10.08.2026 10:11
The Constitutional Court ruled that the provision in the Civil Registration Services Law regarding the transfer of a married woman's record to her husband's household is not unconstitutional. The Court rejected the annulment request by a majority vote, with 5 members dissenting. In the dissenting opinions, it was stated that the regulation constitutes gender-based differential treatment and undermines the principle of equality between spouses.
The Constitutional Court (AYM) ruled that the provision in the Population Services Law stating "the record of a married woman is transferred to her husband's household" is not unconstitutional. Members who voted against stated that the regulation constitutes gender-based differential treatment between spouses.
LOCAL COURT REQUESTED THE ANNULMENT OF THE LAW ARTICLE
The AYM's decision on the matter was published in the Official Gazette. According to the decision, the Istanbul 14th Civil Court of First Instance, in a case it was hearing, ruled that the paragraph in Article 23 of the Population Services Law stating "The record of a married woman is transferred to her husband's household. A woman whose husband dies remains in her deceased husband's family register unless she remarries. However, if she wishes, she may return to her father's register" was unconstitutional and required annulment, and applied to the AYM.
"CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY"
In the application, it was stated that a woman does not have a population register in her own name, and that upon marriage her record is transferred from her father's household to her male spouse's household. It was argued that this situation is contrary to the principles of equality between women and men and between spouses, constitutes gender-based discrimination against women, and that there is no legitimate purpose for basing the population register on the husband.
AYM REJECTED THE ANNULMENT REQUEST
The AYM, as a result of its examination, rejected the annulment request by a majority of votes. In the decision, it was stated that the population register is a technical record system kept within the administration, and that the transfer of a woman's record to her husband's household does not have a direct and decisive effect on her legal status or a concrete interest. It was stated that the provision is not contrary to the Constitution's provisions on the rule of law, equality, the right to protect and develop one's material and spiritual existence, and the protection of the family.
DISSENTING OPINION: GENDER-BASED DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
Five members of the AYM, however, ruled that the regulation was unconstitutional and required annulment, and did not join the majority opinion.
In the dissenting opinion of 4 of the members, it was stated that "it is possible for the population registration system to show family ties, but while doing this, turning the woman into a registration element dependent on the male spouse's household would not be compatible with the rule of law's character based on human dignity and equality."
In the dissenting opinion, it was assessed that "The contested rule constitutes differential treatment without a justifiable reason based on gender between women and men who are in the same legal situation within the marital union, positions the woman's legal personality not as an independent individual but as dependent on the male spouse's household, damages the constitutional understanding of the family based on equality between spouses, and is incompatible with the standards of gender equality adopted in international human rights law."
"CONTRARY TO 2 ARTICLES IN THE CONSTITUTION"
In the other dissenting opinion, it was stated that the regulation is against women and contrary to Article 10 of the Constitution titled "Equality before the law" and Article 41 titled "Protection of the family and children's rights", and it was noted that it should be annulled.