Individual Application to the Constitutional Court

Individual application to the Constitutional Court is a legal remedy established in Türkiye to protect fundamental rights and freedoms. This institution allows individuals who claim that a fundamental right or freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as well as additional protocols to which Türkiye is a party, has been violated by the actions, omissions, or decisions of public authorities, to apply to the Constitutional Court after exhausting all administrative and judicial remedies.

The right of individual application was introduced into Turkish legal system by Law No. 5982, adopted through a public referendum on 12 September 2010, and incorporated into the Constitutional Court’s mandate and powers through amendments to Article 148 of the Constitution. The key provisions of this article are as follows:

Article 148 – The Constitutional Court reviews the conformity of laws, Presidential decrees, and the Internal Regulations of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye with the Constitution in form and substance and decides on individual applications. ...

(Added paragraph: 7/5/2010-5982/18 art.) Every person may apply to the Constitutional Court alleging that a fundamental right or freedom guaranteed by the Constitution or any provision of the European Convention on Human Rights has been violated by public authority. To be eligible to apply, all ordinary legal remedies must have been exhausted.

(Added paragraph: 7/5/2010-5982/18 art.) In an individual application, no review may be conducted regarding procedural requirements under the law.

(Added paragraph: 7/5/2010-5982/18 art.) The procedures and principles governing individual applications shall be regulated by law.

Implementation of the individual application mechanism began on 23 September 2012. One of the purposes of this reform is to resolve allegations of rights violations at the national level before they are brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), thereby reducing the number of applications submitted to the ECtHR. The ECtHR recognizes this mechanism as an effective domestic remedy that must be exhausted before an application can be lodged with it.

Individual application is not a public interest litigation (actio popularis); to be eligible, the applicant must demonstrate that their own right has been directly and personally affected in a current and concrete manner. Furthermore, it is a secondary protection mechanism; therefore, all administrative and judicial remedies provided by law for the alleged act, omission, or decision causing the violation must be exhausted before an application may be submitted to the Constitutional Court.

Eligible Applicants and Rights Covered

Eligible Applicants (Ratione Personae)

• Individuals: Any natural person with legal capacity to exercise civil rights may file an individual application. Turkish citizenship is not generally required; foreigners, stateless persons, and refugees may also apply to the Constitutional Court. However, foreigners may not file individual applications concerning rights exclusively granted to Turkish citizens (e.g., the right to vote or stand for election).

• Private Legal Entities: Private legal entities may file individual applications only if their own legal rights (e.g., property rights or freedom of association) have been violated. They may not apply on the grounds of violations affecting their members’ rights.

• Public Legal Entities: Public legal entities (municipalities, public institutions, etc.) do not have the right to individual application.

Rights Covered by the Application (Ratione Materiae)

The rights that may be the subject of an individual application are those jointly guaranteed by the Constitution and the ECHR, as well as additional protocols to which Türkiye is a party. Some of the fundamental rights and freedoms that may be invoked include:

• Right to life
• Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
• Right to liberty and security of person
• Right to a fair trial
• Right to property
• Freedom of expression
• Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
• Freedom of association
• Right to peaceful assembly and demonstration
• Right to respect for private and family life
• Right to education
• Right to vote, to stand for election and to participate in political life

Procedural Requirements and Admissibility Criteria

For an application to the Constitutional Court to be examined on its merits, it must satisfy specific procedural and admissibility requirements.

Time Limit for Application

An individual application must be submitted within 30 days from the date on which the legal remedies were exhausted, or, if no legal remedy was available, from the date on which the violation became known. Applicants unable to submit their application within this period due to a legitimate reason (such as force majeure or serious illness) may file within 15 days after the reason ceases, accompanied by evidence substantiating the delay.

Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies

Due to its secondary nature, an individual application to the Constitutional Court requires that all administrative and judicial remedies provided by law for the alleged act, omission, or decision causing the violation have been fully exhausted. This rule is based on the principle that the primary responsibility for preventing and correcting rights violations lies with lower courts. However, the legal remedies must be accessible, capable of providing redress, and offer a reasonable prospect of success; exhaustion of ineffective or inadequate remedies is not required.

Other Admissibility Criteria

• The alleged violation must concern a right protected jointly by the Constitution and the ECHR or its additional protocols.

• The applicant must demonstrate that their own right has been directly and currently affected or harmed (status of victim).

• The application must not be manifestly ill-founded.

• There must be no previous identical application submitted to the Constitutional Court.

• The application must concern final decisions or acts that became definitive after 23 September 2012, the date on which the Constitutional Court acquired jurisdiction over individual applications.

Filing the Application

Individual applications may be submitted directly to the Constitutional Court using the official application form provided by the Court, or through a petition conforming to that form, either directly or via other courts or overseas diplomatic missions. An application fee is required.

Examination Process and Decisions

An individual application to the Constitutional Court undergoes various administrative and judicial stages before a decision is rendered. This process begins upon receipt of the application and is managed by the Individual Applications Bureau, Commissions, and Divisions.

1. Initial Review: Individual Applications Bureau and Administrative Rejection

Applications received by the Court are first subject to a preliminary review by the Individual Applications Bureau. This stage is a filtering mechanism that examines formal procedural deficiencies before the application proceeds to the merits.

• Formal Review: The Bureau checks whether the application was submitted using the correct form, whether the application fee has been paid, and whether all required documents (identity documents, authorization papers, final decisions and notifications, evidence, etc.) have been attached.

• Rectification of Deficiencies: If any deficiency is identified during this review, the applicant or their representative is given a strict deadline of no more than fifteen days to rectify it. The notification will specify that failure to remedy the deficiencies within this period will result in rejection of the application. The applicant must remedy the deficiencies through the procedures prescribed for individual applications (directly to the Court, through courts, or via overseas diplomatic missions), not by postal, fax, or email means.

• Administrative Rejection Decision: If the applicant fails to remedy the deficiencies within the prescribed period without a valid justification, the application is administratively rejected by the Commission’s Rapporteur. Administrative rejection terminates the proceedings without any evaluation of the merits, solely due to procedural deficiencies. Similarly, an administrative rejection decision is issued if the application is found to have been filed after the 30-day deadline.

• Appeal Against Administrative Rejection: The applicant has the right to appeal the administrative rejection decision to the Commission within seven days of notification of the decision. Decisions rendered by the Commission on such appeals are final.

2. Admissibility Review: Commissions

Applications without formal deficiencies or with deficiencies rectified within the deadline are referred to the Commissions for admissibility review.

• Structure and Function: Each Commission consists of two members and examines whether the application meets the admissibility criteria.

• Decision of Inadmissibility: Commissions may decide by unanimous vote that an application is inadmissible if it falls outside the Court’s jurisdiction (regarding person, subject matter, territory, or time), if domestic remedies have not been exhausted, if the time limit has expired, or if it is manifestly ill-founded. Decisions of inadmissibility by the Commissions are final.

• Referral to Divisions: If the Commission cannot reach a unanimous decision on admissibility, the file is referred to a Division for examination on the merits.

3. Merits Review: Divisions and Plenary Court

Applications found admissible are referred to one of the two Divisions of the Constitutional Court for examination on the merits.

• Division Review: Each Division consists of seven members and focuses on whether the alleged rights violation actually occurred. Review is normally conducted on the basis of the file; however, the Division may decide to hold an oral hearing if necessary. During this process, the Ministry of Justice may be consulted, and its opinion is communicated to the applicant to allow for a counter-statement.

• Interim Measures: If there is a serious risk to the applicant’s life or physical or psychological integrity, the Division may issue an interim measure before rendering a decision on the merits.

• Role of the Plenary Court: If conflicts in jurisprudence arise between Divisions, or if the case involves issues of fundamental importance, the application may be referred to the Plenary Court for resolution.

4. Types of Decisions and Outcomes

At the conclusion of the merits review, the Court may issue the following decisions:

• Decision of No Violation: The Court may conclude that the applicant’s right under the Constitution or the ECHR has not been violated.

• Decision of Violation: If the Court finds that at least one right has been violated, it determines the necessary measures to eliminate the violation and its consequences. In this context:

• Pilot Judgment: If the violation is found to stem from a structural problem, the Court may issue a pilot judgment establishing principles and guidelines to resolve the underlying issue and guide similar future applications.

• Discontinuance: A discontinuance decision may be issued if the applicant withdraws the application, abandons the case, or the violation and its consequences have ceased to exist.

All decisions rendered by the Constitutional Court are final and binding on all public authorities, including the court or administrative body that issued the original decision.

Statistics

From the commencement of individual applications on 23 September 2012 to 31 December 2024, a total of 650,453 individual applications were submitted to the Constitutional Court. During this period, 551,913 applications were concluded.

The distribution of concluded applications by decision type (23.09.2012–31.12.2024) is as follows:

• Inadmissibility: 456,476 (92.1%)
• At least one right violated: 78,003 (4.4%)
• Administrative rejection: 13,750 (2.8%)
• No violation found: 1,504 (0.3%)
• Other (discontinuance, file closure, application dismissed): 2,180 (0.4%)

Among the applications concluded between 23 September 2012 and 31 December 2024, the right most frequently found to have been violated was the right to a trial within a reasonable time, at 71.2%. This was followed by the right to a fair trial at 8.6% and the right to property at 7.1%.