Rights to Vote, Stand for Election and Engage in Political Activity: Limitations and Application Routes

The right to vote and to stand for election secures a citizen’s ability to cast a vote, to run as a candidate, and to carry out the office to which they are elected in accordance with the law. Freedom to engage in political activity, in turn, also covers participation in the democratic process outside election day. A voter registration issue, a bar on candidacy, a restriction on campaigning, or a member of parliament’s inability to perform their duties is not subject to the same application procedure. Effective legal work begins by identifying the type of election, the interference, and the competent authority separately. [1]

Not every complaint about a political right protected in the Constitution is examined directly in an individual application to the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM). The common protection area of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the subject matter of the application, and the other admissibility requirements matter. Treating a local election dispute as the same as a parliamentary election is, in particular, a serious application error. [2; 3]

What is the scope of the right to vote and to stand for election?

Voting and running as a candidate

Article 67 of the Constitution regulates the rights to vote, to stand for election, to engage independently or within a political party in political activity, and to take part in referendums, in accordance with the conditions set out in law. Elections and referendums are held on the basis of free, equal, secret, single-stage and universal suffrage; counting and tallying are open and take place under judicial administration and supervision. [1]

Eligibility to vote and eligibility to stand as a candidate are not the same. For parliamentary seats, local government candidacies and other elections, the relevant special rules are examined. Relying on a single general list of conditions such as age, citizenship, leaving office, conviction and disqualification is not sufficient. In particular, the existence of a criminal record and the existence of a bar on being elected do not carry the same legal consequence; the offense, the judgment, finality and the relevant special provision are assessed together. [1; 4]

Continuing to carry out the office after being elected

The protection of the right to stand for election does not end with the announcement of the election result. Being held in custody or another public act that prevents the exercise of representative authority may also affect the will of the voters. However, being elected does not by itself make every criminal investigation and protective measure unlawful. Legislative immunity, its exceptions, the reasoning for the measure and its concrete effects are examined separately. [1; 5; 6]

The relationship of political activity with other rights

The obstruction of a meeting, the imposition of a penalty because of the expression of a political opinion, or interference with party activity may also raise issues under the freedoms of expression, assembly and association. However, merely adding the names of rights to an application is not sufficient. It must be shown which statement, which meeting or which activity was restricted by which act. [1; 3]

How are limitations reviewed?

The statutory basis of an interference with a political right, the relevant guarantees in the Constitution and the connection with the concrete case must be set out. The severity and duration of the measure are assessed together with the time-sensitivity of the election or of the representative office. Even an obstacle that appears brief can entirely exhaust the candidacy period or the election period. It is therefore important which outcome a later decision can actually remedy. [1; 5]

The fact that a candidate’s political opinion is controversial does not justify removing all of their legal safeguards. On the other hand, the conditions for participating in elections, election security and lawful sanctions cannot be disregarded either. In addition to explaining the importance of the right, an objection petition must show why the specific condition applied was misinterpreted or why the restriction is disproportionate.

Where is an application made in an election dispute?

The general administration and supervision of elections belong to the Supreme Election Council (Yüksek Seçim Kurulu, YSK). Under Article 79 of the Constitution, no application may be made to any other authority against YSK decisions. The relevant election law, the current election calendar, and the circulars and decisions of the YSK determine to which election board, by whom and at which stage a complaint is to be made. [1; 7]

In election disputes, one should not wait in reliance on general litigation time limits. Some applications may be subject to very short periods that expire at specific hours. For this reason, this article does not give a single number of days for all elections. The calendar and rules in force for the specific election must be checked from the official YSK source. The calendar of a previous election cannot be applied to a new election. [7]

Sending an application intended for an election board to the Presidential Communication Center (CİMER) or to a general email address should not be treated as a substitute for a properly filed objection. The competent authority, standing to apply, the signature and the record of delivery are each checked separately. A wrong application channel can lead to a loss of rights before the merits of the dispute are reached.

Limits of an individual application to the Constitutional Court

Why is the common protection area decisive?

Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR regulates the guarantee of free elections in connection with the election of the legislature. It cannot be concluded from this that all of the political rights in Article 67 of the Constitution are subject to individual application with the same breadth. The application must fall within the common protection area of the Constitution, the Convention and the protocols to which Türkiye is a party. [2; 3; 9]

Article 45 of Law No. 6216 also regulates the acts and decisions that are closed to direct application. The provision in Article 79 of the Constitution concerning YSK decisions is also taken into account. The Constitutional Court should not be presented as a general election objection authority that recalculates election results. [1; 2]

An example of inadmissibility in a local election complaint

In the Mansur Yavaş and Republican People’s Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi) decision, allegations concerning the election for the office of Mayor of Ankara Metropolitan Municipality were examined. The Constitutional Court characterized the substance of the complaint as the right to stand for election and, because this allegation concerning a local election falls outside the common protection area of the Constitution and the Convention, issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae. The decision also noted the absence of concrete explanations and evidence regarding freedom of expression. [3, §§ 27–37]

The reasoning of this decision must be reported correctly: in that case, the Constitutional Court did not conduct a separate assessment under Article 79 of the Constitution and Article 45(3) of Law No. 6216. It is therefore wrong to summarize the decision merely as “it was rejected because it was a YSK decision.” If a political dispute genuinely involves a separate interference with freedom of expression, its facts and the effective remedies must also be set out separately. [3, § 28]

Constitutional Court decisions on the detention of an elected person

Mustafa Ali Balbay: representative authority and lengthy detention

In the Mustafa Ali Balbay decision, the Constitutional Court assessed the right to stand for election and to engage in political activity together with lengthy pretrial detention. The member of parliament’s inability to perform the representative duty and the reasons for the continuation of the measure were significant. By contrast, the allegation that the initial detention was unlawful was not accepted with the same outcome. [5]

The decision cannot be read as meaning that all measures applied to an elected person must automatically be lifted. In the petition, the strong indications, the ground for detention, the duration, alternative measures and the inability to perform the legislative duty must be argued separately. That the decision reached different outcomes on different complaints shows that the case cannot be described with a single slogan. [5, §§ 94–119, 132–134]

Kadri Enis Berberoğlu (3): implementation of a violation decision

In the Kadri Enis Berberoğlu (3) decision, the right to stand for election and to engage in political activity and the right to personal liberty and security were examined again because the requirements of an earlier Constitutional Court violation decision had not been carried out. The Constitutional Court emphasized the binding nature of its own decisions and the obligation to remedy the consequences of a violation. [6]

This example shows that an application does not end with the initial finding of a violation. It should be monitored whether retrial, stay or other redress measures are carried out in line with the reasoning stated in the decision. However, it cannot be assumed that the same immunity outcome applies in every political case; the applicant’s legal situation and the relevant constitutional provisions are decisive. [6]

How should the application file be prepared?

First, the interference is defined: is it directed at the voter registration, the candidacy, the campaigning activity, or the exercise of the representative office? Then the competent authority, the date of the decision and the date of learning of it or of its notification are recorded. The relevant page of the election calendar, the application document and the receipt of delivery are preserved.

In a complaint suited to the Constitutional Court stage, it is shown that the ordinary effective remedies have been exhausted and that the constitutional objection was raised in substance before the earlier authorities. As a rule, the thirty-day individual application period is calculated in connection with learning of the final decision on the complaint. The election objection period and the Constitutional Court period must not be confused with each other. [2]

Since October 1, 2025, attorneys have been able to file individual applications through the UYAP Attorney Portal. Creating a draft form in the portal is not the same as signing and submitting the application. The application record, the attachments and the result of the submission should be checked. This channel does not mean that all election objections will be sent to the Constitutional Court. [8]

Common application mistakes

The gravest mistake is to assume that all violations of political rights will be examined by the same authority. This is accompanied by missing the election calendar, failing to examine standing to object, failing to link a counting allegation to concrete minutes, and adding freedom of expression merely as a heading.

Another mistake is to report the political context of an old decision independently of the current constitutional provisions. The date of the decision, the constitutional and statutory rules applied, and the applicant’s situation should be stated together. A finding of violation should not be presented as an automatic renewal of the election or as candidacy being gained by itself.

The request section of the application must be concrete: the correction of the relevant election procedure, the lifting of the unlawful restriction, or the remedying of the consequences of the constitutional violation is tied to the decisions the competent authority may issue. The article on admissibility requirements for Constitutional Court applications complements this preliminary review.

Eligibility to stand for election, immunity and the right of representation must be examined separately

A criminal record alone does not provide a sufficient assessment

If the candidate has a conviction, the type of offense, the nature of the sentence, finality and the special conditions of the election must be examined together. Eligibility to be elected as a member of parliament is regulated separately in Article 76 of the Constitution. That a sentence has been served, that it does not appear in the criminal record, or that a general deprivation of rights has ended is not the same matter as the lifting of a bar on being elected. In the application, the text of the relevant provision, information on finality and enforcement, and any decision on the restoration of rights should be assessed together. [1; 4]

It must be clear which ground the legal objection is directed at: that the conviction does not constitute a bar in the relevant election, that the document was misread, that the decision has not become final, or that the bar has ended? A general petition prepared without drawing this distinction can create deficiencies that are hard to remedy within a short election calendar. The result reached for an earlier candidate should not be assumed to be the same for every candidate.

Legislative non-liability and legislative immunity

Legislative non-liability under Article 83 of the Constitution regulates the guarantee concerning votes, statements and expressions of opinion in parliamentary work; legislative immunity regulates the protection concerning being held in custody, questioned, placed in pretrial detention and tried. Their scope, exceptions and legal consequences differ. The question of whether a speech is protected and the question of whether the detention of an elected person may continue cannot be resolved with the same text. [1]

Hasan Tahsin Fendoğlu, in his study on legislative immunity and judicial activism, examines the differences of opinion around Articles 14 and 83 of the Constitution. The contribution of this debate to the present article is that it shows that there are different legal interpretations regarding the scope of immunity. However, criticism in the scholarly literature and the binding force of a Constitutional Court violation decision in force are separate matters. Disagreeing with a view does not eliminate the binding force provision in Article 153 of the Constitution; the operative part and the redress reasoning of the decision to be applied must be taken as the basis. [1; 6; 10]

Correct legal characterization of interference with political activity

The banning of a party meeting, the imposition of a sanction because of a political statement, and the rejection of a candidacy application may bring different rights to the fore. In choosing the application route, one looks not only at the political context of the interference but at the legal nature of the act. An act of an election board, a meeting ban by the administration or a decision of a criminal court are not subject to the same procedure. The effective objection route and time limit for each are recorded separately.

That a local election dispute falls outside the common protection area does not make legally insignificant an independent interference with freedom of expression or assembly that the same person has genuinely experienced. However, it is not sufficient to repeat a political right complaint under another right’s name. The facts, the sanction, the harm and the earlier applications concerning the separate interference must be shown. The inadmissibility reasoning of the Mansur Yavaş decision should be read carefully with regard to this distinction. [3]

Effective work during an election period is not complete by saying that an objection has been filed. The receipt of the application, the time information, the decision of the competent board and the subsequent objection stage are monitored. A legal opinion written by an attorney does not replace a procedurally proper and timely act by the person who has the right to apply.

In a dispute over political rights, the nature of the act must be determined first

Not every dispute connected with political life is an objection to an election result. The assessment of a candidacy, interference with campaigning, detention, party activity, or the obstruction of the performance of an elected office are different acts. That an application carries the heading “right to stand for election” does not remove these differences. The authority that carried out the act, the basis of the act and the right directly affected must be identified. This initial review reduces the risk of turning to the wrong authority. [1, 2, 4]

For example, interference with a politically themed meeting may be assessed separately under freedom of assembly or expression. However, the limits of the scope of an individual application cannot be overcome merely by giving a complaint about an election result the name of another right. The connection of the asserted right with the concrete case and the applicant’s personal effect must be explained. Saying in the abstract that the democratic order has been harmed does not by itself establish victim status in an individual application. [1, 2]

The election calendar and ordinary litigation time limits must not be confused

In election procedures, time limits may be subject to special rules depending on the type of election and the subject of the objection. It should not be assumed that all election objections will be made in time on the basis of the general administrative litigation period. The applicable election calendar, the relevant decision and the application authority must be examined together. Reusing a petition from a previous election by changing only its date and authority sections is not safe unless the current calendar and the type of act have been checked. [1, Art. 79; 7]

The applicant should keep a copy of the minutes or decision objected to, the information on when they learned of it, and the record showing that the application was received. Preparing an application and properly submitting it to the competent authority are different stages. A general complaint sent to another institution does not automatically constitute the special election objection. Especially in short-term processes, collecting documents and preparing the application must be carried out together; it cannot be accepted that each missing document extends the time limit by itself.

Personal and social impact when representation is interfered with

An elected person’s inability to perform their office does not affect only that person’s professional or personal situation; it also has consequences for the representation of voters. This dimension is important in the assessment in the Mustafa Ali Balbay decision. However, representative authority is not unlimited immunity against a criminal investigation or protective measures. The legal basis of the restriction, its reasoning, its duration and its effect on representation must be assessed together. [1, 5]

In the application, the date of election, the scope of the representative office and the duties that could not be performed can be made concrete. Merely emphasizing the person’s political identity is not sufficient. Why the measure was considered necessary, whether lighter measures were discussed and the course of the proceedings should also be presented. Rather than carrying all objections in the criminal file over to the political rights heading, the separate effects of the liberty complaint and the representation complaint should be explained. This distinction prevents more than one right arising from the same event from being mixed up.

The admissibility limit in the Mansur Yavaş and Republican People’s Party decision

The assessment of the local election complaint in the Mansur Yavaş and Republican People’s Party decision with regard to the common protection area shows the difference between a constitutional right and a right that can be examined in an individual application. That a right is guaranteed in the Constitution does not mean that every aspect of it will automatically be the subject of an individual application to the Constitutional Court. For this reason, the admissibility analysis must be carried out before the discussion of unlawfulness regarding the merits of the right. [2, 3, 9]

A matter that was not examined in the decision must not be presented as if it had been examined. In particular, drawing general conclusions beyond the reasoning of the decision about YSK decisions and the relevant statutory limitations is not correct. The applicant must show which type of election, which act and which protection area their own complaint falls into. That the headings of a precedent are similar does not prove that the applications are subject to the same admissibility conditions. [3]

Implementation of a violation decision is a separate constitutional issue

The Kadri Enis Berberoğlu (3) decision demonstrates the importance of the effective implementation of an earlier violation decision. The existence of a violation decision and the actual remedying of the consequences of the violation are not the same. At the implementation stage, the decision taken by the relevant court, its reasoning and the continuing consequences must be examined. The applicant should not be content with attaching the earlier violation decision, but should explain which acts were carried out afterward and which effect continues. [1, Art. 153; 6]

The redress sought at this stage must also be consistent with the violation determined by the earlier decision. The constitutional review is carried out not to resolve an abstract difference of opinion between courts, but for the effective protection of the applicant’s right. It must be shown concretely that acts with no counterpart in the earlier violation reasoning were deemed sufficient or that the necessary result was not achieved. In this way, the application rests on a verifiable sequence of events and acts rather than a general claim that the decision was not implemented.

For more details, see also our article on the principle of equality and the prohibition of discrimination. For our firm’s work in this area, see the Constitutional Court and ECtHR applications page.

Conclusion

The first task in protecting political rights is to identify correctly the type of election and the legal nature of the interference. The short election time limits, the special structure of the YSK system and the Constitutional Court’s common protection area must be assessed together. The concrete act, the correct authority, a timely objection and an appropriate redress request form the basis of the application.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can every election dispute be taken to the Constitutional Court?

No. The common protection area, the type of act and the special limitations on the application are examined separately.

Do local elections fall within the same scope as parliamentary elections?

In the Constitutional Court’s Mansur Yavaş and Republican People’s Party decision, the complaint concerning a local election ended in a finding of lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae.

Is there a general time limit for election objections?

There is no single time limit for all acts. The current election calendar and the relevant objection provision must be checked.

Can an elected person never be placed in pretrial detention?

There is no such general rule. Immunity, the conditions for the measure and its effect on the representative duty are assessed.

Can a Constitutional Court application be made through UYAP?

Attorneys can apply through the UYAP Attorney Portal; this does not replace an objection that must be made to the election board.

Does a violation decision directly change the election result?

There is no such automatic outcome. The scope of the decision and the redress to be applied by the competent authority are decisive.

References

[1] Constitution, Arts. 13, 67, 76, 79, 83, 148, 153. Text.

[2] Law No. 6216, Arts. 45–50. Text.

[3] Constitutional Court, Mansur Yavaş and Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (Republican People’s Party), Application No. 2014/5425, July 23, 2014. Decision.

[4] Law No. 2839 on the Election of Members of Parliament. Text.

[5] Constitutional Court, Mustafa Ali Balbay, Application No. 2012/1272, December 4, 2013. Decision.

[6] Constitutional Court Plenary Assembly, Kadri Enis Berberoğlu (3), Application No. 2020/32949, January 21, 2021. Decision.

[7] Supreme Election Council, current election calendars, circulars and decisions. Official website, Circulars.

[8] Constitutional Court, UYAP Attorney Portal application guide. Guide.

[9] ECHR, Protocol No. 1, Art. 3. Text.

[10] Hasan Tahsin Fendoğlu, “Yasama Dokunulmazlığı ve Yargısal Aktivizm” (Legislative Immunity and Judicial Activism), Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, 15/57, 2024, pp. 1–50. Study.