Appealing Final Court Decisions in Turkey at Constitutional Court

Introduction

Legal remedies serve as essential mechanisms to review judicial decisions and correct errors, reinforcing the principles of the rule of law. However, to maintain social and legal order, disputes must eventually come to a conclusive end.

This blog explores the framework for appealing final judgments in Türkiye under the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), including an overview of ordinary and extraordinary legal remedies and recent case law from the Constitutional Court.

Finality of Court Judgments and Legal Remedies

What Is a Legal Remedy?

A legal remedy is the opportunity to bring a court decision before another judicial authority for review. Legal remedies serve the goals of legal certainty, consistency in case law, and quality adjudication.

Finality of Judgments

In Turkish law, finality appears in two forms:

• Formal Finality (Sekli Kesinlik): No further appeals are possible.

• Substantive Finality (Maddi Kesinlik): The matter cannot be relitigated between the same parties on the same grounds.

Types of Legal Remedies in Türkiye

Ordinary Legal Remedies

Ordinary legal remedies apply to judgments that are not yet final:

• Appeal to Regional Courts (Istinaf)

• Appeal to the Court of Cassation (Temyiz)

These routes are regulated under Articles 341 ff. and 361 ff. of the HMK. Not every decision is subject to appeal—the law specifies which decisions are appealable.

Extraordinary Legal Remedy: Request for Retrial

Final judgments may still be challenged under exceptional circumstances through a retrial (yargılamanın yenilenmesi), governed by Article 374 of HMK. Only specifically enumerated grounds qualify; general dissatisfaction or minor errors do not.

Submitting Appeals Against Final Judgments

Despite the principle of finality, parties sometimes attempt to file ordinary appeals against final judgments. Article 346 HMK allows the court to dismiss such appeals for lack of jurisdiction, which can itself be appealed.

• If the regional court disagrees with the dismissal, it can revoke the lower court’s decision and proceed with a review.

• If the Court of Cassation finds the appeal improper, it affirms the dismissal without reviewing the merits.

Risks of Frivolous or Bad-Faith Appeals

To deter abuse, Articles 351, 368, and 329 HMK impose consequences for bad-faith appeals. These include:

• Legal costs

• Partial or full attorney fees

• Disciplinary fines ranging from 500 TL to 5,000 TL

Constitutional Court: When Does the 30-Day Period Begin?

Recent rulings by the Turkish Constitutional Court (AYM) have complicated the question of when the 30-day period for individual constitutional applications begins:

Key Decisions:

• Hüseyin Aşkın Case (2020): Application rejected based on when the attorney read the decision on UYAP.

• Ümran Özkan Case (2023): Court ruled that the application period began when the plaintiff read the decision on UYAP, even though the official notice to the attorney came later.

Legal Concerns:

• This interpretation conflicts with Article 47 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, which requires notification or actual knowledge.

• The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) emphasizes that legal deadlines should start when applicants can reasonably be expected to know of the decision.

• The lack of clarity burdens both plaintiffs and attorneys, possibly causing unjust denial of access to justice.

Recommendations

To prevent confusion:

• UYAP should clearly indicate when a decision is accessed.

• Plaintiffs should promptly inform their lawyers if they view case outcomes on UYAP.

• Lawyers should verify with clients before filing constitutional applications.

Also Read; How to challenge a civil court decision

Conclusion

While the rule of law requires judicial oversight through legal remedies, it also demands closure through finality. Filing appeals against final judgments without grounds is legally risky and potentially punishable.

Furthermore, recent rulings by the Constitutional Court on procedural deadlines challenge the predictability of legal timelines, creating new hurdles for applicants. Legal professionals and clients alike must remain cautious, transparent, and informed to safeguard their rights.