New Constitutional Court Decision On Violation Of The Right To A Reasoned Decision Published İn The Official Gazette 14 November 2025

The right to a reasoned judgment is today accepted as a fundamental right and constitutes an essential element of the right to a fair trial. Satisfying this need on the part of the parties is a basic human right, whereas for the court it constitutes a duty. This right, which is protected under Article 6 of the ECHR according to ECHR case law, is also guaranteed by the Turkish Constitution, statutory provisions, and the decisions of the high courts. The high courts in our legal system generally seek to ensure compliance with the right to a reasoned decision. Furthermore, applications made to the Constitutional Court-such as the application that is the subject of our bulletin-provide significant safeguards in domestic law with respect to the obligation to provide reasoning for judicial decisions. Although the domestic regulation on reasoned judgments is broadly set forth in Article 36 of the Constitution, the Constitution, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Turkish Civil Code all contain provisions addressing reasoned decisions.

• Pursuant to Article 141(3) of the Constitution, titled "Public hearings and reasoned judgments": "All decisions of all courts shall be written with their reasoning."

• Pursuant to Article 34(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, titled "Reasoned decisions": "All decisions of judges and courts, including dissenting opinions, shall be written with their reasoning. In drafting the reasoning, Article 230 shall be taken into consideration. Copies of the decisions shall also include dissenting opinions."
   

• Pursuant to Article 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, titled "Right to be legally heard": "The parties to the case, intervenors, and other persons concerned by the proceedings shall have the right to be legally heard in connection with their rights. This right includes ... the court's consideration and assessment of the submissions, and the provision of concrete and explicit reasoning for its decisions."
   

2. THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT'S DECISON PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27 OCTOBER 2025 (APPLICATION NO. 2023/95915)
 

In the case forming the subject of the Constitutional Court's decision dated 30 July 2025 and application no. 2023/95915, published in the Official Gazette on 27 October 2025, the applicant alleged that the right to a reasoned judgment had been violated on the grounds that the decision failed to address arguments capable of affecting the outcome of the case brought against the non-renewal of the employment contract. The applicant further claimed that the presumption of innocence had been breached due to an expression appearing in the decision.
 

In brief, in the present case, the Municipality decided not to renew the applicant's employment contract on the grounds that "the individual lacked the trustworthiness and merit required of a public official, and therefore it would not be possible to obtain adequate efficiency from the individual's performance." The applicant brought an action seeking the annulment of this administrative act and the payment of the pecuniary rights from which he had been deprived, together with statutory interest. The Istanbul Administrative Court annulled the act and ordered the payment of the pecuniary rights with interest. In its decision, it was stated that, according to the defendant administration, the reason for the act was that the applicant had been taken into custody in connection with the investigation conducted by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office regarding the deputy mayor who had been killed while on duty, and that communication between the applicant and the suspects regarding certain matters had been identified in the criminal case file pending before the Assize Court. It was further noted that the applicant was not a defendant in the relevant criminal proceedings and that no criminal case had been initiated against him. Emphasizing that the applicant's detention and subsequent release in connection with the incident concerning the deputy mayor, as well as his conversations with the suspects in the criminal file in the absence of any relationship of interest, should not lead to the conclusion that his reliability had been compromised, the court held that no circumstances existed requiring the non-renewal of the contract, and that the non-renewal decision was unlawful in terms of its reason and purpose. The Municipality appealed this decision, but the appeal was dismissed.
 

Upon the Municipality's further appeal, the Council of State decided to quash the appellate decision. In its judgment, the Council of State noted that, according to the defendant administration's statements in its appellate petition, an investigation had been initiated upon a complaint, and permission for investigation had been granted by the district governor concerning several municipal officials, including the applicant. Although the Regional Administrative Court had been informed that a criminal case had been initiated concerning this matter, this issue had not been examined in the decision. Additionally, it was stated that, according to inquiries made through UYAP, proceedings for the offences of abuse of office and forgery of official documents were pending. It was concluded that a decision should have been rendered only after evaluating the criminal proceedings conducted in relation to the applicant's duties, but that the court had rendered its decision on the basis of an incomplete examination. The Regional Administrative Court complied with the quashing decision and dismissed the case. In its reasoning, it emphasized that criminal proceedings filed against the applicant were still pending and that the purpose of contractual employment is to grant the administration a discretionary power regarding the renewal of such contracts; it highlighted that this discretionary power may be exercised by considering the personal circumstances of the personnel. In the dispute at hand, it was stated that there was no concrete evidence indicating that the discretionary power had been exercised in violation of public interest, service requirements, or the principles of equality and fairness. For these reasons, it was concluded that the administrative act refusing the renewal of the applicant's contract was not contrary to legislation or law. The applicant lodged an individual application before the Constitutional Court on 3 November 2023 against the Council of State's final decision dated 7 June 2023.
 

3. THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT'S ASSESSMENT OF THE RIGHT TO A REASONED JUDGMENT
 

• The Constitutional Court, in its assessment of the individual application, held that the right to a reasoned judgment had been violated for the following reasons:
   

• The right to a reasoned judgment, safeguarded under Article 36 of the Constitution within the scope of the right to a fair trial, aims to ensure that individuals are tried in accordance with the principles of fairness and that the proceedings are subject to review in terms of compliance with this objective. Judicial decisions must contain sufficient reasoning that establishes a connection with the evidence regarding the essential factual and legal issues of the case, as well as the allegations and objections raised by the parties that may affect the outcome of the proceedings. Including assessments in the decision that are irrelevant to the factual and legal issues of the dispute is incompatible with the right to a reasoned judgment. The presence of these elements in the reasoning not only enables the parties to understand whether the proceedings were conducted in a manner consistent with fair trial guarantees but is also necessary in a democratic society for the public to learn the reasons underlying the judicial decisions rendered in their name (with certain additions and variations, see Sencer Başat and Others [Plenary], App. No. 2013/7800, 18/6/2014, §§ 31, 34).
   

• The fact that the appellate authority reaches the same conclusion as the trial court and reflects this in its decision by using the same reasoning or by making a reference thereto may be considered sufficient in terms of providing reasoning. However, the failure of the appellate authority to evaluate substantive allegations and objections that were not addressed by the first-instance court or that could only be raised for the first time during appellate review may lead to a violation of the right to a reasoned judgment (with certain additions and variations, see Mehmet Yavuz [1st Section], App. No. 2013/2995, 20/2/2014, § 51).
   

• While accepting that the administrative act concerning the applicant was lawful, the Regional Administrative Court explained that the administration had discretionary power and concluded that this discretion had been lawfully exercised due to the existence of pending criminal proceedings against the applicant; however, it failed to assess those criminal proceedings. The decision merely stated that criminal proceedings were pending. A mere reference to pending criminal proceedings is insufficient; the Regional Administrative Court must also examine the events and facts underlying the criminal case. In this regard, circumstances specific to the incident-such as the manner in which it occurred, the nature of the act, and its gravity-must be assessed, and the grounds for the conclusion reached must be presented with relevant and sufficient reasoning (Diren Taş [1st Section], App. No. 2019/38230, 24/1/2024, § 34).
   

• There is no obstacle-provided that the presumption of innocence is respected-to obtaining the information and documents contained in the criminal proceedings and assessing their impact on the administrative act concerning the applicant. The Regional Administrative Court must provide an explanation as to how the data contained in the criminal proceedings influenced the administration's discretion regarding the non-renewal of the contract. In the present case, although the Regional Administrative Court relied on the criminal proceedings, it did not examine the facts therein or assess the information and documents (Diren Taş, § 35).

• As a rule, where the trial court's decision contains sufficient reasoning on the merits, it may be considered reasonable for the appellate authority to refer to that decision. However, where the trial court's decision lacks reasoning, the substantive objections raised by the parties must be addressed by the appellate authority with adequate reasoning.
   

In the present case, it was understood that the decision of the Regional Administrative Court did not contain reasoning within the above-mentioned scope, and that the Council of State, by merely referring to that decision, did not conduct any assessment (Diren Taş, § 36). Consequently, it was observed that the reasoning of the judicial authorities did not address how and why the data obtained regarding the applicant justified the non-renewal of the contract. As the judicial authorities failed to assess the information concerning the applicant, the applicant's allegations that the non-renewal of the contract was unlawful were not adequately clarified. Accordingly, when the judicial process is evaluated as a whole, it was concluded that the right to a reasoned judgment had been violated.

From the assessments included in the decision examined in our bulletin, it is understood that, for a judicial decision issued by a court to comply with the right to a reasoned judgment of the person concerned, certain elements must be included in the decision: A connection must be established with the evidence regarding the essential factual and legal issues of the case and the allegations and objections raised by the parties that may affect the outcome; substantive objections and claims not addressed by the first-instance court or raised for the first time during appellate review must be evaluated and reasoned by the appellate authority; if reference is made to pending proceedings concerning the person, such reference must not be superficial, and the impact of those proceedings on the decision must be examined, with the facts underlying the referenced proceedings concretized and clearly expressed in terms of their relevance to the decision. These requirements are explicitly stated in both Constitutional Court and ECtHR judgments. In its decision dated 4 December 2013, no. 2013/5486, the Constitutional Court held that: "Courts of first instance are not required to respond to every argument submitted to them. However, when one of the arguments raised is capable of affecting the outcome of the case, the court may be required to provide a specific and explicit response. Even in such cases, the implicit rejection of certain arguments may be sufficient (see also ECtHR judgment in Hiro Balani v. Spain, App. No. 18064/91, 9/12/1994). Moreover, it is not mandatory for the decisions of appellate bodies to contain full reasoning. It is sufficient for the appellate body to agree with the decision of the trial court and to reflect this in its own decision either by using the same reasoning or through a simple reference. What is important is that the appellate authority demonstrates that it has examined the essential elements raised on appeal and has reviewed and either affirmed or quashed the decision of the lower court (see also ECtHR judgment in Garcia Ruiz v. Spain, App. No. 30544/96, 21/1/1996, § 28)."
 

In its decision dated 13 June 2013, no. 2013/1235, the Constitutional Court further emphasized that: "The court must reveal how it has characterized the events and facts at issue in the case, and on which reasons and legal provisions the judgment is based, in a manner that demonstrates the link between the events and facts and the ruling. For the parties to understand and assess why they have been deemed right or wrong within the legal order in relation to the case, there must be a duly drafted reasoning section-expressed with carefully chosen wording and of a clarity leaving no room for doubt-showing why the judgment was rendered with that content and scope, along with operative provisions consistent therewith." In this manner, the concept of adequate reasoning was emphasized. Any judicial decision rendered without taking into account these considerations and the criteria established in judicial precedents may result in a violation of the right to a reasoned judgment and, accordingly, the right to a fair trial.
 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Dr. M. Nedim BEKRİ - Gerekçeli Karar Hakkı / Ankara Barosu Dergisi, 2014/3
2. Hilal ALBAL ULAŞ -  YARGI KARARLARININ GEREKÇELİ OLMASI ÜZERİNE BİR DEĞERLENDİRME  Hacettepe HFD, 11(2) 2021, 1243-1283
3. YHGK, T. 03.12.2003, K. 2003/776, E.2003/720  YCGK 27.09. 2011, 9/122-187  Y. 15. HD. E. 2000/829 K. 2000/1121 T. 08.03.2000  AYM 1977/132 E. 1978/6 K.  AYM 13.06. 2013, 2013/1235  AYM 4.12.2013, 2013/1213  AYM 4 Aralık 2013, 2013/5486
4. Constitutional Court Decision, Application No. 2025/93915, 30 July 2025 (Official Gazette, 27 October 2025).

^{_____________________________}

¹ YERDELEN, Erdal, Ceza Muhakemesinde Hükmün Gerekçesi, Adalet Yayınevi, Ankara, 2015, s. 5.)
² YHGK, T. 03.12.2003, K. 2003/776, E.2003/720 YCGK 27 Eylül 2011, 9/122-187 Y. 15. HD. E. 2000/829 K. 2000/1121 T. 08.03.2000
³ AYM 1977/132 E. 1978/6 K. AYM 13 Haziran 2013, 2013/1235 AYM 4 Aralık 2013, 2013/1213.
⁴ 2025/93915 Başvurulu Numaralı, 30.07.2025 Tarihli AYM Kararı, 27.10.2025 Tarihli R.G.
⁵ AYM 4 Aralık 2013, 2013/5486 Sayılı Kararı