EUROPEAN UNION-COUNCIL OF EUROPE JOINT PROJECT ON
SUPPORTING THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TURKISH CONSTITUTIONAL
COURT JUDGMENTS IN THE FIELD OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

"Regional Meeting on Violation Judgments in Individual Applications in Civil, Criminal
and Administrative Jurisdictions and Elimination of the Consequences of Violations"

Diyarbakır
20-21 October 2025

Distinguished President of the Court of Cassation,

Esteemed Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation,

Esteemed Chief Public Prosecutor of the Council of State,

Honourable Vice-Presidents and Members of the Constitutional Court,

Esteemed Head of Department for the Implementation of Human Rights, Justice and Legal Cooperation Standards of the Council of Europe,

Honourable Head of the Council of Europe Programme Office in Ankara,

Distinguished Chief Public Prosecutor and President of the Justice Commission of Diyarbakır,

Esteemed Chief Public Prosecutor and President of the Diyarbakır Regional Court of Appeal,

Honourable President of the Regional Administrative Court,

Distinguished Judges and Public Prosecutors,

Esteemed Members of the Press, Distinguished Guests,

On behalf of the Constitutional Court and myself, I extend my warmest greetings and highest regards to each and every one of you. Welcome to our meeting.

It is a great pleasure and honour for me to be here with you in Diyarbakır, a city with an ancient culture and rich history. As you all know, these lands have, for centuries, been home to a great civilization, enriched by its people and culture.

At the same time, Diyarbakır is also a city of poets. It is the homeland of Cahit Sıtkı Tarancı, the place where he spent his childhood and which inspired his letters. According to Cahit Sıtkı, “To love Diyarbakır is a duty, a sacred duty that must not be neglected.”

Of course, we must also remember Sezai Karakoç, another eminent son of this city. As Karakoç beautifully described, this is “a land of ancient wings burned in the white foam of the sun, where the Qur’an is recited on silk couches and roses drift in through open windows.” Diyarbakır is the jewel of our ancient culture, imbued with the spirits of Süleyman Nazif, Ziya Gökalp, and Ahmed Arif. I would like to once again express my heartfelt happiness to be in this distinguished city.

Today, we are holding in Diyarbakır the seventh of our regional meetings, which we previously held in İstanbul, Gaziantep, Bursa, Erzurum, İzmir, and Trabzon.

Through these meetings, attended by and enriched with the presentations of the esteemed members and rapporteur-judges of the Constitutional Court, as well as our distinguished colleagues from the Court of Cassation, the Council of State, and the regional courts of appeal, we have so far come together with a total of 791 judges and public prosecutors. At this meeting, 67 judges and public prosecutors of the civil and criminal jurisdiction and 36 judges of the administrative jurisdiction will be joining us.

These meetings serve three main objectives:

First, to establish effective and productive cooperation between the Constitutional Court and all judges, public prosecutors, and courts by fostering a more extensive and efficient judicial dialogue;

Second, to identify and address the issues regarding the steps to be taken in order to ensure that the inter partes consequences of violation judgments rendered by the Court in individual applications are promptly implemented in favour of applicants, thereby ensuring that the violations of rights are remedied as soon as possible; and

Third, to address the areas in which the Court frequently finds violations, the common and repetitive issues within these areas, and the erga omnes effects of the reasoning set forth in the Court’s violation judgments, and thus to ensure that justice is achieved at the highest standard and in the most expeditious manner.

The sessions to be held today and tomorrow will focus on the erga omnes and inter partes effects of the judgments rendered by the Constitutional Court. I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest gratitude to both the session moderators and our colleagues who will make presentations during these sessions.

I wish that today’s sessions on civil and criminal jurisdiction, and tomorrow’s sessions on administrative jurisdiction will be successful and fruitful for all participants.

Distinguished Guests,

The individual application is a legal remedy through which everyone may apply to the Constitutional Court, on the grounds that one of the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and falling within the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights and its additional protocols to which Türkiye is a party, has been violated by public authorities. This effective mechanism has been in operation since 23 September 2012.

Since that date, a total of 702,053 individual applications have been lodged with the Court, 600,014 of which have been concluded. 531,134 of these applications were declared inadmissible on the grounds that they failed to meet at least one of the admissibility criteria.

Since 23 September 2012, our Court has rendered a total of 81,841 violation judgments. Among these, 56,443 concern the right to a trial within a reasonable time, resulting in the award of non-pecuniary compensation to the applicants. In addition, the Court has delivered 23,914 violation judgments on case basis, and 25,398 violation judgments on right basis, concerning 19 different categories of rights, such as the right to a fair trial, the right to property, and the freedom of expression.

As of today, the number of violation judgments which has not been fully executed yet is 84.

Distinguished Guests,

Esteemed Colleagues,

These figures demonstrate that approximately 76% of the 702,053 applications lodged over the years, which amounts to 531,134 applications, have been declared inadmissible on such grounds as the failure to submit the application within the prescribed time-limit, the failure to meet other admissibility criteria, and having the characteristics of an appellate request, though not explicitly stated as such. Meanwhile, around 24% of the applications including those concerning the right to a trial within a reasonable time, and 16% of the remaining applications excluding those concerning the right to a trial within a reasonable time have required a substantive examination as to whether there has been a violation of a constitutional right.

In addition, it is observed that the number of violation judgments issued over the span of 13 years is approximately 3.4% of the total applications, excluding those concerning the right to a trial within a reasonable time. Naturally, this percentage does not account for exceptional circumstances in which a large number of applications concern a specific issue arising due to conjunctural reasons.

This data reveals a clear conclusion. Accordingly, in the individual application mechanism, the Constitutional Court does not act as a supreme court of appeal, but rather, in accordance with the authority vested in it by the Constitution, confines its review to determining whether a constitutional right has been violated. Thus, the perception that the individual application mechanism serves as an appellate remedy is unrealistic. Furthermore, the relationship between the Constitutional Court and the other high courts, namely the Court of Cassation and the Council of State, in the context of individual applications, is not hierarchical, but rather, it is founded on a constitutional division of functions.

Indeed, the Constitutional Court has consistently emphasized in its relevant judgments that the primary responsibility for redressing violations of rights rests, in general, with all public authorities, and in particular, with the trial courts. Hence, the relationship between the Constitutional Court and other courts is based on the principle of subsidiarity.

Nevertheless, considering other countries where the individual application mechanism is applied, the discussions taking place in this regard in Türkiye are unexceptional. Moreover, as I will mention shortly, the Constitutional Court works in close and effective communication with other high courts, namely the Court of Cassation and the Council of State. In this regard, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Honourable Presidents of the Court of Cassation and the Council of State, as well as to the heads and members of the boards and chambers of these high courts.

Distinguished Guests,

Esteemed Colleagues,

In the examination of individual applications, the Court follows a comprehensive process that operates within an interdependent structure ensuring multi-level review. During both the preparatory and decision-making stages, extensive research is undertaken into the internationally adopted universal approaches on the matter, the principles and standards developed by the European Court of Human Rights, decisions of other countries’ constitutional courts on similar issues, as well as the accumulated experience and case-law of Türkiye’s higher judicial bodies. The conclusions of this research, taking into account the opinions and recommendations of the Court’s rapporteur-judges, are subject to a rigorous deliberation based on the institutional experience of the Court as well as the respective profound experiences of its members.

Furthermore, in order to ensure a better understanding of the underlying principles of their relevant case-law, the Constitutional Court also maintains close and continuous dialogue with the Court of Cassation and the Council of State.

It should also be noted that the Court examines the alleged violations of rights, raised in all individual applications brought before it, with a justice-oriented approach, regardless of the applicants’ religious, political, or ideological identities. Within the boundaries set by the Constitution, the Court also employs interpretative methods consistent with contemporary legal practices, with the ultimate purpose of safeguarding and promoting fundamental rights and freedoms.

In pursuing this approach, the Court relies on general principles such as proportionality, the requirements of a democratic society, and the fair balance to be struck between competing interests in terms of the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms at the international level, and it endeavours to apply these principles through a dynamic interpretation.

Thus, the Court remains committed to delivering its judgments within the boundaries of law, guided by conscience, and based on the principle of objective justice. It maintains this approach in its engagement with both individuals and institutions, striving to reinforce core values such as justice, the rule of law, and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in line with its mandate. In doing so, the Court aims to strengthen the sense of justice among citizens and institutions and to reinforce their confidence in the state and the legal order.

Distinguished Guests,

Esteemed Colleagues,

At the current stage of the individual application mechanism, the Constitutional Court has largely established the standards for the protection and promotion of fundamental rights and freedoms by relying on not only the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights but also all universal principles, standards, and judgments pertaining to human rights law, thereby developing an extensive and rich case-law on human rights.

However, the workload of the Constitutional Court in terms of individual applications has been increasing. From the very outset, the Court has taken, and continues to take, the necessary measures to cope with this increasing workload. Over the thirteen years since the introduction of the individual application mechanism, the Court has made significant progress not only in terms of case-law and practice, but also in terms of enhancing its institutional capacity. However, the continued effectiveness of the individual application system, as a well-functioning remedy for the protection of fundamental rights, cannot be sustained solely through the efforts of the Constitutional Court. This can only be achieved through the collective awareness and engagement of all relevant actors, and by ensuring the effective implementation of the erga omnes effects of the Court’s violation judgments.

Distinguished Guests,

Esteemed Colleagues,

In every society across the world, the first and foremost guarantee of the principles and values that constitute a society’s constitutional identity or its common social identity is the existence of an independent and impartial judiciary, which is a sine qua non for the rule of law.

An independent and impartial judiciary depends primarily on the presence of independent and impartial judges and public prosecutors. For preserving rights and ensuring justice, which are absolute necessities for the survival of the state and society, the primary responsibility lies with judges and public prosecutors, who are the main actors in the administration of justice. In other words, the duty and responsibility of administering justice lies primarily with judges and public prosecutors.

So, what is justice, which judges and public prosecutors are entrusted to uphold? There have been numerous definitions of justice to date. Despite the complexity of the field it encompasses, it seems that today what justice means as a concept is no longer a matter of debate.  Nor is there any dispute as to the fact that across the world, without exception, all people demand justice in every aspect of life. Where there is no justice, neither the continuity of the state nor the peace of society can be maintained. The welfare, security, and internal peace of society can be ensured only through justice. A just order strengthens mutual trust among individuals, reinforces social cohesion, and establishes the legitimacy of the state on solid foundations. Conversely, where justice is undermined, social peace, trust, and prosperity will inevitably be at stake.

So, what is justice? What should we understand from this concept of such profound significance, and how should we establish it?

Today, I will not dwell on what justice means as a concept. However, with your permission, I would like to say a few words about how the concept of justice can be embodied in any case or matter, in other words, how justice may be manifested in each case or matter depending on the procedure followed, the approach adopted, and the manner in which judicial proceedings are conducted.

In my view, the prerequisite for justice to manifest itself in any case is the existence of a “well-functioning system of justice”, which constitutes one of the essential elements of constitutional democracies and the rule of law. In order to speak of such a system, all judicial activities must be carried out properly.

At this point, a great responsibility rests upon judges and public prosecutors. The raison d’être and primary duty of judges and public prosecutors is to ensure the establishment of justice. This responsibility imposes a heavy burden upon them, which requires them to possess certain personal qualities and, at times, to exercise self-restraint in ways that may not be expected of others. In this regard, many observations and recommendations could naturally be made as to how judges and public prosecutors should behave and what they should be mindful of.

However, above all, it must be stated that the primary responsibility in the administration of justice is to act independently, impartially, and in accordance with the requirements of fairness.

This is not only an indispensable condition of a democratic regime governed by the rule of law, but also a fundamental prerequisite for realisation of the right to a fair trial, and thus the greatest safeguard of rights and freedoms.

Accordingly, judges and public prosecutors are expected to decide freely, guided solely by the law and their conscience, without fear or hesitation, free from any external influence or pressure, including their subjective feelings and thoughts, maintaining an impartial stance within the framework provided by positive law, and always adhering to reason and science. They must always uphold the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, both individually and institutionally. This should also be reflected in form.

Indeed, an independent and impartial judiciary, which is a sine qua non for the rule of law, constitutes a guarantee not only for fundamental rights and freedoms, but also for the maintenance of public order.

Distinguished Guests,

Esteemed Colleagues,

No matter how much we praise or describe ourselves, the true characteristic of judges and public prosecutors as human beings and as judicial officials is revealed by their conduct and the decisions they render. Our capacity to judge is determined by our intellect, knowledge, morality and conscience.

As judges and public prosecutors, we perform a profession that stands between light and fire. Therefore, whatever the reason –be it arrogance, egocentrism, envy, or any other human weakness– we must never resort to injustice. We must not act arbitrarily. We must never attempt to bend justice to suit our personal desires. We must always and everywhere stand as the embodiment of justice. We must strive to comprehend correctly what we read and hear, and to see rightly what we look at. We must never, knowingly, cause even the slightest injustice to anyone. We must always content ourselves with what is lawful and ethical, with the fruits of our own labour and effort. Whether the person before us is a friend or a foe, a relative or a stranger, we must never deviate from the path of justice. In every case and circumstance, we must recognise what is right as right, and render our judgments accordingly. We must always remember that those who distance themselves from justice can never escape injustice.

In order to understand, interpret and resolve in a fair manner the disputes brought before us, we must always be equipped with the necessary knowledge. We must not render judgments based on lacking information. We must continuously enhance our ability to comprehend and interpret legal rules and material facts thoroughly. We must strive to comprehend correctly what we read and hear, and to see rightly what we look at. Every judgment we deliver must offer society a sense of confidence and stability. Each indictment we issue should not merely represent an accusation but also serve as a beacon of justice. The honesty and impartiality reflected in our judgments shape not only the outcome of the proceedings but also the collective sense of justice within society; they deeply influence the level of social trust as well as the very spirit and foundation of the state. Let us always bear in mind that rendering fair, honest, and impartial judgments will help elevate both ourselves and our society.

Ultimately, we should aspire not to the fire, but to the light. For those who choose the light, every endeavour results in success, while for those who choose the fire, every endeavour results in failure.

Distinguished Guests,

Esteemed Colleagues,

At this juncture, I wish to draw attention to the grave tragedy unfolding in Gaza. The horrific events taking place in Gaza over the past two years have been recorded as one of the darkest chapters in human history. The deliberate targeting of civilian settlements and the blatant disregard for the right to life of children, women, and the elderly have deeply wounded the conscience of all humanity, not merely that of a single region. Tragically, the suffering of infants who have perished from starvation, some weighing even less at death than their birth weight, has found a place in the awareness of only a few. This unfolding human catastrophe once again demonstrates how vital the universal nature of justice and human rights is. When we look at what has happened, it becomes evident that respect for human dignity, the rule of law, and the protection of fundamental rights must always be regarded and implemented as prevailing principles. These principles should not remain abstract concepts. They must be manifested in the practices of states, in judicial decisions, and in social life. Humanity must respond to all these events with a collective conscience. It must be borne in mind that the common future of humanity, as well as a just and perpetual peace, can only be achieved by returning to moral values and justice, and by ensuring the supremacy of justice and morality, throughout the world.

Distinguished Guests,

Esteemed Colleagues,

As I conclude my remarks, I would like to express my firm belief that the meetings taking place today and tomorrow, aimed at strengthening the protection of fundamental rights, will make a valuable contribution to the consolidation of justice and the reinforcement of the rule of law.

I extend my sincere gratitude to each and every one of you for your participation and valuable contributions, and I wish that our meeting will bring auspicious outcomes for our country, our nation, and our legal system.

I would also like to convey my heartfelt appreciation to Mr. William Massolin and Ms. Lilja Grétarsdóttir for their valuable support and assistance in the conduct of this project and in the organisation of this meeting.

Finally, I wish to express my deep gratitude to the Governor of Diyarbakır, the Chief Public Prosecutor of Diyarbakır, the President of the Justice Commission, as well as to the Chief Public Prosecutor and the President of the Diyarbakır Regional Court of Appeal, and the President of the Regional Administrative Court for their warm hospitality and kind cooperation.

Distinguished Guests,

Esteemed Colleagues,

If a person pursues for longevity, he must be just.

The same is true for states.

Justice sustains longevity.

And as a final thought, let us reflect on the words:

“When Justice and Truth stand side by side,

No task will falter, no step will slide;

When the Almighty’s gaze comes to call,

What happens to the deeds that failed the truth?”

With these words, I extend my sincere greetings, filled with utmost respect, to all of you.

Thank you for your attention.