The Constitutional Court of Turkey

Prof. Dr. Silvia von Steinsdorff; Prof. Dr. Ece Göztepe LL.M.; Dr. Maria Abad Andrade; Dr. Felix Petersen

doi:10.5771/9783845288628

Zusammenfassung

Die interdisziplinäre Studie porträtiert das türkische Verfassungsgericht, das sich seit 60 Jahren in einem von wiederholten Autokratisierungsschüben gekennzeichneten politischen System behauptet. Sie rekonstruiert seine unvollendete Institutionalisierung sowie wesentliche dogmatische Konfliktlinien und methodische Inkonsistenzen in den Urteilen. Die detaillierte Analyse und Dokumentation von fünfzig Schlüsselentscheidungen verdeutlicht den Einsatz des Gerichts für Rechtsstaat und Demokratie ebenso wie die eklatanten Brüche und Widersprüche in seinen Entscheidungen. Im Ergebnis liefert das Standardwerk konzeptionelle Erkenntnisse zur Rolle von Verfassungsgerichten in der Grauzone zwischen Demokratie und Autokratie weit über den türkischen Fall hinaus.

Schlagworte

Publikation durchsuchen

Bibliographische Angaben

Erscheinungsjahr: 2022
Erscheinungsdatum: 30.11.2022
ISBN-Print: 978-3-8487-4632-3
ISBN-Online: 978-3-8452-8862-8
Verlag: Nomos, Baden-Baden
Reihe: Politik und Recht
Sprache: Englisch
Seiten: 720
Produkttyp: Monographie

Inhaltsverzeichnis

KapitelSeiten

Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis Seiten 1 - 20 Download Kapitel (PDF)
Download Kapitel (PDF)
1. 1. The AYM – an Influential but Under-Researched Institution Download Kapitel (PDF)
2. 2. Non-Legal Explanations of Judicial Behaviour and the AYM Download Kapitel (PDF)
3. 3. Interdisciplinary Analysis of AYM Rulings and its Politico-Legal Reasoning Download Kapitel (PDF)
4. 4. Plan of the Book Download Kapitel (PDF)
Download Kapitel (PDF)
1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
  1. 1.1 The 1961 Constitution and the AYM Download Kapitel (PDF)
  2. 1.2 The 1982 Constitution and the AYM Download Kapitel (PDF)
2. 2. Selection of the Justices Download Kapitel (PDF)
3. Download Kapitel (PDF)
  1. 3.1 Abstract Judicial Review Download Kapitel (PDF)
  2. 3.2 Concrete Judicial Review Download Kapitel (PDF)
  3. 3.3 The AYM as the Supreme Criminal Tribunal Download Kapitel (PDF)
  4. 3.4 Immunity and Loss of Membership Cases Download Kapitel (PDF)
  5. 3.5 Procedures for the Prohibition of Parties Download Kapitel (PDF)
  6. 3.6 Financial Checks on Political Parties Download Kapitel (PDF)
  7. 3.7 Constitutional Complaints Download Kapitel (PDF)
4. Download Kapitel (PDF)
  1. 4.1 Suspensive Effect and Interim Measures Download Kapitel (PDF)
  2. 4.2 Scope of Decisions Download Kapitel (PDF)
  3. 4.3 Binding Force Download Kapitel (PDF)
5. Download Kapitel (PDF)
  1. 5.1 Structure and Prominent Figures of the Court Download Kapitel (PDF)
  2. 5.2 Decision-Making Process Download Kapitel (PDF)
Download Kapitel (PDF)
1. 1. Content Analytical Approach Download Kapitel (PDF)
2. 2. AYM Rulings – a Quantitative Assessment Download Kapitel (PDF)
3. 3. The Sample: Selection Criteria and Overall Features Download Kapitel (PDF)
4. Download Kapitel (PDF)
  1. 4.1 Political Party Ban Cases Download Kapitel (PDF)
  2. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. 4.2.1 General Principles of Rule of Law and Separation of Powers Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. 4.2.2 Judicial Independence Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. 4.2.3 Decree Power Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. 4.2.4 State Security and Anti-Terrorism Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. 4.2.5 Presidency and Parliament Download Kapitel (PDF)
  3. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. 4.3.1 Fundamental Rights vs. Principles of the Republic Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. 4.3.2 Freedoms of Assembly and Association Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. 4.3.3 Freedom of Speech and Media Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. 4.3.4 Prisoners’ Rights and Fair Trial Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. 4.3.5 Equality Before the Law and Gender Equality Download Kapitel (PDF)
5. Download Kapitel (PDF)
  1. 5.1 Formal, Structural and Linguistic Incoherencies Download Kapitel (PDF)
  2. 5.2 Methods and Patterns of Argumentation Download Kapitel (PDF)
  3. 5.3 Key Concepts and Values Download Kapitel (PDF)
  4. 5.4 Internal Dissent and Doctrinal Inconsistency Download Kapitel (PDF)
Download Kapitel (PDF)
1. 1. How to Read the AYM’s Decisions Download Kapitel (PDF)
2. Download Kapitel (PDF)
  1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A. Position of the Provisional Law on the Trial of Civil Servants in Our Legal System Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. B. Structure of the Provisional Law on the Trial of Civil Servants Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. C. Opinions against the Current System Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. D. Issue of Unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. VI. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  2. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. V. MERITS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. VI. THE REQUEST OF STAY OF EXECUTION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. VII. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  3. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. V. MERITS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. A- General Explanation Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. B- Examination of Sentences and Phrases to be Annulled Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. 1- Examination of the phrase “Person or Commission to be authorised exclusively by the Prime Minister” in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Law No. 5397 Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. 2- Examination of the second sentence of additional Article 7 (10) of Law No. 2559 amended by Article 1 of Law No. 5397 Download Kapitel (PDF)
    6. 3- Examination of the fifth sentence of additional Article 7 (10) of Law No. 2559 amended by Article 1 of Law No. 5397 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  4. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. V. MERITS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. A- Meaning and Scope of the Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. B- Issue of Unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. VI. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    6. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    7. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  5. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. a) The aims and meaning of the guarantees Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. b) Issue of unconstitutionality of the provisions at issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
  6. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. 1- The preferential and urgent proceedings in the National Assembly Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. 2- The preferential and urgent proceedings in the Senate of the Republic Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. a) Adoption of the motion for a preferential and urgent debate without a renewed reading Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. b) Issue of voting on the motion without debate Download Kapitel (PDF)
      5. 3- Issue of voting on Articles 1 and 6 without debate in the Senate of the Republic Download Kapitel (PDF)
  7. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A - Review of Article 1 Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. 2- Issue of unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. B- Review of Article 3 Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. 1- Meaning and scope of the provision at issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
      5. 2. Issue of unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
      6. a. Review with regard to Articles 140 and 159 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      7. b. Review with regard to Articles 8 and 104 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      8. C- Review of Article 4 Download Kapitel (PDF)
      9. 1- Meaning and scope of the provision at issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
      10. 2- Issue of unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
      11. D- Review of Article 6 Download Kapitel (PDF)
      12. 1- Meaning and scope of the provision at issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
      13. 2- Issue of unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
      14. E- Review of Article 8 Download Kapitel (PDF)
      15. 1- Meaning and scope of the provision at issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
      16. 2- Issue of unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
      17. a- Review with regard to Articles 8, 104, and 105 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      18. b- Review with regard to Article 159 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      19. F- Review of Article 12 Download Kapitel (PDF)
      20. 1- Meaning and scope of the provision at issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
      21. 2- Issue of unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
  8. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. VI. MERITS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. 1- General consideration Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. 2- Issue of unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
  9. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. IV. MERITS Download Kapitel (PDF)
  10. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A. Constitutional Examination of the Scope of Decree Competences Given to the Council of Ministers by the TBMM Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. 1- Reasons for Empowerment of the Council of Ministers Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. 2- Characteristics of the Empowerment Given to the Council of Ministers Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. 3- Condition and Content of the Enabling Law Download Kapitel (PDF)
      5. B. The Provision foreseen by Enabling Law No. 3481 Download Kapitel (PDF)
      6. 1- Justification of the enabling law Download Kapitel (PDF)
      7. C. Issue of Unconstitutionality of the Enabling Law No. 3481 Download Kapitel (PDF)
      8. 1- Review of Constitutionality with regard to Article 87 and 91 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      9. 2- Review of Constitutionality with regard to the Preamble and Article 2 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      10. 3- Review of Constitutionality with regard to Article 7 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
  11. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. REASONING OF THE APPLICATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  12. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. B. Constitutional Status of Enabling Laws and Statutory Decrees (KHK) Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. C. Constitution and Privatisation Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. D. Issue of Unconstitutionality of Law No. 3987 Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. 1- Review with regard to Articles 35 and 91 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
  13. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. B- Review with regard to Articles 2, 7, 87 and 91 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
  14. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A- Constitutional Review of Emergency Regimes especially of States of Emergency Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. 1- Procedures of the state of emergency Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. 2- (...) Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. 3- Statutory decrees which can be enacted in times of emergency Download Kapitel (PDF)
      5. a. Content of state of emergency decrees Download Kapitel (PDF)
      6. c. Constitutional review of state of emergency decree laws Download Kapitel (PDF)
      7. B- State of Emergency KHKs No. 424 and 425 Download Kapitel (PDF)
      8. 1- (...) Download Kapitel (PDF)
      9. 2- Statutory decree No. 425 Download Kapitel (PDF)
      10. a- (...) Download Kapitel (PDF)
      11. b- Characteristics of KHKs and the issue of unconstitutionality of KHKs that are considered as lacking these characteristics Download Kapitel (PDF)
      12. aa- Examination with regard to Article 1 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  15. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A. Constitutional Review of Emergency Regimes especially of/in a State of Emergency Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. 1- Procedures of the state of emergency Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. 2. Restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms under state of emergency regimes Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. 3. Statutory decrees which can be issued during the state of emergency Download Kapitel (PDF)
      5. a) Subject of state of emergency KHKs Download Kapitel (PDF)
      6. b) Spatial and temporal scope of state of emergency KHKs Download Kapitel (PDF)
      7. c) Review of state of emergency KHKs Download Kapitel (PDF)
      8. B. Statutory Decree No. 430 Download Kapitel (PDF)
      9. 1 (…) Download Kapitel (PDF)
      10. 1- Examination in terms of Article 1 Download Kapitel (PDF)
      11. 2. Examination in terms of Article 2 Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. V. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  16. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. III. THE LAW Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. A. Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. V. MERITS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. VI. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  17. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. B. Issue of Unconstitutionality of the Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. a) (…) Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. b) It is claimed that Article 1 violates the principle of legality of crimes and punishments governed under Article 38 of the Constitution. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. B. Issue of Unconstitutionality of the Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
  18. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A- Provisions at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. III. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. IV. STAY OF EXECUTION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. 1. Issue of Unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
  19. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. V. MERITS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. A- Examination of Article 4, which amends Article 5 of Law No. 3713 (12/04/1991), i.e. the Anti-Terrorism Law, by adding the following sentence: "Provisions of this Article shall not apply to children... Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. B- The Examination of Article 250 (4) of Law No. 5271 (04/12/2004) on Criminal Procedures, added through Article 8; and examination of Article 10 (A1) of the law under consideration Download Kapitel (PDF)
  20. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. I. THE CASE Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. II. THE TURKISH GRAND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY´S DECISION IN QUESTION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. III. JOINDER OF DECISIONS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A- With Regard to Procedure Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. B- With Regard to Merits Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A- Examination with Regard to the Claims of a Procedural Violation of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. 1- The claim that Article 83 of the Constitution was violated in the process of removing the parliamentary immunity Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. 2- The claims about the urgent discussion of the report of the Joint Committee in the plenary session Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. 3- The claim that procedural rules of examination and debate were breached in the Plenary Session and the committees Download Kapitel (PDF)
      5. 4- The claim that the right to defense was ignored in the activities of Committees and the Plenary Session Download Kapitel (PDF)
      6. B- Examination With Regard to the Claims in Terms of Merits Download Kapitel (PDF)
      7. a- The Meaning of Parliamentary Immunity and Indemnity Download Kapitel (PDF)
      8. b- Examination of the Facts Download Kapitel (PDF)
      9. 1- Whether the acts that led to the removing of parliamentary immunity are governed under the principle of indemnity Download Kapitel (PDF)
      10. 2- Whether the accusation was so serious that it demanded the removal of parliamentary immunity Download Kapitel (PDF)
      11. 3- Whether or not the decision to remove the parliamentary immunity was politically motivated Download Kapitel (PDF)
    6. VI. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  21. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. I. STATEMENT OF GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST OF ANNULMENT AND STAY OF EXECUTION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. II. THE LAW Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. III. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. IV. MERITS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    6. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    7. 1. General assessment Download Kapitel (PDF)
    8. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. 1- Whether the TBMM decision at issue constitutes an amendment of the Rules of Procedure Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. 2- Concerning the merits of the issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
  22. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. III. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  23. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. IV. MERITS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. F- Review of Provisional Article 1 of the Law at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. 1- Concerning the first paragraph Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. 2- Concerning the second paragraph Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. DISSENTING AND CONCURRING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    6. DISSENTING AND CONCURRING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    7. DISSENTING AND CONCURRING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
3. Download Kapitel (PDF)
  1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A - Review with Regard to the Term “one's religion” as stated in Article 43 of the Law on Civil Registration Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. 1 - Because of their close relation to each other, Articles 2 and 19 of the Constitution shall be examined first Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. 2 - Review with regard to Article 12 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. 3 - Review with regard to Article 20 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      5. B - Review of Article 46 of the Law on Civil Registration in Accordance with the Decision to Limit the Review Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  2. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A. Meaning and Scope of the Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. B- Issue of Unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. 1- Review with regard to Article 2 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. a- Religion cannot have any influence and control over state affairs. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      5. b- Without discrimination all religions have constitutional protection. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      6. c- Where religion exceeds the individual's spiritual life and actions and behaviour have an effect on societal life, it is possible to limit the freedom of religion in order to protect public order, s... Download Kapitel (PDF)
      7. d- The State has regulatory power in issues pertaining to religious rights and freedoms in order to protect public order and rights. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      8. 2- Review with regard to Article 24 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  3. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A. Review with Regard to the Preamble of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. B. Review with Regard to Article 2 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. C. Review with Regard to Article 10 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. D. Review with Regard to Article 24 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      5. E. Review with Regard to Article 174 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  4. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. IV. EXAMINATION OF PROCEDURAL CONFORMITY Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. A- Legislative process Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. B- Issue of Unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. 1- Examination of the request to declare null and void Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. 2 - Examination of the annulment request Download Kapitel (PDF)
    6. a) Possibility of proposal Download Kapitel (PDF)
    7. b) Concerning the content Download Kapitel (PDF)
    8. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. 1- PROCEDURAL ISSUES Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. 2- ON THE GROUNDS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    9. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  5. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A- Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. III. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. B - Issue of Unconstitutionality of Law No. 3278 with regard to Article 3 and the Preamble of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. 1- On the Constitutionality of the Right of Foreign States to Acquire Property in Turkey Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. 2- Issue of conformity of granting the right to acquire real estate property in Turkey to foreign natural persons with the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
  6. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. V. MERITS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  7. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. 1. (…) Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. 2. (…) Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. 3. Concerning the applicant's request with regard to Article 11 of the Law on Associations Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. IV. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  8. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A- Issue of Unconstitutionality with Regard to the Form of the Provisions at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. B- Issue of Unconstitutionality with Regard to the Content of the Provisions at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. 1- Concerning some constitutional principles and concepts relevant for the issue at hand Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. 2- Issue of Unconstitutionality of the terms “verbal or” in Article 9 (3) of Law No. 171 added by Law No. 1932 Download Kapitel (PDF)
      5. 3- Issue of Unconstitutionality of the second, third and fourth paragraphs of the Article added as Article 10 of Law No. 171 by Law No. 1932 Download Kapitel (PDF)
      6. a) (…) Download Kapitel (PDF)
      7. b) (…) Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. V. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  9. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. V. MERITS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. A- Review of Article 11 (2nd sentence) Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. B- Review of Article 28 (3) Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. 1) Issue of Restriction Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. 2) Issue of Unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
  10. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. 2- Regarding the application in light of Article 312 of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 765 (01/03/1926): Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. a) To praise an action that is counted as a crime by law, Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. b) To prompt the people to disobey the law. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. c) To prompt hate and hostility among some social classes in a way that threatens public security. Download Kapitel (PDF)
  11. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. II. THE LAW Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. 1- Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. III. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. IV. STAY OF EXECUTION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. V. MERITS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    6. A. Meaning and Scope Download Kapitel (PDF)
    7. B. Issue of Unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
    8. VI. THE ISSUE OF DATE OF ENTERING INTO FORCE OF THE RULING FOR ANNULMENT Download Kapitel (PDF)
  12. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A- Preliminary Examination Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. 1- Issue of agenda Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. 2- Whether the examination of the case lies within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. 3- Issue of conformity of the case with the conditions for preliminary examination Download Kapitel (PDF)
      5. 4- Issue of stay of execution of the law at issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
      6. 5- The issue of getting the documents Download Kapitel (PDF)
      7. b) At the end of the examination, for the reasons mentioned above, the Court ruled that: Download Kapitel (PDF)
      8. b) Therefore, it was decided that; Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A- Issue of Re-arrangement of the Agenda Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. B- Issue of Unconstitutionality of Law No. 1576 Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. 1- The problem caused by the way of sending the file regarding the enforcement of the death sentence Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. 2- The problem deriving from the position of the Presidency Council of the National Assembly during the readings Download Kapitel (PDF)
      5. 3- The problem deriving from the priority and urgency decisions which were taken in plenary sessions of the National Assembly and the Senate of the Republic Download Kapitel (PDF)
      6. C- Other Claims of Violation Download Kapitel (PDF)
      7. Ç- Issue of Publishing the Part Concerning the Annulment Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. V. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    6. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    7. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. 1- Issue of the agenda for preliminary examination Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. 2- Issue of the arrangement of the agenda regarding substantial examination Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. 3- Issue of the time span for distributing the agenda of the substantial examination report Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. 4- Issue of taking a decision on stay of execution Download Kapitel (PDF)
  13. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. C) Question of Unconstitutionality of the Provisions at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. 1- Issue of unconstitutionality of the provision with regard to procedural requirements Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. a) Issue of voting on the provisions of the law separately Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. b) Issue of voting only the text of the Joint Committee without voting other texts Download Kapitel (PDF)
      5. 2- Issue of unconstitutionality of the provision with regard to merits Download Kapitel (PDF)
      6. 3- Date of entering into force of the ruling for annulment Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. V. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. I. Whether the case falls into the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. 1. Issue of unconstitutionality of the provision with regard to procedural requirements Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    6. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    7. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    8. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    9. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  14. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. REASONS FOR APPLICATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. V. MERITS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  15. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. V. MERITS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  16. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. I. THE CASE Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. II. JUDICIAL REFERRAL Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. (a) Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A. Content of the Provision Subject to the Application Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. B. Issue of Unconstitutionality by the Provision Subject to the Application Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. 1- Review of the provision with regard to Article 10 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. 2- Review of the provision with regard to Article 12 (1) and 19 (1) of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      5. 3- Review of the provision with regard to Article 17 (1) of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
    6. IV. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    7. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    8. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    9. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  17. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. I. THE CASE Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. II. JUDICIAL REFERRAL Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A. Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. B. Relevant Constitutional Provisions Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A. Issue of Restriction Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. B. Meaning and Scope of the Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. C. Issue of Unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
    6. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  18. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A. Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. V. STATEMENT OF GROUNDS FOR THE STAY OF EXECUTION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A- Decision of Joinder Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. B- The Provision to be Applied and the Issue of Restriction Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. C- Issue of Unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. 1- Examination of the notion “without complaint” with regard to sub-paragraph (a) Download Kapitel (PDF)
      5. 2- Examination of the notion “penalty shall be increased by half” with regard to sub-paragraph (a) Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. VII. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    6. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    7. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  19. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. I. THE CASE Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. II. JUDICIAL REFERRAL Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. III. THE LAW Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. A- Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. B- Relevant Legal Provision Download Kapitel (PDF)
    6. C- Relevant Constitutional Provisions Download Kapitel (PDF)
    7. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    8. V. MERITS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    9. A- Meaning and Scope of the Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
    10. B- Issue of Unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
    11. C- Coming Into Force of the Decision Download Kapitel (PDF)
  20. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. III. THE LAW Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. A. Provisions at issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. B- Relevant Constitutional Provisions Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. V. MERITS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    6. A- Meaning and Scope of the Provision at issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
    7. B- Issue of Unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
    8. C- Coming into Force of the Decision Download Kapitel (PDF)
    9. VI. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    10. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  21. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A. Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. c) Occupation or profession of the wife Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. a) Review with regard to Article 10 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. b) Review with regard to Article 49 of the Constitution: Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. c) Review with regard to Article 50 of the Constitution: Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. VI. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  22. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. I. THE CASE Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. II. JUDICIAL REFERRAL Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. III. THE LAW Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. V. MERITS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    6. VI. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    7. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  23. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. I. THE CASE Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. II. JUDICIAL REFERRAL Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. III. THE LAW Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A. Meaning and Scope of the Provision Subject to the Application Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. B. Issue of Unconstitutionality Download Kapitel (PDF)
    6. VI. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    7. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  24. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. I. THE CASE Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. II. JUDICIAL REFERRALS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A. Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. B. Relevant Constitutional Provisions Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. V. JOINDER OF DECISIONS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    6. VI. MERITS Download Kapitel (PDF)
    7. VII. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    8. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    9. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    10. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  25. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. I. THE CASE Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. II. JUDICIAL REFERRAL Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A) Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A) General Explanation Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. B) Examination of Provisions at Issue with Regard to the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. 1. Review with regard to Article 10 of the Constitution: Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. 2- Review with regard to Article 12 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      5. 3- Review with regard to Article 35 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      6. 4- Review with regard to Article 41 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
    6. VI. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    7. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    8. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    9. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  26. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A) Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. IV. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    3. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A) Issue of Restriction Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. B) Meaning and Scope of the Provision Subject to the Application Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. 1) The relevant regulation in the preliminary draft of the Turkish Civil Code Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. 2) The provision at issue with regard to the Civil Amnesty Laws Download Kapitel (PDF)
      5. 3) Approach of the Constitutional Court on the legal status of children with illegitimate lineage Download Kapitel (PDF)
      6. C) Issue of Unconstitutionality of the Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
      7. 1- Review with regard to Article 5 of the Constitution: Download Kapitel (PDF)
      8. 2- Review with regard to Article 10 of the Constitution: Download Kapitel (PDF)
      9. 3- Review with regard to Article 12 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      10. 4- Review with regard to Article 41 of the Constitution: Download Kapitel (PDF)
    4. VI. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
    5. DISSENTING OPINION Download Kapitel (PDF)
  27. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. A- Meaning and Scope of Article 34 of Law No. 506 on Social Insurance Download Kapitel (PDF)
      2. B- Issue of Unconstitutionality of the Provision at Issue Download Kapitel (PDF)
      3. 1. Review with regard to Article 10 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      4. 2. Review with regard to Article 17 and Article 56 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
      5. 3. Review with regard to Article 60 and Article 65 of the Constitution Download Kapitel (PDF)
    2. VI. CONCLUSION Download Kapitel (PDF)
CONCLUSION Seiten 687 - 696 Download Kapitel (PDF)
REFERENCES Seiten 697 - 712 Download Kapitel (PDF)
INDEX Seiten 713 - 720 Download Kapitel (PDF)

Literaturverzeichnis (222 Einträge)

Abad Andrade, Maria 2020. Verfassungsgerichtliche Entscheidungsfindung und ihre Folgen. Das Türkische Verfassungsgericht zwischen Mehrheitslogik und Konsensverfahren. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen
Ahmad, Feroz 1993. The Making of Modern Turkey. London: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen
Akbulut, Olgun 2010. „Criteria Developed by the European Court of Human Rights on the Dissolution of Political Parties” in Form International Law Journal 34, 1, pp. 46-77. Google Scholar öffnen
Aksoy, Muammer 1962. Anayasa Mahkemesi Üyelerinin Seçim Konusundaki Tartışma (Ve Bunun Ortaya Çıkardığı Kamu Hukuku Meseleleri). Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası. Google Scholar öffnen
Aliefendioğlu, Yılmaz 1996. Anayasa Yargısı ve Türk Anayasa Mahkemesi. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Altunışık, Meliha Benli; Tür, Özlem 2005. Turkey. Challenges of continuity and change. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen
Arato, Andrew 2010. “The Constitutional Reform Proposal of the Turkish Government: The Return of Majority Imposition”, in Constellations 17, 2, pp. 345–50. Google Scholar öffnen
Arold, Nina-Louisa 2007. The Legal Culture of the European Court of Human Rights. Leiden; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Google Scholar öffnen
Arsel, İlhan 1970. Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin Bazı Eğilimleri Üzerine Görüşler ve Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlarından Özetler. Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası. Google Scholar öffnen
Arslan, Zühtü 2002. “Conflicting Paradigms: Political Rights in the Turkish Constitutional Court”, in Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies 11, 1, pp. 9–25. Google Scholar öffnen
Arslan, Zühtü 2005. Anayasa Teorisi. Ankara: Seçkin. Google Scholar öffnen
Ars lan, Zühtü 2007. “Reluctantly Sailing Towards Political Liberalism: The Political Role of the Judiciary in Turkey”, in Fighting for Political Freedom. Comparative Studies on the Legal Complex and Political Liberalism, eds. Halliday, Terence C.; Karpik, Lucien; Feeley, Malcom M., pp. 219-246. Oxford, Portland (OR): Hart Publishing. Google Scholar öffnen
Arslan, Zühtü 2008. “Anayasa Mahkemesinin “Yorum Tekeli”, Yargısal Üstünlük ve Demokrasi”, in Prof. Dr. Ergun Özbudun’a Armağan, Cilt 2, pp. 59–89. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Aybar, Mehmet Ali 2014. Türkiye İşçi Partisi Tarihi. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Aydin-Cakir, Aylin 2018 . “The impact of judicial preferences and political context on Constitutional Court decisions: Evidence from Turkey”, in International Journal of Constitutional Law 16, 4, pp. 1101–1120. Google Scholar öffnen
Azrak, A. Ülkü 2007. „Die Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in der Türkei“, in Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Teilband I: Berichte, eds. Luchterhandt, Otto; Starck, Christian; Weber, Albrecht, pp. 213–236. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen
Bailey, Michael A.; Maltzman, Forrest 2011. The constrained court. Law, politics, and the decisions justices make. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Bâli, Aslı 2010. Unpacking Turkey’s ‘Court-Packing’ Referendum, 11.05.2010, in MERIP. https://merip.org/2010/11/unpacking-turkeys-court-packing-referendum/ (last accessed: 15/07/2020). Google Scholar öffnen
Bâli, Aslı 2011-2012. “The Perils of Judicial Independence: Constitutional Transition and the Turkish Example”, i n Virginia Journal of International Law 52, 2, pp. 235–320. Google Scholar öffnen
Bâli, Aslı 2013. “Courts and Constitutional Transition: Lessons from the Turkish Case”, in International Journal of Constitutional Law 11, 3, pp. 666–701. Google Scholar öffnen
Barkow, Rachel E. 2002. „More Supreme than Court? The Fall of the Political Question Doctrine and the Rise of Judicial Supremacy”, in Columbia Law Review 102, 2, pp. 237-336. Google Scholar öffnen
Balta, Tahsin Bekir 1968. “Das türkische Verfassungsgericht”, in Hundert Jahre Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit. Fünfzig Jahre Verfassungsgerichtshof in Österreich, eds. Ermacora, Felix; Klecatsky, Hans; Marcic, René, pp. 47–72. Wien: Europa Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen
Barın, Taylan 2020. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Kararnamelerinin Hukuki Rejimi ve Anayasallık Denetimi. İstanbul: On İki Levha Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Başlar, Kemal 2012. „The Fifty Years of the Constitutional Court of Turkey (1962-2012)“, in Law & Justice Review 3, 4, pp. 13–58. Google Scholar öffnen
Belge, Ceren 2006. “Friends of the Court: The Republican Alliance and Selective Activism of the Constitutional Court of Turkey”, in Law & Society Review 40, 3, pp. 653–692. Google Scholar öffnen
Benhabib, Seyla 2010. “The Return of Political Theology: The Scarf Affair in Comparative Constitutional Perspective in France, Germany and Turkey”, in Philosophy & Social Criticism 36, 3/4, pp. 451–471. Google Scholar öffnen
Bilgin, Mehmet Fevzi 2008. “Constitution, Legitimacy and Democracy in Turkey”, in Constitutional politics in the Middle East. With special reference to Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, ed. Arjomand, Saïd Amir, pp. 123–146. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Google Scholar öffnen
Boulanger, Christian 2013. Hüten, richten, gründen: Rollen der Verfassungsgerichte in der Demokratisierung Deutschlands und Ungarns. Berlin: epubli. Google Scholar öffnen
Brown, Nathan J.; Waller, Julian G. 2016. “Constitutional courts and political uncertainty: Constitutional ruptures and the rule of judges”, in International Journal of Constitutional Law 14, 4, pp. 817–850. Google Scholar öffnen
Bundesverfassungsgericht 2014. Entscheidungen mit oder ohne Sondervotum in der amtlichen Sammlung (BVerfGE), Bände 30-132 (1971-2013). https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/organisation/gb2013/A-I-7.html (last access 28.10.2014). Google Scholar öffnen
Can, Osman 2012. “The Turkish Constitutional Court as Defender of the Raison d’Etat”, in Constitutionalism in Islamic Countries. Between Upheaval and Continuity, eds. Grote, Rainer; Röder, Tilmann J., pp. 259–278. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Cappelletti, Mauro 1989. The Judicial Process in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Casanova, José 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Celep, Ödül 2012. “The Political Causes of Party Closures in Turkey”, in Parliamentary Affairs 67, 2, pp. 1–20. Google Scholar öffnen
Çalışkan, Koray 2018. “Toward a new political regime in Turkey: From competitive toward full authoritarianism”, in New Perspectives on Turkey 58, pp. 5–33. Google Scholar öffnen
Celep, Ödül 2014. “The Political Causes of Party Closures in Turkey”, in Parliamentary Affairs 67, 2, pp. 371-390. Google Scholar öffnen
Cohen, Mathilde 2014. „Ex Ante Versus Ex Post Deliberations: Two Models of Judicial Deliberations in Courts of Last Resort“, in American Journal of Comparative Law 62, 4, pp. 401–458. Google Scholar öffnen
Collins, Paul M. 2008. Friends of the Supreme Court. Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Coşkun, Vahap 2010. “Turkey’s Illiberal Judiciary: Cases and Decisions”, in Insight Turkey 12, 4, pp. 43–67. Google Scholar öffnen
Da Silva, Virgílio Afonso 2013. “Deciding Without Deliberating”, in International Journal of Constitutional Law 11, 3, pp. 557–584. Google Scholar öffnen
Dahl, Robert A. 1957. “Decision-making in a democracy: The Supreme Court as a national policy-maker”, in Journal of Public Law 6, pp. 279–295. Google Scholar öffnen
Daly, Tom G. 2017. The Alchemists: Questioning our Faith in Courts as Democracy-Builders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Davis, Sue 1999. “The Chief Justice and Judicial Decision-Making: The Institutional Basis of Leadership on the Supreme Court”, in Supreme Court Decision-Making. New Institutionalist Approaches, eds. Clayton, Cornell W.; Gillman, Howard, pp. 135–154. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Döner, Ayhan 2008. “Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlarının Gerekçelerinin Bağlayıcılığına İlişkin Bazı Sorunlar”, in Prof. Dr. Ergun Özbudun’a Armağan, Cilt 2, pp. 215-233. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Dyevre, Arthur 2010. “Unifying the Field of Comparative Judicial Politics: Towards a General Theory of Judicial Behaviour”, in European Political Science Review 2, 2, pp. 297–327. Google Scholar öffnen
Epstein, Lee; Knight, Jack 1997. The Choices Justices Make. Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Epstein, Lee; Knight, Jack; Shvetsova, Olga 2001. “The Role Constitutional Courts in the Establishment and Maintenance of Democratic Systems of Government”, in Law & Society Review 35, 1, pp. 117-164. Google Scholar öffnen
Epstein, Lee; Segal, Jeffrey; Spaeth, Harold; Walker, Thomas 2012. The Supreme Court Compendium. Data, Decisions, and Developments, 5th ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Erdem, Fazıl Hüsnü 2004. “Türk Anayasa Mahkemesi ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Kararlarında Siyasal Partilerin Kapatılması: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz”, in Hukuk ve Adalet 1, 4, pp. 252–301. Google Scholar öffnen
Ergül, Ozan (ed.) 2005. Democracy and the Judiciary. Ankara: TBB. Google Scholar öffnen
Ergül, Ozan 2007. Yeni Kurumsalcı Yaklaşımla Türk Anayasa Mahkemesi ve Demokrasi. Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi. Google Scholar öffnen
Ergül, Ozan 2014. “On Yıl Süreli Denetim Yasağının Kapsamını Genişleten Anayasa Mahkemesi İçtihadı: Anayasaya Uygunluk Denetiminde Sessiz Bir Geri Adım”, in Akademik Yaşamının 55. Yılı Onuruna Rona Aybay’a Armağan, pp. 863-895. İstanbul: Legal Yayı nları . Google Scholar öffnen
Ergül, Ozan 2016. Türk Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlarında İçtihat İstikrarsızlığı. Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi. Google Scholar öffnen
Esen, Bülent Nuri 1966. Anayasa Mahkemesine Göre Türk Anayasa Hukuku Anlayışı. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi. Google Scholar öffnen
Ewert, Stephan; Hein, Michae l 2016. „Der Einfluss der Verfahrensarten auf die Politisierung europäischer Verfassungsgerichte. Deutschland, Bulgarien und Portugal im Vergleich“, in Politische Vierteljahresschrift 57, 1, pp. 53–78. Google Scholar öffnen
Favoreu, Louis / Loïc, Philip 2009. Les grandes décisions du Conseil constitutionnel, Paris: Dalloz. Google Scholar öffnen
Ferejohn, John; Pasquino, Pasquale 2002. „Constitutional Courts as Deliberative Institutions: Towards an Institutional Theory of Constitutional Justice“, in Constitutional Justice, East and West. Democratic Legitimacy and Constitutional Courts in Post-Communist Europe in A Comparative Perspective, ed. Sadurski, Wojciech, pp. 21–36. The Hague, New York: Kluwer Law International. Google Scholar öffnen
Ferejohn, John; Pasquino, Pasquale 2004. “Constitutional Adjudication: Lessons from Europe”, in Texas Law Review 82, 7, pp. 1671–1704. Google Scholar öffnen
Ferejohn, John; Rosenbluth, Frances; Shipan, Charles 2009. “Comparative Judicial Politics”, in Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, eds. Boix, Carles; Stokes, S.C., pp. 727–751. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Feyzioğlu, Turhan 1951. Kanunların Anayasaya Uygunluğunun Kazai Murakabesi. Ankara: Güney Matbaacılık. Google Scholar öffnen
Gençkaya, Ömer Faruk; Özbudun, Ergun 2009. Democratization and the Politics of Constitution-making in Turkey. Budapest: Central European University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Giles, Michael W.; Blackstone, Bethany; Vining, Richard L. 2008. “The Supreme Court in American Democracy. Unraveling the Linkage Between Public Opinion and Judicial Decision Making”, in The Journal of Politics 70, 2, pp. 293–306. Google Scholar öffnen
Ginsburg, Tom 2003. Judicial review in new democracies. Constitutional courts in Asian Cases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Ginsburg, Tom; Moustafa, Tamir 2008. Rule by law. The politics of courts in authoritarian regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Gönenç , Levent 2004. “The 2001 Amendments to the 1982 Constitution of Turkey”, in Ankara Law Review 1, 1, pp. 89-109. Google Scholar öffnen
Gönenç , Levent 2008. “Presidential elements in government: Turkey”, in European Constitutional Law Review 4, 3, pp. 488–523. Google Scholar öffnen
Gözler, Kemal 2011. Anayasa Hukukunun Genel Teorisi. Cilt: II. Bursa: Ekin. Google Scholar öffnen
Gözler, Kemal 2015. Türk Anayasa Hukuku Dersleri, 18. Baskı. Bursa: Ekin. Google Scholar öffnen
Gözler, Kemal 2020. Türk Anayasa Hukuku Dersleri, 25. Baskı. Bursa: Ekin. Google Scholar öffnen
Göztepe, Ece 1998. Anayasa Şikayeti. Ankara: AÜHF Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Göztepe, Ece 2004. “Die Kopftuchdebatte in der Türkei – Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme für die deutsche Diskussion”, in Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 33-34, pp. 32–38. Google Scholar öffnen
Göztepe, Ece 2007a. “Sevilmeyen Anayasayı Kim Korumak İster? 2007 Cumhurbaşkanlığı Seçimlerinin Hukuki Bir Değerlendirmesi”, in Haziran 2007, 218, pp. 69-84. Google Scholar öffnen
Göztepe, Ece 2007b. “Türkiye’de Bir Rejim Sorunu Olarak Cumhurbaşkanlığı Seçimi – Karşılaştırmalı Bir Değerlendirme”, in Cumhurbaşkanı Seçimi Öncesi Cumhurbaşkanlığı. Türkiye Barolar Birliği (ed.), Sempozyum – Ankara 12-13 Ocak 2007 içinde, pp. 193-212. Ankara: TBB Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Göztepe, Ece 2010. "Eine Analyse der Verfassungsänderungen in der Türkei vom 7. Mai 2010: Ein Schritt in Richtung mehr Demokratie?”, in EuGRZ, 22–23, pp. 685–700. Google Scholar öffnen
Göztepe, Ece 2015. “Die Einführung der Verfassungsbeschwerde in der Türkei – Eine Zwischenbilanz (2012-2014)“, in Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts 63, pp. 485–542. Google Scholar öffnen
Göztepe, Ece 2017. “Ein Paradigmenwechsel für den Sicherheitsstaat: Die Praxis des Ausnahmezustandes im Südosten der Türkei”, in Ausnahmezustand, ed. Matthias Lemke, pp. 105-127. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Google Scholar öffnen
Göztepe, Ece 2018a. Turkey, the Constitutional Amendment of April 2017 as a Transition to a ‘State-Presidential System’, 23.10.2018, in Reset Dialogues. https://www.resetdoc.org/story/constitutional-amendment-april-2017-turkey-crucial-transition-unknown-state-presidential-system/ (last accessed: 15.07.2020). Google Scholar öffnen
Göztepe, Ece 2018b. “The Permanency of the State of Emergency in Turkey. The Rise of a Constituent Power or Only a New Quality of the State?”, in Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 28, pp. 521–534. Google Scholar öffnen
Göztepe, Ece 2018c. “Normative Foundations of the Right to Individual Complaint in Turkey with a Case Study on Electoral Rights”, Research and Policy on Turkey, 1/2018, pp. 68-89. Google Scholar öffnen
Grimm, Dieter; Kirchhof, Paul; Eichberger, Michael, eds., 2007. Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Studienauswahl, 3rd ed., Heidelberg: Mohr Siebeck. Google Scholar öffnen
Grimm, Dieter 2019. “What Exactly Is Political about Constitutional Adjudication?”, in Judicial Power. How Constitutional Courts Affect Political Transformations, ed. Landfried, Christine, pp. 307–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Grunwald, Wolfgang 1996. „Psychologische Gesetzmäßigkeiten der Gruppenarbeit. Über die Grundbedingungen erfolgreicher Zusammenarbeit“, in Personalführung 9, pp. 740–750. Google Scholar öffnen
Gülener, Serdar; İrfan Haşlak 2011. “Relations between Politics and Constitutional Review in Turkey with Special Reference to the Referrals of Republican People’s Party: 2002-2010 Period”, in Alternatives. Turkish Journal of International Relations 10, 2-3, pp. 1–19. Google Scholar öffnen
Gülsoy, Mehmet Tevfik 2007. Özgürlüklerin Korunmasında Anayasa Yargısının Yeri ve Meşruluğu. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Güney, Aylin; Başkan, Filiz 2008. “Party Dissolutions and Democratic Consolidation: The Turkish Case”, in South European Society and Politics 13, 3, pp. 263–281. Google Scholar öffnen
Güney, Necla 2002. “Das Antiterrorgesetz-Urteil des türkischen Verfassungsgerichts vom 6. Januar 1999”, in Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 62, pp. 461–475. Google Scholar öffnen
Haimerl, Maria 2017a. „Ein Gericht im Ausnahmezustand: das Türkische Verfassungsgericht nach dem Putschversuch“, in Zeitschrift für Recht und Islam (ZRI) 9, pp. 247–264. Google Scholar öffnen
Haimerl, Maria 2017b. “The Turkish Constitutional Court under the Amended Turkish Constitution”, in Verfassungsblog. https://verfassungsblog.de/the-turkish-constitutional-court-under-the-amended-turkish-constitution/ (last accessed: 15.07.2020). Google Scholar öffnen
Hakyemez, Yusuf Şevki 2008. “Anayasa Mahkemesi Karar Gerekçelerinin Bağlayıcılığı Sorunu”, in Prof. Dr. Ergun Özbudun’a Armağan, Cilt 2, pp. 365-398. Ankara: Yetkin. Google Scholar öffnen
Hakyemez, Yusuf Şevki 2009. Hukuk ve Siyaset Ekseninde Anayasa Mahkemesinin Yargısal Aktivizmi ve İnsan Hakları Anlayışı. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Hanretty, Chris 2012. “Dissent in Iberia: The Ideal Points of Justices on the Spanish and Portuguese Constitutional Tribunals”, in European Journal of Political Research 51, 5, pp. 671–692. Google Scholar öffnen
Hanretty, Chris 2012. “The Bulgarian Constitutional Court as an Additional Legislative Chamber”, in East European Politics & Societies 28, 3, pp. 540–558. Google Scholar öffnen
Harding, Andrew; Leyland, Peter (eds.) 2009. Constitutional Courts. A Comparative Study. London: Wildy, Simmonds and Hill. Google Scholar öffnen
Hazama, Yasushi 1996. “Constitutional Review and the Parliamentary Opposition in Turkey”, in The Developing Economies 34, 3, pp. 316–338. Google Scholar öffnen
Hazama, Yasushi 2011. “Hegemonic Preservation or Horizontal Accountability: Constitutional Review in Turkey”, in International Political Science Review 33, 4, pp. 421–440. Google Scholar öffnen
Hein, Michael 2012. “Macht oder Recht? Der Einfluss der Verfahrensarten auf die Politisierung südosteuropäischer Verfassungsgerichte”, in Herrschaft in Südosteuropa. Kultur- und sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven, eds. Grigore, Mihai-D.; Dinu, Radu Harald; Živojinović, Marc, pp. 55–78. Göttingen: V&R unipress. Google Scholar öffnen
Heper, Metin 1985. „The state and public bureaucracies: A comparative and historical perspective”, in Comparative Studies in Society and History 27, 1, pp. 86–110. Google Scholar öffnen
Hirsch, Ernst E. 1975. “Verfassungsgericht und politische Gewalt in der Türkei. Analyse zweier Entscheidungen des türkischen Verfassungsgerichts”, in Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts, Band: 100, pp. 52–79. Google Scholar öffnen
Hirschl, Ran 2004. “’Juristocracy’ – Political, not Juridical”, in The Good Society 13, 3, pp. 6–11. Google Scholar öffnen
Hirschl, Ran 2005. “Preserving Hegemony – Assessing the Political Origins of the EU Constitution”, in International Journal of Constitutional Law 3, 2-3, pp. 269–291. Google Scholar öffnen
Hirschl, Ran 2007. Towards Juristocracy. The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Hirschl, Ran 2018. Verfassungsrecht und vergleichende Politikwissenschaft – an den Grenzen der Disziplinen. In: Die Grenzen der Verfassung Nomos, pp. 15-30. Google Scholar öffnen
Hönnige, Christoph 2006. „Die Entscheidungen von Verfassungsgerichten – ein Spiegel ihrer Zusammensetzung?“, in Jahrbuch für Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie Band 4, eds. Thomas Bräuninger, Joachim Behnke, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, pp. 179-214. Google Scholar öffnen
Hübner Mendes, Conrado 2013. Constitutional Courts and Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Ishiyama Smithey, Shannon; Ishiyama, John 2002. “Judicial activism in post-communist politics”, in Law and Society Review 36, 4, pp. 719–742. Google Scholar öffnen
Issacharoff, Samuel 2015. Fragile Democracies. Contested Power in the Era of Constitutional Courts. Cambridg e: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Is iksel, Turkuler 2013. “Between Text and Context: Turkey’s Tradition of Authoritarian Constitutionalism”, in International Journal of Constitutional Law 11, 3, pp. 702–726. Google Scholar öffnen
Jakab, András 2013. “Judicial Reasoning in Constitutional Courts: A European Perspective”, in German Law Journal 14, 8, pp. 1215-1275. Google Scholar öffnen
Jakab, András; Dyevre, Arthur; Itzcovich, Giulio 2015. CONREASON – The Comparative Constitutional Reasoning Project. Methodological Dilemmas and Project Design. (MTA Law Working Papers 2015/9). http://jog.tk.mta.hu/uploads/files/mtalwp/2015_09_jakab.pdf, (last access 11.01.2021). Google Scholar öffnen
Jakab, András; Dyevre, Arthur; Itzcovich, Giulio 2017a. “Introduction”, in Comparative constitutional reasoning, eds. Jakab, András; Dyevre, Arthur; Itzcovich, Giulio, pp. 1–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Jakab, András; Dyevre, Arthur; Itzcovich, Giulio 2017b. “Conclusion”, in Comparative constitutional reasoning, eds. Jakab, András; Dyevre, Arthur; Itzcovich, Giulio, pp. 761–797. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Jakab, András; Dyevre, Arthur; Itzcovich, Giulio 2017c. “Appendix”, in Comparative constitutional reasoning, eds. Jakab, András; Dyevre, Arthur; Itzcovich, Giulio, pp. 798–820. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Kaboğlu, İbrahim Ö. 2015. Anayasa Hukuku Dersleri (Genel Esaslar). Yenilenmiş ve Sadeleştirilmiş 10. Baskı. İstanbul: Legal Yayıncılık. Google Scholar öffnen
Kalaycıoğlu, Ersin 2019. “Elections, Parties, and the Party System”, in The Routledge Handbook of Turkish Politics, eds. Özerdem, Alpaslan; Whiting, Matthew, pp. 83–102. London: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen
Kalaycıoğlu, Ersin 2012. "Kulturkampf in Turkey: The Constitutional Referendum of 12 September 2010", in South European Society and Politics 17, 1, pp. 1–22. Google Scholar öffnen
Kanadoğlu, Korkut 2004. Anayasa Mahkemesi. İstanbul: Beta. Google Scholar öffnen
Karacaoğlu, Emine 2009. “1982 Anayasasının Anayasa Mahkemesine Üye Seçimi Tercihinden Kaynaklanan Sorunlar”, in Prof. Dr. Yılmaz Aliefendioğlu’na Armağan, pp. 227-254. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Kelemen, Katalin 2007. The Use of Dissenting Opinions by Constitutional Courts of East-Central Europe, Paper presented at the workshop “Constitutional Courts in Central and Eastern Europe: An Overview and Perspectives”, held at the University of Trento. Google Scholar öffnen
Kelemen, Katalin 2010. “The Road from Common Law to East-Central Europe: The Case of the Dissenting Opinion”, in Legal and Political Theory in the Post-National Age. Selected papers presented at the Second Central and Eastern European Forum for Legal, Political and Social Theorists (Budapest, 21-22 May 2010), eds. Cserne, Péter; Könczöl, Miklós, pp. 118-134. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Google Scholar öffnen
Kelemen, Katalin 2013. “Dissenting Opinions in Constitutional Courts”, in German Law Journal 14, 8, pp. 1345–1371. Google Scholar öffnen
Kelemen, Katalin 2018. Judicial dissent in European constitutional courts. A comparative and legal perspective. Abingdon, New York: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen
Kıratlı, Metin 1966. Anayasa Yargısında Somut Norm Denetimi (İtiraz Yolu), Ankara: Sevinç Matbaası. Google Scholar öffnen
Kneip, Sascha 2009. Verfassungsgerichte als demokratische Akteure. Der Beitrag des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zur Qualität der bundesdeutschen Demokratie. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen
Koçak, Mustafa; Esin Örücü 2003. “Dissolution of Political Parties in the Name of Democracy: Cases from Turkey and the European Court of Human Rights”, in European Public Law 9, 3, pp. 399–423. Google Scholar öffnen
Kogacioglu, Dicle 2003. “Dissolution of Political Parties by the Constitutional Court in Turkey. Judicial Delimitation of the Political Domain”, in International Sociology 18, 1, pp. 258–276. Google Scholar öffnen
Kogacioglu, Dicle 2004. “Progress, Unity, and Democracy: Dissolving Political Parties in Turkey”, in Law & Society Review 38, 3, pp. 433–461. Google Scholar öffnen
Korteweg, Anna C.; Gökçe Yurdakul 2014. The Headscarf Debates. Conflicts of National Belonging. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Köker, Levent 2010. “Turkey’s Political-Constitutional Crisis: An Assessment of the Role of the Constitutional Court”, in Constellations 17, 2, pp. 328–344. Google Scholar öffnen
Kranenpohl, Uwe 2010. Hinter dem Schleier des Beratungsgeheimnisses. Der Willensbildungs- und Entscheidungsprozess des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Kurnaz, A. Haluk 2006. “Üye Seçimi ve Bireysel Başvuru ile Bazı Yetki ve Görevleri Açısından Anayasa Mahkemesi”, Yasama Dergisi, 2, pp. 92-122. Google Scholar öffnen
Landfried, Christine 2019. “Introduction”, in Judicial Power: How Constitutional Courts Affect Political Transformations, ed. Landfried, Christine, pp. 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Lerch, Kent D. 2004. “Recht verstehen, eine Vorbemerkung”, in Die Sprache des Rechts (Band 1), Recht verstehen. Verständlichkeit, Missverständlichkeit und Unverständlichkeit von Recht, ed. Lercht, Kent D., pp. XV-XIX. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter. Google Scholar öffnen
Loewenstein, Karl 1937a. “Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights I”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. XXI, No. 3, pp. 417-432. Google Scholar öffnen
Loewenstein, Karl 1937b. “Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights I”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. XXI, No. 4, pp. 638-358. Google Scholar öffnen
Lustig, Doreen; Weiler, Joseph H. H. 2018. „Judicial review in the contemporary world - Retrospective and prospective”, in International Journal of Constitutional Law 16, 2, pp. 315–372. Google Scholar öffnen
Magalhães, Pedro C.; Coroado, Susana; Garoupa, Nuno 2017. “Judicial Behavior Under Austerity: An Empirical Analysis of Behavioral Changes in the Portuguese Constitutional Court, 2002–2016”, in Journal of Law and Courts 5, 2, pp. 289–311. Google Scholar öffnen
Moore Kerr, Andrea 1992. Lucy Stone. Speaking out for Equality. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Moral, Mert; Tokdemir, Efe 2017. “Justices ‘en Garde’: ideological determinants of the dissolution of anti-establishment parties”, in International Political Science Review 38, 3, pp. 264–280. Google Scholar öffnen
Neumann, Ulfrid 2005. “Wahrheit statt Autorität. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer Legitimation durch Begründung im Recht“, in Die Sprache des Rechts (Band 2), Recht verhandeln. Argumentieren, Begründen und Entscheiden im Diskurs des Rechts, ed. Lercht, Kent D., pp. 369-384. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter. Google Scholar öffnen
Onar, Erdal 2003. Kanunların Anayasaya Uygunluğunun Siyasal ve Yargısal Denetimi ve Yargısal Denetim Alanında Ülkemizde Öncüler. Ankara. Google Scholar öffnen
Öden, Merih 2000. “Türk Anayasa Yargısında On Yıl Süreli Denetim Yasağı”, in Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi 4, 55, pp. 47-81. Google Scholar öffnen
Öktem, Kerem 2011. Turkey since 1989. Angry nation. Halifax, London, New York: Zed Books. Google Scholar öffnen
Öngel, Murat 2017. “‚Anayasa’nın Eksiksiz, Tastamam Uygulanması’: Türkiye İşçi Partisi’nin Anayasa Mahkemesi’nde Açtığı İptal Davaları (1963 – 1971)”, ViraVerita E-Dergi 6, pp. 36-100. Google Scholar öffnen
Örücü, Esin 2009. “The Constitutional Court of Turkey: The Anayasa Mahkemesi as the Protector of the System”, in Constitutional Courts. A Comparative Study, eds. Harding, Andrew; Leyland, Peter, pp. 196–214. London: Wildy, Simmonds and Hill Publishing. Google Scholar öffnen
Özbudun, Ergun 1997 “Constitution making and democratic consolidation in Turkey”, in Institutions and Democratic Statecraft, ed. Heper, Metin; Ali Kazancigil; Bert A. Rockman, pp. 229-243. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Özbudun, Ergun 2000. Contemporary Turkish politics. Challenges to democratic consolidation. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Google Scholar öffnen
Özbudun, Ergun 2006. “Political Origins of the Turkish Constitutional Court and the Problems of Democratic Legitimacy”, in European Public Law 12, 2, pp. 213–223. Google Scholar öffnen
Özbudun, Ergun 2009. “Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments in Turkey”, in European Public Law 15, 4, pp. 533–538. Google Scholar öffnen
Özbudun, Ergun 2010. “Party prohibition cases: different approaches by the Turkish constitutional court and the European Court of Human Rights”, in Democratization 17, 1, pp. 125–142. Google Scholar öffnen
Özbudun, Ergun 2012. “The Turkish Constitutional Court and Political Crisis”, in Democracy, Islam, and Secularism in Turkey, eds. Kuru, Ahmet T.; Stepan, Alfred, pp. 149–165. New York: Columbia University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Özbudun, Ergun 2014. Türk Anayasa Hukuku. Gözden geçirilmiş 15. Baskı. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Özbudun, Ergun 2021. Türk Anayasa Hukuku. Gözden geçirilmiş 21. Baskı. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Öztürk, Kâzım 1966. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası, izahlı, gerekçeli, anabelgeli ve maddelere göre tasnifli bütün tutanakları (Vol. 2): Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Pekcanıtez, Hakan 1995. “Mukayeseli Hukukta Medeni Yargıda Verilen Kararlara Karşı Anayasa Şikayeti”, Anayasa Yargısı 12, pp. 257-287. Google Scholar öffnen
Perilli, Luca 2014. Needs Assessment Report on The Individual Application to the Constitutional Court of Turkey. Brussels: Council of Europe. Google Scholar öffnen
Peters, Pam 2004. The Cambridge Guide to English Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Petersen, Felix; Yanaşmayan, Zeynep 2017. “The Final Trick? Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, and the Recomposition of the Turkish State”, 28.01.2017, Verfassungsblog. https://verfassungsblog.de/the-final-trick-separation-of-powers-checks-and-balances-and-the-recomposition-of-the-turkish-state/ (last accessed: 15/07/2020). Google Scholar öffnen
Petersen, Felix; Yanaşmayan, Zeynep 2019. The Failure of Popular Constitution Making in Turkey: Regressing Towards Constitutional Autocracy, New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Piazolo, Michael 1994. Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit und politische Fragen, die Political Ques tion Doktrin im Verfahren vor dem Bundesverfassungsgericht und dem Supreme Court der USA. München: Ernst Vögel Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen
Raffaelli, Rosa 2012. Dissenting Opinions in the Supreme Courts of the Member States, Brussels. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/ 201304/20130423ATT64963/20130423ATT64963EN.pdf (last accessed: 29.10.2014). Google Scholar öffnen
Rawlinson, Kevin 2014. Turkey blocks use of Twitter after prime minister attacks social media site, 21.03.2014, in The Guardian online. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/21/turkey-blocks-twitter-prime-minister (last accessed: 19/10/2021). Google Scholar öffnen
Robertson, David 2010. The Judge as Political Theorist. Contemporary Constitutional Review. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Röhl, Klaus; Röhl, Hans Christian 2008. Allgemeine Rechtslehre. Ein Lehrbuch. Köln: Heymann. Google Scholar öffnen
Roznai, Yaniv; Serkan Yolcu 2012; “An unconstitutional constitutional amendment – The Turkish perspective: A comment on the Turkish Constitutional Court’s headscarf decision”, in International Journal of Constitutional Law 10, 1, pp. 175–207. Google Scholar öffnen
Rumpf, Christian 1990. “Türkisches Verfassungsgericht Urteil v. 7.3.1989, Rs. 1989/1, Ents. 1989/121 (‚Kopftuch-Urteil‘)“, in Zeitschrift für Türkeistudien, pp. 135–148. Google Scholar öffnen
Rumpf, Christian 1992. Das Rechtsstaatsprinzip in der türkischen Rechtsordnung. Bonn: Bouvier. Google Scholar öffnen
Rumpf, Christian 1998. “Das Verbot der Wohlfahrtspartei: Verteidigung des Laizismusprinzips durch das türkische Verfassungsgericht”, in Zeitschrift für Türkeistudien 2, pp. 285–293. Google Scholar öffnen
Russell, Peter H. 2006. “Conclusion”, in Appointing judges in an age of judicial power. Critical perspectives from around the world, eds. Russell, Peter H.; Malleson, Kate, pp. 420-436. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Sabuncu, Yavuz 1982. “Federal Almanya’da Anayasa Şikayeti”, Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi 37, 3-4, pp. 139-152. Google Scholar öffnen
Sadurski, Wojciech (ed.) 2002. Constitutional Justice, East and West. Democratic Legitimacy and Constitutional Courts in Post-Communist Europe in a Comparative Perspective. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. Google Scholar öffnen
Sadurski, Wojciech 2009. “Judicial review in Central and Eastern Europe: rationales or rationalizations?”, in Israel Law Review 42, 3, pp. 500–527. Google Scholar öffnen
Sağlam, Fazıl 1982 . Temel Hakların Sınırlanması ve Özü. Ankara: AÜSB F Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Sağlam, Fazıl 2005. “Religionsfreiheit und Laizismus nach den Entscheidungen des türkischen Verfassungsg erichts im Vergleich mit der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte”, in Zwischen Säkularität und Laizismus, eds. Depenheuer, Otto; Doğan, İlyas; Can, Osman, pp. 95–101. Münster: LIT Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen
Sağlam, Fazıl 2006. “Die Türkei auf dem Weg zum Rechtsstaat – Stand und praktische Umsetzung der Reformen”, in Bitburger Gespräche, Jahrbuch 2005/II. pp. 179–198. München: C.H. Beck. Google Scholar öffnen
Sağlam, Fazıl 2008. “Der Einfluss der Lehre von Friedrich Müller auf das türkische Verfassungsrecht”, in Rechtstheorie in rechtspraktischer Absicht, Freundesgabe zum 70 Geburtstag von Friedrich Müller, eds. Chistensen, Ralph; Pieroth, Bodo, pp. 217–233. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Google Scholar öffnen
Sağlam, Fazıl 2012. “Anayasa Şikâyeti Anlamı, Kapsamı ve Türkiye Uygulamasında olası Sorunlar”, in Demokratik Anayasa –Görüşler ve Öneriler, eds. Göztepe, Ece; Çelebi, Aykut, pp. 419-465. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Sağlam, Fazıl 2013. Anayasa Hukuku Ders Notları, Lefkoşa: Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayını.Sağlam, Fazıl 2018. “Devlet Güçlerinin OHAL KHK Rejimi ve 2017 Anayasa Değişikliğinden Sonraki Görünümü”, Anayasa Hukuku Dergisi 7, Sayı 13, pp. 21-102. Google Scholar öffnen
Sağlam, Fazıl 2020. “Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin Ürettiği Yapay Bir Kavram: “Ortak Koruma Alanı”“, Metin Günday Armağanı, Ankara: Atılım Üniversitesi Yayınları, pp. 1101-1163. Google Scholar öffnen
Sağlam, Musa; Göksu, Hasan Tuna (eds.) 2014. Kabul Edilebilirlik Kriterleri Rehber. Ankara: Anayasa Mahkemesi Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Saygılı, Abdurrahman 2010. “What is Behind the Headscarf Ruling of the Turkish Constitutional Court?”, in Turkish Studies 11, 2, pp. 127–141. Google Scholar öffnen
Scheppele, Kim Lane 2005. „Democracy by Judiciary (Or Why Courts Can Sometimes Be More Democratic than Parliaments)”, in Rethinking the Rule of Law after Communism, eds. Czarnota, Adam; Krygier, Martin; Sadurski, Wojciech, pp. 25-60. Budapest, New York: Central European University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Schwartz, Herman 2000. The Struggle for Constitutional Justice in Post-Com munist Europe. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Segal, Jeffrey Allan; Spaeth, Harold J. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Segal, Jeffrey Allan; Spaeth, Harold J. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Spaeth, Harold J.; Segal, Jeffrey Allan 2000. Majority rule or minority will. Adherence to precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Sevinç, Murat 2005. Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlarının Resmi Gazete'de Yayımı ile Bağlayıcılığı Arasındaki İlişki, in Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 60, 1, pp. 173-190. Google Scholar öffnen
Shambayati, Hootan 2008. “The Guardian of the Regime: the Turkish Constitutional Court in Comparative Perspective”, in Constitutional Politics in the Middle East: With special reference to Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, ed. Arjomand, Said Amir, pp. 99–121. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Google Scholar öffnen
Shambayati, Hootan 2009. “In Pursuit of ‘Contemporary Civilization’: Judicial Empowerment in Turkey”, in Political Research Quarterly 62, 4, pp. 767–780. Google Scholar öffnen
Shambayati, Hootan; Güliz Sütçü 2012. “The Turkish Constitutional Court and the Justice and Development Party”, in Middle Eastern Studies 48, 1, pp. 107–123. Google Scholar öffnen
Shapiro, Martin; Stone Sweet, Alec 2002. On Law, Politics, and Judicialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Shapiro, Martin 2005. “Law, courts and politics”, in Institutions and Public Law: Comparative Approaches, eds. Ginsburg, Tom; Kagan, Robert A., pp. 275-297. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Google Scholar öffnen
Simon, Manfred 1980. “The Trial of the Türkiye Emekçi Partisi (Turkish Worker’s Party) Before the Constitutional Court of Turkey”, in The Review (International Commission of Jurists), pp. 53–64. Google Scholar öffnen
Slaughter, Anne-Marie 2000. “Judicial Globalization”, in Virginia Journal of International Law 40, 4, pp. 1103–1124. Google Scholar öffnen
Spaeth, Harold J.; Segal, Jeffrey A. 1999. “The US Supreme Court Judicial Data Base: Providing New Insights into the Court”, in Judicature 83, pp. 228–235. Google Scholar öffnen
Steinsdorff, Silvia von 2010. “Verfassungsgerichte als Demokratie-Versicherung? Ursachen und Grenzen der wachsenden Bedeutung juristischer Politikkontrolle”, in Analyse demokratischer Regierungssysteme, eds. Schrenk, Klemens H.; Soldner, Markus, pp. 479–498. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen
Steinsdorff, Silvia von; Petersen, Felix 2016. “Die ʻKopftuchʼ-Debatte(n) der Gerichte: Bezüge zwischen der Rechtsprechung des EGMR und nationalen Verfassungs- und Obergerichten in Deutschland, Frankreich, Großbritannien und der Türkei”, in Gerichtsverbünde, Grundrechte und Politikfelder in Europa, eds. Rehder, Britta; Schneider, Ingrid, pp.177-232. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen
Steinsdorff, Silvia von 2017. Presidentialism à la Turka or what? The (missing) logic behind constitutional amendments, 13.02.2017, in Verfassungsblog. https://verfassungsblog.de/presidentialism-a-la-turka-or-what-the-missing-logic-behind-the-constitutional-amendments/ (last accessed 15.07.2020). Google Scholar öffnen
Steinsdorff, Silvia von 2019. „(Verfassungs-)Richterliches Entscheiden“, in Interdisziplinäre Rechtsforschung, eds. Boulanger, Christian; Rosenstock, Julika; Singelnstein, Tobias, pp. 207–226. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Google Scholar öffnen
Stüwe, Klaus 2006. „Bundesverfassungsgericht und Opposition“, in: Das Bundesverfassungsgericht im politischen System, eds. van Ooyen, Robert; Möllers, Martin, pp. 215-228. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Google Scholar öffnen
Sunar, Kemal Sahir 1978, Anayasa İle Anayasa Mahkemesi Üzerine Düşünce ve Eleştiriler. İstanbul: Mars. Google Scholar öffnen
Stone Sweet, Alec 2002. Governing with Judges. Constitutional Politics in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Stone Sweet, Alec 2012. “Constitutional Courts”, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, eds. Rosenfeld, Michel; Sajó, András, pp. 816–830. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Tanör, Bülent; Necmi Yüzbaşıoğlu 2015. 1982 Anayasasına Göre Türk Anayasa Hukuku. 14. Baskı. İstanbul: Beta. Google Scholar öffnen
Taşkın, Yüksel 2013 “Hegemonizing Conservative Democracy and the Problems of Democratization in Turkey: Conservatism without Democrats”, in Turkish Studies 14, 2, pp. 292–310. Google Scholar öffnen
Tezcür, Murat Tezcan 2009. “Judicial Activism in Perilous Times: The Turkish Case”, in Law & Society Review 43, 2, pp. 305–336. Google Scholar öffnen
Teziç, Erdoğan 2009. Anayasa Hukuku. 13. Baskı. İstanbul: Beta. Google Scholar öffnen
Trochev, Alexei 2006. “Judicial selection in Russia: Towards accountability and centralization”, in Appointing judges in an age of judicial power: Critical perspectives from around the world, eds. Russel, Peter H.; Malleson, Kate, pp. 375–394. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Tsebelis, Georg 2002. Veto players. How political institutions work. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Turan, İlter 2019. “Turkey’s never-ending search for democracy”, in The Routledge Handbook of Turkish Politics, eds. Özerdem, Alpaslan; Whiting, Matthew, pp. 27–36. London: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen
Turhan, Mehmet 2007. “Hukukta “Özgürlükçü” Yorum ve Refah Partisi Kapatma Davaları”, Hukuk Felsefesi ve Sosyolojisi Arşivi 17. Kitap, pp. 73-96. Google Scholar öffnen
Türkiye Barolar Birliği Anayasa Önerisi 2007. Ankara: Türkiye Barolar Birliği Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Uzun, Mehmet Cengiz 2009/2010. “The Protection of Laicism in Turkey and the Turkish Constitutional Court: The Example of the Prohibition on the Use of the Islamic Veil in Higher Education”, in Penn State International Law Review 28, 3, pp. 383–426. Google Scholar öffnen
Ünsal, Artun 1980. Siyaset ve Anayasa Mahkemesi (“Siyasal Sistem” Teorisi Açısından Türk Anayasa Mahkemesi). Ankara: AÜSBF Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Ünsal, Artun 2002. Umuttan Yalnızlığa – Türkiye İşçi Partisi (1961–1971). İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Vanberg, Georg 2005. The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
Varol, Ozan O.; Dalla Pellegrina, Lucia; Garoupa, Nuno 2017. „An Empirical Analysis of Judicial Transformation in Turkey “, in The American Journal of Comparative Law 65, 1, pp. 187–216. Google Scholar öffnen
Venice Commission 2009, Opinion No. 489/2008 on the constitutional and legal provisions relevant to the prohibition of political parties in Turkey, CDL-AD (2009) 006. Google Scholar öffnen
Vorländer, Hans 2006. “Deutungsmacht – die Macht der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit”, in Die Deutungsmacht der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit, ed. Vorländer, Hans, pp. 9–33. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Google Scholar öffnen
Wefing, Heinrich 2017. In dunkler Nacht, 27.12.2017, in Zeit Online. https://www.zeit.de/2018/01/justiz-rechtsstaatlichkeit-europa-polen-tuerkei-ungarn/komplettansicht (last accessed: 17.12.2018). Google Scholar öffnen
Wrase, Michael / Boulanger, Christian 2013. Die Politik des Verfassungsrechts: interdisziplinäre und vergleichende Perspektiven auf die Rolle und Funktion von Verfassungsgerichten. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Google Scholar öffnen
Yazıcı, Serap 2006. A Guide to the Turkish Public Law Order and Legal Research, September 2006, in nyulawglobal.org. (http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/turkey.htm#_Fundamental_Rights_and_Liberties, last accessed: 29/08/2021). Google Scholar öffnen
Yazıcı, Serap 2012. “1982 Anayasası ve Parti Yasakları”, in Demokratik Anayasa. Görüşler ve Öneriler, eds. Göztepe, Ece; Çelebi, Aykut, pp. 228–269. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları. Google Scholar öffnen
Yılmaz, Zafer 2019. “The genesis of the ‘Exceptional’ Republic: the permanency of the political crisis and the constitution of legal emergency power in Turkey”, in British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 46, 5, pp. 714–734. Google Scholar öffnen