30.06.2026 15:21
The Constitutional Court rejected the request to annul the regulation that allows individuals meeting certain conditions to change their gender by court order. The High Court ruled that Article 40 of the Turkish Civil Code is not unconstitutional and decided to maintain the current practice.
The Constitutional Court (AYM) rejected the request to annul the regulation allowing individuals meeting certain conditions to apply for gender change.
According to the decision published in the Official Gazette, the Antalya 13th Civil Court of First Instance, in a case it was hearing, applied to the AYM for the annulment of Article 40 of Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, which contains provisions regarding gender change, claiming it was unconstitutional.
AYM REJECTED THE ANNULMENT REQUEST
In the application, it was argued that allowing gender change destroys biological differences stemming from creation and eliminates their legal consequences, rendering norms based on gender differences—such as military service and the prohibition of working in mines—non-functional, and that this contradicts the constitutional provision stating that no one can be employed in a job incompatible with their gender.
The High Court ruled that the relevant regulation was not unconstitutional and rejected the annulment request.
FROM THE REASONING OF THE DECISION
In the AYM's decision, it was stated that Article 40 of the Turkish Civil Code, which was requested to be annulled, includes the provision: 'A person wishing to change their gender may personally apply to the court to request permission for gender change. However, for permission to be granted, the applicant must be at least 18 years old and unmarried, and must also be of a transsexual structure and document the necessity of gender change for mental health with an official health board report from a training and research hospital. If it is confirmed by an official health board report that a gender reassignment surgery compatible with the purpose and medical methods has been performed based on the granted permission, the court decides to make the necessary correction in the civil registry.'
The decision emphasized that the regulation contains clear and explicit provisions regarding the procedure for granting permission for gender change, leaving no room for doubt, and stated that it is 'specific and predictable, meeting the requirement of legality.'
The decision noted that requiring court permission for gender change aims to ensure public order and protect individual health, and that this serves to meet a compelling social need.
Recalling that the annulment application argued that 'allowing individuals to change gender contrary to their biological sex by adopting societal gender norms is unconstitutional,' the decision stated that under the rule, gender change is an opportunity granted only to individuals who meet certain conditions.
According to the regulation, gender change can be provided to individuals for whom it is deemed medically necessary, the decision stated, adding: 'It has been concluded that the rule foreseeing gender change, which falls within the legislator's discretionary authority, has no aspect contradicting the Constitution. The Constitutional Court, for the reasons explained, has ruled that the rule is not unconstitutional and has rejected the objection.'