Following the decision, İFOD issued a statement calling on the Ministry of Interior to consult with relevant civil society actors—especially human rights organizations—before introducing any new regulations, and to respect constitutional rights.
What had happened?
In 2020, Article 19 of the Law on Associations (No. 5253) was amended. Based on this, the “Regulation on the Amendment of the Regulation on Associations” was published in the Official Gazette on 21 October 2021. The regulation introduced a system where associations would be inspected based on “risk analysis,” classifying them into high, medium, or low-risk groups. The procedures and principles regarding risk analysis and inspections were left to be determined by the Directorate General of Civil Society Relations.
One of the most affected CSOs was the Freedom of Expression Association (İFOD), which challenged the regulation before the Council of State. In its lawsuit, İFOD argued that the concept of risk was not defined in the law, that the classification was not foreseen in legislation, and that inspections had thus become vulnerable to arbitrariness. The association also stressed that the regulation violated the right to freedom of association.
What did the court say?
On 28 May 2025, the 10th Chamber of the Council of State (Decision No: E. 2021/6971, K. 2025/2774) annulled parts of the regulation. Specifically, it struck down sentences 3–6 of paragraph 1, as well as paragraphs 2–4 of Additional Article 1, and Additional Article 3 of the amended Regulation on Associations. These provisions had introduced the classification of associations into “high, medium, and low-risk” categories, determined the inspections accordingly, and granted the Directorate General authority to change the criteria annually.
The Council of State emphasized that one of the core elements of the rule of law is the right of individuals to know in advance the legal rules that will be applied to them. It concluded that the regulation failed to meet these requirements. Furthermore, granting the administration such broad and vague discretion could lead to arbitrariness.
The court also noted that not specifying the criteria for classifying associations, allowing those criteria to change annually, and leaving inspection processes open to arbitrary interpretation were all contrary to the principles of legal certainty and foreseeability.