission, to the Ankara Regional Administrative Court (Ankara Bölge İdare Mahkemesi). [23, Arts. 5, 5/A and 7]

One month and thirty days are not the same period. Moreover, the three-month options in transitional provisions cannot be used as the general time limit for all new applications. The Commission is not an appellate body that quashes a conviction or decides the merits of a dispute anew.

Enforcement of a court decision is also part of the right

Recognition of a right by a court judgment may not be sufficient if the judgment is rendered ineffective. Enforcement of a final and binding decision is what makes judicial protection effective. In assessing enforcement, the nature of the debtor, the content of the decision, the enforcement remedies available to the applicant, and the conduct of the public authorities are important.

In the case of Kenan Yıldırım and Turan Yıldırım, the claim for expropriation compensation fixed by a court judgment, owed by a municipality, had remained unpaid for a long time. The AYM emphasized that public authorities may not rely on a general lack of resources as justification for rendering a judgment ineffective, and found a violation within the scope of the right of access to court. [20, §§36–54]

That approach does not mean that the State assumes every private debtor's payment difficulty. In disputes between private persons, the obligation of the State to establish and operate an effective enforcement system must be distinguished from the debtor's ability to pay. Finality, enforcement steps, applications to the administration, payment records and the reasons for delay must be documented.

A complaint that a decision has not been enforced is not the same as a complaint about excessive length of proceedings. Article 5/A of Law No. 6384 cannot be presented as a general route for every new allegation of non-enforcement; the relevant enforcement and administrative remedies and any special transitional provisions must be examined separately.

How is a violation claim documented?

An effective application makes visible the link between the account of events and the legal assessment. For every complaint, the act or omission, the safeguard violated, the objection raised, the court's answer, the documents and the redress sought must be shown together. Attaching the whole file at random does not replace this explanation.

In the case of Veli Özdemir, complaints about witness statements and defense opportunities were not sufficiently specific, and information and documents enabling their assessment had not been submitted. The AYM stated that the applicant had not fulfilled the obligation to substantiate the claim and declared the relevant complaint manifestly ill-founded. [22, §§20–27]

As a hypothetical example, instead of saying "the expert report is wrong", one could explain that the report used data from the wrong period, that this error affected the calculation of compensation, that a timely objection was not answered, and that the judgment rests on the same calculation. The aim here is not to lengthen the application with technical terms, but to make the constitutional problem reviewable.

Documents must be arranged in chronological order, attachments must be clearly named, and the petition must refer to the relevant attachment. Personal and sensitive information should be submitted to the extent necessary for the examination; if there is a request for anonymity, its grounds must be explained separately. The obligation to disclose identity to the court is different from the concealment of identity in the publicly available text of the decision.

Which application route should be used, and when?

Remedy must first be sought in the ordinary proceedings

A complaint of violation must be raised before the court at the first suitable opportunity; ordinary, effective remedies such as objection, appeal or cassation must be properly used. Objecting only to the outcome of the decision while never raising the restriction on the defense may create problems in a later individual application. The ordinary courts must be given an opportunity to examine the substance of the complaint and to remedy the violation. [6, Art. 45]

Each file does not have the same appeal route open. The type of decision, its finality, special legislation and transitional provisions are decisive. It cannot be said that every ineffective or extraordinary remedy must always be used. The request for reversal in the interest of the law, for example, must not be assumed automatically to suspend the AYM time limit.

Individual application to the Constitutional Court: time limit, admissibility and the correct channel

An application to the AYM is used for violations of rights, attributable to the public authorities, that fall within the common sphere of protection of the Constitution and the ECHR. The applicant must be directly and currently affected in a personal right; effective remedies must be exhausted; and the time limit and form must be observed. The rules barring applications by public legal persons, the possibility for private legal persons to apply only in respect of their own rights, and the scope of rights for foreigners are considered separately. [6, Arts. 45–48]

As a rule, the time limit for an individual application is thirty days. Looking only at the notification envelope may not be sufficient to establish when the final decision was learned of. In the case of Hüseyin Aşkan, the AYM relied, in assessing the time limit, on a record showing that the lawyer had read the final decision through UYAP. For this reason, the UYAP reading record, electronic service and other evidence of knowledge must be examined together. [30, §§20–29] If there is a claim of valid excuse, the special time limit and documentation conditions in the law must also be satisfied. [6, Art. 47(5)]

The application may be made directly to the Court using the AYM's official form, or through other courts or foreign representative offices. Persons in penal institutions may apply through the institution. Since October 1, 2025, lawyers have been able to make electronic individual applications through the UYAP Lawyer Portal. This channel does not mean that any citizen can apply through any e-Government screen or by ordinary email. [7, Arts. 59–64] [24] [28]

The preparation of an electronic file and the completion of its transmission are different stages. The record of the application, the attachments sent and the result of the transaction must be checked and retained. For a physical application, the receipt must be kept. If there are conditions for exemption from fees or legal aid, a reasoned request for legal aid must be included in the file; the fee amount must be verified against the official schedule at the date of application. The opportunity to remedy a deficiency is not a guarantee that a new complaint out of time may freely be added later.

ECtHR and interim measures

For Convention complaints not remedied in domestic law, an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) may be considered. The general rule is that, after exhaustion of effective domestic remedies, the application must be lodged within four months from the date of the final decision. For complaints where the AYM route is considered effective in Türkiye, that route is also part of this assessment. The admissibility requirements and the time calculation for an ECtHR application apply separately; transmitting the file lodged with the AYM as it is, is not enough. [2, Arts. 34–35]

An individual application does not automatically suspend the execution of a conviction or of other decisions. Under Article 73 of the current Rules of the Constitutional Court, a request for interim measures may be considered where there is a serious danger to fundamental rights, in particular to life or to material or moral integrity. The nature and proximity of the danger and the supporting documents must be explained. An ordinary objection under domestic procedure, or a complaint of purely economic loss, does not automatically ensure that interim measures will be granted. [7, Art. 73]

Common errors in applications and in lawyers' preparation

One of the most important risks in preparing an application is submitting an ordinary appeal petition to the AYM after changing its heading. The factual circumstances and the evidentiary assessment must separately explain why they constitute a violation of a constitutional guarantee. Rather than creating a new account that was never raised in the file, the trace of the existing objections and answers must be shown.

Being represented by a lawyer does not automatically make the file admissible. The time check, the correct authority to which the application is made, valid representation, the content of the application form and the legibility of the documents must all be verified. Where an artificial intelligence tool or another drafting tool has been used, the case number, quotations and factual connection must be verified against the original source.

What happens if a violation is found?

The AYM's violation judgment aims to remedy the constitutional problem identified and its consequences. If the violation arose from a court decision and it is considered necessary, the file is sent back to the relevant court for retrial. Where there is no legal interest in a retrial, compensation or other forms of redress are considered. For a claim of pecuniary loss, the amount and its connection with the violation must be documented. [6, Art. 50]

In the case of Aligül Alkaya and others (2), the failure to retry despite an earlier AYM violation judgment was considered. The AYM held that the steps required by the violation judgment must be taken, and that the trial court could not evade that obligation by asserting that the outcome would be unchanged. A fresh violation of the right to a fair trial was found. [21, §§53–68]

The retrial here is the individual-application remedy under Article 50 of Law No. 6216, and cannot be equated with the grounds for reopening ordinary proceedings. However, a violation judgment does not in every case mean acquittal or acceptance of the claim. For example, once the lack of examination of a witness has been remedied, the court may reassess the evidence. In the decision in the case of Erdal Sonduk, it was expressly stated that a violation finding does not automatically amount to acquittal. [15, §§74–78]

Inadmissibility, absence of a violation and a finding of violation are different outcomes. A decision based on expiry of the time limit or on failure to exhaust remedies does not, on its own, show that the substance of the complaint was justified or unjustified. A finding that there was no violation on the merits is the assessment that the relevant guarantee was not breached in the concrete case. The next step in a file must be determined by reading not only the heading of the decision but also this distinction.

For details, see also our article on the prohibition of being tried twice for the same act.

Conclusion

The purpose of the right to a fair trial is served by concrete guarantees extending from access to court to enforcement of the decision. Complaints about defense, examination of witnesses, access to evidence and reasoned judgments can be assessed once it is shown what the problematic step was, why it was problematic, and how that problem affected the proceedings.

The first task is to prepare a chronology of the file's steps and time limits, and to match each allegation of violation with the relevant record, petition and decision. Then the correct remedy for each complaint must be determined. In particular, the Compensation Commission route for reasonable time and the AYM's thirty-day application time limit must not be confused. A strong application is not one that lists many decisions, but one that connects the legal standard in the correct decision with the facts of its own file.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the right to a fair trial apply only in criminal cases?

No. It also applies in civil proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations, and in administrative disputes that fall within that scope. However, the scope of Article 6 of the ECHR is determined not merely by the name of the action but by the nature of the dispute and the right protected. Scope.

Does losing a case show that the right to a fair trial was violated?

Not on its own. What is examined is not merely whether the outcome favoured the applicant, but whether the guarantees of the proceedings were provided. Whether the court left decisive objections unanswered, or placed the defense at a serious disadvantage, is assessed separately. Limits of the right.

Is it a violation if not every witness is heard at the hearing?

No. The reason why the witness was not heard, the weight of the statement in the judgment and the compensating opportunities given to the defense are examined. If the statement is decisive, failing to provide an opportunity to examine it may be a more serious problem. The application must also show which fact the request would have clarified. Witness examination.

Is participation in a hearing by SEGBİS unlawful in every case?

No. The reason for participation, the procedural steps taken at the hearing, the person's request, the quality of communication and the opportunity to meet with counsel are important. The refusal of a request for physical attendance and the ineffectiveness of defense assistance may be examined separately in the same application. SEGBİS assessment.

Does the appointment of a lawyer mean that the right of defense was secured?

Not on its own. The opportunities must actually be usable: consultation with the lawyer, work on the file, adequate preparation and confidential communication. The Emre Kunt decision shows the difference between formal assignment and effective legal assistance. Effective defense assistance.

Must the court answer every argument in detail?

Not every detail must be answered individually. However, the reasons why essential arguments and objections capable of changing the outcome were not accepted must be understandable. A short reasoning is not always inadequate, and a long judgment does not always contain adequate reasoning. Reasoned judgment.

If the judge changes, must the proceedings start again?

Not every change has this consequence. In files where the reliability of witnesses is decisive, it is important how the new panel assessed the evidence and whether safeguards compensating for the deficiency were provided. The need to re-hear the witnesses must be specified. Change of panel.

Can one apply directly to the AYM about a lengthy case?

For a complaint of unreasonable length, the current Compensation Commission route must be considered. Applying to the AYM without exhausting that route may result in a finding of inadmissibility. Defense or reasoned-judgment complaints in the same file are subject to a separate determination of the route. Current route.

Is the time limit for applying to the Compensation Commission thirty days?

The law provides that the application may be made while the proceedings continue, or within one month at the latest of the final outcome becoming known. One month is not the same as thirty days. Valid excuse and special transitional provisions must be considered separately. Commission time limit.

Can an application to the AYM be made through UYAP?

Yes. Lawyers have been able to apply through the UYAP Lawyer Portal since October 1, 2025. The steps of creating, signing and sending the application must be completed, and the resulting record must be checked. This facility does not mean ordinary email filing. AYM channel.

Is it correct to wait for service to start the AYM time limit?

If the final decision was learned of earlier, waiting may cause the time limit to be lost. In particular, UYAP reading records are important. The thirty-day time limit in the specific file should be calculated by examining the service and knowledge records together. Knowledge and time limit.

Does an individual application suspend enforcement or execution?

It does not do so automatically. The interim protection available in the relevant ordinary procedures must also be considered. If interim measures are sought from the AYM, the serious-danger condition under the current Rules must be explained with concrete information and documents. Interim measure.

If the AYM finds a violation, will an acquittal necessarily follow?

No. A retrial may be held to remedy the procedural violation, and the evidence is again assessed in conformity with the constitutional guarantees. After the violation judgment has been implemented, a similar or different decision on the merits may be reached. Redress after violation.

Which documents should be attached to an application?

In addition to the final decision and knowledge documents, the petition setting out each complaint, the record, reports and interim decisions are required. The ordinary remedies used and the answers given must also be submitted. The scope of the documents is determined by the allegation of violation; a large number of irrelevant attachments does not strengthen an unexplained claim. Document table.

Sources and legal bases

[1] Republic of Türkiye Constitution, in particular Arts. 36–38, 40, 138, 141, 148 and 153. Official text.

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

[3] Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK), in particular Arts. 27–28, 36, 280–282 and 334 et seq. Ministry of Justice legislation text.

[4] Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (CMK), in particular Arts. 24, 147, 149–154, 182, 188, 193, 196, 201, 206, 210, 217, 226 and 230. Ministry of Justice legislation text.

[5] Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK), in particular Arts. 17, 20, 24, 28 and 31. Ministry of Justice legislation text.

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

[7] Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, in particular Arts. 59–64 and 73; amendment on interim measures dated August 5, 2025. Official text.

[8] AYM, Onurhan Solmaz, Application No. 2012/1049, March 26, 2013, §§18–26. Decision.

[9] AYM, Muammer Tatar, Application No. 2014/819, June 9, 2016, §§48–52. Decision.

[10] AYM, Tahir Gökatalay, Application No. 2013/1780, March 20, 2014, §§58–68. Decision.

[11] AYM [Plenary], Sencer Başat and others, Application No. 2013/7800, June 18, 2014, §§31–39 and 55–72. Decision.

[12] AYM [Plenary], Şehrivan Çoban, Application No. 2017/22672, February 6, 2020, §§90–104. Decision.

[13] AYM, Mehmet Bozan Karayılan, Application No. 2021/55075, October 23, 2024, §§19–30. Decision.

[14] AYM, T.C., Application No. 2020/16404, June 5, 2024, §§15–23 and dissent. Decision.

[15] AYM [Plenary], Erdal Sonduk, Application No. 2020/23093, February 15, 2024, §§43–78 and dissenting opinions. Decision.

[16] AYM, Vesim Parlak, Application No. 2012/1034, March 20, 2014, §§33–42. Decision.

[17] AYM, Güher Ergun and others, Application No. 2012/13, July 2, 2013, §§39–61. Decision.

[18] AYM, Ahmet Kartalkuş, Application No. 2019/39635, March 19, 2024, §§24–40. Decision.

[19] AYM, Galip Şahin, Application No. 2015/6075, June 11, 2018, §§39–55. Decision.

[20] AYM, Kenan Yıldırım and Turan Yıldırım, Application No. 2013/711, April 3, 2014, §§36–54. Decision.

[21] AYM, Aligül Alkaya and others (2), Application No. 2016/12506, November 7, 2019, §§53–68. Decision.

[22] AYM, Veli Özdemir, Application No. 2013/276, January 9, 2014, §§20–27. Decision.

[23] Law No. 6384 on the Duties and Working Procedures of the Compensation Commission, in particular Arts. 2, 5, 5/A, 7 and Provisional Arts. 2–3; amendments by Law No. 7499. Ministry of Justice consolidated text.

[24] AYM, "Individual Applications Begin to Be Received Through the UYAP Lawyer Portal", October 1, 2025. Official announcement.

[25] M. Nedim Bekri, "Right to a Reasoned Judgment" (Gerekçeli Karar Hakkı), Ankara Bar Journal (Ankara Barosu Dergisi), 2014/3, pp. 203–228; in particular pp. 209–211 and 227. Article and citation.

[26] ECtHR Registry, Guide on Article 6 — Right to a Fair Trial (Civil Limb), updated February 28, 2026; sections on scope, access to court and enforcement of judgments. Official guide.

[27] ECtHR Registry, Guide on Article 6 — Right to a Fair Trial (Criminal Limb), updated February 28, 2026; sections on criminal charge and procedural guarantees. Official guide.

[28] AYM, individual application form and preparation page. Official application page.

[29] AYM [Plenary], Emre Kunt, Application No. 2019/5577, March 8, 2023, §§55–76. Decision.

[30] AYM, Hüseyin Aşkan, Application No. 2017/15649, July 21, 2020, §§20–29. Decision.