Precedent Judgments & Right to Reasoned Decision

30 October 2026 — New questions and explanations

The Turkish Constitutional Court held that reaching a different conclusion from decisions rendered in similar cases without sufficiently explaining this divergence constituted a violation of rights. What is the significance of this decision?

Lawyer Aylin Esra Eren: Merely stating the outcome in judicial decisions is not sufficient. The court must also respond to the substantial arguments of the parties that are capable of affecting the outcome of the dispute. In particular, if diverging decisions are rendered in cases with similar legal and factual circumstances, explaining this discrepancy with a reasonable and understandable reasoning is of essential importance.

The right to a fair trial, safeguarded under Article 36 of the Constitution, and the right to a reasoned decision, which is a component of this right, come into play precisely at this point.

Does this mean that courts are obliged to comply with every precedent decision?

Lawyer Aylin Esra Eren: No. It is not mandatory to apply every precedent judgment verbatim to another case file. This is because every dispute possesses its own factual circumstances and legal characteristics. However, if the precedent decisions submitted by a party are decisive for the dispute, the court must evaluate them and explain why it reached a different conclusion.

In which lawsuits is this situation especially significant?

Lawyer Aylin Esra Eren: It holds importance in types of lawsuits where similar factual patterns are frequently encountered, such as labor claims, determination of the social security start date, determination of insurance coverage period, compensation, inheritance, and real property disputes. Leaving precedent decisions submitted in a case unaddressed without reasoning may raise issues concerning a party's fair trial guarantees.

What can citizens do when confronted with such a situation?

Lawyer Aylin Esra Eren: First of all, precedent decisions should not merely be appended to the file; it must also be explained in which aspects they overlap with the concrete dispute. If these assertions are left unaddressed in the reasoning of the judgment, legal remedies and, if the conditions are met, the avenue of individual application may be evaluated. What matters here is the substantiation of the legal claim.

How should this decision be evaluated in terms of trust in the judiciary?

Lawyer Aylin Esra Eren: In a state governed by the rule of law, demonstrating similar legal approaches to similar cases is vital for legal foreseeability and confidence in the judiciary. Rendering a different decision does not, on its own, constitute a violation of rights; however, leaving this divergence unreasoned may infringe upon the right to a fair trial.