An express right, an indirect complaint route
Article 56 of the Turkish Constitution guarantees everyone the right to live in a healthy and balanced environment. Individual applications, however, may examine only rights falling within the common protection area of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. Because the ECHR contains no freestanding general environmental right, environmental harm is not reviewed solely and directly under Article 56.
Environmental impacts therefore enter constitutional review through respect for private and family life, protection of the home, and physical and psychological integrity. This route provides real protection but requires an individualisable, concrete and sufficiently serious interference.
D.Ö. (4): the seriousness threshold was not met
In D.Ö. (4), concerning night-time drumming and noise, the Court held that the impact did not reach the minimum seriousness required to engage Article 20. The case did not end with a merits finding of “no violation”; the complaint was declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. The decision demonstrates why intensity, duration and physical or psychological consequences are decisive in environmental complaints.
Turkish Constitutional Court, D.Ö. (4), Application No. 2014/3735, 12 June 2018: https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2014/3735
Mobile-phone base station: admissible, but no violation
In Hüseyin Tunç Karlık and Zahide Şadan Karluk, the Court examined alleged health effects of electromagnetic fields from a mobile-phone base station. The complaint was admissible, but the Court found no violation of Articles 17 and 20. Compliance with technical limits, the absence of a sufficiently established scientific causal link and the expert examination conducted by the ordinary courts were decisive.
The decision matters beyond its outcome. The Court recognised state duties to balance competing interests fairly, adopt necessary protective measures and provide access to information, participation and effective review. Turkish Constitutional Court, Application No. 2013/6587, 24 March 2016: https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2013/6587
Hydroelectric project: no effective judicial examination
Mehmet Kurt concerned a hydroelectric project covered by a decision that an environmental impact assessment was not required. The Court found that the ordinary courts had failed to examine the applicant’s substantial objections concerning environmental and health effects with the necessary care, and held that the right to physical and psychological integrity protected by Article 17 had been violated.
This was not a finding of a violation of the right to life. The violation arose under personal integrity because judicial review had been inadequate; the remedy was a retrial. Turkish Constitutional Court, Mehmet Kurt [Plenary], Application No. 2013/2552, 25 February 2016: https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2013/2552
İliç: review deficiencies identified before the disaster
Eşref Demir concerned the positive environmental impact assessment for expanding the Çöpler Gold Mine in İliç. The Court criticised the absence of an agricultural engineer from the expert panel, inadequate examination of effects on pasture, farming and livestock, and the failure to answer decisive objections. It found a violation of the right to respect for private life under Article 20 and ordered a retrial.
The judgment was delivered on 1 November 2023 and published on 16 January 2024. It therefore established at constitutional level, before the mine disaster of 13 February 2024, that the judicial environmental-risk assessment had been superficial. The chronology does not, however, establish a direct legal causal link between the judgment and the later disaster. Turkish Constitutional Court, Application No. 2020/12802: https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2020/12802
Kars River: prolonged pollution and ineffective redress
Belgüzar Çimendağ and Memet Erdagöz concerned sewage and slaughterhouse waste discharged untreated into the Kars River for years. Although the pollution had been scientifically established, health risks, alleged infectious-disease dangers, and questions of non-pecuniary damages and succession were not examined with adequate reasons. The Court found a violation of the right to respect for private life under Article 20.
The Court did not itself award non-pecuniary damages; it ordered a retrial to remedy the consequences of the violation. The reasonable-time complaint was inadmissible because the Compensation Commission remedy had not been exhausted. Turkish Constitutional Court, Application No. 2020/25004, 27 February 2025: https://kararlarbilgibankasi.anayasa.gov.tr/BB/2020/25004
Conclusion: indirect but effective protection
The case law shows that environmental rights are not an autonomous, direct standard of review in individual applications, but environmental harm can be effectively scrutinised through private life and personal integrity. The core issue is often not substantive limits alone, but scientific investigation of risks, participation by those affected and reasoned answers to decisive objections.
The constitutional paradox therefore remains: environmental rights are expressly recognised, while their individual procedural route depends on other rights. The hydroelectric, İliç and Kars River judgments show that this indirect route can lead to findings of violation; D.Ö. (4) and the base-station case demonstrate how personal impact, seriousness and the quality of review determine the outcome.