The greatest misfortune that the term \u201cconstitution\u201d has suffered in T\u00fcrkiye is that it circulates in public discourse through agendas that are incompatible with its meaning\u2014indeed, agendas that carry the potential to erase that meaning entirely from people\u2019s minds. Yes\u2026 Society encounters the notion of the constitution only within the context of \u201cagendas\u201d that either fragment it or reinforce the power of a particular individual or group. For this reason, citizens hear the word constitution merely in connection with processes that distort society\u2014such as altering the unitary structure, the official language, and the definition of citizenship, or \u201ctampering\u201d with the rules governing the formation of the executive branch, its powers, and its term of office. In this way, it is forgotten\u2014or made to be forgotten\u2014that the constitution is in fact a text that should touch real life and provide safeguards for ordinary people. In this series of articles, titled \u201cForgotten Constitution,\u201d I will attempt to draw attention to those provisions of the constitution that concern us all and that I hope will become the subject of broader social demand.<\/p>\n
Although state-organized civilized life offers many opportunities, it also deprives us of many possibilities that exist in the state of nature. Within this way of life, all movable and immovable objects are placed within the order of \u201cproperty.\u201d In such a system, even meeting a basic need such as shelter may turn into a problem in itself. In order to resolve this problem\u2014one that became increasingly severe and produced inhumane conditions, especially after the Industrial Revolution\u2014struggles throughout the nineteenth century brought to the fore the idea that shelter, or access to housing, like property itself, should be placed under legal protection and constructed as a \u201cright.\u201d<\/p>\n
The right to shelter\/housing, first recognized in the 1917 Constitution of Mexico, was later incorporated into the 1919 Weimar Constitution (Germany) and ultimately into the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Article 25 of the Declaration characterizes access to \u201chousing\u201d as a human right, stating that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of themselves and their family, including housing. Similarly, Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1976), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and to which T\u00fcrkiye is also a party, regulates housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living. Under this provision, States Parties are required to take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of the right to housing and, where necessary, to engage in international cooperation.<\/p>\n
General Comments No. 4 and No. 7 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [1] define the meaning and scope of the right to housing recognized in the Covenant [2]. According to these interpretations, housing is not merely a structure consisting of four walls and a roof; rather, it refers to a place where individuals can live in conditions of security, peace and dignity. Structures that fail to provide physical safety or that expose their inhabitants to extreme cold, heat, humidity, or conditions hazardous to health cannot be considered adequate under this definition. The location of the dwelling is also significant: places that are entirely disconnected from employment, schools, healthcare services, and social opportunities, or that are situated in environmentally hazardous areas, cannot be regarded as proper housing. In this sense, the right to housing is treated as a fundamental right that directly affects the quality of human life. It is also important to emphasize that this right exists independently of property status. In other words, the right to housing does not apply only to homeowners with legal title; it also encompasses tenants, temporary occupants, and individuals living in places where formal ownership has not been established.<\/p>\n
In its negative dimension, the right to housing includes protection against forced eviction, the arbitrary demolition of homes, unlawful interference with private life within the home, and guarantees that individuals may decide for themselves where to live and may move freely. In its positive dimension, however, the right to housing imposes certain obligations upon the state and public authorities. In this regard, access to essential services\u2014such as clean drinking water, sewage systems, electricity, heating, and waste collection\u2014constitutes an integral component of the right to housing. The cost of housing must not make it impossible for individuals to meet other fundamental needs such as food, healthcare, and education. The state and public authorities must also provide individuals with the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes concerning their housing and must prevent discrimination in access to housing.<\/p>\n
According to the Committee\u2019s General Comments, one of the gravest violations of the right to housing is forced eviction. Forced eviction refers to the removal of individuals from their homes against their will and without the provision of adequate legal protection. Such practices are typically carried out on grounds such as urban transformation projects, infrastructure developments, or land disputes, and they most often affect poorer segments of society. Under international human rights law, forced eviction is in principle regarded as unacceptable and is considered a serious violation. Even in exceptional circumstances where eviction may be contemplated, it must be subject to very strict conditions. In this framework, individuals must be granted the right to be heard and to express their views in advance; they must be informed of the eviction within a reasonable period beforehand; effective legal remedies must be available; and those who are evicted must not be left homeless. Even when based on a lawful justification, an eviction that completely deprives individuals of the possibility of shelter would not be compatible with the requirements of the right to housing.<\/p>\n
According to the Covenant, the right to housing does not mean that the state or public authorities are obliged to build a house for every individual. Nevertheless, it is beyond doubt that this right imposes certain duties and responsibilities on the state and public authorities, such as preventing homelessness, prohibiting forced evictions, combating discrimination, and protecting vulnerable groups. Furthermore, the right to housing is not merely a policy objective to be achieved in the long term. Certain obligations\u2014such as the prevention of discrimination and the provision of fundamental guarantees\u2014must be fulfilled immediately. Discriminatory laws, policies, barriers to access to credit, or exclusionary practices in rental processes may prevent certain groups from effectively benefiting from the right to housing. In this regard, states and public authorities are obliged to eliminate both explicit discrimination and situations that produce inequality in practice.<\/p>\n
The right to housing has also been reflected in numerous international treaties designed to protect human rights at the regional level. In this context, reference should be made to the Revised European Social Charter prepared within the framework of the Council of Europe, to which T\u00fcrkiye is also a party. In the first part of the Charter, it is emphasized that everyone has the right to housing. Article 16, entitled \u201cThe right of the family to social, legal and economic protection,\u201d lists \u201cthe provision of housing\u201d among the measures that States Parties undertake to employ in order to ensure the full development of the family. Article 23, entitled \u201cThe right of elderly persons to social protection,\u201d commits States Parties to providing elderly persons with \u201chousing suited to their needs and state of health or adequate support for adapting their housing accordingly.\u201d Article 30, entitled \u201cThe right to protection against poverty and social exclusion,\u201d places upon States Parties the obligation to \u201ctake measures to promote the effective access to housing of persons and families living in a situation of social exclusion or poverty, or at risk of falling into such a situation.\u201d Finally, Article 31 of the Charter, entitled \u201cThe right to housing,\u201d commits States Parties to adopt measures in three areas: (i) to promote access to housing of an adequate standard; (ii) to prevent and reduce homelessness with a view to its gradual elimination; and (iii) to make the price of housing accessible to those without adequate resources [3].<\/p>\n
Although it had previously inspired certain legislative provisions, the right to housing entered Turkish positive law for the first time through Article 49 of the 1961 Constitution. Paragraph 2 of this article, entitled \u201cRight to Health,\u201d reads as follows: \u201cThe State shall take measures to meet the housing needs of poor or low-income families in conditions compatible with health standards.\u201d The currently applicable 1982 Constitution regulates the matter independently in Article 57, entitled \u201cRight to Housing,\u201d in the following terms: \u201cWithin the framework of planning that takes into account the characteristics of cities and environmental conditions, the State shall take measures to meet housing needs and shall also support mass housing initiatives.\u201d The Constitutional Court considers that the term \u201cState\u201d used in this provision also encompasses public legal entities other than the central administration [4]. Consequently, the right to housing also finds application in relation to duties that may be assigned by the legislature to local administrations (provincial special administrations, municipalities, villages, or metropolitan municipalities) or to public institutions, as well as in the performance of such duties. Indeed, in another decision the Constitutional Court emphasized that the Housing Development Administration of T\u00fcrkiye (TOK\u0130) is a public legal entity established in order to resolve the country\u2019s housing problem in line with the duty imposed upon the state by Article 57 concerning the right to housing [5].<\/p>\n
The last paragraph of Article 90 of the Constitution provides that, in cases of conflict arising from differences between international treaties concerning fundamental rights and freedoms that have been duly put into force and domestic laws regulating the same matter, the provisions of international treaties shall prevail. Accordingly, both the interpretation of Article 57 of the Constitution concerning the right to housing and the content of laws to be enacted in this direction must take into account the requirements of the international treaties to which the Republic of T\u00fcrkiye is a party, as explained above, and must observe the \u201cobligation to fulfil.\u201d In terms of fulfilling the right to housing, the state is obliged to take measures facilitating access to housing, to promote the provision of housing that meets adequate standards, to keep housing prices and rent levels at affordable levels, and to define the legal framework of evictions in a manner that prevents homelessness [6].<\/p>\n
Paragraph 17 of Article 104 of the Constitution allows the right to housing\u2014being among the social and economic rights\u2014to be regulated by presidential decrees (CBKs) [7]. However, when this provision is considered together with Article 13\u2014which stipulates that fundamental rights and freedoms may be restricted only by law [8] and which also applies to the right to housing\u2014it becomes clear that regulations introduced through presidential decrees cannot take the form of restrictions. In other words, the Constitution allows the President to issue presidential decrees concerning the right to housing only if they have an \u201cexpansive\u201d character.<\/p>\n
The constitutional provision regulating the right to housing does not contain any explicit grounds for limitation. This results from the fact that the article is drafted in the language of a \u201cduty\u201d rather than that of a \u201cright.\u201d In other words, although the constitution-maker uses the term \u201cright\u201d in the title, the substance of the provision is structured in a manner that imposes duties upon public authorities. The limits of this duty are drawn by Article 65 of the Constitution [9]. According to this provision, the state shall fulfil its duties regarding the right to housing \u201cby observing priorities appropriate to the aims of these duties\u201d and \u201cto the extent permitted by the adequacy of its financial resources.\u201d The manner in which the right to housing is regulated and the limitation introduced by Article 65 give rise to doubts regarding the justiciability of the right. Those who regard the article as a \u201cprogrammatic provision\u201d argue that the legislature possesses absolute discretion in matters concerning the right to housing and that, unless the right is concretized in laws or presidential decrees, the courts cannot compel the relevant authorities to fulfil it.<\/p>\n
It is not possible to agree with these interpretations, which are motivated by \u201cliberal\u201d concerns such as avoiding the imposition of a particular economic policy upon the legislative and executive branches. The constitution-maker does not engage in futility. Moreover, constitutional provisions address the judiciary at least as much as they address the legislative and executive branches. The principle of the indivisibility of human rights has rendered obsolete the old categories of fundamental rights and freedoms\u2014categories that also reflected a certain class-based perspective. It is now accepted that every right has both negative and positive dimensions. Furthermore, the alleged absolute or broad discretion does not emerge even from the wording of Article 65 itself. Cost is not a condition determining whether the state will fulfil its duty regarding the right to housing, but rather the extent to which it will fulfil it. In determining this extent, priorities consistent with the objectives of the duty must be observed. When the principle of the \u201csocial state,\u201d which is among the unamendable provisions of the Constitution and whose amendment cannot even be proposed (Article 2), and the \u201cfundamental aims and duties of the state\u201d regulated in the section on general principles (Article 5) [10] are also taken into account, it becomes impossible to accept interpretations that cast doubt upon the justiciability of the right to housing [11]. Indeed, in its General Comment No. 9 entitled \u201cThe Domestic Application of the Covenant,\u201d the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights\u2014while recognizing the financial capacities of States Parties\u2014does not consider it appropriate to leave the manner in which such capacity is used solely to political authorities, and emphasizes that the allocation of resources should be subject to judicial review [12].<\/p>\n
The Constitutional Court has generally adopted a hesitant approach regarding social and economic rights and duties, and specifically with respect to the right to housing. Although the Court considers the social state to be one that is \u201cobliged to protect the weak against the strong in order to achieve real equality and thus social balance\u201d [13], in its constitutional review decisions it generally relies on the notion of \u201cbroad discretion\u201d and interprets Article 65 of the Constitution in a manner unfavourable to the right to housing. In individual applications concerning the right to housing, it has likewise remained distant from the thesis of the justiciability of social rights and from the approach of the European Court of Human Rights, which protects social rights indirectly [14].<\/p>\n
The housing problem in T\u00fcrkiye is growing day by day. Inconsistent economic policies, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the 6 February 2023 earthquake have deepened existing economic problems, making it significantly more difficult\u2014particularly in metropolitan areas\u2014to own a home or even to afford paying rent. According to a study based on data from the Turkish Statistical Institute (T\u00dc\u0130K) and the Central Bank of the Republic of T\u00fcrkiye (TCMB), housing prices per square meter in metropolitan cities have increased sixfold since 2021. Meanwhile, the rate of homeownership declined from 61.1% in 2013 to 56.1% in 2023. In 2013, purchasing a 100-square-meter home required the equivalent of 5.7 years of per-capita GDP. As of 2023, this figure has risen to 9 years [15]. Considering that GDP is not distributed equally among the population and that income inequality has increased, it is possible to say that owning a home has become a \u201cdream\u201d for a significant portion of society.<\/p>\n
According to the Report on the Evaluation of Post-Earthquake Rent Increases in the Context of the Right to Housing prepared by the Human Rights and Equality Institution of T\u00fcrkiye, there has been a general upward trend in rental prices across the country following 6 February 2023. In the month following the earthquake, rents increased by approximately 70\u201375% in Ankara and Mersin, and by around 50% in Mu\u011fla [16]. It is not difficult to assume that the effects of these extraordinary increases continue to this day. All of these data indicate that, despite various measures taken, public authorities have failed to fulfil their positive obligations within the scope of the right to housing. Reminding the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the \u201cForgotten Constitution\u201d therefore falls to us as citizens.<\/p>\n
References<\/b><\/p>\n
[1] CESCR General Comment No. 4: The Right to Adequate Housing, (Access: https:\/\/www.refworld.org\/legal\/general\/cescr\/1991\/en\/53157<\/a>, 26.01.2026); CESCR General Comment 7: The Right to Adequate Housing, (Access: https:\/\/www.refworld.org\/legal\/general\/cescr\/1997\/en\/53063<\/a>, 26.01.2026).<\/p>\n [2] The explanations above regarding the meaning and scope of the right to housing according to the Covenant and the general comments are based on the following source: The Right to Adequate Housing: Fact Sheet No. 21\/Rev.1, (Access: https:\/\/unhabitat.org\/the-right-to-adequate-housing-fact-sheet-no-21rev1<\/a>, 26.01.2026).<\/p>\n [3] The recommendations of the European Committee of Social Rights interpreting the Charter regarding the right to housing are in the same direction as the general comments of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights explained above: European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Greece, Complaint No. 15\/2003; European Roma Rights Center (ERRC) v. Italy, Complaint No. 27\/2004.<\/p>\n [4] Constitutional Court of T\u00fcrkiye, 11.12.1986, E. 1985\/11, K. 1986\/29.<\/p>\n [5] Constitutional Court of T\u00fcrkiye, 08.12.2004, E. 2004\/61, K. 2004\/123.<\/p>\n [6] Beg\u00fcm SEYHAN, The Right to Housing from the Perspective of Constitutional Law, Master\u2019s Thesis, Ankara University Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara 2019, p. 123.<\/p>\n [7] Constitution of 1982, Art. 104\/17: \u201cThe President may issue presidential decrees on matters relating to executive power. Fundamental rights, personal rights and duties included in the first and second chapters of the second part of the Constitution, and political rights and duties included in the fourth chapter, cannot be regulated by presidential decree. Presidential decrees cannot be issued on matters that the Constitution explicitly requires to be regulated by law. Presidential decrees cannot be issued on matters explicitly regulated by law. In cases where the provisions of presidential decrees and laws differ, the provisions of the law shall prevail. If the Grand National Assembly of T\u00fcrkiye enacts a law on the same matter, the presidential decree becomes null and void.\u201d<\/p>\n [8] Constitution of 1982, Art. 13: \u201cFundamental rights and freedoms may be restricted only by law, without infringing upon their essence, and only on the grounds specified in the relevant articles of the Constitution. These restrictions shall not be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, the requirements of the democratic order of society and the secular Republic, and the principle of proportionality.\u201d<\/p>\n [9] Constitution of 1982, Art. 65: \u201cThe State shall fulfil its duties in the social and economic fields determined by the Constitution by observing priorities appropriate to the aims of these duties and to the extent permitted by the adequacy of its financial resources.\u201d<\/p>\n [10] Constitution of 1982, Art. 5: \u201cThe fundamental aims and duties of the State are to safeguard the independence and integrity of the Turkish nation, the indivisibility of the country, the Republic and democracy; to ensure the welfare, peace and happiness of individuals and society; to strive to remove the political, economic and social obstacles which restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual in a manner incompatible with the principles of the social state governed by the rule of law and justice; and to prepare the conditions required for the development of the individual\u2019s material and spiritual existence.\u201d<\/p>\n [11] For detailed discussions regarding the justiciability of the right to housing and the interpretation of Article 65 of the Constitution, see: Bayram DO\u011eAN, \u201cThe Right to Housing from the Perspective of Constitutional Law,\u201d Sel\u00e7uk University Faculty of Law Journal, 2023, Vol. 31, No. 3, p. 1337 et seq.; SEYHAN, p. 91 et seq.<\/p>\n [12] CESCR General Comment No. 9: The Domestic Application of the Covenant, paragraph 10: \u201cJusticiability\u201d, (Access: https:\/\/www.refworld.org\/legal\/general\/cescr\/1998\/en\/53238<\/a>, 03.02.2026).<\/p>\n [13] Constitutional Court of T\u00fcrkiye, 23.05.1972, E. 1972\/2, K. 1972\/28.<\/p>\n [14] For the relevant decisions and discussions, see: Tolga \u015e\u0130R\u0130N, \u201cIs There Another Possibility\u2014Perhaps Death? Theses and Proposals in Favour of the Justiciability of Social Human Rights through Constitutional Complaint,\u201d VI National Symposium on Social Human Rights (13\u201314 November 2014), pp. 341\u2013366; SEYHAN, p. 100 et seq.<\/p>\n [15] Resul KUNT, \u201cAn Endless Dream: Homeownership in T\u00fcrkiye,\u201d Do\u011fruluk Pay\u0131, 24.01.2025, (Access: https:\/\/www.dogrulukpayi.com\/bulten\/sonsuza-giden-hayal-turkiye-de-konut-sahipligi<\/a>, 03.02.2026).<\/p>\n