Introduction
Emergency powers are among the most sensitive areas of constitutional law in Türkiye. Every constitutional democracy must be able to respond to war, rebellion, widespread violence, public disorder, natural disasters, epidemics and serious economic crises. At the same time, emergency powers may create serious risks for fundamental rights, separation of powers, judicial review and the rule of law. Turkish constitutional law therefore allows emergency administration, but places it within a constitutional framework.
The main constitutional provisions governing emergency powers are Article 15 and Article 119 of the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye. Article 15 regulates the suspension or derogation of fundamental rights and freedoms during war, mobilization or a state of emergency. Article 119 regulates the declaration, approval, extension and legal consequences of a state of emergency. Together, these provisions establish both the authority to act in extraordinary circumstances and the legal limits of that authority.
Emergency constitutional law is not a lawless zone. Even during an emergency, public authorities remain bound by legality, necessity, proportionality, international obligations and non-derogable rights. The purpose of emergency powers is not to permanently replace ordinary constitutional order. It is to restore public order, remove the threat and return to normal constitutional governance.
1. Meaning of Emergency Powers in Turkish Constitutional Law
Emergency powers are exceptional constitutional powers granted to public authorities when ordinary legal mechanisms are insufficient to respond to serious threats. Such threats may include war, attempted overthrow of constitutional order, widespread violent acts, natural disasters, dangerous epidemics or serious economic crises.
In Turkish constitutional law, emergency powers must be understood as temporary, exceptional and purpose-bound. They are temporary because they are limited in duration. They are exceptional because they deviate from ordinary administrative and rights-protection rules only where necessary. They are purpose-bound because they must be connected to the reasons that justify the emergency declaration.
The Constitutional Court has described emergency administration procedures as temporary and exceptional regimes applied where a severe threat to the existence of the State, the nation or public order cannot be avoided through ordinary powers. The Court has also emphasized that the aim of emergency regimes is to eliminate the reasons requiring emergency administration and return to the ordinary legal order.
This understanding is crucial. Emergency powers are not independent sources of unlimited state authority. They are constitutional tools designed to preserve the constitutional order under extraordinary conditions.
2. Constitutional Basis: Article 119
Article 119 is the central provision governing the state of emergency in Türkiye. It provides that the President of the Republic may declare a state of emergency in one region or nationwide for a period not exceeding six months in circumstances such as war, a situation necessitating war, mobilization, uprising, strong rebellious actions against the motherland and the Republic, widespread acts of violence threatening the indivisibility of the country and nation, violence aimed at destroying the constitutional order or fundamental rights and freedoms, serious deterioration of public order due to violence, natural disasters, dangerous epidemic diseases or serious economic crisis.
This list shows that Article 119 covers both security-related and non-security-related emergencies. A state of emergency may be declared not only because of violence or rebellion, but also because of natural disasters, epidemics or serious economic crisis.
However, the power to declare a state of emergency is not unlimited. The emergency must fall within the constitutional grounds. The declaration must be for a limited period. The decision must be published in the Official Gazette and submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye for approval on the same day. If Parliament is in recess, it must be immediately summoned, and Parliament may reduce, extend or lift the state of emergency.
3. The Role of the President in Declaring a State of Emergency
Under the current constitutional system, the President of the Republic has the authority to declare a state of emergency under Article 119. This reflects the presidential system introduced by the 2017 constitutional amendments, under which executive power is vested in the President.
The President’s power is significant because emergencies often require rapid action. Delayed response to war, violent disorder, epidemics or natural disasters may cause serious public harm. For this reason, the Constitution allows the executive to initiate the emergency process.
Yet the President’s declaration is not the final constitutional checkpoint. The declaration must be submitted to Parliament for approval on the same day. This requirement introduces democratic oversight into emergency governance. Executive speed is balanced with parliamentary legitimacy.
Therefore, the Turkish model gives the President a leading role in emergency response, but it does not entirely remove Parliament from the process. The constitutional design reflects the need for both rapid executive action and legislative control.
4. Parliamentary Approval and Democratic Oversight
Parliamentary approval is one of the most important constitutional limits on emergency powers. Article 119 provides that the emergency declaration must be submitted to the Grand National Assembly on the same day it is published. If Parliament is not in session, it must be immediately convened. Parliament may reduce the period of emergency, extend it or lift it.
This rule is essential for democratic legitimacy. A state of emergency affects not only administrative organization but also fundamental rights, public freedoms, public duties and the balance between state organs. Therefore, emergency governance cannot be left entirely to unilateral executive discretion.
Parliament’s role also matters during extensions. Article 119 provides that Parliament may extend the state of emergency for a maximum of four months each time upon the President’s request. In the event of war, the four-month limit does not apply.
This system ensures that emergency government remains periodically reviewable. A state of emergency cannot continue indefinitely without renewed constitutional action.
5. Duration and Temporariness
The maximum initial duration of a state of emergency is six months. This constitutional limitation reflects the temporary nature of emergency powers. Emergency powers are justified only while the extraordinary threat continues.
The Grand National Assembly may extend the period for a maximum of four months each time upon the President’s request, except in the event of war.
Temporariness is one of the most important safeguards in emergency law. If emergency measures continue after the emergency has ended, they may become ordinary restrictions without ordinary constitutional justification. This creates serious rule-of-law problems.
The Constitutional Court’s emergency-related reasoning emphasizes that emergency administration procedures are exceptional and temporary, and that their purpose is to remove the threat and return to ordinary legal order.
Therefore, emergency measures should be interpreted narrowly. Measures that may be acceptable during a genuine emergency may become unconstitutional if they continue after the emergency conditions disappear.
6. Article 15: Suspension of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
Article 15 regulates the suspension of fundamental rights and freedoms during war, mobilization or a state of emergency. It provides that the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms may be partially or entirely suspended, or measures derogating from constitutional guarantees may be taken, but only to the extent required by the exigencies of the situation and provided that obligations under international law are not violated.
This provision is the core rights-limitation rule for emergency periods. It does not give public authorities unlimited discretion. Three major limits are built into Article 15.
First, derogation must be required by the exigencies of the situation. This is a necessity test. Second, Türkiye’s obligations under international law must not be violated. Third, certain rights and guarantees remain protected even during emergency periods.
The Constitutional Court has stated that Article 15 does not entrust public authorities with unlimited power. Emergency measures must not infringe the rights protected in Article 15’s second paragraph, must comply with international law obligations and must remain within the extent required by the exigencies of the situation.
7. Non-Derogable Constitutional Rights
Even during a state of emergency, certain core rights cannot be suspended. Article 15 protects the individual’s right to life and corporeal and spiritual integrity, except where death occurs through acts in conformity with the law of war. It also provides that no one may be compelled to reveal religion, conscience, thought or opinion, or be accused on account of them; offences and penalties cannot be made retroactive; and no one may be held guilty until proven by a court ruling.
These guarantees form the constitutional minimum of emergency legality. They reflect the idea that some rights and principles are so fundamental that even extraordinary conditions cannot justify their destruction.
The prohibition on retroactive offences and penalties is especially important in criminal law. Emergency conditions cannot justify punishing conduct that was not an offence at the time it was committed. The presumption of innocence also continues to apply, meaning that persons cannot be treated as guilty without a court ruling.
These non-derogable guarantees protect human dignity and legal certainty at the moment when state power is at its strongest.
8. The Requirement of Necessity
The most important substantive limit on emergency powers is necessity. Article 15 allows derogation only to the extent required by the exigencies of the situation. This means that emergency measures must be connected to the emergency itself and must be necessary to address the threat.
The Constitutional Court has emphasized that it is not sufficient for a measure to be taken during an emergency period. The measure must also be related to eliminating the threat or danger that led to the declaration of emergency. If this relation cannot be established, Article 13, not Article 15, applies to the review of the measure even if it was taken during the emergency period.
This is a critical constitutional limit. It prevents public authorities from using emergency conditions as a general opportunity to regulate unrelated matters. For example, a measure justified by national security must have a concrete connection to national security. A measure justified by epidemic conditions must be connected to public health. Measures unrelated to the emergency should be examined under ordinary rights-limitation standards.
9. Proportionality During Emergency Periods
Proportionality continues to matter during emergency periods. Although Article 15 allows wider restrictions than ordinary periods, it does not eliminate constitutional balancing. The measure must not exceed what the situation requires.
The Constitutional Court has explained that, in examining emergency measures, it first assesses whether the measure complies with ordinary constitutional guarantees. If the measure breaches ordinary safeguards, the Court then examines whether the interference is justified under Article 15.
This two-stage analysis is important. Emergency law does not automatically validate every restriction. A measure may be unnecessary, excessive or unrelated to the emergency. A restriction may also impose a disproportionate burden compared with the public interest pursued.
For example, temporary restrictions on movement during a dangerous epidemic may be constitutionally more defensible than indefinite restrictions unrelated to public health. Temporary closure of a facility directly linked to a security threat may require different analysis from permanent closure without adequate judicial safeguards.
10. Emergency Presidential Decrees
Article 119 gives the President authority to issue presidential decrees on matters necessitated by the state of emergency. These decrees have the force of law, are published in the Official Gazette and must be submitted to the Grand National Assembly on the same day.
Emergency presidential decrees are exceptional legal instruments. They differ from ordinary presidential decrees because they may be issued in matters necessitated by the state of emergency and have force of law. However, they are not outside all control. Parliament must debate and decide on them within three months, except where Parliament cannot convene due to war or force majeure. If Parliament does not decide within this period, the decrees are automatically annulled.
This parliamentary approval mechanism is a major constitutional safeguard. It prevents emergency decrees from remaining indefinitely in the legal order without legislative consideration.
11. Constitutional Court Review of Emergency Decrees
Article 148 provides that the Constitutional Court examines the constitutionality of laws, presidential decrees and parliamentary rules of procedure, and decides individual applications. However, it also states that presidential decrees issued during a state of emergency or in time of war cannot be brought before the Constitutional Court alleging unconstitutionality as to form or substance.
This is one of the most debated areas of emergency constitutional law. The direct abstract or concrete constitutionality review of emergency presidential decrees is constitutionally excluded. However, this does not mean that every legal consequence of emergency governance is entirely immune from constitutional scrutiny.
The Constitutional Court has recognized that there is no constitutional or statutory provision preventing individual applications during emergency periods. It has held that the Court has authority to examine individual applications alleging that public power violated fundamental rights falling within the scope of individual application even when emergency administration procedures are in effect.
Therefore, while emergency decrees are not directly reviewable through norm review, individual rights violations arising from public power may still be examined through individual application, subject to admissibility and exhaustion requirements.
12. Individual Application During a State of Emergency
Individual application before the Constitutional Court remains important during emergency periods. Article 148 gives everyone the right to apply to the Constitutional Court on the ground that a fundamental right or freedom within the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights and guaranteed by the Constitution has been violated by public authorities, provided that ordinary legal remedies are exhausted.
The Constitutional Court has expressly stated that individual applications may be examined during emergency periods. It has reasoned that although emergency decree laws were excluded from norm review, no provision barred individual applications alleging rights violations during emergency administration.
This distinction is practically important. A person affected by an emergency measure may not be able to directly challenge the emergency decree as a legal norm before the Constitutional Court. However, after exhausting ordinary remedies, that person may bring an individual application if a concrete public act or judicial decision violated a protected constitutional right.
Common emergency-period individual application issues may include personal liberty, detention, property, freedom of expression, fair trial rights, effective remedy, dismissal from public office, closure of institutions, seizure of assets and access to judicial review.
13. Judicial Review of Administrative Measures
Emergency governance often produces administrative acts: dismissals, closures, license cancellations, travel restrictions, disciplinary measures, property transfers, seizure decisions, public employment measures and other executive actions.
Article 125 of the Constitution provides that judicial review is available against all actions and acts of administration. It also states that, in cases of state of emergency, mobilization and war, or on grounds of national security, public order and public health, the law may restrict the issuing of stay of execution orders.
This means that administrative judicial review remains constitutionally important, even though certain urgent remedies may be restricted by law in emergency contexts. Courts continue to play a key role in assessing legality, proportionality, individual rights and the factual basis of administrative measures.
A constitutional emergency system must not eliminate all judicial remedies. Effective review is necessary to prevent emergency measures from becoming arbitrary or permanent.
14. Emergency Powers and Freedom of Expression
Freedom of expression is often affected during emergency periods. Public authorities may adopt measures concerning media outlets, publications, online content, public statements or speech alleged to threaten national security or public order.
The Constitutional Court’s 2021 press release concerning Law No. 6755 is an important example of proportionality review in an emergency-related context. The Court annulled a provision enabling the closure of certain media outlets and transfer of their assets, holding that permanent closure without adequate safeguards raised serious problems for freedom of expression and press freedom; it emphasized that direct closure is among the most severe interferences and that less restrictive measures and speedy judicial safeguards are important.
This illustrates a broader principle: even where national security and public order are legitimate aims, restrictions on expression and press freedom must be lawful, necessary and proportionate. A state of emergency does not eliminate the democratic value of pluralism, public debate and press activity.
15. Emergency Powers and Property Rights
Emergency measures may also affect property rights. Closures of institutions, transfer of assets, freezing of accounts, seizure, confiscation-like measures, administrative fines and restrictions on business activity may all interfere with property.
Property rights may be restricted in public interest, but restrictions must have a legal basis and must not impose an excessive burden. During emergencies, the State may need broader powers to neutralize threats or manage disasters, but property measures should remain connected to the emergency and should include adequate safeguards.
Where property is transferred, seized or rendered unusable, courts should examine whether the measure was necessary, proportionate and accompanied by effective remedies. A measure that permanently deprives a person or company of property without sufficient judicial safeguards may raise serious constitutional concerns.
Emergency property measures often intersect with fair trial rights and effective remedy. If a person cannot challenge the measure effectively, property protection becomes theoretical.
16. Emergency Powers and Personal Liberty
Personal liberty and security are among the most sensitive rights during emergency periods. Detention, custody periods, restrictions on access to files, limitations on lawyer-client meetings and special criminal procedure rules may all arise in emergency contexts.
The Constitutional Court has held that emergency conditions may be relevant when assessing detention measures, but detention must still be reviewed constitutionally. It has examined whether grounds for detention are relevant and sufficient, whether proceedings are conducted with due diligence and whether measures remain proportionate in light of the circumstances.
This approach is important because personal liberty cannot be treated as an administrative convenience. Even during emergency periods, detention must have a legal basis, be connected to a legitimate purpose and remain subject to judicial review.
17. Emergency Powers and the Right to a Fair Trial
The right to a fair trial may be affected by emergency measures, especially in criminal proceedings and administrative cases involving emergency decrees or emergency-related acts. Restrictions may concern access to evidence, time limits, defense rights, court access, reasoning of judgments or availability of remedies.
Emergency conditions may justify certain procedural adaptations, but they should not destroy the essence of fair trial rights. Courts must remain independent and impartial. Parties should be able to present their case effectively. Judicial decisions should be reasoned. Final judgments should be implemented.
The presumption of innocence is expressly protected under Article 15 as a non-derogable guarantee. This means that even emergency conditions cannot justify treating someone as guilty without a court ruling.
18. International Law as a Constitutional Limit
Article 15 expressly states that derogations during emergency periods must not violate obligations under international law.
This is a crucial constitutional limit. Türkiye’s international human rights obligations remain relevant during emergencies. International law may allow derogation from certain rights in exceptional circumstances, but such derogation is subject to necessity, proportionality, non-discrimination and protection of non-derogable rights.
International law also reinforces the idea that emergency measures must be temporary and strictly required. The State cannot use emergency powers to permanently dismantle fundamental rights or eliminate judicial protection.
For lawyers, Article 15’s reference to international obligations is strategically important. It allows constitutional arguments to be supported by international human rights standards, especially in cases involving liberty, fair trial, expression, property and effective remedy.
19. The Risk of Normalizing Emergency Measures
One of the greatest risks in emergency constitutional law is normalization. A measure adopted for an extraordinary threat may continue after the threat disappears. A temporary restriction may become permanent. Emergency powers may gradually reshape ordinary legal order.
Turkish constitutional law addresses this risk through duration limits, parliamentary approval, automatic annulment rules for emergency decrees not approved within the constitutional period, and the requirement that emergency measures be connected to the emergency.
The Constitutional Court’s analysis in emergency-related cases also reflects the importance of distinguishing between emergency and ordinary periods. Where an emergency-related rule may continue beyond the emergency, ordinary constitutional standards such as Article 13 may become decisive.
This distinction is essential for the rule of law. Emergency law must not become a permanent substitute for ordinary constitutional governance.
20. Practical Legal Strategy in Emergency-Related Cases
Emergency-related litigation requires careful legal strategy. A lawyer should first identify the legal basis of the measure: Is it based on an emergency presidential decree, ordinary law, administrative act or court decision? The next step is to determine whether ordinary remedies are available and whether they must be exhausted before individual application.
The argument should then focus on constitutional limits. Was there a valid emergency? Was the measure connected to the emergency? Was it necessary? Was it proportionate? Did it interfere with non-derogable rights? Was judicial review available? Were effective remedies provided? Did the measure continue beyond the emergency without ordinary constitutional justification?
In cases involving liberty, the focus should be on legal basis, strong suspicion, reasons for detention, proportionality and review procedures. In property cases, the focus should be on legal basis, public interest, fair balance and compensation. In expression cases, the focus should be on necessity, chilling effect and less restrictive alternatives. In administrative cases, the focus should be on legality, reasoning, proportionality and access to judicial review.
Conclusion
Emergency powers in Türkiye are constitutionally recognized but constitutionally limited. Article 119 allows the President to declare a state of emergency in cases such as war, rebellion, widespread violence, serious deterioration of public order, natural disasters, dangerous epidemics or serious economic crisis. The declaration must be published, submitted to Parliament on the same day, and Parliament may reduce, extend or lift the emergency.
Article 15 allows partial or full suspension of fundamental rights and freedoms, or derogation from constitutional guarantees, but only to the extent required by the exigencies of the situation and without violating international obligations. It also protects core non-derogable guarantees such as the right to life, corporeal and spiritual integrity, freedom from compelled disclosure of religion or thought, non-retroactivity of offences and penalties, and presumption of innocence.
Emergency presidential decrees may be issued on matters necessitated by the emergency and have force of law, but they must be submitted to Parliament and decided within the constitutional period, otherwise they are automatically annulled. Direct constitutional review of emergency presidential decrees is excluded under Article 148, yet individual application remains available for alleged rights violations by public power during emergency periods.
For individuals, companies, lawyers and public authorities, the central point is clear: emergency does not mean absence of law. Emergency powers must remain temporary, necessary, proportionate, related to the emergency and respectful of non-derogable constitutional guarantees. A constitutional democracy may need extraordinary powers to survive extraordinary threats, but those powers must always be exercised under constitutional discipline.
FAQ: Emergency Powers and Constitutional Limits in Türkiye
What is the constitutional basis of emergency powers in Türkiye?
The main constitutional provisions are Article 15 and Article 119 of the Constitution. Article 15 regulates suspension or derogation of fundamental rights during emergencies, while Article 119 regulates the declaration and administration of a state of emergency.
Who may declare a state of emergency in Türkiye?
The President of the Republic may declare a state of emergency under Article 119, subject to publication in the Official Gazette and submission to the Grand National Assembly on the same day.
How long can a state of emergency last?
The initial declaration may not exceed six months. Parliament may extend it for a maximum of four months each time upon the President’s request, except in the event of war.
Can fundamental rights be suspended during a state of emergency?
Yes, Article 15 allows partial or full suspension or derogation, but only to the extent required by the exigencies of the situation and without violating international law obligations.
Are any rights protected even during emergencies?
Yes. Article 15 protects core guarantees such as the right to life, corporeal and spiritual integrity, freedom from compelled disclosure of religion or thought, non-retroactivity of offences and penalties, and presumption of innocence.
What are emergency presidential decrees?
They are decrees issued by the President on matters necessitated by the state of emergency. They have force of law, must be published and must be submitted to Parliament on the same day.
Are emergency presidential decrees reviewed by the Constitutional Court?
Article 148 excludes direct constitutionality review of presidential decrees issued during a state of emergency or in time of war.
Can individuals still apply to the Constitutional Court during a state of emergency?
Yes. The Constitutional Court has held that individual applications alleging rights violations by public power may be examined during emergency periods.
What is the most important constitutional limit on emergency measures?
The key limit is necessity. A measure must be required by the emergency, related to the threat and proportionate to the aim pursued.
Why are emergency powers important in Turkish constitutional law?
They allow the State to respond to extraordinary threats, but they also require strict constitutional limits to protect rights, democracy, judicial review and the rule of law.
Yanıt yok