Was a Judgment Rendered Without Your Defense Being Heard? Why Violation of the Right to a Legal Hearing Is Grounds for Reversal

One of the most fundamental principles of criminal proceedings is that no one may be punished without being given the opportunity to defend themselves. Nevertheless, in practice, decisions are frequently rendered — both in administrative investigations and in criminal proceedings — without the parties being given adequate opportunity to defend themselves. So what does the restriction of the right to defense mean, in which cases does it constitute an absolute ground for reversal, and how can a person effectively exercise this right?

In this article, we examine the scope of the right to a legal hearing, the concept of immunity of the defense, and the settled approach of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) and the Constitutional Court on this matter.

What Is the Right to a Legal Hearing?

The right to a legal hearing is an extension of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution. This right requires that, before a decision is rendered about a person, their claims and defenses must be heard, the evidence they submit must be evaluated, and they must be given the opportunity to state their views on the allegations made against them. This principle is not limited to criminal proceedings alone; it has a broad scope of application, ranging from administrative acts to disciplinary investigations.

The Legal Issue

The most frequently encountered problems in practice are as follows:

• A defense petition submitted is not taken into consideration at all by the court or the administration,
• The defendant's defense is not taken before the opinion (mütalaa) of the prosecution,
• The alleged acts are based on abstract and general statements rather than concrete evidence,
• Defense statements that are connected to the dispute and based on real facts are sought to be characterized as a separate offense (for example, insult).

Each of these situations may constitute a violation of law, as they eliminate the person's ability to effectively defend themselves.

What Do the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court Say?

Failure to take a defense petition into consideration violates the right. The Court of Cassation, 13th Civil Chamber (Case No. 2017/3714, Decision No. 2018/4970, 2018), held that the court's failure to take a submitted defense petition into consideration is a clear violation of the right to a legal hearing.

Failure to take the defense before the opinion is an absolute ground for reversal. According to the Court of Cassation, 16th Criminal Chamber (Case No. 2020/2363, Decision No. 2020/4355, 2020), failure to take the defendant's defense before the public prosecutor's opinion on the merits is, by itself, an absolute ground for reversal. This is one of the most concrete examples showing how strongly the right to defense is protected.

Abstract allegations are not sufficient. Both the Council of State (Danıştay) and the Court of Cassation frequently emphasize in their case law that general and abstract allegations not based on concrete evidence cannot be deemed sufficient for a judgment or an administrative act. Likewise, reports based solely on statistical probabilities are not regarded as sufficient on their own for a conviction (Court of Cassation, 11th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2023/2049, Decision No. 2023/7106, 2023).

Immunity of the defense protects allegations based on real facts. Under Article 128 of the Turkish Criminal Code (TCK), allegations connected to a dispute and based on real facts do not constitute the elements of the offense of insult (Court of Cassation, 18th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2015/1331, Decision No. 2015/1678, 2015). This principle guarantees that the parties can defend themselves freely and without hesitation during the proceedings.

The presumption of accuracy of administrative reports is not absolute. According to the Constitutional Court (Application No. 2021/1864, 2025), the presumption of accuracy of administrative reports is not absolute, and imposing a penalty without taking the defense is unlawful. This precedent confirms the importance of the right to defense not only in criminal proceedings but also in administrative sanction processes.

A single act cannot be treated as a continuing offense. Where the conduct constitutes a single act, the provisions on continuing offenses under Article 43 of the TCK cannot be applied (Court of Cassation, 6th Criminal Chamber, Case No. 2025/5190, Decision No. 2025/8935, 2025). Such an unlawful characterization is also an important point that the defense should object to.

Points to Watch

• Follow up whether your defense petition has entered the case file and whether it has been evaluated in the reasoning of the decision. If the court or administration has disregarded the arguments you submitted, this must be explicitly emphasized before the higher authority.
• Pay attention to the procedural order. Whether your defense was taken before the opinion is a critical procedural rule that may lead to the reversal of the decision.
• Question the concreteness of the evidence. An allegation based solely on assumption or statistical probability is not, by itself, a sufficient basis.
• Pay attention to the scope of your defense statements. Statements connected to the subject of the proceedings and based on truth fall within the scope of immunity of the defense; however, it is important to know the limits of this protection.

Conclusion: What Should You Do?

Restriction or complete denial of the right to defense may render a decision unlawful, both in criminal proceedings and in administrative processes, and is often an absolute ground for reversal. When you are confronted with a decision or an act, you should first ask yourself the following questions: Was my defense taken in accordance with the proper procedure? Was the petition I submitted evaluated in the reasoning? Is the allegation based on concrete evidence or on assumptions? If your answers to these questions are negative, the decision or act may need to be challenged before a higher authority. Given the complexity of the process and the technical nature of the procedural rules, obtaining support from an experienced lawyer in such a situation is of great importance for the effective protection of your rights.