The role of the application procedure for the elimination of decision discrepancies between regional administrative courts in the realization of the principle of legal certainty

With the transition to a three-tier system in administrative jurisdiction, the appellate review (istinaf) has been introduced into the Turkish legal system. However, the use of this new appeal process has led to differences in case-law among regional administrative courts. Conflicting decisions on similar issues violate the principle of legal certainty. To address this problem, Article 3/C(4)(c) of Law No. 2576 on the Establishment and Duties of Regional Administrative Courts, Administrative Courts, and Tax Courts provides a procedure for resolving such inconsistencies. However, the effectiveness of this procedure is still debated. Moreover, the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of Turkey, in their judgments, have questioned whether there is an effective mechanism to address these case-law inconsistencies. These concerns show that such inconsistencies must be resolved within the national legal system. If the current procedure is not effective, it may lead to rights violations and legal uncertainty. This study examines the appeal process for resolving conflicting decisions between regional administrative courts, within the scope of the principle of legal certainty. The study is divided into two parts. The first part discusses the concepts of legal certainty and case-law inconsistency from the perspectives of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court. The second part defines case-law inconsistency and analyzes the appeal procedure within the relevant chambers of the Council of State, highlighting its shortcomings and offering possible solutions.