In a recently published decision, an applicant to the
Constitutional Court claimed the Supreme Court had breached their
right to a fair trial. The Constitutional Court held that the
applicant had falsely alleged the breach of its right to a fair
trial. The Constitutional Court rejected the claim and fined the
applicant TL 500 on the basis that it had abused its right of
The applicant alleged to the Constitutional Court that the
Supreme Court had breached his right to a fair trial by:
Holding a revision of decision
examination without the parties requesting this.
Not concluding the proceedings within
a reasonable time period.
The Constitutional Court noted that the Ministry of Justice had
stated that a decision cannot be revised without one of the parties
requesting this action. However, the Constitutional Court held that
contrary to the applicant's claims, the defendant in the
Supreme Court proceeding had actually requested such a revision.
The Constitutional Court held that the applicant had used his right
to reply against the counterparty's request, and therefore was
aware of the defendant's revision request.
The Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's claims on
the basis that:
The applicant's claim involves a
On examining the relevant file, it is
clear that a decision revision request has been made.
The Constitutional Court emphasized that using false material
facts or submitting false information and documents with the intent
of perverting the court is an abuse of the right to appeal.
The Constitutional Court imposed a TL 500 disciplinary fine on
the applicant under Article 51 of Law number 6216 and Article 83 of
the Constitutional Bylaws.
The Constitutional Court's decision was published in
Official Gazette number 29442 on 11 August 2015. The full text of
the reasoned decision can be found 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).