Turkey's Constitutional Court has published the full text of
its decision on a decision by the 22ndChamber of the Supreme Court
(31 December 2012, numbered E. 2012/23578 and K. 2012/23992;
"Supreme Court"). The Constitutional Court held that the
Supreme Court's decision lacked legal justification and
therefore violated the parties' right to a fair trial.
In the recently published decision, the Constitutional Court
held that court decisions must:
Outline the material facts which establish the court's
Indicate the decision's reasons and legal basis.
Show a logical connection between the material facts and the
The Constitutional Court noted that if a court fails to
sufficiently respond to procedural and substantive claims or
defenses, this may violate the parties' right to a fair
The dispute in question involved lawsuit where the applicant
claimed their employment termination had no valid grounds and
sought re-employment. The defendant claimed a decrease in workload
had legitimately led to the termination on the basis of the
employer having excess staff.
The district court accepted the applicant's (employee's)
claim and determined the termination ground to be invalid. The
defendant (employer) appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision,
dismissing the applicant's claim by taking the seat of the
District Court. The applicant applied to the Constitutional Court,
claiming his rights to a fair trial and justified decision have
Based on the reasoning noted above, the Constitutional Court
returned the matter to the Supreme Court to be re-examined.
The Constitutional Court's decision was rendered by a
majority. Dissenting judges commented that unless an obvious fault
in discretion or arbitrariness exists, the Constitutional Court
cannot evaluate evidence and material facts, interpret and apply
the rules of law, nor determine whether a decision's conclusion
You can read the full text of the Constitutional Court's
reasoned decision at this link (only available in Turkish).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In a judgment harking back to the principles in Donoghue v Stevenson, the Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court's decision that the manufacturer of a defective product installed to prevent fire was not liable...
A year-long arbitration pilot scheme to provide a cost-effective, straightforward and quick method of solving legal disputes between claimants and participating members of the press commenced on the 26th July 2016.
Welcome to the Summer edition of Scots Law In Practice. The first three cases contain a common thread – the pursuer in each had a valid claim on the face of things, but in each one, faced legal difficulties in obtaining a remedy.
Each year businesses around the world face a growing number of risks that could potentially jeopardize hundreds of billions of euros.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).