Short Petitions for Appeal Will Be History

In the concrete norm review, the Constitutional Court concluded that the phrase “of the pronouncement of the judgment” stated in Article 273/1 of the CCP, which reads “The motion for appeal must be made within seven days of the pronouncement of the judgment by submitting a petition to the court that rendered the judgment or by making a statement to the court clerk ...”, is in breach of Articles 13 and 36 of the Constitution [1] on the grounds that it would not be possible to effectively exercise the fundamental rights and freedoms secured under the Constitution and it restricts the right to access to courts. Thus, the decision annulled the respective sentence in the decision numbered 2022/144 E., 2023/137 K. and dated 26.07.2023 (“Constitutional Court Annulment Decision”). [2]

Prior to the Constitutional Court’s Annulment Decision, since the seven-day period to apply for appeal, which is quite short, began upon the pronouncement of the judgment, and since the reasoning for the judgment could not be known at the time of the pronouncement, the petitions to the criminal procedure practice, which are known as “short petitions for appeal”, were scrutinized. With the short petitions for appeal, a motion for appeal would be submitted within the seven-day period, and subsequently, upon delivery of the reasoned decision, a reasoned petition of appeal was being submitted to the courts. As such, with the recent accurate Constitutional Court Annulment Decision, short petitions for appeal will cease to exist in practice and the period for appeal will commence as of the delivery or pronouncement of the reasoned decision.

The applicant to the Trabzon 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance stated in its grounds to challenge the respective provision of the CCP that the application period for appeal commencing upon the pronouncement of the judgment creates a heavy burden for the accused and any parties who do not yet know the reasoning behind the judgment. As such, this is a disproportionate intervention to the right to access the courts.

As a result of the concrete norm review, the Constitutional Court concluded that parties’ right to a reasoned decision and to have the necessary time and opportunities to make their defenses fall within the scope of the right to a fair trial secured under Article 36 of the Constitution.

Hence, the Constitutional Court ruled that the commencement of the period for appeal as of the pronouncement of the judgment hinders the effective exercise of the right to fair trial and the right to access the courts, and moreover, that the restriction on these rights is not convenient, necessary or proportionate in accordance with Article 13 of the Constitution.

As a result, the Constitutional Court Annulment Decision, which we consider to be accurate, becomes effective on 24.07.2024 and short petitions for appeal and their practice will be history. Judgments will be pronounced or delivered with their reasoning and the appeal period for the parties will commence at this very moment of pronouncement or delivery of the reasoned decision, and thus, the right to a fair trial, the right to a reasoned decision, and the right to access the courts will be ensured.

[1] Since the Constitutional Court annulled the respective sentence on the grounds that it is in violation of Article 13 and 36 of the Constitution, the Court did not conduct a further judicial review of the application in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution.

[2] Published in the Official Gazette dated 24.10.2023 and numbered 32349