In its decision dated 27 November 2025 and numbered 2021/31220, the Turkish Constitutional Court (“AYM”) held that the applicant’s right of access to a court, safeguarded under Article 36 of the Constitution, had been violated due to the failure to award attorney’s fees in favour of the applicant and the imposition of litigation expenses on the applicant despite the acceptance of the applicant’s objection to the enforcement order and the suspension of the enforcement proceedings.
In its decision dated 27 November 2025 and numbered 2021/31220, the Turkish Constitutional Court (“AYM“) held that the applicant’s right of access to a court, safeguarded under Article 36 of the Constitution, had been violated due to the failure to award attorney’s fees in favour of the applicant and the imposition of litigation expenses on the applicant, despite the applicant’s objection to the enforcement order having been upheld and the enforcement proceedings having been suspended.
The enforcement court upheld the applicant’s objection and ordered the suspension of the enforcement proceedings. However, the court held that no attorney’s fees should be awarded in favour of the applicant and that the litigation expenses should remain with the applicant, reasoning that the dispute had arisen from the failure to notify the creditor of the prior payment.
The applicant lodged an individual application before AYM, alleging that his right of access to a court had been violated as he had been deprived of attorney’s fees and required to bear litigation expenses despite having obtained a favourable judgement.
AYM found that the application satisfied the constitutional and personal significance criteria, noting that the applicant had been required to bear a financial burden and that the failure to award attorney’s fees to a successful litigant pointed to a broader and recurring issue in judicial practice.
In its judgement, AYM emphasised that the right of access to a court safeguards not only the possibility of bringing a claim before a court, but also protection against judicial proceedings resulting in a disproportionate financial burden on individuals. In this context, AYM reiterated that depriving a party of litigation expenses and attorney’s fees to which it would otherwise be entitled can, under certain circumstances, constitute an interference with the right of access to a court.
In the decision, it is also recalled that pursuant to Article 326 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (“HMK”), litigation expenses must, as a rule, be borne by the unsuccessful party, and that under Article 330, attorney’s fees determined by the court in proceedings conducted through legal representation must be awarded in favour of the successful party. AYM stated that, when read together, these provisions establish as a general principle that a successful litigant should not be required to bear litigation expenses or attorney’s fees.
Accordingly, AYM concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right of access to a court lacked a legal basis.
AYM held that the applicant’s right of access to a court had been violated and ordered a retrial in order to eliminate the consequences of the violation.
You can access the full text of the decision through this link. (Only available in Turkish)
