19 February 2020 Wednesday
Decision concerning Decree-laws and Applicability of the Repealed Article 91 of the Constitution (E. 2018/122, K.2020/14)
Request for annulment of the phrase “… longer than 6 months …” stipulated in Article 7 § 1 (c) of the Decree-Law no. 399, dated 22 January 1990, on Regulation of Personnel Regime of State Economic Enterprises and Annulment of Certain Articles of the Decree-Law no. 233.
The said provision was alleged to be in breach of the principle of equality as it introduced different conditions for the civil servants employed under Law no. 657 and those employed on a contractual basis. The Court decided to annul the contested provision that no longer had a basis due to the annulment of its empowering act -in the absence of an empowering act, no decree-law can be issued- and embodied a statutory arrangement on the prohibited issues which could not be regulated through a decree-law, as it was in breach of the repealed Article 91 of the Constitution.
23 January 2020 Thursday
Decision concerning the General Principles for Constitutional Review of Presidential Decrees (E.2019/31, K.2020/5)
Request for annulment, and stay of enforcement, of Paragraph 2 added to Article 287 of the Presidential Decree on the Organisation of the Presidency no. 1 as well as of the first, second and third sentences of Paragraph 2 added to Article 372 of the Amended Presidential Decree no. 1.
The Court found unconstitutional and therefore annulled the contested provision, Paragraph 2, for being unconstitutional insofar as it related to the competence ratione materiae; whereas the contested sentences of Paragraph 2 were not found unconstitutional insofar as they related to the competence ratione materiae and by their contents.
27 May 2015 Wednesday
Decision on Marriage by Arranging Religious Ceremony without Performing a Civil Marriage (E.2014/36, K.2015/51)
Request for annulment of Article 230 §§ 5 and 6 of the Turkish Criminal Code for prescribing criminal sanctions for those who have married by arranging religious ceremony without performing a civil marriage and conducting such a religious ceremony, which is indeed a matter of private life and freedom of religion and conscience.
The Court found unconstitutional and therefore annulled the contested paragraphs as criminalising such acts and therefore imposing criminal sanctions constituted a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for private and family life and the freedom of religion and conscience in the absence of any necessity in a democratic society.