Freedom of association protects the right of individuals to come together in a lasting structure for common aims, to form an association, and to join and leave it. The guarantee is not limited to the act of establishment; it also covers the association's ability to carry on its activities. Public oversight is possible, but it requires a legal basis, a legitimate aim and proportionality. A measure aimed at an association and a sanction imposed on a member personally can raise different issues of application and representation. [1; 2]
This article is general information. Associations, trade unions and political parties are not subject to the same organisational regime; special laws apply to each of them separately.
Scope of the right to form an association
Article 33 of the Constitution regulates the freedom to form an association, to become a member and to resign from membership. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (AİHS) protects freedom of association. For this guarantee to be meaningful, persons who come together for a common aim must be able to determine the internal functioning of the organisation, to express opinions, and to carry on activities in line with their aims. [1; 2]
No one may be compelled to join an association or to remain a member. At the same time, an association also has room to apply its lawful statute and membership rules. In a membership dispute, the reason for expulsion, the opportunity to defend oneself, the authority of the decision-making organ and the provisions of the statute are examined together. Not every refusal of membership or expulsion decision is, in itself, a constitutional violation.
Establishment, legal personality and representation
The Turkish Civil Code (TMK) and Law No. 5253 on Associations govern the regime for founding and operating associations. The statutory conditions must be met for the notification of establishment, the statute, the founders and the mandatory organs. The fact that prior permission is not required does not mean that an association is subject to no documents or oversight. [3; 4] State interference with the internal organisation of religious communities is examined separately in the article on the freedom of religious communities to choose their leaders.
When an action or individual application is brought on behalf of an association, a decision of the competent organ and a document of representation are important. Members cannot assert every right of the association in their own names. Nor is an association the automatic holder of all the personal rights of its members. The party whose legal position is affected by the act must be identified at the outset.
Public oversight: what limits should apply?
Ledger keeping, notification, income and expenditure, fundraising and activity audits may carry legal obligations. The existence of oversight alone is not a violation of freedom. The issue is the purpose for which and the manner in which the power is used. A restriction must have a clear legal basis, defined conditions of application and effective judicial review. [3; 4]
Where a deficiency can still be remedied, halting the entire activity of an association or imposing a severe sanction is further examined for proportionality. By contrast, serious breaches of law or the protection of third parties' rights are circumstances that may justify a more serious interference. In an application, it is not enough to describe only the public benefit of the association. It must be explained whether the alleged breach actually existed and how it relates to the sanction.
Treating membership as the ground for a sanction
Membership in a lawful association cannot by itself become an unlimited ground for sanction. The question is what consequence the administration draws from membership and whether that consequence is regulated by law. In criminal proceedings, the elements of the offence and the person's concrete acts must be shown. That an organisation was later closed does not attach the same legal consequence to all past membership conduct. How statements and meeting activities are assessed as evidence in investigations into membership of an organisation is discussed in how statements and meeting activities are assessed in organisation-membership offences.
On the other hand, freedom of association is not a general immunity protecting violence or criminal activity. The key distinction is whether a concrete link can be established between constitutionally protected activity and the criminal allegation. The applicant must explain the date of membership, the scope of the activities and the evidence on which the authority relies.
The Ahmet Erol decision: indirect interference is also reviewed
In Ahmet Erol, Application No. 2019/2940, July 20, 2023, the Constitutional Court examined the refusal of an on-the-job training programme request on the ground that the association of which the applicant was a member had been closed. The Court held that the obstacle imposed by an administrative act, without an explicit provision in the relevant legislation, did not meet the requirement of legality, and that freedom of association had been violated. [5, §§ 39–46]
The decision shows that interference is not limited to closing an association or prohibiting membership. Preventing access to a different public benefit on account of membership can also affect the freedom. However, the decision does not mean that every support programme is an unconditional right. The basis of the interference and its link to membership are decisive.
Association premises and the rights of other persons
In Türkiye Emekliler Derneği, Application No. 2012/1035, July 17, 2014, the decision concerned a property used as a branch of the association. The Court examined the matter from the angle of the right of ownership and found no violation, given the provision protecting the rights of condominium owners and the concrete circumstances. This decision should not be presented as a decision finding a violation of freedom of association as such. [6, §§ 50–57]
Carrying on association activities does not remove all private-law rules governing the use of a property. Yet if a dispute over premises has a real effect on the organisation, that effect may be explained separately. The grounds of a lease, condominium ownership and association-right claims should not be confused.
Routes to application and litigation
| Dispute | How the route is determined | First document to examine |
|---|---|---|
| Membership decision of an association organ | Internal objection and action under the Civil Code and the statute | General assembly or board decision |
| Administrative sanction or activity measure | Judicial route under the special law governing the measure | Legal basis of the measure, notification and statement of remedies |
| Dissolution or closure of the association | Relevant judicial procedure and legal remedies | Action, interim measure and final decision |
| Personal sanction linked to membership | Administrative, employment or criminal route, depending on the type of sanction | The measure addressed to the person and the evidence |
Article 83 of the Civil Code (TMK) sets different start dates for the period to challenge general assembly decisions, depending on whether the member took part. A member who attended the meeting but did not consent to the decision may apply within one month from the decision date. A member who did not attend may apply within one month from learning of the decision and in any event within three months from the decision date. Claims of non-existence or absolute nullity are assessed separately. It is also important to exhaust internal review routes against decisions of other organs. [3]
Where no special period exists for an administrative action, the general sixty-day period becomes relevant. The competent authority for administrative fines and other sanctions should be determined from the regulation that governs them. Where the suspension of activities causes serious harm that is difficult to repair, a request for interim protection in the appropriate judicial branch should be justified. An action or objection does not in every case have a suspensive effect. [7]
Preparing evidence and the application file
The version of the statute in force on the date of the events, the records of establishment and organs, meeting notices, minutes, notifications, the audit report, notices of deficiency and the replies given should be assembled together. If the authority has identified a breach that has since been remedied, it should be shown when and by which document the remedy was made. The effect of a sanction on the association's activities can be explained through concrete expenditure, a cancelled event or an access ban.
The application must also address the opposing defence. If the administration relies on irregular financial transactions, it is not enough to refer only to freedom of expression; the accounting and decision documents of the transactions must be submitted. If internal autonomy is invoked in a decision to expel a member, it should be discussed whether that autonomy was exercised in a manner consistent with the statute and the law.
An application to the Constitutional Court is, as a rule, made within thirty days after the available effective remedies have been exhausted. The association's own right and the member's personal right are stated separately in the form. Private-law legal persons may apply only on the basis of an alleged violation of rights belonging to their legal personality. A request for abstract review in the general public interest does not replace an individual application. [8]
Lawyers may apply through the UYAP Lawyer Portal (UYAP Avukat Portalı). The competent organ's decision and powers of attorney, final decisions and records of the date on which the decision was learned of are attached. If compensation is claimed, the application explains whether the damage belongs to the association or to the member. A finding of violation does not mean that all of the association's activities are outside judicial review. It requires that the consequences of the identified violation be remedied. [8; 9]
For questions of jurisdiction by person and subject, the Constitutional Court admissibility guide is complementary.
Special restrictions for public servants
Ulaş Karan's study on the organisation of public servants in associations and foundations argues that different public duties should not be treated as a single prohibited category. In a concrete file, the status of the personnel, the relevant special law and the reason for the sanction must be shown. The obligations arising from being a public servant are important, yet citing that status alone does not explain every restriction. Reform proposals found in the academic literature should not be presented as provisions of law currently in force. [10]
How is the association's autonomy balanced with members' rights?
Expulsion from membership cannot be justified by a statute clause alone
An association has freedom to determine its aims, membership conditions and internal functioning. A member must also be protected against acts contrary to the law and the statute. In an expulsion dispute, the competent organ, the reasons given in the decision, the grounds for expulsion in the statute and the link between the act and those grounds are examined. Whether the statute states grounds for expulsion or does not affects the assessment under Article 67 of the TMK. Internal review routes and judicial remedies against the decisions of organs must also be checked. [3]
A lawyer should review not only the expulsion letter but also the statute in force, the membership record, the allegation as notified, any defence and the relevant organ decision. When the decision was communicated to the applicant, whether an application was made to the general assembly, and the date of the decision at that stage all affect the calculation of time. Because not every act of an association is an administrative act, a dispute that merely carries the label of a "constitutional right" does not make the administrative court competent.
Is the application made on behalf of the association or the member?
A ban on an association's activity and a negative consequence a member suffers in their own profession are different harms. The association's standing to sue, its representation authority and the organ decision should be shown separately from the member's personal effect. It is not a correct method for the chairperson of the board of directors to assert the rights of all members in his or her own name, or for a legal person to take over a complaint about personal liberty. The Constitutional Court examines applications by private-law legal persons only in respect of rights belonging to their legal personality. [8, Art. 46]
The significance of the Ahmet Erol decision emerges here. Even where there is no explicit prohibition on membership itself, a person may be prevented from using another right or opportunity because of membership. In such a case, the causal link between membership and the adverse act must be shown. The wording of the act referring to membership, the assessment documents and the administration's statements are the main tools of review. [5]
Supervision, suspension of activities and dissolution are not the same act
Filing a return, keeping books or being subject to administrative supervision does not in itself violate freedom of association. However, the type and severity of a sanction must be proportionate to the nature of the deficiency. A correctable deficiency and the unlawfulness of an association's aim or activity are assessed separately. For severe consequences such as suspension of activities and dissolution, the legal authority, the decision-making body and judicial review become especially important. [1; 3; 4]
Adding only legislation and the statute to the file is not sufficient. Each significant finding in the audit report, the reply given to it and the records showing the deficiency has been remedied should be submitted together. Alongside a request for annulment or refusal, the concrete effect of the interruption of activity should be explained. Information on membership numbers, regular activities and beneficiaries should be used without unnecessarily disclosing personal data.
The Memet Koçarslan decision: balancing in expulsion from membership
In the Constitutional Court's Memet Koçarslan, Application No. 2022/28200, February 26, 2025 decision, the dispute concerned the expulsion of the applicant from association membership because of problems arising from a lease agreement between the association and a company of which he was a partner. The majority found that the link between the company's contractual breaches and the applicant's obligations arising from membership had not been sufficiently explained in the court decisions. Because a fair balance between the individual's freedom of association and the association's power to regulate its own membership had not been struck, it found a violation of Article 33 of the Constitution and ordered a retrial. [11, §§ 38–47]
The decision does not mean that every expulsion from membership is unlawful. In an application, it should be shown on which personal conduct the expulsion rests, how that conduct connects to the sanction in the statute, and how the courts examined the matter. The dissenting opinion argued that, because the applicant was the company's representative, the necessary link had been established. The outcome reported here is the majority's finding of violation. [11]
Where the statute and the law must be read together in a membership dispute
In ending an association membership, one of the first documents to examine is the statute in force on the date of the decision. Applying a later amended version of the statute to a past act, or relying only on the text currently posted on a website, may lead to a wrong conclusion. The reason for expulsion, the organ competent to decide, and the notification and internal application procedures should be determined separately. If the notice sent to the member does not contain the full reasons for the decision, copies of the decision and the supporting documents should be requested. [3]
Article 67 of the TMK distinguishes between cases where the grounds for expulsion are stated in the statute and cases where they are not. The presence of a ground in the statute does not make unnecessary the questions of whether the concrete act occurred and whether it truly falls within that ground. The objection that the ground in the statute cannot be regarded as justified is different from the objection that applying that ground to the applicant was unlawful. This distinction must be preserved in the petition. Otherwise, the concrete problems with the membership decision may be lost in a presentation that gives the impression that the statute is simply disliked.
The provision of the TMK (Article 83) requiring that internal review routes against the decisions of other organs be exhausted before an action for annulment is brought also needs to be taken into account. In an annulment of a general assembly decision, participation in the meeting, non-consent to the decision, learning of it and the decision date affect the calculation of time. The reserved provision on non-existence or absolute nullity does not mean that every procedural defect may be raised indefinitely. Relying on the bare statement that "the decision is void", without determining the legal nature of the alleged defect, is risky. [3, Art. 83]
The distinction between personal conduct and company activity in the Memet Koçarslan decision
In the Memet Koçarslan decision, the relationship between conduct linked to expulsion from membership and the acts of a company was significant. In the dispute over the operation of association facilities, it had to be explained how the company's activities were connected to the applicant's personal membership obligations. The majority's assessment rests on the absence of adequate balancing between the association's interests and the member's freedom of association. That result is not a general rule that a member who is a company partner can never be held responsible for the company's activities. [11]
The practical value of the decision is that it requires the transition between capacities to be justified. A company's contractual obligation, a manager's authority and a person's membership of an association are separate legal relationships. In an expulsion decision, it should be shown which act is attributed to the member personally, how it is connected to membership, and why the sanction was considered necessary. The applicant should not be content with presenting every act of the company as entirely independent of himself. Representation, authority and actual participation must be shown with documents. This review helps to understand both the majority's reasoning and the link on which the dissent focused. [11]
The different functions of the Ahmet Erol and Türkiye Emekliler Derneği decisions
In the Ahmet Erol decision, membership in an association was made a negative criterion affecting the use of a public benefit. This shows that interference with freedom of association does not occur only through closing an association or prohibiting membership. A past fact linked to an association may also be reviewed where it is used in another act. In an application, the reasoning and records showing that the adverse decision actually rests on membership must be submitted. Closeness in time alone is not treated as a firm link. [5]
The function of the Türkiye Emekliler Derneği decision in this article is different. That decision was assessed from the angle of the right of ownership. It cannot be used as a general organisational ruling determining whether associations may or may not operate unconditionally in any premises. Legal personality does not provide complete exemption from neighbourhood or property-use rules. Where, however, it is alleged that an act concerning premises in fact targets the association's activity, that link should be explained separately. The heading of the right should not be chosen automatically merely because the applicant is an association. [6]
Continuing activity and compensation for past harm
Where a suspension of activities or expulsion from membership continues, asking for money only for past harm may not resolve the dispute as a whole. Remedying the legal effect of the decision, resuming the activity or re-examining the membership status matter depending on the nature of the concrete dispute. By contrast, the Constitutional Court should not be expected to step into the association's management and decide on membership itself. In an individual application, the compensation sought should be linked to the source of the violation and to the possibility that the relevant court re-examines the matter. [8, 11]
Rather than placing the entire archive of the association in the application file, the disputed statute provisions, the decision, the notification, the internal application and the court decisions should be presented in an orderly manner. If the rights of the association and of the member are explained separately, issues of representation authority and victim status can be identified earlier. The volume of documents is no substitute for a clear explanation of which act affected which person, and how.
For more on the subject, see our article on the right to hold meetings and demonstrations. For the office's work in this field, see the page on Constitutional Court and ECtHR applications.
For more on the subject, see our article on foundation establishment.
Conclusion
In protecting freedom of association, the ability to carry on activities and the avoidance of arbitrary consequences attached to membership are as important as the act of founding. A strong file separates the rights of the association from those of the member. It explains both the defence on legal obligations and the disproportionate effect of a sanction. Correct representation and the correct route of action are the basic conditions for reaching a merits review.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is prior permission required to found an association?
The constitutional rule is that prior permission is not required. Notification of establishment and the statutory documents are still necessary.
Can an association apply to the Constitutional Court on behalf of all its members?
Not automatically. The association's own rights and the members' personal rights must be kept separate.
Is association supervision by itself a violation?
No. The legal basis, purpose, method and proportionality of the sanction are examined.
Does association membership justify every sanction?
No. A legal basis and a link to the person's concrete conduct must be established.
When does the time limit against a general assembly decision start?
It depends on attendance at the meeting and on the date of learning of the decision. The one-month and three-month periods under Article 83 of the Civil Code (TMK) are considered together.
Does the prohibition on activity end when a case is filed?
Not in every case. Appropriate interim legal protection must be requested separately.
Sources and legal bases
1 — Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Article 13, 33. Text.
2 — European Convention on Human Rights (AİHS), Article 11. Text.
3 — Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu), Articles 56–100, in particular Article 83. Text.
4 — Law No. 5253 on Associations (Dernekler Kanunu). Text.
5 — Constitutional Court (AYM), Ahmet Erol, Application No. 2019/2940, July 20, 2023. Decision.
6 — Constitutional Court (AYM), Türkiye Emekliler Derneği, Application No. 2012/1035, July 17, 2014. Decision.
7 — Law No. 2577, Articles 7, 27. Text.
8 — Law No. 6216, Articles 45–50. Text.
9 — Constitutional Court (AYM), UYAP Lawyer Portal application guide. Guide.
10 — Ulaş Karan, "Kamu Görevlilerinin Dernekler ve Vakıflar Bağlamında Örgütlenme Özgürlüğü: Anayasa Hukuku Perspektifinden Bir Değerlendirme", İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası, 76/1, 2018, pp. 65–108. Study.
11 — Constitutional Court (AYM), Memet Koçarslan, Application No. 2022/28200, February 26, 2025. Decision.