Constitutional Court Decision No. 2024/237 E., 2025/137 K., Dated 17.06.2025
Contents
Gizem Şimşek co-authored this article.
The decision of the Constitutional Court (“Court”) numbered 2024/237 E. and 2025/137 K., dated 17.06.2025 (“Decision”), was published in the Official Gazette No. 33028 on 25.09.2025. The Decision concerns the unconstitutionality of Article 166(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (“CCP”). In lawsuits regarding the recovery of overpayments made to a public official and the annulment of objections, courts applied to the Court via the objection procedure, claiming that the provision undermines the guarantee of the natural judge.
I. Proceedings
Applications were filed pursuant to Article 152 of the Constitution and Article 40 of the Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court.
- Preliminary Examination: The Court first reviewed the procedural admissibility of the applications. Court found that the referring courts had not sufficiently substantiated their allegations of unconstitutionality regarding the challenged provision and therefore declared the applications partially inadmissible on procedural grounds. Nevertheless, it decided to examine the merits of the annulment request.
- Joinder of Cases: Given the legal connection between the objection case registered under No. 2025/123 E. and the case registered under No. 2024/237 E., the Court, by its decision dated 3 June 2025, ordered the joinder of the files. The examination was thereafter conducted primarily under case No. 2024/237 E.
II. Examination on the Merits
The contested provision stipulates that a consolidation decision is binding on the other court and that such a decision may be challenged only together with the final decision. The applicants argued that this arrangement:
- prevents review of a consolidation decision rendered by the first-instance court,
- violates the principle of the rule of law,
- restricts the right to seek legal remedies, and
- undermines the guarantee of the legal judicial process.
- Court found that consolidating cases within the same judicial district serves the interest of procedural economy. However, The Court held that allowing the court of the later-filed action to render a decision binding the court of the earlier action does not provide adequate constitutional safeguards. Accordingly:
- the first sentence of Article 166 was found compatible with the Constitution, while
- the phrase in the second sentence stating that “the decision shall be binding on the other court” was annulled.
III. Dissenting Opinion
The dissenting opinion emphasized that consolidating related cases under a single court promotes procedural economy and the principle of a trial within a reasonable time. Further noted that consolidation decisions are not entirely beyond review, as they may be examined together with the final judgment pursuant to Article 168 of the CCP. The dissent underscored that any problematic aspects of the provision stem from its practical application rather than from constitutional deficiencies.
IV. Conclusion
The Constitutional Court did not annul the institution of case consolidation itself; it only declared the part of the provision that renders the consolidation decision binding on another court unconstitutional. In this way, procedural economy is preserved while the guarantee of the lawful judge is strengthened.
Successful