A decision from the Constitutional Court that will change the course of divorce cases

Applicant N.Ç. and other applicants who applied to the Supreme Court claimed that they were deprived of the right to remarry and start a family due to the prolonged process of their divorce cases.

The Constitutional Court combined the files of N.Ç. and the other applicants and reached its decision.

In the unanimous decision made on May 14, 2025, it was stated that the proceedings in the divorce cases in which the other applicants were parties, except for the application in which N.Ç. was a party, were finalized and that all the contested cases were concluded in a period of approximately 5 to 10 years.

It was noted that the case to which N.Ç. is a party was filed on November 9, 2016 and is still ongoing.

In its decision, the Constitutional Court pointed out that the right to marry is specifically regulated under Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that this right is guaranteed in Articles 20 and 41 of the Constitution.

"NOT COMPLETED IN A REASONABLE TIME" The following statements were included in the decision: "When the trials are evaluated as a whole, it cannot be said that the applicants did not fulfill their obligations of follow-up and diligence during the trial process. In addition, considering that it cannot be said that the applicants had any involvement in the prolongation of the trials, it is possible to reach the conclusion that the obligation of due diligence was not shown in a way that would not harm the right to marry in the circumstances of the concrete case and that the trials were not ultimately completed within a reasonable time. Thus, it is considered that the state did not fulfill its obligation to conclude the divorce cases within a reasonable time and thus imposed a burden on the applicant in terms of the individual’s ability to organize his private and family life and to make decisions regarding his private life in the context of starting a family, in a way that would harm his right to marry."

"RIGHT TO MARRIAGE VIOLATED"

For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court ruled that the applicants' right to marry, guaranteed by Articles 20 and 41 of the Constitution, had been violated.

The Supreme Court also decided to pay non-pecuniary damages to the applicants for their non-pecuniary damages, which could not be compensated by determining that their right to marry had been violated.

Some applicants' requests for financial compensation were rejected.