April 2025 Legal Precedent Report

The Right of Reply and Rectification is Not Absolute. Interference with Freedom of the Press is Subject to a Three-Tiered Test

Article 32 of the Constitution recognises the right of reply and rectification only in cases involving attacks on individuals’ honour and dignity or false and misleading publications.

This right constitutes an exception to the principle of free publication, which is protected under freedom of expression, and must therefore be interpreted narrowly. The Criminal Judgeships of Peace must apply the following three-tiered test when evaluating such requests:

1. First, it must be determined whether at least one of the conditions set out under Article 32 of the Constitution is met. In other words, the publication in question must either clearly damage an individual’s honour or be factually inaccurate. The interference must be of a certain gravity and capable of convincing an objective observer. Subjective perceptions alone are insufficient.

2. Second, the requested publication must technically qualify as a reply or rectification. The text must not exceed the scope of the initial news report, must be directly related to it, must not include any criminal elements, and must not infringe upon the rights of third parties.

3. Lastly, if the first two conditions are met, the judge must assess the proportionality of the request. Notably, if the length of the reply or rectification significantly exceeds the original publication, this would constitute a violation of the principle of proportionality (Constitutional Court, Abbas Yalçın and Can Dündar, App. No: 2016/5615, 12.12.2024; OG: 30.04.2025, No. 32890).

Summary of Decisions

Increase in Claimed Amount Does Not Affect the Commencement Date of Interest in Full Remedy Actions

Pursuant to Article 16/4 of the Administrative Jurisdiction Procedures Law numbered 2577, an increase in the claimed amount in full remedy actions merely results in a higher compensation request; it does not alter the legal circumstances or claims prevailing at the time the case was filed. The increased amount is not treated as a new claim but rather as a continuation of the original petition, reflecting the plaintiff’s intent to obtain full compensation for their actual loss. Accordingly, in full remedy actions concerning damages arising from administrative acts or actions, where the amount claimed is increased, the commencement date of interest applicable to the original amount shall also apply to the increased portion (Council of State, Grand Chamber, Unification of Case Law Decision, 2021/5 M., 2024/2 D., 24.10.2024; OG: 16.04.2025, No. 32872).

A Definite Time Limit Must Be Granted for Payment of Court Fees in Partial Amendments

Article 181 of the CCP stipulates that a party submitting a partial amendment must be granted a definite one-week period to complete the required procedural steps. Within this framework, parties exercising the right of amendment must be afforded this period to perform ancillary acts such as paying the court fee. The failure of the court to allow time for fee payment following submission of the amendment petition constitutes a procedural violation (Court of Appeal, 9th Civil Chamber, 2024/13235 M., 2025/44 D., 07.01.2025; OG: 29.04.2025, No. 32885)

The Court of Appeal May Revoke the Unlawful First Instance Judgement and Re-establish a New judgement by Conducting an Expert Examination

Under Article 356 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 ("CCP"), appeal courts are authorised to revoke the judgment of the first instance court and conduct a retrial if they find the original decision unlawful. Article 357 of the CCP lists actions prohibited during the appeal phase; however, it does not prohibit the commissioning of expert reports. In this context, commissioning expert evidence and rendering a judgment based on such reports fall within the lawful judicial discretion of appeal courts and cannot be characterised as arbitrary or manifestly erroneous (Constitutional Court, 19.11.2024, App. No: 2020/8339; OG: 15.04.2025, No. 32871).

For a Divergence in Precedents to Be Considered Deep-Rooted, Continuity, Prevalence, and Systematic Nature Are Required

Diverging judgments issued by courts concerning individual cases do not alone result in legal uncertainty or unpredictability. For a divergence in precedents to be considered deep-rooted and chronic, the difference in opinions must persist over the years, repeatedly occur in similar disputes, and gain a systematic character. Judgments occasionally deviating from one another do not constitute a constitutional issue unless they demonstrate continuity and intensity (Constitutional Court, 19.11.2024, App. No: 2020/8339; OG: 15.04.2025, No. 32871).

The Jurisdiction of Consumer Courts Must Be Determined Based on the Status of the Parties and the Legal Nature of the Transaction

For the Law on the Protection of Consumers numbered 6502 to be applicable, it is not sufficient for the subject matter to be regulated under said Law. One party must qualify as a “consumer,” while the other must act in a professional or commercial capacity as a “seller, provider, or trader. ” Therefore, in disputes not arising from the sale of goods or services, for instance, those governed by tort provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations, Consumer Courts do not have jurisdiction. Since jurisdiction pertains to public order, courts must assess it ex officio at every stage of proceedings, and no acquired right may arise therefrom (Court of Appeal, 3rd Civil Chamber, 2024/3918 M., 2025/1264 D., 03.03.2025; OG: 29.04.2025, No. 32885).

The Revival Procedure Applicable to Companies May Be Applied by Analogy to Associations Whose Legal Personality Has Been Terminated

Article 547 of the Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 regulates the revival of companies whose legal personality has been terminated. Although this provision is drafted specifically for commercial companies, it may be applied by analogy to other legal entities, such as associations. According to the case law of the Court of Appeal, in lawsuits filed for the revival of an association whose legal personality has been terminated, the last board members must be named as defendants and duly notified to ensure the establishment of proper party status (Court of Appeal, 3rd Civil Chamber, 2024/3916 M, 2025/1262 D., 03.03.2025; OG: 22.04.2025, No. 32878).

Custody Decisions Not Based on the Child’s Best Interests Violate the Right to Respect for Family Life

In matters such as custody, the best interests of the child must be the guiding principle under the right to respect for family life. Decisions must not be based on general expressions alone, but on concrete facts, expert reports, and available evidence, with sufficient and convincing reasoning. The desire of a parent and child to live together is a fundamental element of family life, and the dissolution of marriage, either legally or de facto, does not mean that family life has ceased to exist. Accordingly, in any decision affecting the child, a specific evaluation must be conducted to determine whether the decision aligns with the child’s best interests. This evaluation must take into account the child’s physical and psychological development and living conditions and consider expert opinions. This approach reflects the State’s positive obligations under the right to respect for family life (Constitutional Court, 19.11.2024, App. No: 2022/57577; OG: 15.04.2025, No. 32871).