Constitutional Court Decision on Incorrect Indication of the Time Limit for Legal Remedies and the Right of Access to a Court
Introduction
One of the fundamental elements of the right to a fair trial is the right to access a court. The right to access a court encompasses not only the ability of individuals to bring a dispute before a court of first instance, but also their ability to effectively pursue the legal remedies provided for by law. Accordingly, ensuring that legal remedies such as appeal, appeal on points of law, or rectification of a decision are accessible and foreseeable is important for the protection of the right of access to a court.
The imposition of time limits on the pursuit of legal remedies constitutes a legitimate restriction aimed at ensuring legal certainty and the conclusion of proceedings within a reasonable time. Nevertheless, the applicable time limits must be indicated to the parties clearly, foreseeably, and accurately. Indeed, where a person is unable to effectively exercise the right to pursue a legal remedy due to incorrect information provided by a judicial authority, this may give rise to a constitutional issue concerning the right of access to a court.
In this context, the application of Ege Enerji Entegre Tarım ve Gıda Sanayi Ticaret A.Ş., decided by the Constitutional Court on 7 January 2026 under application no. 2023/5880 and published in Official Gazette no. 33226 dated 16 April 2026 (the “Decision”)[1], contains significant assessments as to whether an applicant may be required to bear the consequences of a court’s incorrect indication of the applicable time limit for pursuing a legal remedy.
In the Decision, the Constitutional Court examined, under the right of access to a court as an element of the right to a fair trial, the dismissal as time-barred of the applicant’s appeal before the Court of Cassation, which had been filed in reliance on the time limit indicated by the court.
The Facts Giving Rise to the Application and the Proceedings
In the case giving rise to the application, the applicant filed an action for non-pecuniary damages on the grounds of an infringement of its personality rights. Following the retrial conducted upon reversal, the Aydın 2nd Civil Court of First Instance (the “Court”) dismissed the action on 29 June 2021.
The applicant’s counsel appealed the judgment before the Court of Cassation on 15 October 2021. By an additional decision dated 27 October 2021, the Court dismissed the appeal as time barred. In its additional decision, the Court stated that an appeal could be lodged with the Court of Cassation within fifteen days of service of the decision.
The applicant appealed for the additional decision, arguing that the reasoned judgment on which that decision was based had not been duly served. The additional decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 1 November 2021, and the applicant lodged its appeal on 11 November 2021. Accordingly, the appeal was lodged within the fifteen-day period indicated in the Court’s additional decision, but after the expiry of the seven-day period applicable under the relevant legislation.
In its decision dated 15 March 2022, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (the “Chamber”) noted that the Court’s additional decision had been served on the applicant’s counsel on 1 November 2021. The Chamber concluded that, pursuant to the fifth paragraph of Article 432 of the former Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086, applicable by virtue of the second paragraph of Provisional Article 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, the applicable time limit for appeal was seven days. It therefore dismissed the appeal by a majority on the grounds that the appeal lodged on 11 November 2021 had been filed after the expiry of the statutory seven-day period.
The applicant filed a request for rectification of the Chamber’s decision. In its request, the applicant argued that the time limit for appeal had been incorrectly indicated in the Court’s additional decision and that, although the statutory time limit had expired, it had lodged its appeal within the period specified by the Court. The applicant further referred to previous decisions in which the Constitutional Court had found violations of the right of access to a court in similar circumstances. However, by its decision dated 12 October 2022, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation also dismissed the request for rectification by a majority.
The applicant subsequently lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, alleging that the dismissal of its appeal as time-barred had violated its right of access to a court.
The Right of Access to a Court and Time Limits for Pursuing Legal Remedies
The Constitutional Court examined the application from the perspective of the right of access to a court, as an element of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution.
The right of access to a court guarantees that individuals may bring their claims and defenses before a judicial authority and request that their dispute be examined effectively. Where the law provides for a legal remedy, this guarantee also encompasses the ability to pursue that remedy. Accordingly, the dismissal of an application for a legal remedy without examination on the grounds that it was not filed within the prescribed time limit may constitute an interference with the right of access to a court.
Nevertheless, subjecting legal remedies to specific time limits does not, in itself, violate the right of access to a court. Such time limits serve legitimate aims, including preventing proceedings from being unduly prolonged, ensuring that disputes become final within a reasonable time, and safeguarding legal certainty. Accordingly, the imposition of time limits for bringing an action or pursuing legal remedies is constitutionally permissible, provided that such limits do not render access to a court impossible.
However, a distinction must be drawn between the existence of statutory time limits and the way those time limits are applied in a particular case. Where a person is deprived of the opportunity to bring an action or pursue a legal remedy because the applicable time limit has been manifestly misapplied or incorrectly indicated by a judicial authority, this may result in a violation of the right of access to a court
The Courts’ Obligation to Correctly Indicate the Available Legal Remedy and the Applicable Time Limit
The Decision also draws attention to the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Constitution. Under this provision, the State is required to indicate in its acts the legal remedies and authorities available to the persons concerned, as well as the applicable time limits. This provision aims to prevent individuals from facing uncertainty as to which legal remedy they should pursue, before which authority, and within what period, in view of the dispersed and technical nature of the applicable legislation.
The obligation of courts to correctly indicate the available legal remedy and the applicable time limit in their decisions is not merely a formal requirement. Since the incorrect indication of the legal remedy, the competent authority, or the applicable time limit may prevent a person from exercising the right to seek legal redress, this obligation constitutes a constitutional safeguard directly linked to legal certainty, the right to seek legal redress, and the right of access to a court.
Nevertheless, the incorrect indication of the time limit for pursuing a legal remedy in a court decision does not alter the statutory time limit. For the purposes of the constitutional assessment, the decisive considerations are whether the person acted in reliance on the time limit indicated by the court and whether access to the relevant legal remedy was prevented by requiring that person to bear the full consequences of an error attributable to the court.
In its previous decisions[2], the Constitutional Court likewise found it disproportionate to require applicants who had acted in reliance on the time limits indicated by judicial authorities to bear the consequences of the legal uncertainty created by the courts. The Decision follows the same approach and assesses the impact of the court’s incorrect indication of the applicable time limit on the applicant’s access to the legal remedy.
The Constitutional Court’s Assessment
The Constitutional Court found that, although the applicable time limit for appeal before the Court of Cassation was seven days, the Court had stated in its additional decision that the time limit was fifteen days from the service of the decision. The applicant acted in reliance on the fifteen-day period indicated in the Court’s decision. Nevertheless, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal as time-barred on the grounds that the statutory seven-day period had expired.
The Constitutional Court accepted that the interference had a legal basis and pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring legal certainty. However, having regard to the courts’ obligation to correctly indicate the available legal remedy and the applicable time limit, it found it disproportionate to require the applicant to bear the consequences of the incorrectly indicated time limit. The Constitutional Court concluded that a fair balance had not been struck between the burden imposed on the applicant by the Chamber’s interpretation and the legitimate aim pursued.
Accordingly, the Constitutional Court unanimously held that the applicant’s right of access to a court, as an element of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution, had been violated. It further ordered the reopening of the proceedings to eliminate the consequences of the violation and directed that a copy of the Decision be sent to the Aydın 2nd Civil Court of First Instance for transmission to the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation.
The Principles Established by the Decision
The Decision establishes important principles regarding the assessment of the impact of an incorrect indication of the available legal remedy or the applicable time limit in a court decision on an individual’s right to pursue that remedy.
First, the right to pursue a legal remedy falls within the scope of the right of access to a court. Accordingly, the dismissal of an application for a legal remedy as time-barred may constitute interference with the right of access to a court.
Second, prescribing time limits for legal remedies and requiring compliance with those limits pursue legitimate aims relating to legal certainty and the conclusion of proceedings within a reasonable time. However, those legitimate aims do not, in themselves, justify requiring the applicant to bear all the consequences of incorrect information provided by a court.
Third, the courts’ obligation to correctly indicate the available legal remedy and the applicable time limit constitutes a constitutional safeguard. The time limit stated in a court decision may create legal certainty for the party concerned. Where that party acts in reliance on the indicated time limit, the uncertainty arising from the incorrect information should not, as a rule, operate to that party’s detriment.
Finally, where a person acts in reliance on a time limit incorrectly indicated by a court, the refusal to examine the relevant application solely on the grounds that the actual statutory time limit has expired may, depending on the circumstances of the case, constitute a disproportionate interference with the right of access to a court
Assessment and Conclusion
The Decision is significant in that it sets out the balance to be struck between the binding nature of time limits for pursuing legal remedies and the courts’ obligation to provide the parties with accurate information. The Constitutional Court accepted that the interference in the present case had a legal basis and pursued a legitimate aim. However, it did not consider proportionate the refusal to examine the applicant’s appeal, where the applicant had acted in reliance on the fifteen-day period incorrectly indicated by the Court.
Nevertheless, the Decision does not establish a general rule that a time limit incorrectly indicated by a court will, in all circumstances, replace the statutory time limit. In assessing whether a violation has occurred, the decisive considerations are whether the applicant acted in reliance on the incorrect information and whether the dismissal of the application imposed an excessive burden on the applicant in the circumstances of the case. In this respect, the Decision confirms that information concerning available legal remedies and the applicable time limits cannot be regarded as merely formal guidance; rather, it constitutes a constitutional safeguard ensuring the effective exercise of the right of access to a court.
- Constitutional Court, Ege Enerji Entegre Tarım ve Gıda Sanayi Ticaret A.Ş. Application, App. No. 2023/5880, 7 January 2026, Official Gazette No. 33226, 16 April 2026.
- Constitutional Court, Özbakım Özel Sağlık Hiz. İnş. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. Application, App. No. 2014/13156, 20 April 2017; Constitutional Court, Kommersan Kombassan Mermer Maden İşletmeleri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. and Others Application, App. No. 2013/7114, 20 January 2016.
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
The Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Judgments of the Court of Cassation (the “Assembly”), by its Decision dated 8 May 2026, numbered 2021/8 E. and 2026/1 K. (the “Decision”), examined the divergence in case law as to whether a claim not included…
In disputes between company shareholders, the determination of jurisdiction constitutes a contested area in both doctrine and practice, particularly with respect to the scope and limits of the exclusive jurisdiction rule set forth in Article 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure…
Mediation was introduced into the Turkish legal system in 2012 as a voluntary dispute resolution mechanism and has produced successful outcomes over time.
As of 1 January 2018, mediation became a mandatory precondition to litigation in certain disputes arising from labor law; as of 1 January 2019…
The Court of Cassation General Assembly on Civil Matters (“General Assembly”), by its decision dated 08.10.2025 and numbered 2024/572 E. and 2025/607 K. (“Decision”), in the dispute brought before it, prior to examining the merits of the matter, discussed and assessed as a preliminary issue whether the…
Article 326 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (“CCP”) stipulates that, where the parties are each partially successful in the proceedings, litigation costs shall be allocated between them in proportion to their respective degrees of justification…
One of the most significant safeguards afforded by the right to a fair trial is the right of access to a court. Moreover, one of the essential components of the right of access is the ability of individuals to make effective use of appellate and other legal remedies…
The Turkish Constitutional Court (“TCC”), in its decision dated 17 June 2025 and numbered E.2024/237, K.2025/137 (“Decision”), decided that significantly reshapes civil procedural law. The Court annulled the phrase “…and this decision shall be binding on the other court” contained in Article 166(1) of the Code...
With its decision dated 22.05.2024 and numbered 2022/31465 E. (“Decision”) published in the Official Gazette dated 22.10.2024 and numbered 32700, the Constitutional Court examined the claim that the decision to deem the case as not filed due to the failure to complete the addresses and identification numbers...
Under the principle of “procedure precedes substance” prevailing in Turkish law, the correct determination of the period for filing a lawsuit is crucial. In its decision dated 02.05.2024 numbered 2020/13187 E. and 02.05.2024 K. (“Decision”), the Constitutional Court examined the claim that the right of access...
The Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) regulates the judicial procedure in our jurisprudence and foresees prescription periods at each stage. Prescription periods constitute a form of sanction that causes the loss of the use of the right for the party who does not comply with the time limit...
The concept of intervention has fundamental differences in administrative trial procedure compared to civil procedure. These differences are critically important in terms of the intervenor’s right to seek legal remedies in the administrative trial procedure. As is known, there are two ways to become a plaintiff in an...
With its decision dated June 8, 2023 on the application numbered 2019/17969, the Constitutional Court, as published in the Official Gazette numbered 32331 on October 6, 2023 (“Decision”), considered the rejection of a lawsuit for an unquantified debt related to the payment of labor dues due to the absence of a legal...
The Grand General Assembly of the Unification of Jurisprudence ("GGAUJ") ruled with the Decision of the Grand General Assembly of the Unification of Jurisprudence dated 28.04.2023 numbered 2021/5 E. 2023/2 K. ("Decision") that if the legal remedy period is erroneously indicated longer in the decision in...
The issue of proving damages in cases related to the excess damages is frequently subject to the examination and evaluation of both the Supreme Court and different chambers of the Court of Cassation. With its decision dated 29.03.2022 and numbered 2021/928 E. 2022/401 K., the Court of Cassation General...
Under Turkish law, the term “limits of certainty” refers to monetary limits to the rights of appeal and cassation. While it is possible to appeal to a higher court against the decisions of the courts of the first instance and the courts of appeal where the amount of the claim or the value of the case is above these...
The Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers and the Chambers of the Court of Cassation both issued opinions on whether a lawsuit filed for not due receivables should be dismissed with or without prejudice by the court on the grounds that the time of performance has not yet come, and whether the...
In general terms, the amendment of pleading is accepted as an exception to the prohibition of expanding and amending claims and defenses. With the amendment of pleading, the parties can partially or completely correct or amend the procedural actions that they could not perform due to the prohibition...
The possibility of appellate review of questions of fact, as well as of law, was introduced into Turkish law with an amendment made in the abrogated Civil Procedure Code No. 1086, through Law No. 5239 dated 26.09.2004. However, the Regional Courts of Appeal, which are the courts...
Recently, the requirements of unquantified debt lawsuits have been subjected to the examination and review of the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers, in its decision dated 07.07.2021 and numbered 2021/485 E. 2021/971 K. (“Decision”), examined whether...
In a state where the rule of law prevails, legal remedies are indispensable to eliminate judicial errors through the supervision of court decisions. However, legal disputes must be settled at some point and decisions must be finalized. In this Newsletter, appellate procedures against final court decisions will be...