WHY DO JUDICIAL PROCESSES TAKE SO LONG IN Türkiye?

Why do legal processes take so long in Türkiye?

Structural Problems and Practical Solutions

1. Introduction: Why is the “Reasonable Time” Issue So Important?

In Türkiye, a common complaint among almost every citizen is embodied in the phrase, "My case has been ongoing for years." The perception is particularly strong that in labor, family, commercial, consumer, and criminal cases, files drag on for years, and the "right to a trial within a reasonable time" often remains only on paper.

However, Article 36 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights , everyone has the right to have their case concluded within a reasonable time. This right is not merely a theoretical ideal; its violation constitutes a concrete obligation that compels the state to pay compensation and undermines individuals' trust in the state.

This article structurally examine why judicial processes in Turkey are so lengthy, and practical solutions for lawyers, parties, and policymakers .

2. The Legal Framework of the Right to a Trial Within a Reasonable Time

2.1. Constitutional and International Basis

• Article 36 of the Constitutionregulates the right to seek justice; a reasonable time is an element of the right to a fair trial.

• Article 6 of the ECHR: “Everyone has the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal within a reasonable time.”

• Constitutional Court individual application: This has become one of the most frequently used application routes for lengthy judicial proceedings; the Constitutional Court has ruled for compensation in numerous decisions, finding violations of the reasonable time limit.

This framework reveals that the speed of justice is no longer merely an administrative choice, but an obligation with a human rights dimension

3. Structural Problems: Why Does it Take So Long for Decisions to Be Made?

3.1. Excessive Caseload and Insufficient Human Resources

In Turkey, the "reflex to go to court" is quite strong in almost every field .

• While a significant number of disputes could be resolved through mediation, conciliation, internal audit mechanisms, or complaints, they are instead taken directly to court.

• In many places, the balance between the number of judges, prosecutors, court clerks, and bailiffs and the number of cases opened is disrupted.

• Especially in metropolitan courthouses, a single judge can handle thousands of active cases; this inevitably increases the intervals between hearings and prolongs the time it takes to write decisions.

Conclusion: When the same judge attends numerous hearings in a single day and doesn't have time to review the case files, procedural efficiency and the quality of the trial are compromised.

3.2. Multi-Stage and Complex Legal Remedies

While the transition to the appeal and cassation system in the Code of Civil Procedure, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and other procedural legislation is a significant achievement in terms of the freedom to seek justice, it can prolong the process in practice.

• First degree,

• Regional Court of Appeals (appellate court),

• Supreme Court (appeals)

The three-stage process the same dispute is reviewed several times . When workload allocation and filtering mechanisms in legal proceedings are not effective enough, processes can drag on for years.

The situation becomes even more difficult when you add processes such as decisions of lack of jurisdiction/incompetence, the case being passed back and forth between courts, and retrials after annulment.

3.3. Frequent Changes in Legislation and Instability in Case Law

In Turkish law in recent years:

• Many procedural provisions,

• Basic penal and enforcement regulations,

• The articles in the fields of consumer, labor, and commercial law
  have been amended numerous times.

Each change creates "transitional uncertainty" among practitioners:

• Which law will apply to the act committed on which date?

• Which procedural rule will apply to pending cases?

• How will the precedents of the Supreme Court and the Regional Courts of Appeal be adapted to the new regulation?

This uncertainty is causing courts to act more cautiously, leading to some cases being "held on hold" awaiting new precedents, and extending the overall processing time

3.4. Corporate and Technical Infrastructure Problems

Although Türkiye is ahead of many countries in terms of digitalization with projects like UYAP and e-notification:

• System overload, technical outages,

• The fact that the e-hearing infrastructure cannot be implemented equally everywhere,

• Due to staff shortages, incoming documents and requests are processed into the system with a delay

Such problems wasted time . Furthermore, classic problems like physical archiving, file loss, and incorrect folder organization have not yet been fully resolved.

3.5. Delays Arising from Expert Testimony, On-Site Investigation, and Forensic Medicine

Especially:

• Labor law cases,

• Traffic accidents,

• Construction/real estate disputes,

• In commercial lawsuits requiring technical calculations

Expert reports are of critical importance. However, the workload of experts, the inability to prepare reports on time, the return of inadequate reports, and the appointment of new experts can significantly prolong the trial.

Similarly, on-site inspections , scheduling an inspection date and bringing the parties and expert together at the same time is often difficult, which is a significant factor that delays the schedule.

4. Reasons for Delays Caused by the Parties in Implementation

The prolongation of judicial processes is determined not only by systemic and institutional problems, but by the attitudes of the parties and their lawyers .

4.1. Late Submission of Evidence and Missing Deadlines

• Incomplete preparation of evidence lists,

• Failure to pay required fees and expenses on time,

• The inability to bring witnesses to the hearing,

• Failure to complete procedures such as amendment, counterclaim, and correction of hostility within the prescribed time limit

This unnecessarily prolongs the case. "preclusive" nature of the deadlines in the Code of Civil Procedure attempts to prevent delays in many cases, in practice, incomplete and delayed proceedings both create procedural disputes and necessitate new hearing dates.

4.2. Malicious Process Prolongation Tactics

In some disputes, one of the parties, in order to "buy time":

• Providing an unnecessary witness list,

• Constantly making excuses,

• Requesting expert opinions repeatedly on the same issues,

• Dragging the file around with unjustified objections of lack of authority/competence

They may employ tactics like these. Although courts try to prevent such malicious behavior, proactive monitoring of every case may not be possible under the current workload.

5. Practical Solutions: What Can the State, Implementers, and Citizens Do?

Because the root of the problem is multifaceted, the solution must also be multifaceted

5.1. Recommendations at the Policy and Legislative Level

1. Strengthening the Judiciary Budget and Human Resources

   • Increasing the number of judges, prosecutors, and support staff while ensuring their qualifications are taken into consideration

   • Strengthening the allocated physical space, courtroom facilities, and technical infrastructure,

   • Increasing the number of interim review mechanisms, such as investigating judges.

2. Expanding Specialized Courts

   • Specialized courts in areas such as commerce, consumer law, labor law, intellectual property law, and family law ensure that disputes are resolved more quickly and accurately.

   • Strengthening the specialization of chambers in both the Court of Appeals and the Court of Cassation will increase the stability and speed of case law.

3. Filtering Mechanisms in Legal Processes

   • Instead of automatically referring every case to the Supreme Court, conducting "preliminary screening" and "admissibility" reviews based on certain monetary limits and legal criteria allows the high courts to focus on their actual function of establishing precedents.

4. Enabling Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods

   • mandatory and voluntary mediation, conciliation, arbitration , and consumer arbitration boards practically accessible and reliable removes many disputes from the system that would otherwise not need to go to court.

   • Strengthening the independence, impartiality, and transparency of these mechanisms will increase public trust.

5. Predictability in Legislative Changes

   • Instead of frequent and abrupt changes to fundamental laws, reforms should be implemented that have undergone impact analyses, have clear transitional provisions, and allow time for preparation for implementation;

   • The timely and clear issuance of case law by high courts regarding new regulations will provide guidance to practitioners.

5.2. Recommendations for Courts and Practitioners

1. Case Management and Scheduling

   • Courts should establish a "trial schedule" ; making the dates for processes such as evidence gathering, expert opinions, on-site inspections, and witness hearings as predictable as possible.

   • Preventing unnecessary delays and ensuring that hearings fulfill the function of truly "triing" rather than merely "preparing files".

2. Review of the Expert Witness System

   • More accurate selection of experts based on their areas of expertise,

   • Effective sanctions will be applied if report submission deadlines are not met

   • Developing standard report formats for recurring dispute types.

3. Digitalization and the Widespread Adoption of E-Hearing Applications

   • The use of e-hearings, especially in legal disputes that do not require on-site investigation,

   • Increasing the scope and effectiveness of the e-notification system,

   • The system ensures the rapid and complete processing of court transcripts, decisions, and memoranda.

5.3. Practical Recommendations for Lawyers and Parties

1. Legal and Practical Preparation Before Filing a Lawsuit

   • Planning the litigation strategy from the outset,

   • The evidence must be gathered completely and attached to the petition

   • Writing focused, clear, and systematic petitions, avoiding unnecessary demands and claims.

2. Taking Alternative Solutions Seriously

   • Especially in commercial, family, business, and consumer disputes, solutions such as pre-court negotiation, mediation, and conciliation should be sincerely explored

   • Instead of reacting with a "file a lawsuit at all costs" reflex, the parties should act rationally by considering the time and cost.

3. Pay Attention to Deadline and Notification Tracking

   • Effective use of e-notification addresses,

   • Monitoring interim decisions issued by the court

   • Timely payment of fees and expenses, completion of evidence lists and witness declarations within deadlines.

6. From the Citizen's Perspective: What Can Be Done to Shorten the Judicial Process?

While individuals cannot solve structural problems on their own, they can take the following steps to prevent their files from becoming unnecessarily long :

• Important contracts should always be in writing and, if possible, notarized

• Please make payments through bank channels whenever possible and include a written description

• Determining the witness list before the trial and maintaining contact with the witnesses,

• If working with a lawyer, regularly exchange information about the case

• Not completely closing the door to reasonable settlement offers in disputes where one is in the right.

These steps both strengthen the evidence and reduce delays that may arise during the trial due to the need to "search for additional documents.".

7. Conclusion: Speedy Justice is a Prerequisite, Not a Luxury

"Justice delayed is justice denied," should be frequently remembered when discussing the length of judicial processes in Turkey. Completing trials within a reasonable time:

• Not only the individual,

• The economy, investments, business life, family life, social peace

It is directly in their interest.

The lengthy legal processes in Turkey are a multifaceted problem intertwined with a combination of factors including insufficient human resources, excessive caseload, multiple legal avenues, legislative complexity, expert witness issues, technical infrastructure problems, and the attitudes of the parties involved

Therefore, the solution will not be achieved through a single magic formula, but rather through a holistic approach that transforms judicial policy, legislation, institutional capacity, digitalization, and the culture of practice together

When citizens, lawyers, judges, prosecutors, legislators, and the administration all converge on the same goal, the question, "Why do judicial processes take so long in Türkiye?" can be replaced by, "Cases are now concluded within a reasonable time.".