Constitutional Court and
ECtHR Applications

The final decision, the date of service and actual knowledge, and the remedies used are reviewed together. A separate time limit and a separate remedy to be exhausted may exist for each complaint. Before the Constitutional Court, the criteria assessed are jurisdiction in terms of person, subject matter, place and time; a current, personal and direct effect; constitutional and personal significance; and a manifestly ill-founded claim. Before the ECtHR, the separate admissibility conditions under Articles 34–35 of the Convention form the basis.

Opening the decision on UYAP, reading the electronic service or learning of it from the file can affect when the time limit starts. As regards the Constitutional Court, an application for reversal in the interest of the law (kanun yararına bozma) or an objection by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office is not assumed to create a new time limit that completes the ordinary remedy. If a valid excuse is claimed, its conditions and documents are reviewed separately.

• The date on which the final decision and its reasoning became accessible.
• The service receipt (mazbata), electronic service and UYAP transaction records.
• The petition in which the rights violation complaint was first raised.
• Pending applications, the compensation route and the need for an urgent interim measure.

Legal work is carried out so that fundamental rights complaints are raised in substance at the first instance, objection, appeal, cassation or administrative application stage. The facts, evidence and consequences on which the violation rests are made visible before the authority hearing the application.

This work does not replace the ordinary litigation or defense strategy; it strengthens its fundamental rights dimension. The complaint under the Constitution and the Convention must be framed consistently with the claims and requests on the merits of the file.

Decisions, notifications, hearing records, petitions, administrative acts and material facts are placed in date order. For each violation claim, the relevant interference by a public authority, the domestic remedy pursued, the complaint raised, the outcome, the evidence and the request for redress are shown on a separate line.

This method prevents the accumulation of many unrelated claims, identifies the core of the application and allows the risk of missing documents or an unexhausted remedy to be seen early.

The possibility of an application is assessed for the property, fair trial, expression, association or other applicable rights of private-law legal entities themselves. Indirect complaints by company shareholders about the company’s assets are distinguished from the direct harm suffered by the legal entity.

It is taken into account that public-law legal entities cannot file an individual application with the Constitutional Court, and that private-law legal entities can apply only in respect of rights belonging to the legal entity.

The effect of a deportation or extradition decision on the right to life, ill-treatment, family life or effective remedy safeguards is examined. Country-of-origin information, personal risk, health condition, family ties, administrative detention and the enforcement timetable of the decision are assessed on the basis of documents.

The rule that foreign nationals cannot file a Constitutional Court application in respect of rights granted only to Turkish citizens is considered separately, together with the ECtHR conditions regarding person, place and the jurisdiction of the state.

If the same complaint has previously been examined by the ECtHR or submitted to another international body of investigation or settlement, a problem may arise under Article 35/2-b of the Convention. The parties, subject matter, underlying facts and outcome of the previous application, and whether there is new information, are assessed. Applications made to United Nations mechanisms are also disclosed, not concealed.

Inaccurate information, concealment of significant developments, misleading documents or abusive pressure can put the application at risk. The Constitutional Court and ECtHR conditions are applied separately; sending the same account to different bodies at the same time is not presented as an automatic advantage.

The Constitutional Court application form is prepared with regard to the chronological summary of the facts; the current and personal rights alleged to have been violated; the grounds of violation; the evidence; the exhaustion of remedies; the time limit; the requests; and the enclosures. The claims are framed taking into account the shared scope of protection of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights and the relevant case law of the Constitutional Court.

The numbering of the enclosures in date order, the index of enclosures (dizi pusulası), the document of representation, the fee or legal aid papers, and the completeness of the final decision and the document showing the date of learning are checked.

The form cannot be left blank with a general reference to another petition and its enclosures. The necessary account of the facts and the violation must appear in the form; the enclosures must support the claims. The summary and document order in the Rules of Procedure and the current technical requirements in the electronic filing guide also apply.

The application is submitted through a channel and in a form compliant with current legislation, the registration details are kept and the Court’s correspondence is followed. The current practice under which attorneys can file an individual application through the UYAP Attorney Portal as of October 1, 2025 is taken into account.

Whatever the filing channel, the risks of technical or physical steps left to the last day are taken into account. The filing receipt and the dispatch or delivery information are kept in the file.

Article 73 of the Constitutional Court’s Rules of Procedure was amended on August 5, 2025. The current provision is based on a serious danger to the applicant’s fundamental rights and expressly mentions risks to life and to material or moral existence. An interim measure assessment is not limited to the narrow wording of the former text.

The nature and immediacy of the danger, the time of enforcement of the interference and supporting documents are made concrete. Admissibility, the stage of the application and the Court’s assessment matter. Filing an individual application or requesting an interim measure does not, by itself, stay the enforcement of a sentence, eviction, deportation or any other measure.

The Ministry of Justice’s observations, the Court’s requests for information and documents, related files, changes in the applicant’s situation and the need for additional statements are followed. Statements in reply to the Ministry’s observations are prepared within the limits of the initial application, without creating new and unrelated complaints.

Developments such as the application becoming moot, a change in victim status, death, a change of legal entity or the occurrence of other redress are assessed separately.

A decision of inadmissibility and an administrative rejection based on formal grounds are not the same act. Depending on the nature of the decision, the available objection route and the time limit in the notification are reviewed; it cannot be said that there is a general right of objection or reapplication against every Constitutional Court decision.

The source of the violation judgment, the redress determined by the Constitutional Court and the authority to which the decision was sent are reviewed. The implementation process is followed with regard to possibilities such as a retrial, a new decision on the file, compensation, an action before a general court or the issuance of an administrative act.

The step taken after a violation judgment should not be treated as a repetition of an ordinary decision of reversal. The aim is to carry out a decision or act that removes the violation found by the Constitutional Court and its consequences.

Under Article 2/3-a and Article 5/A of Law No. 6384, the route of applying to the Commission is reviewed for the claim that criminal investigations or prosecutions and private-law and administrative-law proceedings were not concluded within a reasonable time. The application can be made while the relevant proceedings are pending or no later than one month from learning of the final conclusion; provisions on valid excuses are reserved.

An objection against the Commission’s decision can be filed within 15 days of service, through the Commission, to the Ankara Regional Administrative Court. Transitional provisions, previous Constitutional Court and ECtHR applications and other complaints are separated according to the file. This route is not an appeal that changes the outcome of the underlying case.

In an ECtHR application, the following are examined: whether the complaint is attributable to a Contracting State, the applicant’s victim status, whether a right exists under the Convention or an additional protocol in force for Türkiye, the exhaustion of domestic remedies, and the four-month time limit.

An application to the ECtHR cannot be made to have a national court’s assessment of the law or evidence generally reviewed again. The complaint must be framed within the Convention standard and by showing whether the national authorities had the opportunity to prevent or remedy the violation.

All fields of the current official application form are completed; the applicant, representative, facts, violation claims, domestic remedies, time limit and requests are presented in a manner consistent with the structure of the form. Legible, ordered copies of the relevant decisions and documents, containing the necessary parts, are prepared.

Failure to meet the information and document requirements in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court may lead to the application not being examined by the Court. A separate letter or a general petition does not replace the current official form and the mandatory enclosures.

The authorization and signature fields in the form are also checked separately; a national power of attorney does not make these fields unnecessary by itself. The 20-page limit for the supplementary statement is not to be confused with the enclosures of decisions and documents. The core of the claim must appear in the form in such a way that it can be understood without reading the additional text.

As a rule, the four-month time limit is calculated from the final domestic decision. A document timetable is set up for completing a valid application and sending it to Strasbourg; the postal receipt, the dispatch document and a copy of the file are kept.

According to the ECtHR’s current guidance, applications are sent by post with the required documents, and dispatch by fax alone does not interrupt the four-month time limit. Current changes in postal or Court practice are checked again on the official page on the date of filing.

The date on which a form compliant with Rule 47 is sent is, as a rule, determined by the postmark. To protect the time limit, one does not rely on a short letter, fax alone, e-mail or an incomplete form. The calculation of the last day, the postal proof and delivery tracking are checked separately.

As of January 1, 2026, the ECtHR has published special administrative processing rules for a possible large group of applications in Türkiye concerning the dismissals of public officials, members of the judiciary, military personnel and other civil servants after the 2016 coup attempt. For applications within this scope, current requirements such as a separate cover page for each applicant and the official form completed electronically are checked separately.

This special arrangement does not apply to every application concerning Türkiye. Whether a file falls within the scope in terms of subject matter and person is determined on the basis of the official announcement.

In this group, the cover page and the barcoded official form serve different functions; each is completed and printed separately for each person. As regards registry correspondence, the use of eComms and the provision of an e-mail address are also checked against the special announcement. The cover page does not replace the official application form.

In exceptional situations involving a risk of imminent and irreparable harm, the conditions for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court are assessed. In claims of a real and imminent risk concerning deportation, extradition, life or physical integrity, the urgency of the case, the time of enforcement of the decision, country information, health records and other evidence are organized.

Rule 39 is not an ordinary objection, a mechanism for speeding up an application or a mechanism that stays every deportation decision automatically. The Court may indicate a measure only in exceptional circumstances and after careful examination.

The official electronic platform for Rule 39, r39.echr.coe.int (opens in a new tab), may be used; this platform is not a channel for sending the ordinary ECtHR application form. The Court’s working hours, holidays and the approaching hour of enforcement are taken into account. An interim measure request is not based on the assumption that the four-month time limit for the main application stops automatically.

The files of applicants affected by the same act or structural problem are arranged while preserving individual harm and differences in documents. For groups of more than ten applicants before the ECtHR, current technical requirements such as the additional table and data format requested by the Court are applied.

Similar events do not mean that applications can automatically be merged into a single file. Each applicant’s victim status, domestic remedies, dates and requests are shown separately.

Where the application is communicated to the respondent state, the questions put by the Court, the admissibility and merits observations, the account of the facts and the case-law framework are reviewed. The reply to the government’s objections, the necessary additional documents and the applicant’s current situation are submitted within the time limit.

Communication by the Court does not mean that a violation judgment will be given. The friendly settlement stage and the adversarial exchange of observations can be conducted separately or together, depending on the file.

The electronic correspondence service eComms is used at the stage and in the manner the Court determines for the relevant file or group of applications. The rule that the first application is submitted by post is distinguished from later electronic service and submission of documents.

The material and legal consequences of a friendly settlement proposal, the confidentiality conditions, the scope of redress, the tax and payment terms and the effect on striking the application out of the list are reviewed. Where the state submits a unilateral declaration, an opinion is prepared on the acknowledgment of the violation, the proposed redress and the general human rights interest.

The assessment of a settlement is not reduced to the amount of compensation alone. The nature of the violation, the applicant’s personal situation, reopening or other individual measures and the enforceability of the decision are addressed together.

Claims for pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses are submitted at the relevant procedural stage, together with documents and the causal link. The calculation method of the amount claimed, the currency, the costs paid and the supporting invoices or contracts are shown clearly.

Just satisfaction is not automatic. Even if the Court finds a violation, the timely and proper submission of the claim, the link between the damage and the violation and equitable criteria are assessed separately.

Within three months of the date of the ECtHR Chamber judgment, referral to the Grand Chamber may be requested on the ground of a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or a serious issue of general importance. The request is considered by a panel of five judges; it is not a new ordinary right of appeal.

Single-judge, committee or inadmissibility decisions are not subject to the same regime. A standard referral request is not prepared without reviewing the type of decision, its becoming final and the conditions of Articles 43–44 of the Convention and Rule 73 of the Rules of Court.

The individual and general measures required by a final ECtHR judgment are reviewed. The payment of just satisfaction, a retrial or other individual redress, and general measures such as changes to legislation and practice, can be followed.

The enforcement of judgments is under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The submission of information or opinions on the applicant’s situation within the relevant enforcement procedures and the monitoring of HUDOC-EXEC records are assessed separately.

Current case law and the state of enforcement on the subject are researched through the Constitutional Court Decisions Information Bank, ECtHR HUDOC, the ECtHR Information Sharing Platform and HUDOC-EXEC. Case law is reviewed not only through an outcome sentence that appears favorable to the application, but together with the sections on the facts, admissibility, the test applied and redress.

After the application is filed, significant changes in the relevant case law, in the applicant’s situation or in national legislation are assessed in relation to the file.

Safeguards such as access to court, equality of arms, adversarial proceedings, a reasoned decision, an independent and impartial court, public proceedings, trial within a reasonable time, the presumption of innocence and the enforcement of final judgments are reviewed.

Not every procedural error amounts to a constitutional or Convention violation. It must be shown how the claim affects the proceedings as a whole, whether it was raised before the national authorities and whether appropriate redress was obtained.

In a complaint about reasonable time, current domestic routes such as the Compensation Commission are assessed separately; in a criminal charge, adequate time for the defense, the assistance of defense counsel, examination of witnesses and the right to remain silent are assessed separately. Disagreeing with a court’s decision does not, by itself, establish a constitutional violation claim.

Apprehension, police custody, pretrial detention, the continuation of detention, review intervals, reasoning, access to the file, the compensation route and requests for release are assessed under the safeguards of personal liberty and security.

In complaints about ongoing detention, the remedies to be exhausted and the time of filing may differ from complaints after a final conviction or release. A standard time limit calculation is not made without determining the file’s current status.

An objection to ongoing deprivation of liberty and compensation for a protective measure that has ended serve different purposes. The allocation of jurisdiction under Articles 141–142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) and Law No. 6384 is reviewed according to the complaint concerned; the file’s becoming final is not awaited in every case.

In events such as death, injury, conditions in detention or the execution of criminal sentences, law enforcement intervention, domestic violence, disappearance and access to health care, the state’s obligations of protection, prevention and effective investigation are examined.

Preserving the scene, medical records, camera footage, witnesses, the autopsy, administrative inquiries and the investigation file can directly affect the factual basis of the application. Evidence preservation and an appropriate domestic application are planned without delay.

Collection and storage of personal data, monitoring of communications, searches, family ties, custody and personal contact, identity, reputation, health data, surveillance and interferences with digital privacy are examined.

Besides direct interference by the state, positive obligations to establish an effective legal framework and procedure providing protection in relationships between private persons may also be assessed.

In criminal convictions, compensation, access blocking, content removal, publication bans, disciplinary sanctions or other interferences by public authorities, the context of the expression, its contribution to public debate, the position of the person targeted, the factual basis, the sanction used and the chilling effect are examined.

It is assessed whether the national authorities struck the balance between freedom of expression and honor and reputation, private life, public order or other rights with relevant and sufficient reasons.

Matters such as expropriation, de facto expropriation, permit and zoning interferences, tax and administrative sanctions, seizure of assets, confiscation, social security claims, non-payment of a final claim and interference with company assets are examined under the right to property.

It is assessed whether there is a protected possession or legitimate expectation, the lawfulness of the interference, the public interest, proportionality and whether an excessive burden was placed on the person.

Interference with meetings and demonstrations, the activities of associations or trade unions, membership and disciplinary consequences, collective action, and restrictions concerning religious belief and practice are examined. The legal basis of the interference, its foreseeability, its legitimate aim and its necessity in a democratic society are assessed.

Victim status and the documents of representation are determined separately, depending on whether the application is made by an organization, a member or a participant.

Different treatment of persons in similar situations, or equal treatment of situations that are significantly different, is examined on grounds such as sex, race, color, language, religion, political opinion, national or social origin and other statuses.

A discrimination claim is made concrete through a comparable group, different treatment, the protected status, an objective and reasonable justification and the fundamental right connected with it. The burden of proof and the nature of data that may give rise to a presumption are assessed according to the file.