Can an old conviction obstruct commercial activities for life?

No; if the person has obtained a “return of prohibited rights” decision, this decision must be taken into account by the courts, and it must be analyzed under the law as to whether the past offense constitutes an automatic obstacle.

Did the Constitutional Court rule that compensation be paid to the applicant with this decision?

No; the claim for compensation was rejected on the ground that finding the violation and ordering a retrial constituted sufficient remedies for the applicant.

Was the decision rendered unanimously?

Yes, the decision was rendered unanimously by the First Division of the Constitutional Court (with the participation of all five members).

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULINGS29 September 2026

The Right to Open a Course Does Not Expire Once One Has Been Convicted

Official titleDecision of the Constitutional Court dated 9/4/2026 with Application No. 2022/44330

The Constitutional Court found a violation of the “right to a reasoned decision” because the request of a person who had obtained a decision for the return of prohibited rights to open a private educational institution was rejected on the grounds of the applicant’s prior conviction, without the court discussing this circumstance.

Right ViolatedRight to a reasoned decision

Application TypeIndividual application

Details of the Regulation

The applicant, Refik Bayhan, was sentenced to imprisonment in 2000 for the crime of violating Law No. 1918 on the Prohibition and Prosecution of Smuggling, which has since been repealed; however, in 2021, he obtained a decision from the Silifke 1st Principal Criminal Court regarding the return of prohibited rights (the return of prohibited rights). Notwithstanding this decision, his request to open a private course was rejected by the governorship on the ground that he did not meet the condition of “not having been convicted of smuggling” under Law No. 5580 on Private Educational Institutions.

In the annulment lawsuit filed before the Mersin 2nd Administrative Court, the court focused on the nature of the offense and decided to dismiss the case; however, it did not discuss the legal consequences of the “return of prohibited rights” decision, which was the applicant’s most fundamental basis of defense, in its reasoning. The applicant argued that this omission undermined his right to a fair trial and therefore filed an individual application with the Constitutional Court.

In its examination, the Constitutional Court emphasized that judicial bodies are obliged to address the applicant’s claims capable of affecting the outcome in a reasonable manner. It concluded that the decision on the return of prohibited rights is a special mechanism that restores the rights a person lost because of a previous conviction, and that the Administrative Court’s failure to take this legal situation into account when issuing its judgment violated the right to a reasoned decision guaranteed under Article 36 of the constitution. Therefore, the case was referred to the relevant court for retrial.

REGAS Commentary

This decision is a critical gain for citizens who have “cleared their past” and legally regained their prohibited rights. Before administrative institutions and courts treat a person’s prior conviction as an automatic obstacle, they must carefully assess the person’s current legal status (the return decisions). Otherwise, the state’s failure to acknowledge a right granted by one of its branches constitutes a constitutional violation.

Questions You Might Have

Can an old conviction obstruct commercial activities for life?: No; if the person has obtained a “return of prohibited rights” decision, this decision must be taken into account by the courts, and it must be analyzed under the law as to whether the past offense constitutes an automatic obstacle.
Did the Constitutional Court rule that compensation be paid to the applicant with this decision?: No; the claim for compensation was rejected on the ground that finding the violation and ordering a retrial constituted sufficient remedies for the applicant.
Was the decision rendered unanimously?: Yes, the decision was rendered unanimously by the First Division of the Constitutional Court (with the participation of all five members).

Key Terms

Memnu Hakların İadesi: The return, through judicial proceedings and under certain conditions, of the civil and political rights a person lost because of conviction.
Gerekçeli Karar Hakkı: The obligation of courts to state clearly in their judgments the grounds on which those judgments are based, in a manner that responds to the parties’ allegations.
Adil Yargılanma Hakkı: The guarantee that judicial proceedings will be conducted impartially and transparently, without causing a loss of rights.

Follow Turkish legal developments

REGAS analyzed all 26 items in the Official Gazette of 29 September 2026; we published only 3 of them here.

REGAS summarizes every change in the Turkish Official Gazette in plain language and notifies you.

The REGAS app is currently Turkish-only. If you would like English in the app, the best way to make it happen is to support the developer: get the app and just say so.