Case-Law Summary

Case

Decision

Case-Law Development

Related

E.2025/155

11 December 2025

(Plenary)

Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision subjecting the legal liability of motorised bicycle riders to the general provisions

- The contested provision, Article 103 of the Highway Traffic Law no. 2918, stipulates that the legal liability of motorised bicycle riders shall be subject to the general provisions.

- It is argued that pursuant to the contested provision, liability arising from traffic accidents involving motorised bicycles is limited solely to the riders; and that the operators of such vehicles engage in commercial activities and derive commercial profit, yet are not held liable for the resulting damage.

- It is further asserted that the provisions on compulsory motor third-party liability insurance are not applicable to these vehicles, thereby precluding recourse against insurers for the damages sustained.

- According to the Court, various liability regimes have been introduced in certain laws with a view to redressing the damages arising from accidents involving motorised bicycles. – Thus, the Court has found that subjecting the legal liability of motorised bicycle riders to the general provisions, by excluding them from the scope of Law no. 2918, does not conflict with the State’s positive obligations regarding the right to protect and develop one’s corporeal and spiritual existence as well as the right to property.

- Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional and therefore the request for its annulment has been dismissed.

Case

Decision

Case-Law Development

Related

E. 2025/124

8 October 2025

(Plenary)

Annulment of Article 362 § 1 (a) of Code of Civil Procedure no. 6100, in so far as it concerned the cases concerning the determination of the compensation for expropriation

- The contested provision stipulates that, as of 2025, decisions rendered by the civil chambers of the regional courts of appeal in cases with an amount or value not exceeding 544,000 Turkish liras (TRY) shall not be subject to appeal.

- The contested provision was claimed to be unconstitutional on the grounds that, inter alia, making the expropriation value of the immovable the decisive criterion for appeal prevents the parties from invoking different claims concerning the value in appellate proceedings, thereby infringing the right to legal remedies.  

- In its decisions, the Court has acknowledged that the right to seek judicial review of a court decision by another judicial authority is safeguarded within the scope of the right to legal remedies.

- In cases concerning the determination of the compensation for expropriation, the establishment of the value of the property constitutes the very substance of the dispute. In other words, in such proceedings, the parties’ claims, or subject-matter of the dispute, do not consist of claims involving a specific monetary amount or value.

- Accordingly, pursuant to the provision, in proceedings concerning the determination of the compensation for expropriation, no specific amount can be identified at the time the proceedings are instituted. In such cases, the application of the monetary threshold by the judicial authorities may be based on the date of the delivery of the judgment, the value of the expropriated property at the time the proceedings are instituted, or another relevant criterion.

Case

Decision

Case-Law Development

Related

E.2025/106

10 September 2025

(Plenary)

Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision stipulating that an investigation or prosecution shall be conducted, even in the absence of a complaint, in cases where the right to inviolability of the home is violated for the purpose of committing theft

- The contested provision, Article 142 § 4 of the Turkish Criminal Code no. 5237, stipulates that in cases where the inviolability of the home is violated for the purpose of committing theft, an investigation or prosecution shall be conducted into the impugned offence, without requiring a complaint.

- It is argued that in addition to the imposition of an increased penalty for aggravated theft, the contested provision also allows for the imposition of a separate penalty for the violation of the inviolability of the home.

- According to the Court, in cases where committing theft is directly intended, it is not in breach of the principle of the rule of law to allow the initiation of investigation and prosecution into the violation of the inviolability of the home, in the absence of a complaint.

- In addition, where the acts resulting in a violation of the inviolability of the home are committed for the purpose of committing theft in respect of property kept within a building or its annex, the imposition of separate penalties for the two offences does not entail the institution of a second set of proceedings for the same act.

- Accordingly, the contested provision does not breach the ne bis in idem principle, which prohibits being tried or punished more than once for the same act.

- Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional and therefore the request for its annulment has been dismissed.