The regulation facilitates customs clearance by allowing imports even if the declared customs value exceeds the value registered in the Import Surveillance Certificate by up to 5%. Additionally, minor typographical errors in the annexes of the original communiqué have been rectified.
The Constitutional Court reviewed the application of a former public official dismissed via decree-law (KHK), who alleged a violation of property rights due to the denial of additional pension-related compensation. The Court determined that the measures taken during the state of emergency were aimed at protecting public order and that the applicant's base pension remained intact. Given that the additional payment was tied to specific professional titles forfeited upon dismissal, the Court ruled that the denial did not constitute a violation of property rights. The claim regarding the principle of equality was also dismissed as manifestly ill-founded.
In the individual application filed by Kevser Demir and Süleyman Demir, the applicants alleged that they were subjected to ill-treatment due to the use of disproportionate force by law enforcement officers and that no effective criminal investigation was conducted. The Constitutional Court concluded that the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment was violated regarding the first applicant. The application of the second applicant was found inadmissible for failure to exhaust legal remedies. The Court ordered the case to be sent back to the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor's Office for a retrial to remedy the violation and awarded non-pecuniary damages to the first applicant.
In the individual application filed by Yusuf Koyuncu, the applicant alleged that he was convicted based on a more unfavorable legal amendment that entered into force on June 18, 2014, for an offense allegedly committed on April 21, 2013. The Constitutional Court found a violation of the principle of 'legality in crimes and punishments,' as the judicial authorities failed to apply the more favorable provisions in effect at the time of the offense. The Court ordered a retrial to remedy the consequences of the violation.
The Constitutional Committee of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye is authorized to continue its legislative activities during periods when the Parliament is in recess or adjourned, following the decision taken at the 110th session of the General Assembly on July 14, 2026.
The Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) has authorized the Joint Committee composed of members of the Constitutional and Justice Commissions to continue its proceedings during the parliamentary recess and adjournment periods.
With the decision numbered 1491, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) has authorized the Committee on Petitions to continue its operations during parliamentary recesses and breaks.
A parliamentary decision has been enacted, authorizing the Joint Commission, composed of members from the Petition Commission and the Human Rights Investigation Commission, to continue its operations during the parliamentary recess and adjournment periods.
The Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) has authorized the Committee on Equality of Opportunity for Women and Men to continue its operations during the parliamentary recess and adjournment periods, as per the decision taken on July 14, 2026.
The Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) has approved a decision allowing the Plan and Budget Committee to continue its legislative activities during the parliamentary recess and adjournment periods.
The Grand National Assembly of Turkey has authorized the Human Rights Inquiry Commission to continue its activities during the parliamentary recess and adjournment periods.
The regulation updates the administrative structure and management processes of the Bingöl University Dentistry Practice and Research Center. It revises the appointment criteria and terms of office for the Center Director (Chief Physician) and their deputies, and updates the composition and operating procedures of the Administrative and Advisory Boards. Additionally, it clarifies the responsibilities of the center's units and repeals Article 15.
The regulation facilitates customs clearance by allowing imports even if the declared customs value exceeds the value registered in the Import Surveillance Certificate by up to 5%. Additionally, minor typographical errors in the annexes of the original communiqué have been rectified.
The Constitutional Court reviewed the application of a former public official dismissed via decree-law (KHK), who alleged a violation of property rights due to the denial of additional pension-related compensation. The Court determined that the measures taken during the state of emergency were aimed at protecting public order and that the applicant's base pension remained intact. Given that the additional payment was tied to specific professional titles forfeited upon dismissal, the Court ruled that the denial did not constitute a violation of property rights. The claim regarding the principle of equality was also dismissed as manifestly ill-founded.
The applicant, Özgür Can, filed an individual application with the Constitutional Court claiming that his right to a fair trial was violated when the courts dismissed his lawsuit for labor claims against his former employer (a company closed by statutory decree) without examining the merits of the case. The Constitutional Court found that the lower courts misapplied the legal provisions regarding mandatory administrative procedures, thereby preventing the applicant from having his claims heard. The Court concluded that the dismissal without considering the merits violated the applicant's 'right to a decision,' which is a component of the right to a fair trial, and ordered a retrial.
In the individual application filed by Kevser Demir and Süleyman Demir, the applicants alleged that they were subjected to ill-treatment due to the use of disproportionate force by law enforcement officers and that no effective criminal investigation was conducted. The Constitutional Court concluded that the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment was violated regarding the first applicant. The application of the second applicant was found inadmissible for failure to exhaust legal remedies. The Court ordered the case to be sent back to the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor's Office for a retrial to remedy the violation and awarded non-pecuniary damages to the first applicant.
The applicant, a certified public accountant, filed an administrative lawsuit against the Ministry of Treasury and Finance due to a professional restriction known as 'code inclusion' applied to his activities. The lower courts dismissed the case without examination, ruling that the administrative act was not 'definitive and enforceable'. The Constitutional Court found that this interpretation disproportionately restricted the applicant's right of access to a court, given that the measure directly impacted the applicant's professional rights and interests. Consequently, the Court ruled that the right to a fair trial, specifically the right of access to a court under Article 36 of the Constitution, had been violated and ordered a retrial to remedy the consequences of the violation.
In this individual application, the applicant claimed a violation of the 'ne bis in idem' principle, arguing that he was prosecuted twice for the same act. The Constitutional Court examined the two separate proceedings and concluded that the acts and legal assessments involved were distinct. The Court found that the first trial concerned different elements of defamation and forgery, while the second resulted from a separate investigation into official document forgery. Consequently, the Court ruled that there was no violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy.
In the individual application filed by Yusuf Koyuncu, the applicant alleged that he was convicted based on a more unfavorable legal amendment that entered into force on June 18, 2014, for an offense allegedly committed on April 21, 2013. The Constitutional Court found a violation of the principle of 'legality in crimes and punishments,' as the judicial authorities failed to apply the more favorable provisions in effect at the time of the offense. The Court ordered a retrial to remedy the consequences of the violation.
The applicant, a fuel company, challenged an administrative fine imposed for unauthorized structures on its leased premises, arguing that these structures were built before its tenure. The Constitutional Court ruled that the lower court failed to address the applicant's essential defenses or perform an adequate assessment of evidence, thereby violating the right to a reasoned decision under Article 36 of the Constitution. The Court concluded that the lack of sufficient justification in the judicial decision constitutes a violation of the right to a fair trial and ordered a retrial.
Following the unilateral termination of a public tender contract and a one-year ban on a company due to allegations of FETÖ/PDY affiliation regarding its executives, the company filed for individual application after its non-pecuniary damage claims were rejected by administrative courts despite subsequent acquittal of its executives. The Constitutional Court ruled that the Regional Administrative Court failed to properly evaluate the company's claims regarding commercial reputation and the relevant evidence, thereby violating the procedural guarantees inherent in the right to a fair trial.