The Turkish Constitutional Court recently held that Courts must
indicate the right to appeal in reasoned decisions, including an
accurate validity period. A Commercial Court incorrectly indicated
the appeal time as fifteen days, rather than ten days. The Supreme
Court subsequently rejected an appeal on the basis that more than
ten day has elapsed. The Constitutional Court held that the
applicant's right to access the Court were violated and sent
the appeal back to the local court for retrial.
In general, the time available for appeal is fifteen days from
receipt of the relevant decision. However, decisions related to
administration of bankruptcy's decisions are an exception,
where the time period becomes ten days (Article 164(2), Enforcement
and Bankruptcy Law).
In this case, the Commercial Court failed to indicate the time
for appeal in its short decision, then indicated an inaccurate time
in its later reasoned decision (incorrectly stating 15 days, rather
The Constitutional Court held that the applicant's right to
access courts was violated and the matter should be sent back to
the lower court for retrial. The Constitutional Court noted:
Courts must indicate the right to appeal and its validity
period accurately in decisions.
It is rational and acceptable for applicants to trust the
appeal period indicated in the Court's decision.
Strict interpretation of the complicated and disorderly
legislation which regulates appeal terms can violate the right to
Given the obligation to accurately indicate the right to appeal
and validity period, then subsequent strict approach by the Supreme
Court, the applicant's appeal request was unjustly
The Constitutional Court's decision (dated 9 June 2016, with
application number 2014/819 was published in Official Gazette
number 29757 on 29 June 2016.Please see this link for the full text of the
Constitutional Court's decision (only available in
Information first published in the
MA | Gazette, a fortnightly legal update newsletter produced by
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...
Once the government notifies the European Council that the UK has decided to leave the EU, the two-year period for the negotiation for exit under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union will start.
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.
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).