Constitutional Court Decision Dated 10 July 2025, No. E.2025/119, K.2025/155

Gizem Şimşek co-authored this article.

The decision of the Constitutional Court dated 10 July 2025 and numbered E.2025/119, K.2025/155 (“Decision”) was published in the Official Gazette No. 33048 on 15 October 2025. The Decision concerns whether it is mandatory for the judge to hear the person concerned in proceedings for the restriction of liberty for protective purposes.

1. Contested Provision

The Decision concerns the phrase “hears the person concerned” contained in the third paragraph of Article 437 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (“TCC”), which regulates the procedural aspects of proceedings for the restriction of liberty for protective purposes. This phrase requires the court to hear the individual whose restriction is sought before rendering a decision.

2. Grounds for the Objection

The referring court argued that individuals whose restriction of liberty is sought on the grounds of mental illness or similar conditions may not be able to make a meaningful contribution to the proceedings, that hearing such individuals could prolong the trial process, and that this requirement might endanger public safety. Accordingly, the court claimed that the mandatory hearing requirement was unconstitutional.

3. Constitutional Court’s Assessment

Assessing the matter within the framework of Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to personal liberty and security, the Constitutional Court made the following determinations:

- The right to liberty and security may only be restricted in accordance with the procedures and conditions prescribed by law.

- Since the restriction of liberty for protective purposes constitutes a serious interference with personal freedom, hearing the person concerned serves as an important procedural safeguard.

- Making a decision solely on the basis of medical reports or documents could weaken the protection of individual rights; therefore, the judge must personally hear the individual.

For these reasons, the Constitutional Court emphasized that the phrase in question constitutes a legal safeguard protecting the right to liberty and security, and unanimously held that the provision is not contrary to the Constitution.

4. Conclusion

Fundamental rights and freedoms are indispensable elements of democratic constitutional states. This decision of the Constitutional Court once again underscores the vital importance of protective measures and procedural safeguards in any interference with such rights. The obligation to hear the individual not only serves to protect the person’s rights but also functions as a fundamental mechanism to prevent arbitrary and disproportionate interferences.

Therefore, in practice, pursuant to Article 437/3 of the Turkish Civil Code, a judge, as a rule, cannot order the restriction of a person’s liberty for protective purposes without first hearing that individual. This obligation constitutes a concrete manifestation of the principles of proportionality and legal safeguards in any interference with the right to liberty.