The Constitutional Court Decision dated 15.10.2025 Annulling Article 1 of the Law on the Protection of the Value of Turkish Currency

The Constitutional Court’s (Constitutional Court) decision dated 15.10.2025 and numbered 2024/193 E. and 2025/136 K. (Decision) was published in the Official Gazette dated 15.10.2025 and numbered 33048. The Constitutional Court annulled Article 1, as well as Article 2 and Additional Article 5 (which were deemed related to Article 1 and no longer applicable), of the Law No. 1567 on the Protection of the Value of Turkish Currency (Law), on the grounds that they were unconstitutional.

This Decision includes significant constitutional assessments concerning the delineation of the boundaries of authority between the legislative and executive organs of state, the non-delegability of legislative power, and the principle that fundamental rights and freedoms must be safeguarded by law.

The Decision is particularly significant as the annulled provision had been in force since 1954 and served as the legal basis for various regulations, most notably the Decree No. 32 on the Protection of the Value of Turkish Currency. The key points of the Decision are summarized below:

• Article 1 of the Law, annulled by the Constitutional Court, conferred upon the President authority to issue decisions on the purchase and sale of foreign exchange, banknotes, shares, and bonds, as well as the import and export of goods and valuables containing precious metals and stones, and any commercial instruments or documents used for payment to maintain the stability of the Turkish currency. This authority, which had previously been vested in the Council of Ministers, was transferred to the President by the Decree Law No. 700, dated 02.07.2018, which replaced the term “Council of Ministers” with “President.”
• The authority granted to the President under this provision served as the legal basis for several regulations directly influencing Türkiye’s economic life, including the prohibition on concluding contracts denominated in foreign currency introduced by the 2018 amendments to Decree No. 32 and related implementing communiqués. 
• In its decision, the Constitutional Court particularly emphasized the following points:

Non-Delegability of Legislative Power:

According to Article 7 of the Constitution, legislative power is vested in the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye on behalf of the Turkish Nation, and this power may not be delegated to the executive organ. The regulatory power granted to the executive must be limited, dependent, and supplementary in nature; accordingly, the executive may only issue administrative and technical regulations that concretize and facilitate the implementation of the law within the framework defined by statute.

Impact on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms:

The annulled provision of the Law conferred upon the President an indefinite and unrestricted regulatory authority over an exceptionally broad area directly affecting fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to property, freedom of contract, and freedom of enterprise.

The Unconstitutionality of the Authority:

The Law did not specify the scope, boundaries, or principles and conditions governing the exercise of this authority; it merely stated that it could be exercised for the purpose of “protecting the value of the Turkish currency”, which the Constitutional Court deemed insufficient. Accordingly, the Constitutional Court held that the challenged provision amounted to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive and decided to annul it. 

• In the dissenting opinion, it was argued that the foreign exchange regime is inherently sensitive to sudden developments, and thus, listing each possible measure individually in the law would be inconsistent with legislative drafting technique. It was further noted that the rule requires expertise and technical knowledge, and since the authority is limited to the purpose of protecting the value of the Turkish currency, it does not constitute a violation of the principle of non-delegability of legislative power. 
• Finally, the Constitutional Court determined that the annulment of Articles 1, 2, and Additional Article 5 could create a legal gap that might adversely affect the public interest and therefore ruled that the annulment would enter into force nine months after the publication of the Decision in the Official Gazette. New legislative arrangements are expected to be introduced during this period.