Constitutionality Review

Contested Provision

The contested provision stipulates that associations and foundations in the public interest may be afforded legal aid only if their allegations or defences are justified and they are unable to partially or fully cover the necessary expenses without experiencing financial hardship. Thus, other legal persons are categorically excluded from the possibility of obtaining legal aid.

Ground for the Request for Annulment

It was maintained in brief that certain private legal persons’ inability to benefit from legal aid pursued no legitimate aim and that such a restriction severely hinders, and in some cases even renders impossible, access to the court, thereby imposing a disproportionate restriction on the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial. The contested provision was therefore claimed to be unconstitutional.

The Court’s Assessment

The contested provision limits the application of the legal aid mechanism, which is afforded to natural persons, solely to legal entities classified as associations and foundations serving the public interest, thereby excluding private legal persons from its scope of application. Depriving legal persons other than foundations and associations in the public interest of legal aid, which facilitates financially disadvantaged entities to raise their claims, submit their defence, initiate enforcement proceedings or request temporary legal protection, restricts their right of access to a court.

The Court examined, within the scope of the right of access to a court, an individual application filed by a private legal person –a corporation– upon rejection of its request for legal aid in an action for compensation (Kemtaş Tekstil İnşaat Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. [Plenary], no. 2020/22192, 17 May 2023). In the relevant judgment, it is stated that private legal persons with legal capacity are imposed obligations and liabilities under the legal system and are enabled to submit their claims before the judicial authorities, exercising their active and passive capacity to sue. It is also specified therein that this situation may render it difficult, even impossible, for private legal persons that are unable to afford high litigation costs to institute proceedings. In addition, it is noted that there is no alternative regulation or judicial practice, other than the legal aid mechanism, capable of facilitating the bringing of an action by legal persons suffering financial constraints.

In the aforementioned judgment, the Court has stated that the exemption of private legal persons, who possess rights and obligations like natural persons under the legal system but unable to afford litigation costs, from such expenses is necessary to ensure a fair balance between benefits and burdens. Accordingly, the Court has found that the categorical prohibition arising from the law did not pursue a legitimate aim and concluded that the impugned interference with the applicant’s right of access to a court was disproportionate.

With reference to its assessments in the aforementioned judgment, the Court has concluded that denial of legal aid to private legal persons other than foundations and associations in the public interest, despite meeting the legal requirements, solely on the grounds of their status as legal persons, does not pursue a legitimate aim, and that the restriction on the right of access to a court by the impugned provision is disproportionate.

Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled.