Case-Law Summary
|
Case |
Decision |
Case-Law Development |
Related |
|
I. Individual Application |
|||
|
İbrahim Acar |
Violation of the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right since he was ordered to pay more than he earned as alimony payment. - The court only relied on the information provided by the law enforcement officers regarding the economic conditions of the parties. Hence it reached a decision without having exact information about the applicant’s monthly income. - The amount the applicant was ordered to pay was not proportionate. - The public authorities’ failure to fulfil their positive obligations under the right to protect and improve the applicant’s corporeal and spiritual existence. |
|
|
Ziya Özden |
Violation of the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right for rejection of his request not to be placed in a single cell in the penitentiary institution, without an examination by the execution judge. - The decision ordering the applicant’s placement in a single cell was delivered by the Administrative and Supervisory Board of the Penitentiary Institution. - The execution judge claimed that the said decision had been given upon the instruction of the Ministry of Justice and that it therefore refused to examine the applicant’s objection. - However, the applicant’s objection was against the decision of the Administrative and Supervisory Board that was within the jurisdiction of the execution judge. - The rejection by the execution judge of the objection submitted by the applicant, without any examination, had been unlawful. |
|
|
Case |
Decision |
Case-Law Development |
Related |
|
I. Individual Application |
|||
|
Hasan Fırat |
Violation of the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution
|
-Alleged violation of the said prohibition due to the injury sustained by the applicant as a result of police intervention in a demonstration. |
|
|
Aligül Alkaya and Others (2) |
Continued violation of the right to a fair hearing safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right to a fair hearing due to the non-enforcement of the Court’s judgment finding a violation. |
|
|
Şükran İrge |
Violation of the right to respect for family life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the said right due to dismissal of the request for a suspension of execution filed by the applicant, a convict serving her sentence in a penitentiary institution with her two children. |
|
|
Ali Ertan and Others |
Violation of the right of access to a court safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the said right due to dismissal, as being time-barred, of the action for compensation brought by the applicants, relatives of two lieutenant pilots who died as a result of a plane crash taking place due to the fire opened by a foreign State’s forces while serving in the Turkish Armed Forces. |
|
|
Ahmet Haluk Altan 12 October 2019 |
No violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the impugned freedom of the applicant, a lawyer, for his punishment due to his expressions in the petition he had submitted to the court in defence of his client. |
|
|
Erbil Tuşalp 23 October 2019 |
Violation of the freedoms of expression and the press respectively safeguarded by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the impugned freedom of the applicant, a journalist, for the sanction imposed on him on the ground that he had contributed to the dissemination of the expressions harming the complainant’s (Fetullah Gülen, leader of the FETÖ/PDY) honour. |
|
|
Hasan Ercan |
Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the said freedom due to the fine imposed on him on account of his expressions in a petition whereby he filed a complaint about a judge dealing with his uncle’s case. |
|
|
II. Constitutionality Review |
|||
|
E.2019/70 16 October 2019 |
Annulment of the provision stipulating that the broadcast of the enterprises failing to pay the channel and frequency usage fee shall be ceased by the Radio and Television Supreme Council (“the RTÜK”) within one month. |
- Alleged unconstitutionality as there was no reasonable balance between the envisaged measure and the aim sought to be achieved. |
|
|
Case |
Decision |
Case-Law Development |
Related |
|
I. Individual Application |
|||
|
Mehmet Aksoy |
Violation the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution
|
-Alleged violation of the said freedom of the applicant, a sculptor, due to the demolition of the monument he had sculpted, in accordance with the decision of certain public authorities. |
|
|
Binali Boran |
Violation of the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right for rejection of his appeal request, which he had submitted electronically via the National Judiciary Informatics System (UYAP), as being time-barred. |
|
|
Gülşen Polat and Kenan Polat |
Violation of the right to life and the prohibition of torture, safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the said rights due to the death of the applicants’ son at a military penitentiary institution as a result of ill-treatment and lack of an effective investigation into the incident. |
|
|
II. Constitutionality Review |
|||
|
E.2018/144 |
Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision (added to the Tax Procedural Law) setting forth that an electronic notification shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee by the end of the fifth day following the date of delivery receipt. |
- Allegedly unconstitutional for not providing an adequate and reasonable period for the addressee to enable him to use his relevant rights as well as for causing discrepancies, among those who became liable for taxes prior and subsequent to the impugned notification system, in terms of the notification methods. |
|
| E.2019/48 19 September 2019 (Plenary) |
Annulment of the provisions setting forth that in case of any delay in overtime payment of the journalists, the amounts shall be payable plus a daily five-percentage for each delayed day. |
- Allegedly unconstitutional for bestowing a manifest privilege on journalists, thereby undermining the principles of equality before the law, state of law and legal security. |
|
|
Case |
Decision |
Case-Law Development |
Related |
|
I. Individual Application |
|||
|
Tonguç Özkan and Others |
No violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right due to the disciplinary punishment imposed on them for obstructing the train service. - The applicants, employees of the Turkish State Railways, had been on a work stoppage. - They had not been imposed the disciplinary punishment for their work stoppage act but their sitting in front of the train and preventing the train from moving thereby hindering the others’ rights. - The disciplinary punishment imposed on the applicants served a pressing social need, namely the protection of the public order. The interference had been proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the public order. |
|
|
Veysel Kaplan |
Violation of the freedom of association safeguarded by Article 33 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s freedom of association due to the disciplinary punishment imposed on him for his refusal to listen to the teleconference speech of the Minister of Education, protesting it on behalf of the labour union of which he was the head. - Freedom of association is a special aspect of freedom of expression. - The applicant expressed his criticism of the Minister peacefully in accordance with the decision of the labour union. - Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons to prove that the interference with the right to association served a pressing social need; disciplinary punishment was not necessary in a democratic society. -Failure to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s freedom of association and the interests of those attending the meeting. |
|
|
Hacı Karabulut |
Violation of the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial due to non-communication of the objection letter of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Cassation to the applicant. - Judgment was rendered against the applicant who had not been informed of the observations included in the objection letter and hence had had no chance to submit his counter-observations. - Violations of the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms. |
|
|
Ahmet Urhan |
Violation of the freedom of association safeguarded by Article 33 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s freedom due to his conviction for membership of a terrorist organization on the ground of his link with an association established in accordance with the laws and maintaining its activities within a legal framework. - The first instance court considered legal the association to which the applicant was affiliated; but, relying on a police report, it noted that the impugned association indeed conducted activities on behalf of a terrorist organization, the MLKP, and was operating directly in line with the latter’s goals: failure to indicate any relevant evidence demonstrating that the association had acted in line with the MLKP’s goals, as well as to reveal the link between the applicant’s activities falling into the ambit of his fundamental rights and the terrorist organization, thereby causing an unjust and deterrent effect on the freedom of association. - Accordingly, the first instance court failed to provide relevant and sufficient ground to demonstrate that the use of the applicant’s impugned acts as evidence in his conviction had corresponded to a pressing social need: the impugned interference did not comply with the requirements of a democratic society. |
|
|
Mahin Parjani and Others |
Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the impugned right due to the death incident that had occurred as a result of use of force by the security officers and failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incident. - It is of vital importance that the investigation authorities act ex officio and without delay in cases of suspicious death. -Insufficient and delayed analysis of the evidence that might shed light on the incident: Investigation was not conducted rigorously. |
|
|
S.S. Yeni Foça Asmadere Konut Yapı Kooperatifi |
Violations of the right to property and the right of access to a court respectively safeguarded by Articles 35 and 36 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the impugned rights due to the failure to enforce the final judicial decision. - The applicant that is a cooperative and the Treasury signed an agreement to exchange their properties. The applicant also made an additional payment to register the relevant property under its name. - The exchange of the properties was subsequently annulled. - The applicant was denied to obtain the reimbursement of the additional payment he had made as well as of the compensation awarded to him as a result of the title deed annulment action he had brought, which was in breach of its right to property. - Failure to enforce a final judicial decision that was in favour of the applicant was in breach of the right of access to a court. |
|
|
Ulvi Bacıoğlu |
Violation of the procedural aspect of the freedom of communication safeguarded by Article 22 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s freedom due to the lack of an effective and meticulous investigation into his complaint of unlawful interception of his communications. - The applicant, becoming aware through a piece of news that his telephone lines were being tapped, filed a criminal complaint with the incumbent chief public prosecutor’s office for the identification and punishment of those responsible. However, a decision of non-prosecution was rendered at the end of the investigation. - The investigation authority’s failure to seek to obtain information and documents having a key role in the investigation, and thereby to widen the scope of the investigation: non-fulfilment of the requirements inherent in the public authorities’ positive obligation to conduct an effective and meticulous investigation. |
|
|
II. Constitutionality Review |
|||
|
E.2018/105 (Plenary) |
Annulment of the provision added to the Higher Education Law, which provided that the graduates of the associate degree program of theology shall have the opportunity to complete their education with a view to obtaining bachelor’s degree at the faculty of theology or the faculties offering the same programme |
- Alleged unconstitutionality as the contested provision was only applicable to the graduates of the associate degree program of theology, in breach of the principles of equality and social state of law. - It was a privilege for the graduates of the associate degree program of theology in that while the graduates of other associate degree programs had to take an exam in order to complete their education with a view to obtaining bachelor’s degree, the graduates of the associate degree program of theology were accepted unconditionally. - Contested provision was in breach of the principles of equality and justice. - Incompatibility with Article 2 of the Constitution. |
|
|
Case |
Decision |
Case-Law Development |
Related |
|
I. Individual Application |
|||
|
Ömer Faruk Eminağaoğlu 26 September 2019 (First Section) |
No violation of the right to stand for elections safeguarded by Article 67 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to his inability to be reinstated in his office as a judge following his resignation in order to stand for parliamentary elections. |
|
|
Nihal Uslukol |
Violation of the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the impugned right due to dismissal of appeal as being time-barred; interference with the right of access to a court. |
|
|
Ercan Toğrul |
Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the right due to the confiscation measure applied during a criminal investigation. |
|
|
II. Constitutionality Review |
|||
|
E.2018/92 |
Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision setting forth that the custody period shall be 7 days in times of emergency and shall be prolonged, if required by the exigencies of the situation, for a further 7 days |
- Allegedly unconstitutional for constituting a disproportionate interference with the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by the Constitution. |
|
|
E.2017/18 |
- Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provisions which envisage that war colleges, military high schools and non-commissioned officers training schools be closed and the military cadets be transferred to appropriate schools |
- Allegedly unconstitutional for being in breach of the right to education of the military cadets in question as well as for causing inequality between those already graduated from these schools and the ones transferred to other schools. |
|
|
E.2016/205 |
Annulment of certain provisions of the Law no. 6749 on Amendment and |
A) Contested provision stipulates that the students, who had been enrolled in the higher education institutions that was closed within the scope of the state of emergency for their having had links with the FETÖ/PDY terrorist organization and subsequently placed by the Higher Education Council in other state or foundation universities, shall continue to pay the fees, which they had been required to pay to their previous universities until graduation, to the relevant universities in which they have been subsequently placed: annulled. B) Contested provision stipulates that the officials who make decisions and fulfil their duties within the scope of Law no. 6749 shall not be subject to legal, administrative, financial or criminal liabilities: request for annulment is dismissed. |
|
|
Case |
Decision |
Case-Law Development |
Related |
|
I. Individual Application |
|||
|
Halk Radyo ve Televizyon Yayıncılık A.Ş. 2014/19270 11 July 2019 (Plenary) |
Violations of the freedoms of expression and the press safeguarded by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s rights due to the broadcast ban imposed within the scope of an ongoing criminal investigation conducted against a number of former ministers. - The Law in accordance with which the ban was imposed did not include any provision concerning the said ban. - Failure to fulfil the criteria of “foreseeability” and “certainty”, thereby failure to meet the requirement of legality.
|
|
|
Mustafa Açay and E.A. 2016/66638 2016/78293 3 July 2019 (First Section) |
Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the right due to the unlawfulness of the applicants’ detention. - Their detention was ordered for allegedly having committed certain offences related to the FETÖ/PDY. - The Court discussed whether there was strong indication of their guilt. - The court ordering their detention relied on the orders whereby the applicants had been suspended from their offices and the ongoing threat resulting from the state of emergency prevailing throughout the country: However, the Court noted that the applicants’ suspension and/or dismissal from office cannot be per se considered as a strong indication of guilt. - Nor were there any witness statements which demonstrated, directly and with concrete evidence, the applicants’ link or relation with the FETÖ/PDY. - The Court also discussed whether the impugned detention was legitimate under Article 15 of the Constitution which allows for suspension and restriction of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms in times of a state of emergency: not justified for lack of a strong indication of the applicants’ guilt. |
|
|
Hüseyin Yıldız and İmiş Yıldız 2014/5791 3 July 2019 (First Section) |
Violation of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the right as the applicants’ son had visual loss as a result of an operation conducted by security officers into the prison where their son was held. - The criminal action is still pending for over 9 years, which has made it difficult to obtain evidence and thereby to clarify the way how the incident took place. - Unreasonable prolongation of proceedings -notably in cases where the power to use force has been abused- may leave the impression that such acts are tolerated and promoted. - Public authorities’ failure to fulfil the obligation to plausibly demonstrate that the force used was absolutely necessary.
|
|
|
Ali Çerkezoğlu and Others 2015/1737 18 July 2019 (First Section) |
Violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the right due to the decision of non-prosecution rendered at the end of an investigation conducted into the police intervention. - The Court assessed whether the impugned intervention was compatible with the requirements of a democratic society: - Necessary authorisation to hold the demonstration was received from the relevant administration. - No finding demonstrating that the applicants acted contrary to their responsibilities or did not peacefully exercise their rights. - Administration failed to demonstrate the applicants’ acts had disturbed public order or posed such a risk. |
|
|
Semra Omak 2015/19167 17 July 2019 (Second Section) |
Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the impugned right for the unlawful detention of the applicant’s child who had been detained for committing a theft and then killed himself in the penitentiary institution. - According to the relevant Law, detention of children is a measure of last resort. However, in the present case, the applicant’s child had been detained –as the first measure– instead of conditional bail. Therefore, the said detention had not been a proportionate measure.
|
|
|
K.Ş. 2016/14613 17 July 2019 (Second Section) |
Violation of the right to protect individual’s corporeal and spiritual existence safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the right due to the dismissal of the applicant’s request for change of her workplace as her life was endangered. - The applicant having being battered and stabbed by her ex-husband with whom she had served in the same school was granted a protection order by the incumbent family court. - She further applied to the Ministry of National Education, seeking a change of her school. However, it was dismissed for her failure to submit a preventive protection order. - Relevant law allows for a change of workplace by virtue of a judge’s order which must be fulfilled by the competent authorities. - While the applicant asserted her life-safety concerns on the basis of concrete grounds, the inferior court failed to provide any concrete explanation, assessment and justification in dismissing her request. |
|
|
Kenan Işık 2017/26291 17 July 2019 (Second Section) |
No violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to the transfer of the Bank of which he had been a shareholder to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund. - The said interference served the public interest. - In addition, it was subsequent to several procedures that the transfer decision was ultimately given. - The applicant failed to prove that the impugned interference had been unnecessary. - The fair balance between the interference with the applicant’s right to property and the public interest pursued was not disturbed.
|
|
|
Erdal İmrek 2015/4206
17 July 2019 (Second Section) |
Violations of the prohibition of treatment incompatible with human dignity, as well as the freedoms of expression and the press respectively safeguarded by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violations of the rights due to the police intervention with the press members including the applicant (exposed to battery and tear gas) during a demonstration. - Violation of the prohibition of treatment incompatible with human dignity: Public authorities failed to demonstrate that the use of force by the police was inevitable and the force used was proportionate. - Failure to take necessary steps capable of identifying the offender as well as to obtain evidence capable of leading to clarification of the incident and identification of those responsible. - Violation of the freedoms of expression and the press: Public authorities failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds justifying the press members’ preclusion from performing their journalistic activities. Besides, the press members including the applicant did neither resort to violence nor pose any threat during the demonstration. |
|
|
Case |
Decision |
Case-Law Development |
Related |
|
I. Individual Application |
|||
|
Zübeyde Füsun Üstel and Others 2018/17635 26 July 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right due to being convicted of disseminating terrorist propaganda for having signed a declaration issued by a group of academics seeking to end the curfews and clashes during the operations carried out within the scope of the fight against terrorism in the East and Southeast of Turkey between 2015 and 2016. - The Court is aware of concerns about the expressions and acts that might deteriorate the security situation in the region where the terrorist incidents have taken place. It is also aware of the fact that the impugned declaration was prepared unilaterally and from a certain perspective and that it included exaggerated comments, as well as some offensive and vicious expressions against the security forces. The Court’s consideration that this declaration should fall under the protection of the freedom of expression does not mean that it shares and supports the thoughts and ideas stated in the declaration. - The expressions that are in no way supported by the Court may also fall within the scope of the freedom of expression. In assessing whether they fall under this scope, it must be considered whether the used expressions legitimize, praise or incite the violent and threatening methods of the terrorist organization. - Interference imposed on the applicants could not be proven to be proportionate to the aim of maintaining public order inherent in the fight against the terrorist organization in question and terrorism. - In cases where it is possible to address unjust attacks and criticisms of the opponents through different means -even if they appear to be highly unreasonable and irrelevant-, criminal proceedings must not be resorted to. |
|
|
Elegance Hotel Turizm İşletmeleri A.Ş. 2015/19953 30 May 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the right due to the contribution accrued on behalf of the applicant, a company engaging in hotel management and accommodation services. - Undoubtedly, there is an interference with the applicant company’s right due to the accrued contribution. Such an interference may be in compliance with the Constitution if it has a precise, accessible and foreseeable legal basis. - Such kind of financial obligations leading to an interference with the right to property must be based on law in form. Introduction of a financial obligation -which is not prescribed by law- through a regulation or similar regulatory administrative acts would be in breach of the requirement of being prescribed by law: the interference had no legal basis. |
|
|
S.M. 2016/6038 20 June 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the presumption of innocence safeguarded by Articles 36 and 38 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the right of the applicant -against whom an interim decision was issued for having disturbed individuals’ peace and quiet - on account of the expressions stated in the interim measure (he is described therein as “the party inflicting violence”). - Although the phrase “the party inflicting violence” is specified in Law no. 6284, it must not be used in such interim decisions in a stereotyped way, and the incumbent court or the authorities concerned must act with due diligence in making an assessment on this point. - Use of this phrase in the interim decision gives the impression that he committed the act in respect of which a decision of non-prosecution was indeed issued or he actually committed any other violent acts: violation of the presumption of innocence. - There is no legal interest in conducting a re-trial as the impugned expressions do not have any consequential effect on the court decisions. - Removal of the expressions “the party inflicting violence” and “the party exposed to violence” from the impugned decisions will redress the violation. |
|
|
Sedat Şanlı 2018/6812 3 June 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the right of the applicant -whose house was demolished during the earthquake of 1975- due to the authorities’ failure to assign a permanent housing to him despite Law no. 7269 whereby he gained right-holder status. - No inquiry was carried out in order to determine whether he was provided with a title deed in spite of 44 years having elapsed. Even if it is assumed that the applicant has been assigned a housing, it is uncertain whether its title deed was registered in his name. - Procedural safeguards for the protection of the right to property have not been implemented. |
|
|
Tevfik İlker Akçam 2018/9074 3 July 2019 (First Section) |
Violation of the prohibition of discrimination safeguarded by Article 10 of the Constitution in conjunction with the right to property
|
- Alleged violation of the right of the applicant, an attending physician, for not being provided with the payment of on-call duty fees although other staff performing the on-call duties were paid such fees. - In examining the alleged discrimination within the context of the right to property, it must be primarily ascertained whether factors of similar situation and different treatment exist; whether individuals in the same or similar position have been treated differently in terms of the interference with the right to property; whether the different treatment had an objective and reasonable basis as well as was proportionate. - Distinction as to on-call duty between attending physicians governed by Law no. 657 and those governed by Law no. 2547 has constituted a discriminatory treatment within the scope of the right to property. - Discriminatory interference with no objective and reasonable ground placed an excessive burden on the applicant. |
|
|
Case |
Decision |
Case-Law Development |
Related |
|
I. Individual Application |
|||
|
Sırrı Süreyya Önder 2018/38143 3 October 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the impugned right for the applicant’s conviction due to his conviction of disseminating terrorist propaganda on account of his remarks during a gathering. - Regarding an expression as a terrorist propaganda without demonstrating that it had incited to violence, with an abstract reference to the fact that a perception had been tried to be created, cannot be accepted as a legal assessment. The first instance court made no explanation as to which remark of the applicant had led it to this conclusion. - Considering the applicant’s entire speech as a whole, it has not been concluded that the applicant had supported the violent and threatening methods of the terrorist organization with a view to inciting others to commit the same offences. - In fact, the impugned speech mainly concerned the demand for the successful conduct and termination of the ongoing resolution process at the material time. - Failure of the first instance court to provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify that the applicant’s conviction served a pressing social need. |
|
|
Naif Bal 2015/2465
11 September 2019 (First Section) |
Violation of the prohibition of treatment incompatible with human dignity safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the right due to ineffectiveness of the investigation conducted against the guardians for causing bodily harm and the suspension of the pronouncement of the verdict. - The applicant, a convict in a penitentiary institution, was injured as a result of the quarrel with the guardians. He was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for insulting public officer. On the other hand, five guardians involved in the incident were sentenced to a judicial fine for causing actual bodily harm, but the court decided to suspend the pronouncement of the verdict. - The inferior court determined that the guardians exceeded the authority conferred upon them in use of force but failed to impose a penalty commensurate to their act. Therefore, the decision suspending the pronouncement of the verdict led to impunity for the guardians: breach of the procedural aspect of the prohibition of treatment incompatible with human dignity. - Failure to provide adequate redress for the applicant: breach of the substantive aspect of the same prohibition. |
|
|
Kudus-i Şerifte Kain Maryakop Ermeni Kilisesi Vakfı 2016/14982 19 September 2019 (Second Section) |
Violation of the right of access to a court safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the impugned right due to dismissal, for the alleged lack of capacity to sue, of the action brought by the applicant against the administrative act whereby it had been granted the status of fused foundation. - The right of access to a court is not absolute and may be subject to limitations. However, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, the said limitations must not make it impossible or extremely difficult to have access to a court. - The action brought by the applicant was dismissed in the absence of adequate inquiry. - The applicant was imposed a disproportionate burden. Hence, the said interference was not proportionate. |
|
|
Selman Tumur and Others 2015/18754 12 September 2019 (Second Section) |
Violation of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution |
-Alleged violation of the impugned right due to the minor applicant’s having been injured seriously by touching the transformer plate and being exposed to electric shock, as well as due to the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incident. - The public authorities must take into account children, mentally disabled persons and other persons in need of protection in their prediction of human conduct while carrying out hazardous activities and they must put into practice the appropriate administrative measures in due time. - The State confined itself to ordering compensation against those responsible, which was not sufficient in the circumstances of the present case. Therefore, it failed to fulfil its obligation to provide an effective judicial protection. |
|
|
Aydın Sefa Akay 2016/24562 12 September 2019 (Second Section) |
Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the right due to unlawfulness of the applicant’s arrest, custody and detention. - The applicant, a retired ambassador, was holding office as a judge at the UN International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals at the relevant time. He was detained and subsequently sentenced to 7 years and 6 month’s imprisonment for his membership to an armed terrorist organization, namely the FETÖ. - He alleged to be detained on remand in breach of the safeguards inherent in diplomatic immunity he was entitled in his capacity as a judge. - The Court considered that the privilege, immunity, exemptions and opportunities provided for the judges taking office at the UN Mechanism were in force not before the States of their nationality but only before the State authorities where they took office. Therefore, alleged unlawfulness of his detention was unfounded. - His detention had legal and factual basis. - Given severe nature of the sanction envisaged for the imputed offence as well as gravity of the offence, his detention was found proportionate by the inferior courts: This consideration was found neither arbitrary nor unfounded by the Court. |
|
|
Case |
Decision |
Case-Law Development |
Related |
|
I. Individual Application |
|||
|
Halk Radyo ve Televizyon Yayıncılık A.Ş. 2014/19270 11 July 2019 (Plenary) |
Violations of the freedoms of expression and the press safeguarded by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s rights due to the broadcast ban imposed within the scope of an ongoing criminal investigation conducted against a number of former ministers. - The Law in accordance with which the ban was imposed did not include any provision concerning the said ban. - Failure to fulfil the criteria of “foreseeability” and “certainty”, thereby failure to meet the requirement of legality.
|
|
|
Mustafa Açay and E.A. 2016/66638 2016/78293 3 July 2019 (First Section) |
Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the right due to the unlawfulness of the applicants’ detention. - Their detention was ordered for allegedly having committed certain offences related to the FETÖ/PDY. - The Court discussed whether there was strong indication of their guilt. - The court ordering their detention relied on the orders whereby the applicants had been suspended from their offices and the ongoing threat resulting from the state of emergency prevailing throughout the country: However, the Court noted that the applicants’ suspension and/or dismissal from office cannot be per se considered as a strong indication of guilt. - Nor were there any witness statements which demonstrated, directly and with concrete evidence, the applicants’ link or relation with the FETÖ/PDY. - The Court also discussed whether the impugned detention was legitimate under Article 15 of the Constitution which allows for suspension and restriction of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms in times of a state of emergency: not justified for lack of a strong indication of the applicants’ guilt. |
|
|
Hüseyin Yıldız and İmiş Yıldız 2014/5791 3 July 2019 (First Section) |
Violation of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the right as the applicants’ son had visual loss as a result of an operation conducted by security officers into the prison where their son was held. - The criminal action is still pending for over 9 years, which has made it difficult to obtain evidence and thereby to clarify the way how the incident took place. - Unreasonable prolongation of proceedings -notably in cases where the power to use force has been abused- may leave the impression that such acts are tolerated and promoted. - Public authorities’ failure to fulfil the obligation to plausibly demonstrate that the force used was absolutely necessary.
|
|
|
Ali Çerkezoğlu and Others 2015/1737 18 July 2019 (First Section) |
Violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the right due to the decision of non-prosecution rendered at the end of an investigation conducted into the police intervention. - The Court assessed whether the impugned intervention was compatible with the requirements of a democratic society: - Necessary authorisation to hold the demonstration was received from the relevant administration. - No finding demonstrating that the applicants acted contrary to their responsibilities or did not peacefully exercise their rights. - Administration failed to demonstrate the applicants’ acts had disturbed public order or posed such a risk. |
|
|
Semra Omak 2015/19167 17 July 2019 (Second Section) |
Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the impugned right for the unlawful detention of the applicant’s child who had been detained for committing a theft and then killed himself in the penitentiary institution. - According to the relevant Law, detention of children is a measure of last resort. However, in the present case, the applicant’s child had been detained –as the first measure– instead of conditional bail. Therefore, the said detention had not been a proportionate measure.
|
|
|
K.Ş. 2016/14613 17 July 2019 (Second Section) |
Violation of the right to protect individual’s corporeal and spiritual existence safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the right due to the dismissal of the applicant’s request for change of her workplace as her life was endangered. - The applicant having being battered and stabbed by her ex-husband with whom she had served in the same school was granted a protection order by the incumbent family court. - She further applied to the Ministry of National Education, seeking a change of her school. However, it was dismissed for her failure to submit a preventive protection order. - Relevant law allows for a change of workplace by virtue of a judge’s order which must be fulfilled by the competent authorities. - While the applicant asserted her life-safety concerns on the basis of concrete grounds, the inferior court failed to provide any concrete explanation, assessment and justification in dismissing her request. |
|
|
Kenan Işık 2017/26291 17 July 2019 (Second Section) |
No violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to the transfer of the Bank of which he had been a shareholder to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund. - The said interference served the public interest. - In addition, it was subsequent to several procedures that the transfer decision was ultimately given. - The applicant failed to prove that the impugned interference had been unnecessary. - The fair balance between the interference with the applicant’s right to property and the public interest pursued was not disturbed.
|
|
|
Erdal İmrek 2015/4206
17 July 2019 (Second Section) |
Violations of the prohibition of treatment incompatible with human dignity, as well as the freedoms of expression and the press respectively safeguarded by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violations of the rights due to the police intervention with the press members including the applicant (exposed to battery and tear gas) during a demonstration. - Violation of the prohibition of treatment incompatible with human dignity: Public authorities failed to demonstrate that the use of force by the police was inevitable and the force used was proportionate. - Failure to take necessary steps capable of identifying the offender as well as to obtain evidence capable of leading to clarification of the incident and identification of those responsible. - Violation of the freedoms of expression and the press: Public authorities failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds justifying the press members’ preclusion from performing their journalistic activities. Besides, the press members including the applicant did neither resort to violence nor pose any threat during the demonstration. |
|
|
Case |
Decision |
Case-Law Development |
Related |
|
I. Individual Application |
|||
|
Zübeyde Füsun Üstel and Others 2018/17635 26 July 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right due to being convicted of disseminating terrorist propaganda for having signed a declaration issued by a group of academics seeking to end the curfews and clashes during the operations carried out within the scope of the fight against terrorism in the East and Southeast of Turkey between 2015 and 2016. - The Court is aware of concerns about the expressions and acts that might deteriorate the security situation in the region where the terrorist incidents have taken place. It is also aware of the fact that the impugned declaration was prepared unilaterally and from a certain perspective and that it included exaggerated comments, as well as some offensive and vicious expressions against the security forces. The Court’s consideration that this declaration should fall under the protection of the freedom of expression does not mean that it shares and supports the thoughts and ideas stated in the declaration. - The expressions that are in no way supported by the Court may also fall within the scope of the freedom of expression. In assessing whether they fall under this scope, it must be considered whether the used expressions legitimize, praise or incite the violent and threatening methods of the terrorist organization. - Interference imposed on the applicants could not be proven to be proportionate to the aim of maintaining public order inherent in the fight against the terrorist organization in question and terrorism. - In cases where it is possible to address unjust attacks and criticisms of the opponents through different means -even if they appear to be highly unreasonable and irrelevant-, criminal proceedings must not be resorted to. |
|
|
Elegance Hotel Turizm İşletmeleri A.Ş. 2015/19953 30 May 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the right due to the contribution accrued on behalf of the applicant, a company engaging in hotel management and accommodation services. - Undoubtedly, there is an interference with the applicant company’s right due to the accrued contribution. Such an interference may be in compliance with the Constitution if it has a precise, accessible and foreseeable legal basis. - Such kind of financial obligations leading to an interference with the right to property must be based on law in form. Introduction of a financial obligation -which is not prescribed by law- through a regulation or similar regulatory administrative acts would be in breach of the requirement of being prescribed by law: the interference had no legal basis. |
|
|
S.M. 2016/6038 20 June 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the presumption of innocence safeguarded by Articles 36 and 38 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the right of the applicant -against whom an interim decision was issued for having disturbed individuals’ peace and quiet - on account of the expressions stated in the interim measure (he is described therein as “the party inflicting violence”). - Although the phrase “the party inflicting violence” is specified in Law no. 6284, it must not be used in such interim decisions in a stereotyped way, and the incumbent court or the authorities concerned must act with due diligence in making an assessment on this point. - Use of this phrase in the interim decision gives the impression that he committed the act in respect of which a decision of non-prosecution was indeed issued or he actually committed any other violent acts: violation of the presumption of innocence. - There is no legal interest in conducting a re-trial as the impugned expressions do not have any consequential effect on the court decisions. - Removal of the expressions “the party inflicting violence” and “the party exposed to violence” from the impugned decisions will redress the violation. |
|
|
Sedat Şanlı 2018/6812 3 June 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the right of the applicant -whose house was demolished during the earthquake of 1975- due to the authorities’ failure to assign a permanent housing to him despite Law no. 7269 whereby he gained right-holder status. - No inquiry was carried out in order to determine whether he was provided with a title deed in spite of 44 years having elapsed. Even if it is assumed that the applicant has been assigned a housing, it is uncertain whether its title deed was registered in his name. - Procedural safeguards for the protection of the right to property have not been implemented. |
|
|
Tevfik İlker Akçam 2018/9074 3 July 2019 (First Section) |
Violation of the prohibition of discrimination safeguarded by Article 10 of the Constitution in conjunction with the right to property
|
- Alleged violation of the right of the applicant, an attending physician, for not being provided with the payment of on-call duty fees although other staff performing the on-call duties were paid such fees. - In examining the alleged discrimination within the context of the right to property, it must be primarily ascertained whether factors of similar situation and different treatment exist; whether individuals in the same or similar position have been treated differently in terms of the interference with the right to property; whether the different treatment had an objective and reasonable basis as well as was proportionate. - Distinction as to on-call duty between attending physicians governed by Law no. 657 and those governed by Law no. 2547 has constituted a discriminatory treatment within the scope of the right to property. - Discriminatory interference with no objective and reasonable ground placed an excessive burden on the applicant. |
|
|
Case |
Decision |
Case-Law Development |
Related |
|
I. Individual Application |
|||
|
Erol Kesgin 2015/11192 30 May 2019 (Plenary) |
No violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to being held responsible for the public debt owed by the company where he is a member of the board of directors. - Holding all members of the board –in spite of having no authority to sign and bind– for the company’s premium debts was found suitable and necessary to ensure complete and on time collection of such debt. - The applicant also had the opportunity to seek payment of the impugned amount, which he had to pay, from the company’s other shareholders in proportion to their shares as well as payment of the amount falling to his own share from the company itself. - No individual and excessive burden was imposed on him; and the fair balance that had to be struck between the public interest and the applicant’s right to property was not upset to his detriment. |
|
|
İbrahim Özden Kaboğlu 2015/18503 30 May 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the right to honour and dignity safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the right of applicant, law professor and author, due to the rejection of his request for compensation on account of the statements against him in certain books and articles which tarnished his honour and professional reputation. - The Court considered that the explicit mention of his name in the statements used against him which could be perceived as a direct and indirect call for violence could per se increase the risk of his being subject to the violence. - Such attacks against the applicant, threats to his life or physical integrity, and humiliation against him would put pressure on his intellectual personality and would have a deterrent effect on his freedom of expression. |
|
|
Süleyman Başmeydan 2015/6164 20 June 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to the enforcement of the confiscation order for pistachio trees despite a decision suspending pronouncement of the verdict. - A confiscation order was issued for the trees as the applicant had planted them on a forestry zone, and the applicant was also convicted of having occupied and exploited such zones; however the incumbent court suspended pronouncement of the verdict. - Absence of a clear legal provision as to the stage when a confiscation order will be enforced in case of a decision suspending pronouncement of the verdict. - In the present case, the confiscation measure was implemented on the finalization of the decision suspending the pronouncement of the verdict but without waiting for the final outcome of the proceedings: therefore, an individual and excessive burden was placed on the applicant. - Necessity to make a legal arrangement to eliminate the uncertainty about the confiscation of a property in case of a decision suspending pronouncement of the verdict. |
|
|
Mehmet Bayrakcı 2014/6100 20 June 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to long-term inaction of relevant authorities and procrastination of the investigation. - The applicant’s brother was killed in the Republic of South Africa where the latter had been residing. An investigation was initiated by the judicial authorities of South Africa, and suspects who were Turkish citizens were identified: the Turkish authorities asked information from South Africa as both the victim and the suspects were Turkish citizens. - The present incident took place in 2002; an investigation was initiated in 2005; and a criminal case which has been still pending was filed in 2014: unreasonable length of proceedings lasting over nine years. - The letter rogatory issued by the Turkish authorities in 2005 was replied by the South African judicial authorities in 2012: the failure to deliver, or delayed delivery of, information and documents by the South African authorities was not attributable to the Turkish public authorities; nevertheless the investigation could not be procrastinated merely on account of this failure. - The public authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation: violation of the procedural obligation to conduct an effective investigation within the scope of the right to life. |
|
|
Mohamed Kashet and Others 2015/17659 20 June 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 15 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right due to the fine imposed severally on the applicants for having brought foreign exchange into Turkey in spite of the opportunity to transfer the relevant amount through a bank. - The applicants maintained that bringing foreign exchange into the country was not forbidden, and therefore the administrative fines were unlawful. However, at the relevant time, inflow of foreign exchange was subject to notification procedure which was not fulfilled in the present case: therefore, the decisions imposing administrative fine were neither arbitrary nor unpredictable. - Although the applicants’ own faults led to the impugned interference, administrative fines placed an individual and excessive burden on them as the total amount of fines was much higher than the amount of foreign exchange: impairment of the fair balance to be struck between the applicants’ right to property and the public interest involved in the interference. |
|
|
Ümit Balaban 2016/2821 29 May 2019 (First Section) |
Violation of the right to respect for family life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to his inability to maintain contact with his daughter by telephone at weekends while being detained as a convicted prisoner. - The applicant’s request for communicating with his daughter by telephone at weekends as she was at school as well as staying with her mother from whom the applicant had been divorced on weekdays was dismissed by the prison administration. His challenges were also dismissed by the incumbent Magistrate Judge and Assize Court. - Ignorance of the applicant’s specific and exceptional circumstance by both the prison administration and relevant tribunals: significantly hindering the applicant from maintaining personal relationship and family tie with his daughter. - Failure to take reasonable measures within the scope of the State’s positive obligations; and insufficiency of grounds relied on by judicial authorities. |
|
|
H.G. 2017/14716 29 May 2019 (First Section) |
No violation of the right to a speedy review of appeal safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to the failure to review the decision ordering the continuation of his detention within the time-limit prescribed by the law. - The review process should be concluded within a reasonable time. - In the present case, the applicant’s right to a speedy review of appeal would have been violated if it had been an ordinary period, but a state of emergency had been declared at the material time. - Given the circumstances of the state of emergency, certain amendments were made to the procedural rules concerning investigation and prosecution processes, as well as Article 15 of the Constitution, suspension of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms, came to the fore. - Accordingly, the time elapsed until the review of the applicant’s appeal was reasonable under the relevant circumstances. |
|
|
II. Constitutionality Review |
|||
|
E.2017/33 10 April 2019 (Plenary) |
A) Annulment of the provision stipulating that all acts listed in Law no. 657 shall be within the disciplinary responsibility of faculty members
B) Annulment of the provision granting authorization to the President of the Council of Higher Education to open a direct investigation against faculty members |
- According to the Constitution, universities have scientific and administrative autonomy and have different status from the other public institutions; therefore, this difference should be paid regard also in the arrangements to be made with respect to the faculty members. - Since the acts listed in Law No. 657 are mainly stipulated for civil servants, some of them do not comply with the scope and nature of the academic profession. - The contested provision is in breach of Articles 2, 27 and 130 of the Constitution.
- As a requirement of their scientific autonomy, universities should be free to take administrative decisions related to their own functioning. - The contested provision resulted in a failure to strike a balance between the State’s supervision and control authority on the universities, through the Council of Higher Education, and the universities’ scientific autonomy. Hence, the Council of Higher Education’s supervision authority over universities was reinterpreted as a hierarchical power over universities. Violation of Articles 130 and 131 of the Constitution. |
|
|
E.2018/70 E.2019/35 26 June 2019 (Plenary) |
A) Annulment of the provision whereby planning, zoning and construction activities to be carried out in a certain area shall be exempted from restrictions and procedures specified in the legislation.
B) Annulment of the provision which allows non-application of the legislation entailing restrictive provisions about the construction on certain lands |
- In the contested provisions, restrictions and procedures set out in the legislation shall not be applied in cases of planning, zoning and construction activities as well as other arrangements. However, the principles, rules and restrictions to be applied instead have not been contemplated: such exemption hinders implementation of Articles 43 and 56 of the Constitution concerning the protection of shores and environment as well as leads to legal uncertainty. - Legal arrangements are to be in compliance with the principles enshrined in the Constitution. Provisions failing to fulfil this requirement are incompatible with the Constitution. - Accordingly, the contested provisions have been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled. |
|
|
E.2018/151 15 May 2019 (Plenary) |
- Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision whereby different sanctions may be imposed in cases of sexual abuse of children given the gravity of the act |
- In the contested provision, penalties are prescribed, in cases of sexual abuse of children, given various factors such as age of the victim, gravity of the act and etc., which leads to the arguments that the provision is contrary to the principle of legal certainty. - The legislator’s intent is to determine proportionate and gradual punishments for the simple and aggravated forms of sexual assault given the nature of the offence, the way it was committed and the damage sustained by the victim: the contested provision is therefore appropriate to achieve the aim pursed and proportionate. - In practice, the offence in question will be assessed in light of the particular circumstances of each concrete case: the provisions is not therefore contrary to the principles of legal certainty and lawfulness. - Therefore, the contested provision is not in breach of Article 41 of the Constitution. |
|
|
Case |
Decision |
Case-Law Development |
Related |
|
I. Individual Application |
|||
|
Levon Berç Kuzukoğlu and Ohannes Garbis Balmumciyan 2014/17354 22 May 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the freedom of religion safeguarded by Article 24 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right due to dismissal of the request for election of Turkey’s Armenian Patriarch. - The Governor’s Office dismissed the request as the patriarchate’s office was not vacant but notified that an election for a "general acting patriarch" could be held. Accordingly, it was held by the Turkey’s Armenian Clerical Committee. The applicants brought an administrative action, maintaining that the election should have been held by the Assembly of the Delegates mainly consisting of the Civilians. - In the Code of Regulations governing the election process, all circumstances when the patriarchate’s office shall be deemed vacant are listed not exhaustively; but instead the phrase “for various reasons” (esbab-ı saire) is stated therein: both the administration and administrative court failed to consider/interpret this phrase. - Interference with the applicants’ freedom of religion due to dismissal of the request for election of Turkey’s Armenian Patriarch was not found to comply with the requirements of a democratic society. |
|
|
Birgün İletişim ve Yayıncılık Ticaret A.Ş. 2015/18936 22 May 2019 (Plenary) |
Violations of the freedoms of expression and the press respectively safeguarded by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s freedoms due to the order denying access to a piece of news published through a web-site of a national-scale newspaper. - Access to the impugned news whereby images of a terrorist’s dead body dragged by an armoured vehicle were published was denied by virtue of the order issued by the Magistrate Judge. - Failure to demonstrate the causal link between the content of the news and the reason for denial of access, as well as existence of any exigent situation. - Failure to strike a balance between the freedom of expression and the democratic society’s legitimate right to protect itself against the activities of terrorist organisations. - No relevant and sufficient reason to demonstrate that the impugned interference met a pressing social need and was thus compatible with the requirements of a democratic society.
|
|
|
Metin Birdal 2014/15440 22 May 2019 (Plenary) |
No violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right as his previous participation in certain demonstrations were used as evidence in convicting him for his membership of a terrorist organization. - The first instance court convicted him not due to his activities in these demonstrations but for his membership of a terrorist organization. His participations were referred to as one of the activities proving his membership and demonstrating the continuous nature of his acts. - His participation was not the only evidence relied on by the instance court which also took into consideration, inter alia, phone records, intelligence information, police reports, notices, the applicant’s acts and roles in certain demonstrations. - Impugned interference was found to meet a pressing social need as he posed a severe threat to the democratic life. -A fair balance was struck between the society’s right to live in an environment free from terrorist acts and the applicant’s right in question: interference was compatible with requirements of a democratic society. |
|
|
Ahmet Parmaksız 2017/29263 22 May 2019 (Plenary) |
No violation of the freedom of organization safeguarded by Article 33 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to his having been imposed disciplinary punishment for labour union-related activities. - The impugned activity of the applicant who was a public official - work stoppage for two days to protest the attacks of the ISIS terrorist organization against Kobane- was not directly related to his economic or social interests, but had a political aspect. - A public official shall not be allowed not to go to work except for the cases set forth in the Law and the force majeure. - Interference with the applicant’s freedom of organization was not disproportionate.
|
|
|
Y.T. 2016/22418 30 May 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the right to an effective remedy safeguarded by Article 40 of the Constitution
(Pilot judgment procedure) |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right for lack of an effective legal remedy to challenge the decision ordering his deportation to a country where he would face the risk of ill-treatment. - The applicant raised his allegations before the administrative judicial authorities to the effect that he would face the risk of ill-treatment in his country and he filed an individual application at the same time. - The applicant maintained that he could not wait the outcome of the proceedings before the administrative court as he was under a constant risk of deportation at any stage of the proceedings. - Problem stemmed from a legislative amendment, not from the practice of the administrative court or its misinterpretation of the legislation. The said amendment has not been compatible with the right to life, prohibition of ill-treatment and right to an effective remedy, which are safeguarded by the Constitution, as well as the relevant established case-law of the Constitutional Court. -Pilot judgment procedure was adopted, as a structural problem prevailed. |
|
|
Durmuş Fikri Sağlar 2015/2769 30 May 2019 (Plenary) |
Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to protection of honour and dignity safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the right of the applicant, a well-known politician and author-journalist, due to dismissal of the action for compensation he had brought to challenge the expressions against his honour and dignity. - The applicant is expected to be more tolerant to the criticisms against him. - Inferior court succeeded to strike a balance between the freedom of expression and the right to protection of honour and dignity. - Criticisms against the applicant could not be regarded as an attack to his personal rights. - Manifestly ill-founded. |
|
|
Mehmet Ali Gündoğdu and Mustafa Demirsoy 2015/8147 8 May 2019 (First Section) |
Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicants’ freedom due to dismissal of the request for registry of their work of art which should have been qualified as a movie. - The applicants’ request for registration of their work of art as a movie was dismissed by the Ministry as it was allegedly incompatible with public order and the other principles enshrined in the Constitution as well as with human dignity. The administrative action brought by them was also dismissed, and the decision became final after being upheld by the Council of State during the appellate process. - Impugned work was found to include no element praising any terrorist organization, romanticizing, inciting or justifying violence but rather tries to introduce a different perspective to terrorist problem. Dialogues included therein were not considered as a terrorist propaganda but as a tragic and ironic expression of the sad events. - The instance court’s failure to show the best interest inherent in the maintenance of public order and constitutional principles vis-à-vis the applicants’ freedom of expression, as well as to consider the work as a whole. |
|
|
Doğukan Bilir 2014/15736 29 May 2019 (First Section) |
Violation of the prohibition of torture safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution |
-Alleged violation of the applicant’s right for his having been battered during the Gezi Park protests. - The applicant had sustained injuries that could not be cured by a simple medical treatment as a result of the ill-treatment he had been inflicted by three persons, two of whom had been police officers. - The criminal court imposed administrative fines and suspended the pronouncement of the judgment. The sanction was disproportionate to the prohibition of torture, therefore failed to provide a sufficient redress. The applicant’s victim status could not be removed. |
|
|
Abuzer Uzun 2016/61250 13 June 2019 (Second Section) |
Violation of the right to respect for private and family life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right for his having been denied to attend his brother’s funeral. - The applicant had been placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of membership of the FETÖ/PDY terrorist organization. The penitentiary institution and the district police directorate considered that the applicant’s attendance to the funeral would cause no security problem; however, upon the district gendarmerie command’s comment, the prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s request. - The reason for dismissal was not based on convincing information or documents. - Failure to strike a fair balance between the general public interest and the applicant’s situation: Interference did not comply with the requirements of the order of the democratic society. |
|
|
Case |
Decision |
Case-Law Development |
Related |
|
I. Individual Application |
|||
|
Ahmet Hüsrev Altan 2016/23668 Ayşe Nazlı Ilıcak 2016/24616 Mehmet Murat Sabuncu 2016/50969 Akın Altay 2016/50970 Önder Çelik and Others 2016/50971 Ahmet Şık 2017/5375 Murat Aksoy 2016/30112 Ahmet Kadri Gürsel 2016/50978 Ali Bulaç 2017/6592 2-3 May 2019 (Plenary) |
No violations of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution as well as the freedoms of expression and the press respectively safeguarded by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution (in the cases of Ahmet Hüsrev Altan, Ayşe Nazlı Ilıcak, Mehmet Murat Sabuncu, Akın Altay, Önder Çelik and Others)
Inadmissibility of the alleged violations of the same right and freedoms (in the case of Ahmet Şık) Violations the same right and freedoms (in the cases of Murat Aksoy, Ahmet Kadri Gürsel and Ali Bulaç) |
- Alleged violations of the former right due to unlawfulness of their detention and of the latter freedoms as the imputed acts indeed fell within the scope of these freedoms. *No violation: Regard being had to the particular circumstances of each case, it was neither arbitrary not unfounded for the investigation authorities to consider that there existed a strong indication of guilt; the applicants’ detention had a legal basis; their detention was proportionate. *Inadmissibility: Alleged violation of the said right and freedoms as the impugned news, articles and social media posts fell under the scope of the freedoms of expression and the press as well as involved no criminal element. - Existence of evidence indicating strong suspicion of guilt; the applicant’s detention had factual basis and proportionate. *Violation: Alleged violation of the said right and freedoms as the elements of the charges against them had not been proven and their detention had been ordered for their social media posts and articles. - Investigation authorities’ failure to prove that the applicants’ articles and posts did not fall within the scope of the freedom of expression. - No indication of a strong suspicion of the applicants’ guilt. - Detention, which is a severe measure if not satisfying the condition of lawfulness, cannot be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference, in a democratic society, in terms of the freedoms of expression and the press. |
|
|
Mehmet Osman Kavala 2018/1073 22 May 2019 (Plenary) |
No violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to fair trial |
*Alleged violation of the applicant’s former right as there was no concrete information as to the imputed offences and his detention was ordered in the absence of any criminal guilt and evidence proving his guilt. -No violation: The applicant, a business man, was taken into custody within the scope of an investigation conducted into the acts of Gezi Park incidents and then detained for allegedly attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and the Government of the Republic of Turkey and to prevent it from performing its duties. - Given the general circumstances of the Gezi Park incidents during which certain violent acts took place, particular circumstances of the present case and the detention order issued by the Magistrate Judge, the grounds for applicant’s detention had factual basis. -His detention was found to be proportionate; and the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that conditional bail would remain insufficient was considered neither arbitrary nor unfounded. *Alleged violation of his latter right due to the restriction order on the investigation file. - Inadmissibility: The Magistrate Judge issued a restriction order on the investigation file; however, this restriction was no longer applicable as the indictment had been accepted by the relevant court. Besides, during his questioning and statement-taking process, the applicant was asked questions about the content of documents with restricted access and presented detailed defence submissions. |
|
| İoanis Maditinos
2015/9880 8 May 2019 (First Section) |
Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to non-recognition of his capacity as an heir for the lack of reciprocity between Turkey and Greece - Certificate of inheritance of the applicant, who is no longer a Turkish nation for being deprived of Turkish citizenship, was revoked, and the immovable of which he is the only heir was assigned to the State Treasury. - Non-recognition of his status as the only heir of the testator’s immovable located in İstanbul for lack of reciprocity between Turkey and Greece. - The inferior court’s failure to provide reasonable and sufficient justification for revocation of the applicant’s certificate of inheritance in the absence of any explicit provision whereby Turkish citizens were not allowed, at the material time, to acquire property by inheritance in Greece: interference was devoid of a foreseeable legal basis. |
|
|
Ezgi Özen 2015/12753 8 May 2019 (First Section)
|
Violation of the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution Violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment due to the use of disproportionate force by the police officers. - Conflicting reports as to whether there had been a causal link between the alleged interference by the police and the applicant’s having suffered a miscarriage: lack of an effective investigation. - In addition, lack of due diligence in the protection of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches.
|
|
|
Edip Elma and Others 2015/14826 18 April 2019 (First Section) |
Violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment for having been subject to verbal and physical ill-treatment by the police officers and for their having been left unpunished. - The criminal court found that one of the applicants had been assaulted by the police officers. In this case, the Court needed no further assessment to conclude that the State had failed to fulfil its negative obligation. - Failure to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offence. - Imposition of fine on the police officers and suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment against them might erode the confidence in the judicial system and rule of law.
|
|
|
Güral Doğan 2015/7453 18 April 2019 (First Section) |
No violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to imposition of administrative fine for attending a demonstration march. - Traffic flow was stopped. Unreasonable effect on the rights of others, which cannot be regarded as a natural consequence of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches. - Interference served a pressing social need. |
|
|
M.E. 2018/696 9 May 2019 (Second Section) |
Violations of the right to personal liberty and security as well as the right to a fair trial respectively safeguarded by Articles 19 and 36 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violations of the former right due to inadequate amount of compensation awarded for custodial measure as well as the latter right due to the failure to consider the applicant’s claim for compensation for being subject to conditional bail. - Amount of compensation awarded for his wrongful custody was low to the extent that would impair the essence of the right to compensation. - In spite of being capable of altering the amount of compensation and thereby the outcome of the compensation action, the applicant’s claim for compensation for being subject to conditional bail was not discussed and taken into consideration by the inferior courts: violation of the right to a reasoned decision falling within the ambit of the right to a fair trial. |
|
|
İlker Deniz Yücel 2017/16589 28 May 2019 (Second Section) |
Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution Violations of the freedoms of expression and the press safeguarded respectively by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violations of the rights of the applicant, a journalist, due to his detention on the basis of his journalistic activities, in the absence of a reasonable suspicion of guilt. - Inferior court’s failure to prove that the interview made by the applicant had aimed at making terrorist propaganda. No indication of strong suspicion of guilt. - Detention, which is a severe measure if not satisfying the condition of lawfulness, cannot be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference, in a democratic society, in terms of the freedoms of expression and the press. - Interference with the applicant’s said rights did not serve a pressing social need.
|
|
|
II. Constitutionality Review |
|||
|
E.2018/136 10 April 2019 (Plenary) |
Annulment of the relevant provisions of Law no. 2308 whereby benefits and amounts against time-barred debts of stock corporations shall be transferred to the State. |
- Contested provision envisaging transfer of time-barred dividend receivables to the State might lead to irreparable consequences in terms of the relevant corporations and their partners. - It constitutes an interference with the right to property: the interference is unconstitutional as being disproportionate for placing an extra-ordinary and excessive burden on the owner. - Less severe means may be applied to achieve the same aim. - Accordingly, Article 2, 3 and 4 of the same Law were also annulled for being no longer applicable upon the annulment of the above-mentioned provision. |
|
|
Case |
Decision |
Case-Law Development |
Related |
|
I. Individual Application |
|||
|
Ünal Gökpınar 2018/9115 27 March 2019 (Plenary) |
No violation of the principle of not to be tried or punished again for the same offence safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution |
-Alleged violation of the said principle due imposition of punishments as a result of both administrative and judicial processes related to tax affairs. - In accordance with this principle, an individual cannot be tired or punished again for the same offence. However, this principle is not absolute, and the same offence may have different consequences in different legal disciplines. - The principle is applicable solely to criminal cases, therefore it does not constitute an obstacle to bringing a civil action or launching a disciplinary investigation for the same offence alongside the criminal investigation. -Imposition of different sanctions for the same offence within the scope of different disciplines (in the present case, administrative and judicial processes) is not in breach of the said principle.
|
|
|
Recep Bekik and Others 2016/12936 27 March 2019 (Plenary)
|
Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the said freedom of the applicants who were prisoners, due to non-delivery arbitrarily and without any justification of the periodicals they had subscribed to or purchased. - The criteria outlined by the Court in terms of accepting publications to penal institutions have not been implemented properly. - Lack of uniform assessments as well as clear, guiding and consistent practices, capable of preventing arbitrariness, on the part of the courts in similar cases: ongoing structural problem in the current system when it comes to accepting publications to penal institutions. - If no effective system is established, the structural problem will continue, thereby leading to the continuous violation of the freedom of expression.
|
|
|
Abdulkadir Yapuquan 2016/35009 2 May 2019 (Plenary)
|
Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to the unlawfulness of his detention in the Removal Centre; alleged unlawfulness of holding a foreigner in administrative detention for more than twelve months. - Lack of legal grounds such as public order and public security justifying the administrative detention of the applicant: unlawful deprivation of liberty. - Applicant applied to the Constitutional Court and the ECHR for his release, which demonstrated that he was not being held in the Removal Centre at his own request.
|
|
|
Türkiye İş Bankası 2016/2400 3 April 2019 (First Section)
|
Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the right to property due to collection of taxes on the contributions that were paid on behalf of the employees. - The rule which provides that the contributions made to the Foundation shall be taxed was adopted in 2012; therefore, cannot be applicable to the period before 2012. - Existence of and interference with the right to property on the basis of an unforeseeable legal provision.
|
|
|
Mehmet Geçgel 2014/4187 18 April 2019 (First Section) |
Violation of the right to a fair hearing safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to the rejection of his request for redress of his damages arising from terrorist events, due to his previous sentence which had indeed been suspended and thus had not been final. - The administrative court dismissing the applicant’s request for compensation relied on a judgment that had not become final: manifestly erroneous assessment.
|
|
|
Mehmet Özhaseki 2015/4972 8 May 2019 (First Section) |
Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to protection of honour and dignity safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the right of the applicant, a mayor, due to rejection of the action for compensation that he had brought due to certain allegations voiced by a politician against him at a public meeting, which according to him damaged his personal rights: manifestly ill-founded. - Politicians, public figures and public officials may be subject to more severe criticisms due to their position and are expected to become more tolerant to criticisms. - In parallel, politicians’ freedom of expression must be broader. - Expression of thoughts about the events that occurred in a municipality is a natural result of a democratic political system.
|
|
|
Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu and the Republician People’s Party (CHP) 2014/12482 8 May 2019 (First Section) |
Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to protection of honour and dignity safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the right of the applicants, main opposition party and its leader, due to the news published in a newspaper: manifestly ill founded. - Politicians, public figures and public officials may be subject to more severe criticisms due to their position and are expected to become more tolerant to criticisms. - Freedoms of expression and the press are of vital importance in a democratic society. - The expressions in the impugned news did not exceed the limits of criticism. - Democratic pluralism entails more tolerance on the part of politicians to criticisms against them. -Fair balance struck between the freedoms of expression and the press and the individual’s right to protection of his moral integrity.
|
|
|
Nihat Zeybekçi 2015/5633 8 May 2019 (First Section) |
Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to protection of honour and dignity safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the right of the applicant, member of parliament, due to the words used by a political party leader at a group meeting: manifestly ill-founded. - Politicians, public figures and public officials may be subject to more severe criticisms due to their position and are expected to become more tolerant to criticisms. - The applicant had the opportunity to respond to the unfavourable remarks against him. - Fair balance struck between the defendant’s freedom of expression and the applicant’s right to protection of his honour and dignity.
|
|
|
Timur Demir 2018/33190 9 May 2019 (Second Section) |
Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to his being placed in a single room in the penitentiary institution: manifestly ill-founded. - The alleged measure intends to prevent any cooperation to commit crimes and to maintain security and discipline in penitentiary institutions. - He did not complain about the physical conditions which were completely favourable in terms of social facilities and the possibility of meeting his relatives. - Detention conditions did not reach the minimum threshold of severity.
|
|
|
Sadettin Ekiz 2016/9364 9 May 2019 (Second Section) |
Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the right of the applicant, property owner, due to collection of the counsel’s fee from him in the expropriation proceedings. - Fair balance between the public interest pursued by the interference and the applicant’s right to property was disturbed to the detriment of the applicant. - Judicial authorities’ obligation to conclude the proceedings at little cost: not fulfilled (disproportionate cost) - Collection of the expenses from the applicant imposed an excessive burden on him. - Proportionality assessment as regards the expenses is different in the expropriation cases from the other types of cases.
|
|
|
II. Constitutionality Review |
|||
|
E.2017/154 10 April 2019 (Plenary) |
Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision stipulating that the counsel fee shall be paid to the lawyer |
- Contested provision stipulates that the counsel fee to be charged from the other party to the case by a court decision relying on the Minimum Attorneyship Fee Tariff shall be paid to the lawyer. - It is disputed that in addition to the payment of an attorney fee to the lawyer by the client, the counsel fee that is subsequently awarded by the court in favour of the client (prevailing party) is also paid to the lawyer, which bestows a privilege upon the lawyers: allegedly in breach of the right to legal remedies as well as the principles of fair trial. - The counsel fee that is specified in the provision is not the attorney fee arising from the agreement between the lawyer and the client, but a fee awarded by the court on the basis of the Minimum Attorneyship Fee Tariff. -The contested provision does not prejudice the legality or scope of the attorney agreements signed by the parties on an equal basis with their free will.
|
|
|
E.2017/154 10 April 2019 (Plenary) |
Dismissal of the request for annulment of the provision stipulating that no disciplinary punishment shall be imposed on the law enforcement officers in the absence of a disciplinary investigation |
- Contested provision stipulates that where disciplinary supervisors consider that an inquiry is needed against one of their subordinates due to his undisciplined acts or inappropriate behaviours, then a disciplinary investigation will be launched. - It was argued that the contested provision vested the disciplinary supervisors with the authority to impose disciplinary punishments even in the absence of a disciplinary investigation: allegedly in breach of Articles 10 and 129 of the Constitution (respectively, “equality before the law” and “disciplinary decisions shall not be exempt from judicial review”). - The contested provision, read as a whole, stipulates that where a disciplinary supervisor considers that an inquiry is needed into a case, then he will launch a disciplinary investigation. On the other hand, where he considers that no inquiry is needed, then he will not take any action. Accordingly, it does not vest the disciplinary supervisors with such authority as alleged.
|
|
|
E.2019/9 11 April 2019 (Plenary) |
Annulment of the provision precluding retroactive application of the law more favourable to the accused |
- Contested provision, which is included in the Law no. 6750 on Pledge over Movable Properties in Commercial Transactions, stipulates that this Law shall not be applicable to the cases pending by the date of its entry into force. - It was argued that the contested provision precluded the retroactive application of new legal provisions that were more favourable to those accused of the offences committed when the abolished law had been in force. - Application of the less favourable law retroactively is prohibited by virtue of the principle of legal certainty and security; however, retroactive application of the more favourable law is a requirement of the principles of justice and fairness in conjunction with the rule of law. - Application of the less favourable provisions included in the abolished law will result in an unpredictable punishment for the individuals - Principle of legality of crimes and punishments is also at stake.
|
|
|
E.2019/6 11 April 2019 (Plenary) |
Annulment of the provisions allowing the reinstatement of the heads of professional organizations who resigned to stand for parliamentary and local elections |
- Contested provisions stipulate that heads and board members of the Turkish Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges, as well as the heads and board members of professional organizations, who resigned to stand for parliamentary and local elections, can be reinstated, if they lose the elections. - The union and organizations in question, established under respectively Law nos. 5174 and 5362, have public institution status. - It was argued that the reinstatement had no reasonable ground and was not proportionate. - Different practices, related to elections, between the heads of professional organizations governed by Law nos. 5174 and 5362 and those of other professional organizations with public institution status: Violations of the principle of equality, as well as right to be elected.
|
|
|
Case |
Decision |
Case-Law Development |
Related |
|
I. Individual Application |
|||
|
B.P.O 2015/19012 27 March 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the right to protect an individual’s corporeal and spiritual existence safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution No violation of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the former right for being subject to an intrusive body search by a woman police officer as the applicant −a national of Colombia− was suspected of transporting narcotic drug. - Intrusive body search had no legal basis for being conducted without the knowledge and order of a public prosecutor: in breach of the constitutional right as the necessary conditions prescribed by law for this type of search were not satisfied. - Alleged violation of the latter right for her conviction on the basis of illegally obtained evidence. - The applicant convicted of importing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances challenged not the whole evidence but the one obtained illegally. - Examination as to whether the challenged evidence impaired the fairness of the proceedings as a whole: no impairment as not being the sole and decisive evidence. - The other relevant criteria (equality of arms, adversarial proceedings, examination on the merits of the applicant’s allegations and sufficient justification) were also satisfied in the present case. |
|
|
Hasan Akboğa 2016/10380 27 February 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 § 9 of the Constitution No violation of Article 19 § 3 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to his wrongful arrest and custody for his alleged membership of a terrorist organization. - As concerns Article 19 § 3: no violation as the applicant’s arrest had a legal basis, a factual basis conforming suspicion of criminal guilt, was necessary given the risk of his fleeing based on the severity of the envisaged penalty for such offences, and was proportionate. - As concerns Article 19 § 9: the applicant’s action for compensation brought upon the decision of non-prosecution was dismissed due to the non-fulfilment of the necessary conditions. - However, if a decision of non-prosecution is issued following a person’s arrest, he may request the State to redress his pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages pursuant to Law no. 5271: the applicant’s case falls into the ambit of this provision. |
|
|
Mustafa Demiraydın 2015/1051 21 March 2019 (First Section) |
Violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches safeguarded by Article 34 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to imposition of an administrative fine as a result of participating in a press statement in a peaceful environment. - Right to hold meetings and demonstration marches aims at protecting the rights of the individuals who express their opinions in a peaceful manner without resorting to violence. - As a requirement of the pluralistic democracy, the State is expected to show patience and tolerance to the non-violent acts that do not pose a threat to the public order. -Administrative fine: unnecessary in a democratic society. - Failure to strike the fair balance between the measures taken and the applicants rights within the scope of Article 34. |
|
|
A.D. 2014/19506 3 April 2019 (First Section)
|
Violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the said prohibition due to the risk of applicant’s extradition to a third country if being deported to his/her country of nationality. - In issuing a deportation order, public authorities are to take into account whether there is any risk of extradition of the person concerned to any country where he/she will be allegedly subject to ill-treatment. The receiving country’s being a member of the Council of Europe or a party to the European Convention on Human Rights does not per se eliminate the obligation to conduct an inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment. - The Court’s violation in the present case does not amount to an acknowledgement of his allegations that in case of his/her deportation to his/her country of nationality, he/she would be extradited to the USA where he/she would be allegedly ill-treated. - The Court ordered a re-trial and halted the applicant’s deportation until the conclusion of his/her re-trial.
|
|
|
Ayşe Çelik 2017/36722 9 May 2019 (Second Section) |
Violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the freedom at stake as the applicant did not intend to justify, or incite to, violence or hatred but indeed used peaceful expressions during a live TV show. - Impugned interference was incompatible with the necessities of a democratic society: her expressions included no element praising or supporting terrorism, or directly or indirectly inciting to violence or an armed resistance, but concerned issues of public interest. |
Press Release |
|
İbrahim Sözer and Others 2016/10425 4 April 2019 (Second Section) |
Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right due to the failure to expropriate for over 30 years their immovable allocated for public service and to redress the damages incurred. - Although the administration decided to no longer expropriate their immovable, no amendment was made to the development plan: relevant restrictions such as construction ban remained in force. - The public authorities’ failure to indemnify the applicants put an excessive and extraordinary burden on them, which upset the fair balance to be struck between their right to property and the public interest. |
|
|
Eyüp Kurt 2015/6926 4 April 2019 (Second Section) |
Violation of the right to protect corporeal and spiritual existence safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation the applicant’s right due to the proceedings conducted into his having been permanently disabled allegedly as a result of medical negligence. - Lack of the medical records at the material time, which resulted in a failure to determine whether the doctor as well as the medical institution in question were responsible for the applicant’s disability: the applicant was at a disadvantage before the respondent administration. - Inferior courts dismissed the applicant’s case in the absence of sufficient grounds based on concrete evidence: excessive burden on the applicant; unfair situation. - The State’s failure to satisfy its positive obligations under the right to protect corporeal and spiritual existence. |
Press Release |
|
Hacı Ahmet Yaşartürk and Nurdane Yaşartürk 2014/850 4 April 2019 (Second Section) |
Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the right to life due to death caused by a temporary village guard not fulfilling the criteria concerning military service and alleged violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time for failure to conduct an effective criminal investigation. - The procedural aspect of the positive obligation incumbent on the State within the scope of the right to life requires that in cases of unnatural death, an effective criminal investigation capable of identifying those responsible and, if necessary, punishing them must be conducted: not fulfilled in the present case. - Investigation not concluded with reasonable speed. - In addition to finding of a violation, the applicants were also awarded compensation. |
|
|
II. Constitutionality Review |
|||
|
E.2018/156 10 April 2019 (Plenary) |
Annulment of the provision concerning the increase to be applied to price of the expropriated property |
- Contested provision stipulates that the increase in the price of the expropriated property shall not be higher than the half of the land’s determined price. - One of the constitutional elements of the expropriation is “actual price”. - As required by the right to property and the principle pf proportionality, the real value of the expropriated property must be paid to its owner. - The limitation stipulated by the contested provision might prevent the determination of the real value of the property and hence its payment to its owner; fair balance between the public interest and the right to property is disturbed: unconstitutional.
|
Press Release |
|
Case |
Decision |
Case-Law Development |
Related |
|
I. Individual Application |
|||
|
Çetin Doğan 2014/3494 27 February 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the right to honour and reputation safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to the false news reported with respect to the applicant and the Turkish Armed Forces on the basis of imprecise information as well as fake and fabricated evidence. - The State’s positive obligation to protect an individual’s honour and dignity, as a part of his spiritual entity, against third persons’ attacks: not fulfilled in the present case. - The relevant media outlet’s failure to fulfil the duty and responsibility of imparting accurate and reliable information to the public. - The inferior courts’ failure to make any assessment as to the applicant’s allegations. - No relevant and sufficient reasons, in the first instance decision, to justify the impugned interference with the applicant’s right to honour and reputation. |
|
|
Murat Demir 2015/7216 27 March 2019 (Plenary)
|
Violation of the right to respect for family life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution
|
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to procrastination of the proceedings initiated for the nullity of the decision removing his foster care status. - The State’s positive obligation to prevent procrastination of any proceedings initiated for resolution of a legal dispute of a particular concern for the children: not fulfilled in the present case. - Procrastination of the proceedings in spite of elapse of a six-year period led to legal uncertainty in the applicant’s reunion with the children. |
Press Release |
|
Hülya Kar 2015/20360 27 February 2019 (Plenary) |
Inadmissibility (Freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution) |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s freedom for being subject to a preventive measure (probation) in the course of an investigation conducted against her for disseminating terrorist propaganda. - The factors which are taken into account by the Court in examining such applications and which were fulfilled in the present case: *Whether the aims pursued could have been achieved by alternative means imposing a lesser restriction? * Whether there was a balance between the aim pursued and the impugned preventive measure? * Whether the suffering experienced by the applicant exceeded the inevitable level of suffering inherent in such measure? * Whether this measure was foreseeable and relied on a precise legal arrangement as well as whether it was applied in respect of an individual suspected of having committed an offence? |
|
|
Arbay Petrol Gıda Turizm Taşımacılık Sanayi Ticaret Ltd. Şti. ve Arbay Turizm Taşımacılık İthalat İhracat İnşaat ve Organizasyon Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. 2015/15100 27 February 2019 (Plenary) |
Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicants’ right due to dismissal, without an examination on the merits, of the actions brought against the tax assessments made and penalties imposed on the basis of the adjustment statements submitted with a reservation. - The applicants’ being subject to certain tax penalties and default interest on the basis of the statements submitted with a reservation constituted an interference with their right to property. - The Court examined whether the impugned interference was proportionate. - No examination on the merits of the actions. The applicants were therefore deprived of the opportunity to make the impugned taxation process subject to a judicial review. - The failure to afford procedural safeguards inherent in the right to property imposed an excessive burden on the applicants: leading to the upset of the fair balance between the right to property and the public interest. Therefore, the interference was not proportional. |
|
|
Kenan Gül 2015/17892 19 February 2019 (First Section) |
Violation of the freedom expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s freedom for being imposed a judicial fine as the applicant, a lawyer, insulted the opposing party in defending his client. - A fair balance is to be struck between the opposing party’s right to protect honour and reputation and the applicant’s right to claim and defence as well as freedom of expression. - The applicant’s expressions were found to be a part of the arguments submitted by him for protecting his client’s interests and to pursue an arguable aim in objective terms. - The first instance court’s failure to demonstrate the existence of a pressing social need requiring it to impose a penalty on the applicant. |
|
|
Fatma Nazlı Özkay 2016/8023 6 March 2019 (First Section) |
No violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to revocation, by a judicial decision, of her construction permit as her immovable was a historical monument required to be under preservation. - Revocation of the applicant’s construction permit is undoubtedly an interference with her right to property: the question to be examined by the Court is whether the interference was proportionate. - The impugned interference was found not to impose an excessive burden on her, given the public interest pursued: the fair balance was struck between her right to property and the public interest. Therefore, the interference was found proportional. |
|
|
Abdullah Volkan Arslan 2016/14883 21 March 2019 (First Section) |
Violation of the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to dismissal of his objection to the decision of the consumer arbitration committee as being time-barred. - The receipt date of the notice was not taken as a basis. - The grounds relied on by the incumbent court were not sufficient and admissible. - Dismissal decision was not foreseeable, thereby eliminated the applicant’s possibility to use legal remedies. - Burden imposed on the applicant by the dismissal decision was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
|
|
|
2016/1253 21 March 2019 (First Section)
|
Violation of the right of access to a court within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to dismissal of the case as being time-barred. - The applicant, officer in the Turkish Armed Forces, was injured during an operation in 2012. The report issued in 2014 stated that he would not be able to attend his office due to the trauma he had suffered. - Claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages by the applicant was dismissed as being time-barred. - Statute of limitations for bringing an action starts to run from the date on which a causal link was established between the damage and the administrative act, even if it was long after the impugned incident. - Disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right of access to a court.
|
|
|
Mehmet Uçar 2015/7357 3 April 2019 (First Section)
|
Violation of the prohibition of treatment incompatible with human dignity safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution, in addition to its procedural aspect (lack of an effective investigation)
|
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to illegal use of force by the police officers. - Applicant got injured as a result of the use of force; interference constituted an ill-treatment. - Requirement of conducting an effective investigation capable of identifying those responsible and punishing them if necessary: not fulfilled. - In addition to finding a violation, the applicant was also awarded compensation.
|
|
|
Ö.T. 2015/16029 19 February 2019 (Second Section) |
Violation of the right to protect corporeal and spiritual existence safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to dismissal of her request for preventive imprisonment of her husband committing violence against her. -The Court’s examination as to whether the State’s positive obligation to establish an effective legal system was fulfilled and whether reasonable practical measures required by the administrative and legal legislation were taken. - The inferior court’s failure to give relevant and sufficient reasons for dismissing the request. - No legal interest to order a re-trial with a view to redressing the consequences of the violation. |
Press Release |
|
Hamit Aydemir 2015/17844 7 March 2019 (Second Section) |
Violation of the right to property safeguarded by Article 35 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the right to property due to dismissal of the request of the applicant’s guardian for permission from the court to enjoy a legal right on behalf of the applicant, who was disabled, to facilitate his transport. - The State’s principal duty to ensure the disabled persons to enjoy their fundamental rights and freedoms, thereby encouraging their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others. - Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons in the probate authorities’ decisions and the failure to show due diligence in the protection of the disabled persons’ right to property. -The State’s failure to fully and effectively satisfy its positive obligations in terms of the protection of the right to property.
|
|
|
Ruhi Abat 2014/4724 7 March 2019 (Second Section) |
Inadmissibility (Rights to personal liberty and security, to a fair trial and to an individual application) |
- Alleged violations of the applicant’s rights due to his detention on remand in the absence of strong suspicion of guilt and to rejection of his request for release without any justification. - Non-exhaustion of legal remedies (right to personal liberty and security) - Incompatibility ratione personae (right to a fair trial): For an individual application to be declared admissible, it must be demonstrated that the applicant was directly affected by the violation. - Manifestly ill-founded (right to an individual application): The applicant had the opportunity to lodge an individual application; Non-communication of the dismissal decision to the applicant did not hinder the applicant from filing an individual application. He could lodge an individual application since the date he became aware of the dismissal decision.
|
|
|
Abdulkadir Akgün 2015/19791 20 March 2019 (Second Section) |
Violation of the right to organize unions safeguarded by Article 51 of the Constitution |
- Alleged violation of the applicant’s right due to his assignment to a different department on the sole ground of his being the provincial representative of a labour union. - Right to organize unions under the freedom of association constitutes one of the main values of a democratic society. - Any interference with the said right must serve a pressing social need and be proportionate: failure in the present case. - The reasons relied on by the administration were not relevant and sufficient. - Failure to comply with the requirements of the democratic order of the society. |
|
|
II. Constitutionality Review |
|||
|
E. 2016/181 20 December 2018 (Plenary)
|
-Annulment of Provisional Article 10 added to Law no. 775 by Article 12 of Law no. 6745 -Annulment of Additional Article 1 added to Law no. 2942, except for its first paragraph, by Article 33 of the Law no. 6745 |
- Provisional Article 10 which sets out that in case of any failure in the accomplishment of the allocations, by the administration, of land or residence in a certain region before the entry into force of the Law, the amounts paid to that end shall be returned to the rights holders who shall claim no other right, amount or compensation: allegedly unconstitutional due to the interference with the actions brought by the right holders. Imposing a disproportionate and unforeseeable burden on the right holders: leading to upset of the reasonable balance between the aims pursued and means for attaining it. A disproportionate interference with the rights to property and to legal remedies. - Additional Article 1 which prescribes five years for the implementation of development plans in respect of the immovables allocated for public services and governmental agencies and which lays down the procedure to be followed in case of any failure: allegedly unconstitutional for not pursing a legal interest and intending to hinder the rights likely to be obtained by right holders through a court decision. The administration’s ability to expropriate depends on its having sufficient funds. Payment in instalments of the expropriation price by the administration is permitted in Article 46 of the Constitution in exceptional cases. However, in case of instalment, the interest rate to be charged is to be the highest rate prescribed for public receivables: not fulfilled in the present case. - Leading to acquisition of immovables by the administration instead of expropriation: contrary to the principles of legal certainty and foreseeability. |
|
|
E.2019/1 14 March 2019 (Plenary) |
Annulment of Article 67 § 2 of the Highway Traffic no. 2918 |
- Contested provision provides that the vehicles used in breach of the regulations on the manoeuvres of vehicles, be banned from driving for a certain period of time, regardless of its driver. - In cases where the driver is not the owner of the vehicle, the said penalty is in breach of the principles of individual criminal responsibility and rule of law, as well as the principles of justice and fairness, and therefore is unconstitutional. |
|
|
E.2019/3 14 March 2019 (Plenary) |
Dismissal of the Request for Annulment of Article 81 § 1 of the Military Service Law no. 1111 |
- Contested provision provides that age changes made at an age fit for military service without relying on the official hospital birth records shall not be taken into consideration in recruitment procedures. - Alleged violations of the principles of rule of law and equality. - The provision is constitutional: the request for annulment is dismissed. - The provision aims at maintaining the order in terms of the national service without any disruptions. - Individuals making age changes on different grounds do not have the same legal status. - The binding nature of court decisions does not hinder the legislator’s authority to make general arrangements on condition of being in conformity with the Constitution. |
|