Appeal

Lore & Background

Appellate procedure begins when a higher court grants a petition for review of a lower court’s decision. Unlike trials, which often involve a jury, appeals are heard by a single judge or a panel of judges. Before any oral argument, the parties submit written legal briefs outlining their positions, and outside parties may be permitted to file amicus curiae briefs. During oral argument, judges frequently question attorneys to test their arguments. After deliberation, the court issues a formal written opinion resolving the legal issues. The outcome is either a reversal, where the lower court’s decision is found incorrect and the case may be sent back for retrial, or an affirmation, where the lower court’s ruling is upheld. Some appellate courts also handle matters of first instance, giving them a dual function. Historically, appellate systems have existed for millennia; in ancient Babylon, Hammurabi and his governors acted as the highest appellate authority. Ancient Roman law recognized a right to appeal from 509 BC, later developing a complex hierarchy of appellate courts, some appeals reaching the emperor. Japan had appellate courts by the Kamakura shogunate. However, common law jurisdictions were slow to adopt a right to appeal. Early English courts had no concept of appealing from one court to another; relief came through limited writs of error and certiorari, which were not available as a matter of right. England only introduced civil appeals in 1873 and criminal appeals in 1907.

Reader's Guide

The appeal is a cornerstone of modern legal systems, providing a mechanism for error correction and legal clarification. While appellate courts have ancient roots, the right to appeal in common law jurisdictions is a 19th-century development. The process distinguishes between appellate review (review of lower court decisions) and judicial review (review of legislative or administrative acts). Terminology varies between American and British English, with American courts using 'judgment affirmed' or 'judgment reversed' and British courts using 'appeal dismissed' or 'appeal allowed'. Appellate courts generally review questions of law de novo but defer to trial court fact-finding, though some jurisdictions like the Netherlands review cases in their entirety. The right to appeal can be waived, as in the United States, if the waiver is considered and intelligent. The highest appellate court is often called a court of last resort or supreme court.

Did You Know?

• Early forms of appellate review, like the English Court of Exchequer Chamber and the writ of error, existed before the 19th century.
• In the United States, litigants may waive the right to appeal if the waiver is 'considered and intelligent'.

From Ottoman Courts to a Civil Law Republic

When Turkey established its republic, it made a decisive break from the legal traditions of the Ottoman era, dismantling Sharia courts and replacing them with a civil law framework. Administrative law followed the French model, while procedural rules carry the imprint of Swiss, German, and French systems alike. This patchwork of European influences created a legal architecture that is distinctly Turkish in practice yet deeply rooted in continental European traditions.

The Bench Without a Jury

Turkey's courtroom operates without juries. Whether a case is criminal or civil, the verdict rests entirely with a judge or, more commonly, a panel of three judges who must ground their decisions in statutory law and personal conviction. Judges are categorized by their specialty, and this is made visually distinct through their robes: criminal judges wear black with a red collar, civil judges pair black with green, and administrative judges choose gray. Criminal judges sit in courts ranging from the sulh ceza (penal court of peace) to the ağır ceza (assize court), while civil judges handle matters in the sulh or asliye hukuk mahkemeleri. To enter the bench, a law graduate must first pass a written examination administered by the Measuring, Selection and Placement Center (ÖSYM) and then face an interview before a committee predominantly made up of sitting judges. Only after clearing these hurdles can a candidate earn the title of trainee judge and begin the internship required before full appointment.

The Pyramid of Higher Courts

Above the general law courts that handle the bulk of civil, criminal, and administrative cases, Turkey's constitution recognizes four supreme bodies. The Constitutional Court stands at the apex, responsible for constitutional adjudication and for hearing individual applications alleging human rights violations. The Court of Cassation serves as the final word in ordinary criminal and civil matters, while the Council of State plays the equivalent role for administrative disputes and conflicts between government entities. A fourth body, the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes, exists specifically to settle clashes over constitutional jurisdiction among the other courts. The general law courts below them remain the primary venue where most prosecutions and civil disputes are first brought to trial.

A System Under Strain

Despite its elaborate architecture, Turkey's judiciary faces persistent operational and institutional challenges. Compliance with judicial decisions is not guaranteed: government agencies such as Turkstat have at times ignored court orders, and judgments from the European Court of Human Rights have occasionally gone unimplemented. The governance of the judiciary itself has drawn scrutiny. The council sits within the Ministry of Justice, lacks its own budget, and is chaired by the Minister of Justice.