The Constitutional Court Annulled Article 45/6-1 Of The Administrative Procedure Law With Respect To "Partial Or Full Acceptance Of Appeal Applications", On The Ground That It Is Unconstitutional

Within the scope of the Constitutional Court's ("Constitutional Court") decision dated 27 March 2025 and numbered 2024/189 E., 2025/83 K. ("Decision") published in the Official Gazette numbered 32938 and dated 26 June 2025, the rule denying right to appeal for decisions rendered by the regional administrative courts on the merits of cases by lifting the decision of the court of first instance, except for appealable cases listed in Article 46 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577, has been found unconstitutional and annulled with respect to "partial or full acceptance of appeal applications". Within the scope of the relevant decision, the contradiction of the aforementioned provision to (i) Article 13 on the restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms and (ii) Article 36 on the right to legal remedy was emphasised.

Erzurum Regional Administrative Court's 4th Administrative Trial Chamber filed an appeal to the Constitutional Court on the ground that the rule is contrary to Article 36 of the Constitution since (i) Article 45, paragraph 6, sentence 1 of the Administrative Procedure Law stipulates that the unappealable decisions of the regional administrative courts conclude the case definitively, (ii) within this scope, the regional administrative courts may conclude the proceedings with a definitive judgement by partially or fully accepting the request for appeal, (iii) as per the rule, it becomes impossible to appeal the above mentioned judgements in such cases, (iv) in this respect, the rule subject to the application eliminates the possibility to appeal the new judgement which was rendered differently from the judgement of the court of first instance.

The rule subject to the application consists of the following wording:

"The decisions of the regional administrative courts which are not appealable under Article 46 shall be definitive."

The Constitutional Court stated that it was clear that the rule subject to the application imposed a restriction on the right to request the review of court decisions, underlined that the principle of procedural economy is being followed by concluding the proceedings in a reasonable time and with less expense by stipulating that the decisions of the regional administrative court are definitive, barring exceptional cases, and in this respect, found that the rule subject to the application was based on a constitutionally legitimate purpose.

However, the Constitutional Court emphasised that it is not sufficient for a restriction imposed on the right to request the review of a judgement to pursue a legitimate aim and that it must also be proportionate. Underlining that the principle of proportionality consists of three sub-principles, namely convenience, necessity and commensuration, the Constitutional Court stated that the principle of convenience refers to the foreseen restriction being suitable for achieving the objective sought to be achieved; the principle of necessity means that the relevant restriction is necessary in terms of the objective to be achieved; and the principle of commensuration refers to a reasonable balance being observed between the restriction imposed on the right and the objective sought to be achieved.

In this framework, the Constitutional Court noted that granting the nature of a definitive judgement to certain decisions of the regional administrative courts and blocking the way to appeal these decisions can be considered as measures taken in order to fulfil the requirements of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and the principle of procedural economy, and therefore the relevant restriction is not inconvenient for achieving the aforementioned constitutional objectives.

However, the Constitutional Court stated that, as stated in the justification of the amendments made by Law No. 6545 under the Administrative Procedure Law, it is aimed to reduce the workload of the Council of State by stipulating that the decisions rendered for disputes that do not have a certain degree of importance are definitive, and thus to strengthen the role of the Council of State as a court of jurisprudence by alleviating the burden of disputes subject to appeals. Although it can be said that this restriction on the right to request review of the judgement may contribute to reducing the workload, the Constitutional Court stated that it is not a measure capable of improving the Council of State's status as a court of jurisprudence and that the blocking of the right of appeal for disputes other than certain matters specified in the applicable laws will not serve the development and diversification of jurisprudence. In this respect, the Constitutional Court held that it is possible to envisage a less damaging measure to the right to request review of the judgement in terms of both the constitutional objectives mentioned above and reducing the workload of the appellate authority and strengthening its characteristic as a court of jurisprudence, and that the rule subject to the application imposes a disproportionate restriction on the right to request review of the judgement.

For these reasons, the Constitutional Court found that the rule subject to the application is in contradiction with Articles 13 and 36 of the Constitution with respect to "partial or full acceptance of appeal applications" and decided for its annulment in that respect.

The Decision entered into force on 26 June 2025, the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

You can access the full text of the Decision via this link (only available in Turkish).