Guide to Individual Applications to the Turkish Constitutional Court

An application targets acts, actions and omissions of public authorities

The Constitutional Court reviews the acts, actions and omissions of authorities exercising public power that affect an individual. Court decisions, acts of prosecutors and the police, administrative decisions and the State's failure to fulfil its duty of protection all fall within this scope. Applications may be lodged against acts and decisions that became final after 23 September 2012 (Law No. 6216, Provisional Art. 1/8).

In criminal proceedings, the measures most often challenged are detention orders and decisions extending detention, protective measures such as searches, interception of communications and the use of call detail records, and final convictions.

Laws and regulatory administrative acts cannot be challenged directly. Decisions of the Constitutional Court and acts that the Constitution excludes from judicial review are not examined either (Art. 45/3). A person who complains about the application of a law challenges the specific act or decision based on that law.

The application is made by the person directly affected

The right of application belongs to a person whose current and personal right is directly affected by the act, action or omission alleged to have caused the violation (Art. 46/1). A person cannot raise an abstract objection on behalf of others or in the public interest; the applicant points to a specific measure applied to him or her. A detained defendant applies about his or her own detention, the owner of a searched home about that home.

Public legal entities cannot lodge individual applications. Private legal entities such as companies, associations and foundations may apply only for rights belonging to the legal entity. Foreign nationals may apply except with regard to rights granted only to Turkish citizens (Art. 46/2–3). The applicant may apply in person, through a legal representative or through a lawyer (Rules of Court of the Constitutional Court, Rule 61/1).

The application covers rights protected by both the Constitution and the Convention

The applicant must allege a violation of a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution and also protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and the additional protocols to which Türkiye is a party (Art. 45/1). The rights most often relied on in criminal and human rights cases are:

• The right to life and the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment (Constitution, Art. 17)
• The right to personal liberty and security (Art. 19)
• Respect for private life, inviolability of the home and freedom of communication (Arts. 20–22)
• Freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of expression and the right to assembly (Arts. 24, 26 and 34)
• The right to property (Art. 35)
• The right to a fair trial and to a trial within a reasonable time (Art. 36)
• The right to an effective remedy (Art. 40)

The applicant explains each right separately, with reasons. Naming the right is not enough: the form shows how a specific event restricted that right and how the lower court dealt with the complaint (Rules, Rule 59/2-d and e).

The applicant first uses every remedy and then applies within thirty days

The individual application is a subsidiary remedy. The applicant uses all administrative and judicial remedies provided by law for the act complained of and raises before them the complaint he or she will bring to the Constitutional Court (Art. 45/2). In a criminal case this usually means completing the objection, regional appeal and appeal on points of law stages. Since 2024, a person complaining about the length of proceedings first applies to the Compensation Commission.

The time limit is thirty days from the date on which remedies were exhausted or, where no remedy exists, from the date on which the violation became known (Art. 47/5). If the last day falls on a weekend or public holiday, the period ends on the next working day; the judicial recess does not extend it. A person who missed the time limit for a valid excuse may apply within fifteen days of the excuse ending, enclosing evidence of the excuse.

Most applications are declared inadmissible because one of these requirements is not met. The article on admissibility requirements explains each requirement through the Court's decisions, and the time-limit calculator shows the last day once a date is entered.

The application is made on the Court's form with the required enclosures

The applicant uses the application form published on the Court's website (Rules, Rule 59/1). The form may be lodged directly with the Constitutional Court, through any court, or abroad through Türkiye's diplomatic missions; the date on which it is handed in is the date of application (Art. 47/1; Rules, Rule 63). Lawyers may also apply through the UYAP Lawyer Portal, for which the Court publishes a separate form guide.

The form contains the following (Rules, Rule 59/2):

• A chronological summary of the facts concerning the act, action or omission of the public authority alleged to have caused the violation
• Each right alleged to have been violated, the constitutional provision relied on and the reasons, with a separate explanation for each right
• The stages of exhaustion of remedies, in chronological order
• The date on which remedies were exhausted or the violation became known, and any excuse for a late application
• The applicant's requests and, if any, the reasons for an interim measure

The enclosures are a power of attorney if a lawyer is instructed, the fee receipt, a certified copy of an identity document if the applicant applies in person, and a document showing the date on which the final decision became known (Art. 47/4; Rules, Rule 59/3). If the form exceeds ten pages excluding enclosures, the applicant adds a summary of the facts (Rules, Rule 60/2).

The application fee is set in the tariff annexed to the Fees Law and is updated every year (Rules, Rule 62/1). An applicant unable to pay may request legal aid and enclose documents showing his or her financial situation; the Commission or Section deciding on admissibility rules on the request (Rules, Rules 59/3-h and 62/2).

The Court examines a file in four stages

The table below shows the stages an application goes through after it reaches the Court and who decides at each stage:

The Ministry of Justice submits its observations within thirty days, which may be extended by up to thirty days on request. The observations are served on the applicant, who may submit a reply within fifteen days of service (Rules, Rule 71/2–3). The reply is the last written stage in which the applicant answers the facts and admissibility objections raised by the Ministry. The applicant therefore answers each objection by comparing it with the relevant passage of the lower courts' decisions.

The Court normally examines files on the documents and may hold a hearing where necessary (Art. 49/4; Rules, Rule 74). Where there is a serious danger to the applicant's life or physical or mental integrity, the Court may order an interim measure of its own motion or on request. A judgment on the merits of an application in which an interim measure was ordered must be delivered within six months at the latest (Art. 49/5; Rules, Rule 73).

The law sets no time limit for deciding other applications. The applicant can check the status of the application through e-Devlet. Where a lawyer is instructed, the Court's correspondence and notifications are sent to the lawyer and are deemed to have been made to the applicant (Rules, Rule 61/2).

If the Court finds a violation, it determines what must be done to redress it

Inadmissibility decisions are final and are served on the parties concerned (Art. 48/4). At the end of the merits examination, the Section decides whether or not the right has been violated. A judgment finding a violation sets out what must be done to remove the violation and its consequences; the Court does not review expediency and does not issue decisions that take the place of administrative acts (Art. 50/1).

If the violation stems from a court decision, the file is sent to the court concerned for a retrial. That court starts the retrial without waiting for a request and, where possible, gives the decision that removes the violation on the file (Art. 50/2). Where a retrial would serve no legal interest, the Court may award compensation or indicate that proceedings may be brought before the ordinary courts. It may also award non-pecuniary damages for harm that a finding of a violation alone cannot redress. The consequences in criminal cases are explained in the article on retrial after a finding of a violation.

If the violation stems from a statutory provision and the same problem affects many applications, the Court may apply the pilot judgment procedure. The Court then identifies the structural problem and the way to resolve it, may adjourn similar applications for a set period and notifies the legislature (Rules, Rule 75; Hamit Yakut [Plenary], No. 2014/6548, §§ 126–134). If the applicant withdraws the application, the Court strikes it out (Art. 50/5).

More than eighty per cent of decided applications are declared inadmissible

The Constitutional Court's statistics show at which stage applications end. The table breaks down applications decided between 23 September 2012 and 30 June 2026 by the most significant type of decision:

In the first half of 2026, 83.8% of decided applications were declared inadmissible and at least one violation was found in 12.7%. These figures show how decisive the admissibility requirements are at the preparation stage.

After the Constitutional Court's decision, the ECtHR can be seized within four months

For decisions that became final after 23 September 2012, the European Court of Human Rights requires an individual application to the Constitutional Court first (Uzun v. Türkiye (dec.), No. 10755/13, § 70). Once the Constitutional Court's decision has been served, the four-month time limit for applying to the ECtHR starts to run. Its last day is not extended even if it falls on a weekend or public holiday.

A procedural rejection by the Constitutional Court also narrows the path to Strasbourg: the ECtHR requires complaints to have been raised domestically in compliance with the formal requirements and time limits of domestic law. The Strasbourg stage is covered in the guide to applying to the ECtHR, and the calculation of the time limit in the article on the ECtHR time limit.