Turkish Judiciary Report: Delayed justice and weak reasoning

By Ahmet Taş | Wise News Press

ISTANBUL, TÜRKİYE — A comprehensive judicial research report released by the Ekopolitik Think Tank has exposed a structural crisis in the Turkish justice system, characterized by excessive trial lengths and a significant lack of convincing legal reasoning.

The study, presented by political scientist Assoc. Prof. Dr. Uğur Özdemir, surveyed 708 legal professionals, including judges, prosecutors, and lawyers. The findings indicate that the malaise in the system is not merely a result of workload but is deeply rooted in the quality of investigations, the drafting of indictments, and a general erosion of institutional trust. According to the data, only 2.1% of lawyers find court decisions to be "sufficiently reasoned," while the majority of participants identified trial duration as the most pressing issue.

Professional Burnout and Systemic Dissatisfaction

The report sheds light on a high level of professional burnout across all judicial sectors. Statistics show that 61.1% of auxiliary staff, 47.3% of lawyers, 38.1% of prosecutors, and 33.9% of judges experience burnout. General satisfaction with the system's operation is alarmingly low, with "good" or "very good" ratings failing to exceed 20% in any category. Trial duration was cited as the top problem by 64.9% of respondents, followed closely by concerns over professional competence (63.9%) and perceptions of political interference (59%).

Flawed Indictments and Premature Cases

One of the most striking revelations of the Ekopolitik report is the poor quality of the investigation phase. Over half of the judges surveyed stated that the logical link between evidence, events, and accusations in indictments is often only "partially" or "rarely" established. This suggests that a significant number of cases are moved to the trial stage without sufficient filtering, leaving the burden of evidence collection and evaluation—which should be completed by prosecutors—to the courts. Furthermore, court clerks reported that they often draft the initial versions of interlocutory and final decisions, which are merely reviewed and signed by judges.

The Crisis of Reasoned Decisions and Public Trust

The "right to a reasoned decision" was identified as a critical area of failure. When lawyers were asked to evaluate the persuasiveness of court rulings, the response was overwhelmingly negative. The report notes that the current practice has devolved into a "template-based" system, making judicial review difficult and leaving parties unsatisfied with the legal process. The study concludes that judicial reform in Türkiye cannot be achieved solely through legislative changes or physical infrastructure; it requires a deep shift in professional culture and human resource quality to restore public trust.

www.wisenewspress.com