The Constitutional Court’s Assessment of the Impact of Prolonged Interim Measures on the Right to Property
Introduction
In its recent individual application judgments, the Turkish Constitutional Court (the “Court”) has examined the prolonged application of provisional attachments and interim injunctions over assets during ongoing proceedings under the right to property guaranteed by Article 35 of the Constitution. In this context, the Court found violations of the right to property in its judgments dated 24 December 2025 (Application No. 2021/14470), 29 January 2026 (Application No. 2024/47620), 4 March 2026 (Application No. 2020/843) and 23 December 2025 (Application No. 2023/51994).
Provisional attachments and interim injunctions are forms of interim legal protection intended to safeguard rights before a dispute is finally resolved on its merits. However, where a restriction intended to be temporary remains in place for years, it may significantly affect an owner’s ability to exercise legal and economic control over immovable property and other assets. This article summarizes the facts and the Court’s assessments in the judgments concerned, before examining the principles established in its case law for assessing interim protective measures considering the right to property.
Violation of the Right to Property Due to Prolonged Provisional Attachment of Immovable Property
In the case decided on 24 December 2025 (Application No. 2021/14470), a bank brought an action for the avoidance of dispositions, alleging that immovable properties belonging to its debtor had been transferred collusively to the applicants, who were third parties. In those proceedings, provisional attachments were imposed on the properties acquired by the applicants on 22 September 2017. The applicants sought the lifting or modification of the attachments. Their requests were dismissed, and their subsequent appeals were unsuccessful because the relevant decisions were not subject to appeal.
The applicants, Burcu Gündoğdu and Fülya Gündoğdu, applied to the Court alleging a violation of their right to property on the grounds that the prolonged provisional attachments had prevented them from disposing of their immovable properties.
The Court accepted that securing the opposing party’s claim served a legitimate aim. Nevertheless, it is considered that the initial justification for the measure was not, by itself, sufficient to justify its continuation throughout the entire period. Emphasizing that interim protective measures must be proportionate in both scope and duration, the Court concluded that the prolonged attachments had imposed an excessive burden on the applicants and found a violation of the right to property.
The Court stated that its finding of a violation did not automatically require the provisional attachments to be lifted and awarded the applicants non-pecuniary compensation, within the limits of their claim.[1]
Violations of the Right to Property Due to Prolonged Interim Injunctions
Application of Burhanettin Karadeli and Others
The application decided by the Court on 4 March 2026 (Application No. 2020/843) concerned an alleged violation of the right to property arising from the prolonged application of an interim injunction over immovable property subject to an action for cancellation of title and registration brought in connection with a construction contract in exchange for a share of the land. [2]
In the underlying proceedings, which sought termination of the construction contract in exchange for a share of the land and cancellation of title and registration, an interim injunction was registered against the properties on 26 August 2014 to prevent their transfer or assignment to third parties.
The Court held that the prolonged interim injunction violated the right to property guaranteed by Article 35 of the Constitution and awarded the applicants non-pecuniary compensation.
Application of Erdem Karamanoğlu and Others
In the application decided on 29 January 2026 (Application No. 2024/47620), the applicants alleged that the prolonged interim injunctions imposed on their immovable properties had violated their right to property. [3] The Court emphasised that the injunctions, which restricted the right to property and had remained in effect from 2009 until the date of the application, had to be applied proportionately in terms of both scope and duration. It accordingly found a violation of the applicants’ right to property.
Application of Alaaddin Çelik and Others
The application decided on 23 December 2025 (Application No. 2023/51994) concerned an alleged violation of the right to property due to the prolonged application of an interim injunction. [4]The Court found that the injunction, which had remained in force for more than twenty-one years, was disproportionate in duration and accordingly held that the applicants’ right to property had been violated.
The Constitutional Court’s Assessment
According to the Court’s case law, restrictions on an owner’s power to dispose of assets through provisional attachment or an interim injunction may constitute an interference with the right to property even where they do not amount to a complete deprivation of possessions. Such measures are intended to prevent the outcome of judicial proceedings from being rendered ineffective and to safeguard the rights of third parties. Nevertheless, the restriction imposed on the right to property must be proportionate to the aim pursued by the measure.
In examining each of the applications discussed above, the Court referred to the constitutional principles previously established in Hesna Funda Baltalı and Baltalı Gıda Hayvancılık San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. (Application No. 2014/17196, 25 October 2018), İhsan Metin (Application No. 2015/7044, 23 January 2019), İbrahim Geçer (Application No. 2014/19056, 19 February 2019) and Şeyhmus Terece (Application No. 2017/26532, 23 July 2020), and applied the criteria set out in those precedents.
Reiterating those criteria, the Court noted that allowing interim protective measures restricting the right to property to remain in place for an unreasonable period could defer the exercise of owners’ rights to an uncertain future. It stressed that judicial authorities must act promptly and diligently while a measure remains in force and must strike a fair balance between the interests of the parties to the dispute. In this context, the Court observed that the fact that a measure was initially suitable and necessary does not justify its indefinite continuation.
Principles Established in the Constitutional Court’s Case Law
The judgments in Hesna Funda Baltalı and Baltalı Gıda Hayvancılık San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti., İbrahim Geçer and Şeyhmus Terece are particularly significant in the development of these principles. The reasoning in those judgments continues to be relied upon in subsequent individual applications.
In these precedents, the Court recognized that the right to property protects not only against complete deprivation of possessions but also against restrictions on the exercise of legal and economic powers over property. Although interim protective measures may legitimately be imposed to secure a claim or prevent judicial proceedings from becoming ineffective, their scope and duration must remain proportionate to the objective pursued.
In Hesna Funda Baltalı and Baltalı Gıda Hayvancılık San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti., the Court found that the continuation of a provisional attachment for more than ten years imposed an excessive burden on the owner. It also considered the absence of an effective legal remedy through which the damage caused by the prolonged attachment could be redressed. Although a measure may entail a certain burden for the owner, that burden must not become excessive and extraordinary, or there must be appropriate means of redressing the resulting damage.[5]
In İbrahim Geçer, the Court considered that an interim injunction registered against an immovable property for approximately twenty-five years had significantly and indefinitely restricted the applicant’s ability to exercise legal and economic control over it, with an evident adverse effect on its value. Considering that the resulting damage had not been remedied, the Court found a violation of the right to property.[6]
In Şeyhmus Terece, the continued application of an interim injunction in proceedings originally brought against the deceased and subsequently pursued by the heirs, together with the failure to conduct those proceedings with sufficient expedition, was examined in the context of the State’s positive obligations regarding the right to property.[7]
In İhsan Metin, the Court distinguished between an allegation that a provisional attachment had been imposed wrongfully and a complaint that the measure had remained in place for an unreasonable period. The first allegation was declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust the compensation remedy under Article 259 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. By contrast, the Court held that this remedy was not effective in respect of a complaint concerning the excessive duration of the measure attributable to the conduct of judicial authorities. Since the attachment had lasted approximately two years and four months in that case, however, the Court considered the duration reasonable and declared that part of the application manifestly ill-founded. Although İhsan Metin did not result in a finding of a violation, it remains relevant for explaining the constitutional criteria subsequently applied in violation judgments.[8]
Considered together, these judgments show that the fact that a measure was initially justified and necessary does not legitimize its unlimited continuation throughout judicial proceedings. Public authorities must strike a fair balance between the interests of the creditor and the owner’s right to property, taking account of the measure’s scope, duration and the burden resulting from its continuation. A measure maintained for an unreasonable period may become disproportionate by postponing the exercise of ownership rights to an uncertain future.
Conclusion
The judgments examined above demonstrate that interim protective measures, such as provisional attachment and interim injunctions, must be assessed under the principle of proportionality in relation to the right to property not only when they are initially imposed but also throughout the period in which they remain in force.
The principles established in the earlier judgments of Hesna Funda Baltalı and Baltalı Gıda Hayvancılık San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti., İbrahim Geçer and Şeyhmus Terece continue to be applied in recent judgments finding violations of the right to property.
Accordingly, consideration must be given not only to the purpose of the measure but also to the effect that its prolonged application has on the owner’s ability to exercise legal and economic control over the property. Judicial authorities’ obligation to act with the expedition and diligence required to resolve the dispute, and to maintain interim protective measures without imposing an extraordinary burden on the owner, is essential to safeguarding the right to property guaranteed by Article 35 of the Constitution.
- See Burcu Gündoğdu and Fülya Gündoğdu (First Section, Application No. 2021/14470, 24 December 2025). https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2021/14470
- See Burhanettin Karadeli and Others (First Section, Application No. 2020/843, 4 March 2026). https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2020/843
- See Erdem Karamanoğlu and Others (Second Section, Application No. 2024/47620, 29 January 2026). https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2024/47620
- See Alaaddin Çelik and Others (Second Section, Application No. 2023/51994, 23 December 2025). https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2023/51994
- See Hesna Funda Baltalı and Baltalı Gıda Hayvancılık San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. (Plenary, Application No. 2014/17196, 25 October 2018). https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2014/17196
- See İbrahim Geçer (First Section, Application No. 2014/19056, 19 February 2019). https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2014/19056
- See Şeyhmus Terece (Plenary, Application No. 2017/26532, 23 July 2020). https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2017/26532
- See İhsan Metin (Second Section, Application No. 2015/7044, 23 January 2019). https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2015/7044
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…
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…
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...