A Decree-law in Turkey (Turkish: Kanun Hükmünde Kararname, KHK) is a legal act issued by the government with the force of law. In Turkey, ordinary decree-laws were issued by the Council of Ministers after the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) granted an enabling law, while emergency decree-laws were issued during states of emergency under constitutional provisions.

Ordinary decree-laws Ordinary decree-laws were used when the TBMM authorized the Council of Ministers to regulate specific matters by decree. The authorization had to define the scope, purpose, principles, and duration of the power, and the decree-law entered into force after publication in the Resmî Gazete. Ordinary decree-laws could not regulate certain fundamental rights, personal rights and duties, or political rights and duties.

Emergency decree-laws Emergency decree-laws were issued during states of emergency by the Council of Ministers under the presidency of the President. These decrees did not require a separate enabling law from the TBMM, and they could cover broader subject matter than ordinary decree-laws. The Constitutional Court stated that, under Article 148 of the Constitution, emergency decree-laws cannot be challenged before the court for unconstitutionality in terms of form or substance.

Legal status Decree-laws had the force of law and were subject to political supervision by the parliament. Ordinary decree-laws were also subject to judicial review, while emergency decree-laws were excluded from constitutional review under the constitutional rules in force at the time.

After 2016 Following the state of emergency in 2016, Turkey issued a series of emergency decrees numbered 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 672, 673, 674, 675, 676, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 693, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 700 and 701, which were published and submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey starting from July 2016. The Constitutional Court confirmed that these were emergency decrees issued during a state of emergency and therefore fall under the constitutional review impediment within the scope of Article 148. Accordingly, the Court held that these decrees could not be subjected to constitutional review and that annulment actions against them were inadmissible before the Constitutional Court.

With the 2017 constitutional amendments, which entered into force in 2018, the KHK system was abolished and replaced by presidential decree powers under Articles 104 (ordinary decrees) and 119 (emergency decrees).

These decrees introduced wide-ranging regulatory and institutional changes, including large-scale dismissals of public personnel, closures of private educational institutions, media outlets, and civil society organisations, as well as broader reforms in public administration, security institutions, and the judiciary. They formed part of the exceptional legal framework of the 2016–2018 state of emergency, which significantly reshaped state institutions and civil society in Turkey.

According to the Venice Commission (Opinion No. 865/2016), the state of emergency decrees issued in Turkey after the 2016 coup attempt led to the dismissal of approximately 125,000–130,000 public officials, including judges, prosecutors, teachers, academics, police officers, and military personnel, often without individualized reasoning or effective judicial review. In addition, more than 4,000 legal entities—including associations, foundations, private educational institutions, universities, and media outlets—were closed down, resulting in the widespread liquidation of civil society organizations and private institutions across multiple sectors.,

The scope of emergency decree laws

Emergency Decree No. 667 (23 July 2016) The first decree-law (KHK) issued under the state of emergency established the mechanism for dismissal from public service. It facilitated dismissals without prior court rulings through ambiguous concepts such as "affiliation" (iltisak) or "connection" (irtibat). Strict prohibitions were introduced, preventing dismissed public servants from re-entering public service or returning to their respective institutions.Emergency Decree No. 667 provides an example of how this mechanism was implemented.

Emergency Decree No. 668 (27 July 2016) Numerous institutions, associations, foundations, schools, media outlets, and certain private entities were shut down. The assets, real estate, and rights of the dissolved entities were transferred to the state, affecting not only the personnel but also the economic activity surrounding these institutions. The following excerpt is taken from the decree and sets out the expulsion of military personnel and the measures imposed on them:

Emergency Decree No. 669 (31 July 2016) Dismissals targeting public personnel were expanded, accelerating the practice of mass purges, particularly in the sectors of security and public administration. From this period onward, dismissals shifted from individual administrative actions into a practice of collective, list-based expulsions. The following excerpt is taken from the decree and sets out the expulsion of military personnel and the measures imposed on them:

Emergency Decree No. 670 (17 August 2016) Restrictions regarding the passports, official duties, and certain administrative rights of the dismissed individuals were maintained, directly impacting their daily lives. While the path for the dismissed personnel to return to public service was effectively closed, social exclusion increased.

Emergency Decree No. 671 (17 August 2016) A new wave of dismissals took place across public institutions, resulting in personnel purges within various ministries and agencies. During this period, dismissal evolved into a form of administrative sanction implemented without investigation or criminal trial.

Emergency Decree No. 672 (1 September 2016) One of the most critical waves of dismissals concerning members of the judiciary was carried out through this decree, resulting in the termination of 2,847 judges and prosecutors without trial. In line with the rationale of the decree-laws, permanent exclusion from office and "non-readmission" were applied without requiring a court order.

Emergency Decrees No. 673 and 674 (September 2016) The series of dismissals and closures continued, expanding their impact across the fields of education, healthcare, media, and public service. At this stage, the consequences extended beyond the loss of employment to include passport cancellations, exclusion from the private sector, and economic hardships.

Emergency Decree No. 675 (29 October 2016) Criminal investigations were initiated against a significant portion of the dismissed individuals, thereby supplementing administrative dismissals with criminal prosecution. Those targeted by the decrees faced simultaneous pressure from both unemployment and ongoing judicial processes.

Emergency Decree No. 677 (22 November 2016) Additional restrictions, such as security clearances, passport cancellations, eviction from public housing, and bans on professional activities, were imposed on numerous individuals. Consequently, dismissal transformed from employment termination into an exclusionary system affecting multiple areas of daily life.

References