With the Constitutional Court (“AYM”) decision dated 06.11.2025 and numbered E.2023/174, K.2025/224, published in the Official Gazette dated 17.02.2026 and numbered 33171, it was held that the phrase “…where it deems necessary…” in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 15 of the Law on the Protection of Competition No. 4054 (“Law No. 4054”) is not unconstitutional, and the objection was dismissed.
The decision is significant, within the scope of the incidentality (objection) applications filed by the 13th Chamber of the Council of State and the Ankara 11th Administrative Court, in terms of the scope of the on-site inspection power regulated under Article 15 of Law No. 4054 and the relationship of this power with fundamental rights safeguards.
The constitutional review subject to the objection was conducted under two headings:
(i) the phrase “…where it deems necessary…” in Article 15/1 of Law No. 4054; and (ii) the second sentence of the third paragraph added to Article 15 by Article 25 of Law No. 4971 dated 1/8/2003. The referring courts argued that these provisions were contrary to Articles 2, 13, and 21 of the Constitution.
In the decision;
- With respect to the phrase “…where it deems necessary…” in Article 15/1 of Law No. 4054, it is seen that the rule was reviewed within the framework of the rule-of-law principle (Article 2 of the Constitution); and, considering that it serves a legitimate aim within the scope of the State’s positive obligation to protect competition (Article 167 of the Constitution), the Court concluded that there was no unconstitutionality.
- The majority of the Constitutional Court stated that the challenged rule was not considered to fall within the scope of Articles 13 and 21 of the Constitution (proportionality / inviolability of domicile), and therefore did not conduct a separate constitutional review on that basis.
- As for the objection concerning the second sentence of the third paragraph later added to Article 15 of Law No. 4054, the application was assessed in terms of the “applicable provision” requirement in the concrete cases and was dismissed due to the Court’s lack of jurisdiction (applicability / applicable-provision issue).
- Dissenting opinions were submitted and appended to the decision. In particular, the dissents emphasize that, in practice, on-site inspections involve access to areas of undertakings that are not freely accessible to everyone as well as to electronic data systems; therefore, the safeguards of the inviolability of domicile under Article 21 of the Constitution (such as a judge’s warrant / cases of urgency / judicial approval within 24 hours) should be at the center of the debate; and they raise criticisms that a broad phrase such as “where it deems necessary” leaves interferences with fundamental rights to the discretion of the administration.
With this decision, since no annulment or consequence affecting the entry into force arose with respect to the phrase “…where it deems necessary…” in Article 15/1 of Law No. 4054, the normative framework regarding the Competition Authority’s on-site inspection power continues unchanged; however, it is assessed that the inviolability-of-domicile / judicial-safeguard debates emphasized in the dissents will remain on the agenda in practice (particularly regarding areas of the workplace not open to everyone and the examination of electronic data).
You can access the full text of the legislative amendment regarding notifications to employees to be made via KEP dated 24/07/2025 here.
Best Regards,
Balay, Eryiğit & Erten
