The Constitutional Court Upheld the Constitutionality of the Provision Stipulating that Settlement Decisions Cannot Be Challenged before the Courts

The Constitutional Court’s decision dated 11 December 2025 and numbered E. 2025/185, K. 2025/258 (“Constitutional Court Decision”), published in the Official Gazette dated 9 March 2026 and numbered 33191, ruled that the provision in Article 43 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition (“Law No. 4054”), which stipulates that where proceedings are concluded through settlement, the parties to the settlement may not challenge the administrative monetary fine or the provisions of the settlement text before the courts, does not violate the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court Decision

The Constitutional Court Decision was rendered following a referral by the Ankara 9^th Administrative Court, in the context of proceedings seeking the annulment of a Turkish Competition Board (“Board”) decision issued pursuant to a settlement procedure, on the grounds that the contested provision was contrary to the Constitution.

The contested provision is the eighth paragraph of Article 43 of Law No. 4054, which reads: “In case the proceedings are concluded through settlement, the parties to the settlement may not challenge the administrative fine and the provisions of the settlement text before the courts.”

The Constitutional Court examined the contested provision within the framework of the “freedom to seek legal remedies” and the “right of access to a court” enshrined in Article 36 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court underlined that, pursuant to the principle of legality, any restriction on these rights must be sufficiently clear, accessible and foreseeable so as not to permit arbitrariness, as required under Article 13 of the Constitution.

In this regard, the Constitutional Court drew attention to the provisions of Articles 16 and 17 of Law No. 4054 concerning the determination of administrative monetary fines, as well as the requirement that the Board furnish the relevant parties with sufficient information regarding the investigations it initiates and the type and nature of the allegations. On this basis, the Constitutional Court held that the amount of the administrative monetary fine accepted by the parties in the settlement text cannot be regarded as entirely unforeseeable for the individuals concerned. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court concluded that the contested provision satisfies the requirement of legality, as it cannot be characterised as vague or unforeseeable.

The Constitutional Court further held that the relevant provision pursues the legitimate aims of safeguarding public resources and reducing the workload of the judiciary, insofar as it seeks to minimise the public costs arising from investigations into competition infringements and to bring the infringement and the proceedings to a swift and definitive conclusion, thereby obviating the public costs that would otherwise result from judicial proceedings.

As regards the principle of proportionality, the Constitutional Court accepted that the contested provision constitutes a suitable means of achieving the said legitimate aims. On the question of necessity, the Constitutional Court observed that the legislature enjoys a margin of appreciation in determining what measures are necessary for the purpose of reducing the workload of the judiciary. It was noted that, under Article 36 of the Constitution, individuals may waive their right of access to a court; however, for such waiver to be compatible with the Constitution, it must be express, its consequences must be reasonably foreseeable for the individual concerned, and the minimum guarantees pertaining to the right to a fair trial must be observed. It was further emphasised that individuals’ voluntary acceptance is manifest in their agreement to the imposition of an administrative monetary fine as a result of settlement. Having regard to the fact that the purpose of the relevant provision is to resolve competition law disputes at the earliest opportunity, thereby remedying harm to the public interest, and to prevent the creation of judicial workload by forgoing recourse to the courts, the Constitutional Court held that the legitimate aim cannot be achieved through a less restrictive measure than the one prescribed by the provision. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court concluded that the provision is necessary for the attainment of the said aims.

As to proportionality in the strict sense, the Constitutional Court first underlined that, since the consequences of the settlement procedure are explicitly set out in Law No. 4054, the parties are in a position to know that they will forfeit their right to bring proceedings in respect of the settled matters. The Constitutional Court further noted that, pursuant to Article 43 of Law No. 4054, the Board is required to grant the parties under investigation a definitive period within which to submit a settlement text acknowledging the existence and scope of the infringement, and that the parties retain the option of declining to acknowledge the existence and scope of the infringement upon the expiry of this period, thereby emphasising that settlement does not constitute an obligation. The Constitutional Court also observed that, where settlement is reached, an administrative monetary fine reduction of up to 25% may be applied, and that this reduction does not preclude an additional reduction under the sixth paragraph of Article 17 of Law No. 5326. In light of all these considerations, the Constitutional Court held that the provision stipulating that, where settlement is reached, the administrative monetary fine and the matters set out in the settlement text may not be challenged before the courts does not impose a disproportionate burden on the individuals concerned.

The Constitutional Court consequently held that the provision strikes a fair balance between the public interest and individual rights and does not constitute a disproportionate interference with the right of access to a court. On this basis, the Constitutional Court unanimously ruled that the contested provision is not contrary to Articles 13 and 36 of the Constitution and dismissed the referral. The Constitutional Court did not find it necessary to conduct a separate examination under Articles 2 and 125 of the Constitution.

Conclusion

By virtue of the Constitutional Court Decision, it has been confirmed that the provision set forth in the eighth paragraph of Article 43 of Law No. 4054, stipulating that where an investigation is concluded through settlement, the administrative monetary fine and the matters set out in the settlement text may not be challenged before the courts by the parties to the settlement, is not contrary to the Constitution.

The full text of the Constitutional Court Decision is available in the Official Gazette dated 9 March 2026.