Introduction
Judicial review is one of the most important guarantees of constitutionalism, rule of law and fundamental rights in Türkiye. It ensures that legislative acts, executive measures, administrative decisions and judicial processes remain within the limits of the Constitution. In Turkish constitutional law, judicial review is not a single mechanism. It includes the constitutional review of laws and presidential decrees by the Constitutional Court, judicial review of administrative acts by administrative courts, individual application before the Constitutional Court and ordinary appellate review by higher courts.
The Turkish Constitution establishes the supremacy of the Constitution by providing that constitutional provisions are binding fundamental legal rules for legislative, executive and judicial organs, administrative authorities, other institutions and individuals, and that laws cannot be contrary to the Constitution. This rule is the legal foundation of judicial review in Türkiye. Without constitutional supremacy, judicial review would not have a meaningful function because courts could not measure public acts against a higher norm.
Judicial review in Turkish constitutional law therefore serves two main purposes. First, it protects the objective constitutional order by ensuring that laws, presidential decrees and administrative acts comply with constitutional norms. Second, it protects individuals and legal persons against unlawful or disproportionate interference with fundamental rights. In modern Turkish law, these two functions increasingly overlap, especially after the introduction of individual application to the Constitutional Court.
1. Meaning of Judicial Review in Turkish Constitutional Law
Judicial review means the examination of public acts, legal norms or judicial decisions by a competent court in order to determine whether they comply with higher legal norms. In constitutional law, the highest legal norm is the Constitution. Therefore, judicial review is a mechanism that prevents public authorities from acting arbitrarily or exceeding their constitutional powers.
In Türkiye, judicial review has several dimensions. The Constitutional Court reviews the constitutionality of laws, presidential decrees and the Rules of Procedure of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye. Administrative courts review the legality of administrative acts and actions. Ordinary courts and appellate courts review lower court decisions within their respective jurisdictions. The Constitutional Court also examines individual applications alleging violations of fundamental rights protected by the Constitution and falling within the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights.
This multi-layered structure makes judicial review a practical tool in almost every field of law. A criminal case may involve fair trial rights and personal liberty. An administrative case may involve legality, proportionality and equality. A commercial dispute may involve property rights and access to court. A public employment dispute may involve legal certainty, equality and effective remedy. Judicial review gives these constitutional guarantees legal force.
2. Constitutional Supremacy as the Basis of Judicial Review
The principle of constitutional supremacy is the starting point of judicial review. Article 11 of the Constitution provides that the Constitution binds all state organs and individuals, and that laws cannot be contrary to the Constitution. This means that Parliament, the President, administrative bodies and courts are all subject to constitutional limits.
Constitutional supremacy transforms the Constitution from a political declaration into an enforceable legal instrument. A law passed by Parliament may be politically legitimate, but it can still be unconstitutional. A presidential decree may be issued by the executive branch, but it cannot exceed constitutional limits. An administrative act may be based on statutory authority, but it must still comply with constitutional principles such as legality, proportionality, equality and respect for fundamental rights.
For lawyers and litigants, this principle has direct strategic importance. In a case involving public authority, it is often not enough to rely only on statutory law. The dispute may need to be framed through constitutional principles. For example, an administrative fine may be challenged not only because it violates ordinary law, but also because it is disproportionate. A procedural dismissal may be challenged not only as an incorrect application of procedural law, but also as a violation of access to court.
3. The Role of the Constitutional Court of Türkiye
The Constitutional Court of Türkiye is the central institution of constitutional judicial review. Its primary function is to protect the supremacy of the Constitution. Article 148 of the Constitution provides that the Constitutional Court examines the constitutionality, in form and substance, of laws, presidential decrees and the Rules of Procedure of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye, and decides on individual applications. Constitutional amendments are reviewed only with regard to form.
The Law on the Constitutional Court also confirms the Court’s duties, including hearing annulment actions, deciding concrete review referrals from courts, adjudicating individual applications, acting as the Supreme Criminal Tribunal in certain cases, handling political party dissolution and state aid cases, and auditing political party finances.
The Constitutional Court therefore performs both institutional and rights-based review. Through norm review, it protects the constitutional order against unconstitutional legislation or executive regulation. Through individual application, it protects individuals against violations of fundamental rights caused by public authorities. This dual function makes the Court one of the most important actors in Turkish constitutional democracy.
4. Constitutional Review of Laws
The classical form of constitutional judicial review is the review of laws. Parliament has legislative authority, but this authority is not unlimited. Laws must comply with the Constitution. If a law violates constitutional principles or fundamental rights, it may be annulled by the Constitutional Court.
The review of laws may concern both form and substance. Review as to form generally concerns whether constitutional procedural requirements were followed. Review as to substance concerns whether the content of the law is compatible with the Constitution. For example, a law restricting freedom of expression, property rights, access to court or political participation may be reviewed substantively.
This type of judicial review is essential in a constitutional democracy. Democratic legitimacy does not mean unlimited legislative power. Parliament may regulate rights and public institutions, but it cannot destroy the essence of fundamental rights or violate proportionality, equality and the rule of law.
5. Constitutional Review of Presidential Decrees
The review of presidential decrees has become especially important after Türkiye’s transition to the presidential system. The President may issue presidential decrees on matters relating to executive power. However, presidential decrees are constitutionally limited.
The Constitution provides that presidential decrees cannot regulate certain fundamental rights, individual rights and political rights. It also provides that no presidential decree may be issued on matters that the Constitution requires to be regulated exclusively by law or on matters explicitly regulated by law. If there is a conflict between a presidential decree and a law, the law prevails. If Parliament enacts a law on the same matter, the presidential decree becomes null and void.
The Constitutional Court’s review of presidential decrees is therefore a key mechanism for maintaining separation of powers. It prevents the executive branch from replacing the legislature in areas reserved for parliamentary lawmaking. It also ensures that executive regulation remains compatible with fundamental rights and constitutional limits.
6. Abstract Review: Annulment Action
Abstract review allows certain constitutionally authorized actors to bring an annulment action directly before the Constitutional Court. This procedure does not require a concrete dispute pending before an ordinary court. It is designed to remove unconstitutional legal norms from the legal system before or regardless of their application in individual cases.
Under Article 150 of the Constitution, the President of the Republic, the two political party groups having the largest number of members in Parliament and at least one-fifth of the total number of members of Parliament may apply directly to the Constitutional Court for annulment of laws, presidential decrees or parliamentary rules of procedure on constitutional grounds. The right to apply directly for annulment lapses sixty days after publication in the Official Gazette.
Abstract review has a preventive and systemic function. It allows constitutional disputes over legislation or presidential decrees to be resolved at the highest constitutional level. This promotes legal certainty and prevents unconstitutional rules from affecting a large number of people.
7. Concrete Review: Claim of Unconstitutionality Before Ordinary Courts
Concrete review is another important mechanism of constitutional judicial review. It arises during an ongoing case before an ordinary court. If the court finds that the law or presidential decree to be applied is unconstitutional, or if it is convinced of the seriousness of a party’s claim of unconstitutionality, it must postpone the case until the Constitutional Court decides on the issue.
This mechanism is particularly important for lawyers. A party to civil, criminal, administrative or labor proceedings may argue that the legal provision applicable to the dispute is unconstitutional. If the trial court considers the argument serious, it may refer the issue to the Constitutional Court.
Concrete review connects ordinary litigation with constitutional adjudication. It allows constitutional issues to emerge from real disputes. It also helps ordinary courts participate in the protection of constitutional supremacy.
However, the trial court acts as a filter. If the court is not convinced of the seriousness of the claim, the constitutional objection will be considered together with the judgment by the competent appellate authority. This makes it important for lawyers to formulate constitutional objections clearly and persuasively.
8. Administrative Judicial Review
Judicial review in Turkish constitutional law is not limited to the Constitutional Court. Administrative judicial review is also a fundamental part of the rule of law. Article 125 of the Constitution provides that recourse to judicial review shall be available against all actions and acts of administration. This means that administrative bodies are not immune from judicial control.
Administrative judicial review applies to many fields, including zoning decisions, public employment, disciplinary sanctions, tax assessments, administrative fines, public procurement, deportation orders, licensing decisions, regulatory sanctions and social security disputes.
However, Article 125 also states that judicial power is limited to review of legality and cannot be used as a review of administrative expediency. This distinction means that courts examine whether the administration acted lawfully, but they do not replace the administration’s policy discretion with their own preferences.
In practice, legality review may include competence, form, procedure, reason, subject matter and purpose. It may also involve constitutional principles such as equality, proportionality, legitimate expectation and legal certainty. Therefore, administrative judicial review is often a practical expression of constitutional law.
9. Judicial Review and Fundamental Rights
Judicial review is one of the most important tools for protecting fundamental rights. The Constitution allows certain rights to be restricted, but restrictions must comply with constitutional safeguards. Article 13 provides that fundamental rights and freedoms may be restricted only by law, in conformity with the reasons mentioned in the relevant constitutional provisions, without infringing upon their essence, and in accordance with the requirements of the democratic order, the secular Republic and the principle of proportionality.
This provision is central to judicial review. Courts must examine not only whether a public measure has a formal legal basis, but also whether it is proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. A measure that is lawful in form may still be unconstitutional if it imposes an excessive burden on the individual.
For example, a restriction on freedom of expression must be assessed in light of democratic necessity. A property restriction must strike a fair balance between public interest and individual rights. A detention measure must be supported by concrete reasons. An administrative sanction must not be excessive compared with its aim.
10. Individual Application as Constitutional Judicial Review
Individual application before the Constitutional Court is a rights-based form of constitutional judicial review. It allows individuals to apply to the Constitutional Court when they claim that a public authority has violated a fundamental right or freedom protected by the Constitution and falling within the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 148 also requires exhaustion of ordinary legal remedies before filing an individual application.
This mechanism is not a regular appeal. The Constitutional Court does not re-examine every factual or legal error made by lower courts. Instead, it reviews whether the applicant’s constitutional rights were violated. The Court’s former president has described individual application as giving the Court the opportunity and power to review judicial decisions alongside legislative and executive regulations.
Individual application has significantly expanded the practical meaning of judicial review in Türkiye. It allows the Constitutional Court to examine violations arising from judicial proceedings, administrative acts, criminal measures and other uses of public power. Common complaints include violation of the right to a fair trial, property rights, personal liberty, freedom of expression, privacy, prohibition of ill-treatment and enforcement of final judgments.
11. Judicial Review of Judicial Decisions
Judicial review of judicial decisions may sound conceptually unusual because courts themselves are organs of judicial power. However, individual application allows the Constitutional Court to examine whether judicial decisions or proceedings violated constitutional rights.
This does not mean that the Constitutional Court acts as a fourth instance court. It does not normally reassess evidence, reinterpret contracts or correct every alleged error of ordinary law. Instead, it examines whether the proceedings respected constitutional guarantees.
For example, the Constitutional Court may find a violation where a court fails to address decisive arguments, applies procedural rules in an excessively formalistic way, denies access to court, fails to provide sufficient reasoning, delays proceedings unreasonably or fails to enforce a final judgment.
This form of review strengthens the quality of ordinary justice. It encourages courts to reason their judgments, respect equality of arms, protect access to court and interpret procedural rules in a rights-sensitive manner.
12. Effects of Constitutional Court Decisions
The effectiveness of judicial review depends on the legal consequences of court decisions. Article 153 of the Constitution provides that decisions of the Constitutional Court are final. Annulment decisions must be supported by written justification. Laws, presidential decrees or parliamentary rules annulled by the Court cease to have effect from the date of publication of the annulment decision in the Official Gazette unless the Court postpones the effective date, which cannot be more than one year. Annulment decisions cannot be applied retroactively.
Most importantly, Constitutional Court decisions are binding on legislative, executive and judicial organs, administrative authorities, and real and legal persons. This binding force is essential for constitutional supremacy. If Constitutional Court decisions were not binding, judicial review would become merely symbolic.
The non-retroactivity of annulment decisions is also significant. It protects legal certainty by preventing automatic disturbance of all past legal consequences. However, in individual application cases, the Court may order remedies aimed at removing the consequences of the violation, such as retrial or compensation, depending on the nature of the case.
13. Judicial Review and Separation of Powers
Judicial review is closely connected to separation of powers. In Türkiye, legislative power belongs to Parliament, executive power is exercised by the President and judicial power is exercised by independent and impartial courts. Judicial review ensures that each branch remains within constitutional limits.
Constitutional review of laws prevents Parliament from violating the Constitution. Review of presidential decrees prevents the executive from exceeding its constitutional authority. Administrative judicial review prevents administrative bodies from acting unlawfully. Individual application prevents public authorities, including courts, from violating fundamental rights.
However, judicial review also has limits. Article 153 states that when annulling a law or presidential decree, the Constitutional Court cannot act as a lawmaker and issue a judgment leading to new implementation. This limitation protects the balance between judicial review and legislative authority.
Therefore, judicial review does not mean judicial government. It means constitutional control. Courts do not replace Parliament or the executive. They ensure that Parliament and the executive act within constitutional boundaries.
14. Judicial Review and the Rule of Law
The rule of law requires that public power be lawful, predictable, reviewable and proportionate. Judicial review is the institutional mechanism that makes these requirements effective.
In a state governed by the rule of law, individuals must have access to courts when their rights are affected. Administrative acts must be subject to judicial control. Laws must comply with the Constitution. Judicial decisions must respect fair trial guarantees. Public authorities must implement final court judgments.
Judicial review also protects legal certainty. When courts consistently apply constitutional principles, individuals and businesses can better predict the legal consequences of public action. This is particularly important for investors, property owners, employers, employees, public servants, foreign nationals and companies operating in Türkiye.
15. Judicial Review in Administrative Disputes
Administrative disputes are among the most common fields of judicial review. Public authorities make decisions affecting individuals and companies every day. These decisions may concern licenses, fines, permits, zoning plans, public tenders, disciplinary penalties, tax obligations, social security benefits or immigration status.
A person affected by an administrative act may apply to administrative courts for annulment or compensation, depending on the circumstances. The court examines whether the administration acted within its authority, followed proper procedure, relied on lawful reasons, pursued public interest and respected proportionality.
In administrative litigation, constitutional principles often play a decisive role. A zoning restriction may involve property rights. A disciplinary penalty may involve freedom of expression or right to work. A deportation order may involve family life or prohibition of ill-treatment. An administrative fine may involve legality and proportionality.
16. Judicial Review in Criminal Proceedings
Judicial review is also vital in criminal law. Criminal proceedings directly affect personal liberty, presumption of innocence, defense rights, privacy and reputation. Courts must ensure that investigation and prosecution measures comply with constitutional guarantees.
Detention decisions, search and seizure measures, communication surveillance, restrictions on defense rights and criminal convictions may all raise constitutional issues. Ordinary criminal courts and appellate courts provide initial judicial review. After ordinary remedies are exhausted, individual application may become available if a constitutional right has been violated.
In this context, judicial review protects individuals against arbitrary deprivation of liberty and unfair proceedings. It also ensures that criminal justice is not only efficient but lawful, reasoned and rights-based.
17. Judicial Review and Property Rights
Property rights are frequently affected by public authority. Expropriation, zoning restrictions, administrative fines, confiscation, public debts, tax measures and enforcement proceedings may all interfere with property.
Judicial review examines whether such interference is lawful, pursues a legitimate public interest and imposes a proportionate burden. Even where the State pursues a valid public purpose, the individual should not be forced to bear an excessive and unfair burden.
For businesses and investors, this aspect of judicial review is particularly important. Legal certainty, protection of property and access to effective remedies are essential for economic confidence. Judicial review prevents arbitrary interference with assets and supports trust in the legal system.
18. Judicial Review and Freedom of Expression
Freedom of expression is another major area of constitutional judicial review. Restrictions may arise through criminal investigations, defamation cases, disciplinary sanctions, media regulations, internet access bans or administrative penalties.
Courts must examine whether the interference with expression was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society. Political speech, public-interest journalism, academic expression and criticism of public authorities generally require strong protection.
Judicial review in expression cases is essential because disproportionate sanctions may create a chilling effect. Even a single penalty may discourage others from participating in public debate. Therefore, courts must carefully balance expression with reputation, privacy, public order and national security.
19. Practical Importance for Lawyers
For lawyers, judicial review is not an abstract constitutional concept. It is a practical litigation tool. A strong case should identify the relevant public act, determine the proper review mechanism, raise constitutional arguments at the earliest stage and preserve the basis for later remedies.
In administrative cases, lawyers should focus on legality, competence, procedure, reasoning, proportionality and legitimate expectation. In civil and criminal cases, lawyers should raise fair trial, access to court and equality of arms arguments where relevant. In cases involving unconstitutional laws or presidential decrees, lawyers should consider concrete review. In cases where ordinary remedies fail to correct a rights violation, individual application should be assessed.
The most effective constitutional litigation is usually built before reaching the Constitutional Court. If constitutional objections are not raised before ordinary courts, the later individual application may face admissibility problems. Therefore, lawyers should create a clear procedural record.
20. Conclusion
Judicial review in Turkish constitutional law is a cornerstone of constitutional democracy and the rule of law. It ensures that laws, presidential decrees, administrative acts and judicial processes remain subject to constitutional limits. It protects both the objective legal order and individual rights.
The Constitutional Court plays the central role in constitutional judicial review. It reviews laws, presidential decrees and parliamentary rules of procedure, decides concrete review referrals and examines individual applications. Administrative courts also perform an essential role by reviewing administrative acts and actions. Ordinary courts and appellate courts contribute to judicial review by ensuring legality and fair trial standards within their own jurisdictions.
The importance of judicial review is especially clear in cases involving fundamental rights. Restrictions on rights must be lawful, necessary and proportionate. Administrative acts must be reviewable. Judicial proceedings must be fair. Public authorities must comply with binding court decisions.
For individuals, companies, foreign nationals and lawyers, judicial review is one of the most powerful protections against arbitrary public power in Türkiye. It provides legal remedies, strengthens constitutional accountability and gives practical effect to the supremacy of the Constitution.
FAQ: Judicial Review in Turkish Constitutional Law
What is judicial review in Turkish constitutional law?
Judicial review is the examination of laws, presidential decrees, administrative acts, judicial proceedings or public measures by courts to determine whether they comply with the Constitution and the law.
Which court performs constitutional review in Türkiye?
The Constitutional Court of Türkiye performs constitutional review of laws, presidential decrees and the Rules of Procedure of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye.
What is abstract review?
Abstract review is a direct annulment action before the Constitutional Court by authorized constitutional actors, without requiring a concrete dispute before an ordinary court.
What is concrete review?
Concrete review occurs when an ordinary court refers a constitutional question to the Constitutional Court during an ongoing case because the applicable law or presidential decree may be unconstitutional.
Can administrative acts be judicially reviewed in Türkiye?
Yes. Article 125 of the Constitution provides that judicial review is available against all actions and acts of administration.
Are presidential decrees subject to judicial review?
Yes. Presidential decrees are subject to constitutional review by the Constitutional Court, except for specific emergency or wartime decrees excluded by the Constitution.
Is individual application a form of judicial review?
Yes. Individual application is a rights-based constitutional remedy allowing the Constitutional Court to review alleged violations of fundamental rights by public authorities.
Is individual application the same as appeal?
No. Individual application is not a regular appeal. The Constitutional Court does not correct every legal error; it examines whether a constitutional right has been violated.
Are Constitutional Court decisions binding?
Yes. Constitutional Court decisions are final and binding on legislative, executive and judicial organs, administrative authorities, and real and legal persons.
Why is judicial review important for the rule of law?
Judicial review prevents arbitrary public power, protects fundamental rights, ensures legal certainty and gives practical effect to the supremacy of the Constitution.
Yanıt yok