The Turkish authorities have therefore provided a solution to the problem which appears, at first sight, reasonable. The Venice Commission, however, has doubts that this solution is conducive to legal certainty. First, it assumes that the existence of a conflict is straightforward, while it is realistic to imagine that the overlap will be only partial, and arguably subject to interpretation; second, it assumes that the various courts’ decisions will be consistent, which instead is far from being evident; third, it assumes that the conflict will be easily brought before the Constitutional Court and that the latter will decide rapidly, which is contradicted by the current work-load of this court; finally, it does not seem to take into account that pending an authoritative decision by the Constitutional Court the state administration will naturally have a tendency to implement the decisions of their Chief, the President. In addition, the Constitutional Court only has the power to examine the constitutionality of a presidential decree within sixty days of its publication in the Official Gazette (Amended Article 151), while a conflict may arise in respect of a later law. The Turkish authorities argue that in case of disagreement about a presidential decree, the TGNA may enact a law on the same subject, which will then prevail over the decree. The Venice Commission has doubts that this possibility would apply to the domaines inherently reserved to the President’s decrees.