The Recent Constitutional Court Decision on the Principle That Judicial Errors Cannot Be Imputed to Individuals
Introduction
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 protection of this right depends not only on individuals fulfilling their own obligations but also on judicial bodies carrying out the procedures under their responsibility with due care and without error. This is because mistakes or omissions committed by courts may have serious consequences for individuals who need legal protection. Imposing the results of such procedural shortcomings on individuals is incompatible with the right to a fair trial and the freedom to seek legal remedies, both of which are guaranteed by the Constitution.
In this context, the fact that judicial proceedings are now largely conducted through digital systems facilitates individuals’ access to the courts and reduces the likelihood of errors by the parties. However, this development also introduces new areas of vulnerability. Digital platforms that are indispensable to judicial proceedings, such as the National Judiciary Informatics System (“NJIS”) enable applications and follow-up procedures to be carried out swiftly and in accordance with procedural requirements; nevertheless, various errors within these systems may still lead to serious consequences for individuals’ fundamental rights. Court-originated errors may result in the loss of rights and give rise to numerous judicial disputes. The Constitutional Court has consistently emphasized in its case that court-derived procedural errors obstructing individuals’ access to a court cannot be afforded legal protection. In this article, the latest decision of the Constitutional Court numbered 2022/56628 and dated 26.03.2025 (“Decision”)[1], published in the Official Gazette dated 28.11.2025 and numbered 33091, is discussed.
The Incident Giving Rise to the Application and the First Instance Court, the Regional Court of Appeal, and the Court of Cassation Decisions
In the case forming the basis of the Decision, the applicant argued that, due to a procedural error not attributable to his own fault, he had been unable to exercise his right to seek appellate remedies and that this situation constituted a violation of his right of access to a court, which is safeguarded under the right to a fair trial.
The applicant filed an action for debt before the First Instance Court. The court ruled that there was no ground to render a decision on the merits. Both parties lodged an appeal against this judgment. The applicant’s appeal petition was received and scanned by the court; however, it was mistakenly recorded in the NJIS as a petition for amendment. The Regional Court of Appeal, without examining the applicant’s appeal petition and relying solely on the opposing party’s request, dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the applicant’s appeal request was not examined by the Regional Court of Appeal.
Thereafter, the applicant sought to file a cassation against the appellate decision. However, the relevant chamber of the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request on the grounds that he had not lodged a proper appeal against the first instance judgment.
Constitutional Court Decision
The Constitutional Court examined the present case in terms of the right of access to a court, which is protected under the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. As emphasized in the Decision, the right of access to a court means the ability to bring a dispute before a judicial authority and to request that the dispute be resolved effectively. The act of applying for a legal remedy is also considered to fall within the scope of the right of access to a court.[2]
The Constitutional Court does not consider the requirement to comply with procedural rules when applying for legal remedies as an obstacle to the right of access to a court. However, it reviews the substance of such rules and requires that the conditions of clarity and foreseeability be met. The Constitutional Court also emphasizes that procedural rules governing applications to legal remedies must not be excessively formalistic. Such rules must not prevent or unduly hinder access to a court.
On the other hand, the Constitutional Court states that responsibility arising from errors and disruptions attributable to judicial authorities cannot be imposed on individuals seeking judicial protection.[3] Accordingly, the Constitutional Court holds that a person who has duly submitted a petition to the competent court in accordance with procedural requirements cannot be deprived of the opportunity to apply for a legal remedy due to errors stemming entirely from the internal functioning of judicial bodies; otherwise, this would constitute a violation of the right of access to a court.
Therefore, the fact that the applicant’s appeal petition, submitted against the First Instance Court decision, was mistakenly recorded in the NJIS as a petition for amendment, thereby preventing both the appeal and the cassation from being examined, cannot be attributed to the applicant. In the Decision, it is emphasized that the applicant submitted his legal-remedy petition to the competent authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the legislation, and it is concluded that the applicant cannot be held responsible for an error of the First Instance Court that is not attributable to him.[4] The Constitutional Court, on these grounds, concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right of access to a court was disproportionate and that, therefore, the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial had been violated. In addition, it held that conducting a retrial would be sufficient to remedy the violation in question and accordingly dismissed the claim for compensation.
Principles
The Constitutional Court sets forth various principles regarding applications to legal remedies and the procedural steps involved in the context of the right of access to a court as part of the right to a fair trial. These principles may be summarized as follows:
- The right to access a court encompasses not only the ability to bring an action before a first instance court but also the right to apply to legal remedies granted to the parties, such as objection, appeal, and cassation. Accordingly, the right to apply for legal remedies is considered part of the right of access to a court.
- If the legislator has provided various legal remedies, the safeguards afforded by the right to a fair trial must be fully applicable in relation to these remedies as well. In other words, such legal remedies must not merely exist in form; the individual’s effective access to them must be guaranteed.
- Procedural rules governing judicial applications do not, by themselves, restrict the right of access to a court. However, these rules must be clear and foreseeable. Uncertainty arising from statutory provisions or practical functioning concerning the initiation of actions or applications to legal remedies may undermine the right of access to a court.
- When applying procedural rules regarding the submission of petitions, a level of formalism that unnecessarily complicates or even renders impossible individuals’ access to judiciary must not be adopted.
- The consequences of delays, omissions, and errors arising from the internal functioning of judicial authorities cannot be imposed on individuals. Accepting the contrary would constitute a disproportionate interference with the right of access to a court.
Assessment of the Incident and Conclusion
Considering the principles applied to the present case, the Constitutional Court clearly established that errors arising from the internal functioning of judicial authorities must not produce adverse consequences for individuals seeking judicial protection. In the Decision, it was decisive that the applicant had clearly and properly submitted his appeal request, yet the misregistration of his petition—an error originating entirely from the judicial authorities—and not from any fault of the applicant prevented him from making use of a legal remedy. Indeed, the applicant’s appeal petition was mistakenly recorded in the NJIS as a petition for amendment by the First Instance Court, and because of this erroneous entry, the applicant’s opportunity to apply to a legal remedy was eliminated.
The Constitutional Court expressly stated that the effective exclusion of appellate review due to such an error is incompatible with the right of access to a court, which constitutes one of the fundamental components of the right to a fair trial. In the Decision, the failure to consider the applicant’s appeal request at all despite his compliance with procedural requirements because of a malfunction stemming from the courts’ internal functioning, is characterized as an interference exceeding the limits of the principle of proportionality and as violating both the right to a fair trial and, consequently, the right of access to a court. In line with this approach, the Constitutional Court emphasizes that the elimination of individuals’ opportunity to apply to legal remedies, which is safeguarded within the scope of the right of access to a court, due to errors occurring beyond their control, cannot be accepted.
In conclusion, the Constitutional Court held that the applicant’s inability to exercise his right to apply to a legal remedy due to the negligence of judicial authorities constituted a violation of his rights. To remedy the violation, it ordered that the file be remitted to the First Instance Court for reconsideration. In doing so, the Constitutional Court once again reaffirmed its established position that the consequences of errors arising from the internal functioning of judicial authorities cannot be imposed on individuals.
- Constitutional Court Decision No. 2022/56628, 26.03.2025, (OG, No. 33091, 28.11.2025) https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/11/20251128-15.pdf (Access date: 08.12.2025)
- See also, in the same vein, General Assembly of the Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, decision dated 17.09.2025 and numbered 2024/622 E., 2025/535 K. General Assembly of the Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, decision dated 28.05.2025 and numbered 2024/782 E., 2025/349 K.
- See also, in the same vein, Constitutional Court No. 2016/67616, 21.03.2019.
- This assessment has likewise been adopted by the Specialized Chambers of the Court of Cassation, which have expressly referred to the Constitutional Court in their decisions. See 17th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, decision dated 19.11.2019 and numbered 2017/2819 E., 2019/10811 K.
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 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...
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…
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…
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...