The Constitutional Court's Rules of Procedure amendment dated August 5, 2025, introduces a groundbreaking shift in interim measure requests in individual applications. Now, not only the right to life and physical integrity but all fundamental rights are under temporary protection.
The year 2025 witnessed a quiet yet highly significant turning point in Turkish constitutional adjudication. With the amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court published in the Official Gazette on August 5, 2025, the institution of interim measures in individual applications has, for the first time, been expanded so comprehensively. The change is examined below through a comparative reading of the relevant provision before and after the amendment.
Former Version of Article 73 of the Constitutional Court’s Rules of Procedure:
“(1) Upon understanding that there is a serious threat to the applicant’s life or physical or mental integrity, the Chambers may ex officio or upon request decide on the necessary measures during the merits phase.
(2) Regarding pending applications; if it is understood that there is a serious threat to the applicant’s life or physical or mental integrity, and an interim measure is not issued before a decision on the merits, the Commissions shall immediately assess admissibility and refer the case to the relevant Chamber to decide also on the interim measure.”
New Version Introduced on August 5, 2025:
“Upon understanding that there is a serious threat to the applicant’s fundamental rights, especially to their life or physical or mental integrity, the Chambers may ex officio or upon request decide on the necessary measures during the merits phase.
(Amended: Article 2 of the Rules published in the Official Gazette No. 32977 dated 5/8/2025) Regarding pending applications; if it is understood that there is a serious threat to the applicant’s fundamental rights, especially to their life or physical or mental integrity, and an interim measure is not issued before a decision on the merits, the Commissions shall immediately assess admissibility and refer the case to the relevant Chamber to decide also on the interim measure.”
As seen, the former wording of Article 73 limited interim measure requests to threats against life and physical or mental integrity. However, the new wording expands the scope by stating “a serious threat to the applicant’s fundamental rights, especially to their life or physical or mental integrity,” thereby covering all fundamental rights. This limitation—previously introduced by the Rules of Procedure but not found in any statute—had long been subject to academic criticism.
What Does This Change Bring?
The Constitutional Court may now issue interim measures not only in relation to the right to life or bodily/psychological integrity (so-called “core rights”) but for all fundamental rights. This reform holds significant legal protection potential, particularly in areas prone to irreparable harm, such as:
- Freedom of expression,
- Right to property,
- Right to a fair trial,
- Respect for private and family life,
- Freedom of assembly and association.
Why Is This Important?
The interim measure mechanism is a special legal tool to prevent irreversible harm before the conclusion of legal proceedings. Especially in cases where the individual stands “alone” against state power, this protection is crucial.
However, for many years in Turkey, this mechanism was confined to a very narrow scope. The Constitutional Court’s Rules of Procedure only allowed interim measures for risks concerning the right to life and physical integrity. This led to the rejection of interim measure requests in cases involving political expression, journalism, public demonstrations, criminal proceedings, or administrative actions.
What Types of Applications Are Now Eligible for Interim Protection?
With the amendment to the Rules of Procedure, interim measures may now be requested in situations such as:
- A journalist facing a publication ban,
- A politician’s parliamentary immunity being lifted,
- The suspension of a civil society organization’s activities,
- Violations of fair trial guarantees threatening an individual’s liberty,
- A prisoner’s access to healthcare being denied.
This approach aligns more closely with the long-standing practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), where interim measures are granted not only in deportation cases but also in relation to fair trial rights, family unity, and freedom of expression.
The Future of Implementation: Hope or Uncertainty?
Although this reform offers a substantial expansion on paper, two key challenges must be closely monitored in practice:
- Interpretation of the “irreparable harm” criterion: Will the Court accept this only in cases of physical harm, or will it also acknowledge it in the abstract violation of constitutional rights?
- Approach to interim requests: Will the Court treat these requests as routine claims, or will it adopt a proactive stance for the effective protection of fundamental rights?
The answers to these questions will not only determine the effectiveness of individual applications but also shape perceptions of the rule of law in Turkey.
Conclusion
This amendment to the Rules of Procedure marks a valuable step in transforming the individual application system from a passive “violation detection mechanism” into an active fundamental rights protection tool.
However, a permanent and effective transformation depends not on the text itself but on its implementation. Thus, it is vital for applicants to submit well-prepared, concrete, and legally sound interim measure requests to push the Court and contribute to the development of jurisprudence.