Sisli Bir Labirentte İnsan Haklarını Savunmak: Türkiye'de Anayasa Mahkemesine Bireysel Başvuru

Serdar Gülener; Abdullah Yasin Erdem; Senanur Kaya

doi:10.66484/ayhd.1918654

TR EN

Sisli Bir Labirentte İnsan Haklarını Savunmak: Türkiye'de Anayasa Mahkemesine Bireysel Başvuru

Abstract

Türkiye’de 2012 yılından itibaren uygulanan bireysel başvuru, bireylerin temel hak ve özgürlüklerinin korunması amacıyla Anayasa Mahkemesine doğrudan erişim sağlayan önemli bir anayasal mekanizmadır. Artan iş yükü ve yapısal sorunlar bu mekanizmanın etkinliğini olumsuz etkilemektedir. Bu çalışma, avukatların bireysel başvuru sürecini nasıl deneyimlediklerini ve bu sürecin onlar için ne anlam ifade ettiğini anlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Moustakas’ın transandantal fenomenolojik yaklaşımının benimsendiği araştırmada, Türkiye’nin en kalabalık dört ilinin barosuna kayıtlı 32 avukatla yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ölçüt, maksimum çeşitleme ve kartopu örnekleme teknikleri birlikte kullanılmıştır. Analiz sonucunda yedi tema belirlenmiştir: eğitim eksikliği, başvuru formunda yaşanan güçlükler, güvensizlik, geciken adalet, temyiz yanılsaması, katı şekil şartları ve tatmin edici olmayan kararlar. Bulgular, avukatların yeterli uygulamalı eğitim almadığını, başvuru formunun ciddi zorluklar yarattığını ve yargıya duyulan güvensizliğin süreci olumsuz etkilediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca Mahkemenin temyiz mercii olarak algılanması mekanizmanın asıl amacının yanlış anlaşılmasına yol açmaktadır. Çalışma, avukatların deneyimlerini sisli bir labirente benzeterek bireysel başvuru sürecinin karmaşık yapısını gözler önüne sermekte ve mekanizmanın daha etkili işleyebilmesi için öneriler sunmaktadır.

Keywords

Bireysel başvuru, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasa Mahkemesi, temel hak ve özgürlükler, fenomenoloji, adalete erişim

Supporting Institution

Bu çalışma, Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinasyon Birimi tarafından SGA-2022-1023 numaralı proje kapsamında desteklenmiştir.

Project Number

This study was supported by Bursa Uludag University Research Projects Coordination Office under the Grant Number SGA-2022-1023.

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma, Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Araştırma Etik Kurulu tarafından onaylanmıştır (2022-03/45). Tüm katılımcılar araştırmanın amaçları, gönüllü katılımları ve istedikleri zaman çekilme hakları konusunda bilgilendirilmiştir. Veri toplama sürecine başlanmadan önce tüm katılımcılardan bilgilendirilmiş, onam alınmıştır. AI Kullanım Beyanı: Bu makale yazar(lar)ı tarafından kaleme alınmıştır. Çalışmanın hazırlanması sürecinde dil editörlüğü amacıyla Claude (Anthropic) kullanılmıştır. Yazar(lar), yapay zeka destekli tüm çıktıları incelemiş ve doğrulamış olup yayının içeriğine ilişkin tüm sorumluluğu üstlenmektedir.

Thanks

Veri toplama sürecine katkıda bulunan anonim katılımcılara teşekkürlerimizi sunarız.

Defending Human Rights in a Foggy Maze: Individual Application to the Constitutional Court in Turkey

Abstract

Since its implementation in 2012, the individual application has served as a significant constitutional mechanism providing individuals with direct access to the Constitutional Court for the protection of their fundamental rights and freedoms. However, increasing workloads and structural challenges have adversely affected the mechanism's effectiveness. This study aims to understand how lawyers experience the individual application process and what meaning they ascribe to it. Adopting Moustakas's transcendental phenomenological approach, the research conducted semi-structured interviews with 32 lawyers registered with bar associations in Turkey's four most populous provinces. Criterion, maximum variation, and snowball sampling techniques were employed in combination. The analysis revealed seven themes: lack of training, difficulties with the application form, distrust, delayed justice, appeal illusion, strict formal requirements, and dissatisfactory judgments. The findings indicate that lawyers receive insufficient practical training, that the application form poses significant challenges, and that distrust in the judiciary negatively affects the process. Furthermore, the perception of the Court as an appellate body leads to a misunderstanding of the mechanism's intended purpose. By likening lawyers' experiences to a foggy maze, this study illuminates the complex nature of the individual application process and offers recommendations for enhancing the mechanism's effectiveness.

Keywords

Individual application, Turkish Constitutional Court, fundamental rights, phenomenology, access to justice

Supporting Institution

This study was supported by Bursa Uludag University Research Projects Coordination Office under the Grant Number SGA-2022-1023. The author(s) thank the BUU BAP Unit for their support.

Project Number

This study was supported by Bursa Uludag University Research Projects Coordination Office under the Grant Number SGA-2022-1023.

Ethical Statement

The study was approved by the Bursa Uludag University Research Ethics Committee (2022-03/45). All participants were informed about the aims of the study, their voluntary involvement, and their right to withdraw at any time. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before data collection. AI Disclosure: This article was written by the author. During the preparation of this work, Claude (Anthropic) was used for language editing. The author(s) reviewed and verified all AI-assisted outputs and takes full responsibility for the content of the publication.

Thanks

We would also like to thank the anonymous participants for contributing to the data collection.

Abstract

Project Number

This study was supported by Bursa Uludag University Research Projects Coordination Office under the Grant Number SGA-2022-1023.

References

Anayasa Mahkemesi. “Bireysel Başvurular UYAP Avukat Portalı Üzerinden Alınmaya Başlandı.” October 1, 2025. Accessed March 10, 2026. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/haberler/faaliyetler/bireysel-basvurular- uyap-avukat-portali-uzerinden-alinmaya-baslandi/.
Armağan, Servet. Anayasa Mahkememizde Kazaî Murakebe Sistemi. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, 1967.
Arslan, Zühtü. “Bireysel Başvurularda İnceleme Usulleri Konulu Panelin Açılış Konuşması / Opening Speech of the Panel on Review Procedures in Individual Applications.” November 7, 2022. Accessed September 12, 2024.
https://anayasa.gov.tr/tr/baskan/eski-baskanlarin- konusmalari/zuhtu-arslan/konusmalar/bireysel-basvurularda-inceleme- usulleri-konulu-panel-acis-konusmasi/.
Arslan, Zühtü. “Conflicting Paradigms: Political Rights in the Turkish Constitutional Court.” Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies 11, no. 1 (2002): 9-28.
Arslan, Zühtü. “Türkiye’de Bireysel Başvurunun 11 Yılı.” Ac- cessed January 21, 2025. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/tr/baskan/eski-baskanlarin-konusmalari/zuhtu-arslan/konusmalar/turkiye-de-bireysel- basvurunun-11-yili/.
Aydın-Çakır, Aylin. “Judicialization of Politics by Elected Politi- cians: The Theory of Strategic Litigation.” Political Research Quarterly 67, no. 3 (2014): 489-503.
Aydın-Çakır, Aylin. “The Impact of Judicial Preferences and Polit- ical Context on Constitutional Court Decisions: Evidence from Turkey.” ICON-International Journal of Constitutional Law 16, no. 4 (2018): 1101-1120.
Belge, Ceren. “Friends of the Court: The Republican Alliance and Selective Activism of the Constitutional Court of Turkey.” Law and So- ciety Review 40, no. 3 (2006): 653-692.
Benhabib, Seyla. “The Return of Political Theology: The Scarf Af- fair in Comparative Constitutional Perspective in France, Germany, and Turkey.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 36, no. 3-4 (2010): 451-471.

Brown, Jill, James H. Sorrell, Jason McLaren and John W. Cre- swell. “Waiting for a Liver Transplant.” Qualitative Health Research 16, no. 1 (2006): 119-136.
Çakmak, Cenap, and Cengiz Dinç. “Constitutional Court: Its Lim- its to Shape Turkish Politics.” Insight Turkey 12, no. 4 (2010): 69-92.
Çelik, Abdullah. “Anayasa Mahkemesinin Bireysel Başvuru Kararlarında Tespit Ettiği Yapısal Sorunlar ve Paydaş Kurumlar.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Symposium on Workload and Solu- tion Suggestions in Individual Application, Ankara, Türkiye, March 1, 2022. Ankara: Anayasa Mahkemesi Yayınları, 2022.
Çelik, Abdullah. “Hukukun Anayasallaşması ve Bireysel Başvuru.” Anayasa Yargısı 40, no. 1 (2023): 307–320.
Çobanoğlu, Revşan Deniz. “Bireysel Başvuruda Avukatla Temsil: Sorunlar ve Öneriler.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Sympo- sium on Workload and Solution Suggestions in Individual Application, Ankara, Türkiye, March 1, 2022. Ankara: Anayasa Mahkemesi Yayınları, 2022.
Coşkun, Gülçin Balamir, and Ertuğ Tombuş. “The Rule of Arbitrariness as the New Constitutional Order in Turkey.” Verfassungsblog, November 14, 2023.
Creswell, J. W. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choos- ing Among Five Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2007.
Daneliene, Ingrida. “Individual Access to Constitutional Justice in Lithuania: The Potential Within the Newly Established Model of the Individual Constitutional Complaint.” Revista de Derecho Político 111 (2021): 281-312.
Denzin, Norman K. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. 2nd ed. US: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
Esen, Berk. “Judicial Transformation in a Competitive Authoritar- ian Regime: Evidence from the Turkish Case.” Law & Policy 47, no. 1 (2025): 1-22.
Flanigan, Abraham E., and Wayne A. Babchuk. “Social Media as Academic Quicksand: A Phenomenological Study of Student Experienc- es In and Out of the Classroom.” Learning and Individual Differences 44 (2015): 40-45.
Gemalmaz, H. Burak. “Türk Anayasa Mahkemesinin Trajedisi: Bi- reysel Başvuru Yolunun Etkisizliğinin Bazı Sebepleri İle Bunu Giderecek Bazı Öneriler.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Sympo- sium on Workload and Solution Suggestions in Individual Application, Ankara, Türkiye, March 1, 2022. Ankara: Anayasa Mahkemesi Yayın- ları, 2022.
Gözler, Kemal. “The Problem of Legitimacy of the Constitutional Judiciary.” Ankara University Journal of the Faculty of Political Scienc- es 61, no. 3 (2006): 131-166.
Guest, Greg, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson. “How Many In- terviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Varia- bility.” Field Methods 18, no. 1 (2006): 59–82.
Güney, Aylin, and Filiz Başkan. “Party Dissolutions and Demo- cratic Consolidation: The Turkish Case.” South European Society and Politics 13, no. 3 (2008): 263-281.
Hakyemez, Yusuf Şevki. “Containing the Political Space: Party Closures and the Constitutional Court in Turkey.” Insight Turkey 10, no. 2 (2008): 135-144.Hazama, Yasushi. “From Activism to Resilience: The Turkish Constitutional Court in Comparative Perspective.” Turkish Studies 24 (2023): 570-592.
Hazama, Yasushi. “Hegemonic Preservation or Horizontal Accountability: Constitutional Review in Turkey.” International Political Science Review 33, no. 4 (2012): 421-440.
Hirschl, Ran. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequenc- es of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Höjelid, Stefan. “Headscarves, Judicial Activism, and Democracy: The 2007-08 Constitutional Crisis in Turkey.” The European Legacy: Toward New Paradigms 15, no. 4 (2010): 467-482.
Husserl, Edmund. Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology. 7th ed. Translated by D. Cairns. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1982.
Koğacıoğlu, Dicle. “Progress, Unity and Democracy: Dissolving Political Parties in Turkey.” Law & Society Review 38, no. 3 (2004): 433-462.
Köksal, Tuğçe Duygu. “Bireysel Başvuruda Avukatla Temsil: Sorunlar ve Öneriler.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Symposi- um on Workload and Solution Suggestions in Individual Application, Ankara, Turkey, March 1, 2022. Ankara: Anayasa Mahkemesi Yayınları, 2022.
Kurban, Dilek. “Authoritarian Resistance and Judicial Complicity: Turkey and the European Court of Human Rights.” European Journal of International Law 35, no. 2 (2024): 355–387.
Kuru, Ahmet T. “Secularism in Turkey: Myths and Realities.” In- sight Turkey 10, no. 3 (2008): 101-110.
Morse, Janice M. “Determining Sample Size.” Qualitative Health Research 10, no. 1 (2000): 3–5.
Moustakas, Clark. Phenomenological Research Methods. Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.
Oder, Bertil Emrah. “The Turkish Constitutional Court and Turkey’s Democratic Breakdown: Judicial Politics Under Pressure.” ICL Journal 18, no. 1 (2024): 127-163.
Oder, Bertil Emrah. “Turkish Constitutional Court and Judicial Resistance: Instances of Defiance Under Pressure.” Global Jurist 25, no. 2 (2025): 293-319.
Onar, Erdal. Kanunların Anayasalara Uygunluğunun Siyasal ve Yargısal Denetimi ve Yargısal Denetim Alanında Ülkemizde Öncüler. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayınları, 2003.
Özbudun, Ergun. “Party Prohibition Cases: Different Approaches by the Turkish Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights.” Democratization 17, no. 1 (2010): 125-142.
Özbudun, Ergun. “Political Origins of the Turkish Constitutional Court and the Problem of Democratic Legitimacy.” European Public Law 12, no. 2 (2006): 213-223.
Polkinghorne, Donald E. “Phenomenological Research Methods.” In Existential-Phenomenological Perspectives in Psychology, edited by Ronald S. Valle and Steen Halling, 41–60. New York: Plenum Press, 1989.
Saygılı, Abdurrahman. “What is Behind the Headscarf Ruling of the Turkish Constitutional Court?” Turkish Studies 11, no. 2 (2010): 127-141.
Sert, Mehmet Fatih, Engin Yıldırım, and İrfan Haşlak. “Using Ar- tificial Intelligence to Predict Decisions of the Turkish Constitutional Court.” Social Science Computer Review 40, no. 6 (2022): 1416-1435.
Shambayati, Hootan. “The Guardian of the Regime: the Turkish Constitutional Court in Comparative Perspective.” In Constitutional Pol- itics in the Middle East: With Special Reference to Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, edited by Said Amir Arjomand, 99-121. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008.
Shambayati, Hootan, and Güliz Sütçü. “The Turkish Constitutional Court and the Justice and Development Party (2002-09).” Middle East- ern Studies 48, no. 1 (2012): 107-123.
Šipulová, Katarina. “The Light and the Dark Side of Judicial Re- sistance.” Law and Policy 47, no. 1 (2025): 1–25. Ünsal, Artun. Siyaset ve Anayasa Mahkemesi (“Siyasal Sistem” Teorisi Açısından Türk Anayasa Mahkemesi). İstanbul: AFA Yayınları, 1985.
Van Manen, Max. Phenomenology of Practice: Meaning-Giving Methods in Phenomenological Research and Writing. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2014.
Varol, Ozan O., Lucia Dalla Pellegrina, and Nuno Garoupa. “An Empirical Analysis of Judicial Transformation in Turkey.” The Ameri- can Journal of Comparative Law 65, no. 1 (2017): 187-216.
Venice Commission (European Commission for Democracy Through Law). “Study on Individual Access to Constitutional Justice.” January 27, 2011. Accessed September 12, 2024. https://www.venice. coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2010)039rev-e.

Details

Primary Language

Turkish

Subjects

Constitutional Law, Domestic Human Rights Law

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Serdar Gülener ^*
0000-0003-1014-7500
Türkiye

Abdullah Yasin Erdem
0000-0003-3895-7150
Türkiye

Senanur Kaya
0009-0003-2759-0063
Türkiye

Publication Date

September 22, 2026

Submission Date

March 31, 2026

Acceptance Date

July 14, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 15 Number: 29

DOI

https://doi.org/10.66484/ayhd.1918654

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA86NZ54LY

APA

Gülener, S., Erdem, A. Y., & Kaya, S. (2026). Sisli Bir Labirentte İnsan Haklarını Savunmak: Türkiye’de Anayasa Mahkemesine Bireysel Başvuru. Anayasa Hukuku Dergisi, 15(29), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.66484/ayhd.1918654

AMA

1.Gülener S, Erdem AY, Kaya S. Sisli Bir Labirentte İnsan Haklarını Savunmak: Türkiye’de Anayasa Mahkemesine Bireysel Başvuru. Anayasa Hukuku Dergisi. 2026;15(29):1-32. doi:10.66484/ayhd.1918654

Chicago

Gülener, Serdar, Abdullah Yasin Erdem, and Senanur Kaya. 2026. “Sisli Bir Labirentte İnsan Haklarını Savunmak: Türkiye’de Anayasa Mahkemesine Bireysel Başvuru”. Anayasa Hukuku Dergisi 15 (29): 1-32. https://doi.org/10.66484/ayhd.1918654.

EndNote

Gülener S, Erdem AY, Kaya S (September 1, 2026) Sisli Bir Labirentte İnsan Haklarını Savunmak: Türkiye’de Anayasa Mahkemesine Bireysel Başvuru. Anayasa Hukuku Dergisi 15 29 1–32.

IEEE

[1]S. Gülener, A. Y. Erdem, and S. Kaya, “Sisli Bir Labirentte İnsan Haklarını Savunmak: Türkiye’de Anayasa Mahkemesine Bireysel Başvuru”, Anayasa Hukuku Dergisi, vol. 15, no. 29, pp. 1–32, Sept. 2026, doi: 10.66484/ayhd.1918654.

ISNAD

Gülener, Serdar - Erdem, Abdullah Yasin - Kaya, Senanur. “Sisli Bir Labirentte İnsan Haklarını Savunmak: Türkiye’de Anayasa Mahkemesine Bireysel Başvuru”. Anayasa Hukuku Dergisi 15/29 (September 1, 2026): 1-32. https://doi.org/10.66484/ayhd.1918654.

JAMA

1.Gülener S, Erdem AY, Kaya S. Sisli Bir Labirentte İnsan Haklarını Savunmak: Türkiye’de Anayasa Mahkemesine Bireysel Başvuru. Anayasa Hukuku Dergisi. 2026;15:1–32.

MLA

Gülener, Serdar, et al. “Sisli Bir Labirentte İnsan Haklarını Savunmak: Türkiye’de Anayasa Mahkemesine Bireysel Başvuru”. Anayasa Hukuku Dergisi, vol. 15, no. 29, Sept. 2026, pp. 1-32, doi:10.66484/ayhd.1918654.

Vancouver

1.Serdar Gülener, Abdullah Yasin Erdem, Senanur Kaya. Sisli Bir Labirentte İnsan Haklarını Savunmak: Türkiye’de Anayasa Mahkemesine Bireysel Başvuru. Anayasa Hukuku Dergisi. 2026 Sep. 1;15(29):1-32. doi:10.66484/ayhd.1918654

Sisli Bir Labirentte İnsan Haklarını Savunmak: Türkiye'de Anayasa Mahkemesine Bireysel Başvuru

Abstract

Keywords

Supporting Institution

Project Number

Ethical Statement

Thanks

Defending Human Rights in a Foggy Maze: Individual Application to the Constitutional Court in Turkey

Abstract

Keywords

Supporting Institution

Project Number

Ethical Statement

Thanks

Abstract

Project Number

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite