20 February 2014 Thursday

Sabahat Tuncel, no. 2012/1051, 20 February 2014

Right to engage in political activity

The interference with the participation of the elected legislator in the legislative activity may be an intervention not only for his or her right to be elected, but also for the right of the voters to express their free will and their right to engage in political activity. In this case, the applicant not being allowed to go abroad as a protection measure after her conviction, was not contrary to the requirements of the democratic order of the society and since the applicant can perform her duties as a deputy, it cannot be said that it was not proportional in terms of the intended objectives. No violation of the applicant's rights guaranteed by Article 67 of the Constitution has been found.

04 December 2013 Wednesday

Mustafa Ali Balbay, no. 2012/1272, 4 December 2013

Violation of the right to be tried in reasonable time and the right to be elected

The applicant was arrested twice in the frame of an investigation conducted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and detained on remand the second time. He put forth that there was no concrete information or fact to justify his detention; that his detention exceeded the legal statute of limitations in the absence of a reasonable ground; that the court which held the trial was contrary to natural judge principle and that he was not able to fulfill his duty as a member of Parliament due to the proceeding. The Constitutional Court concluded that his right to be tried in reasonable time and the right to be elected were violated and that the other complaints were inadmissible.

21 November 2013 Thursday

İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent Üniversitesi, no. 2013/1430, 21 November 2013

Inadmissibility due to incompetence ratione personae

The applicant, a foundation university, is one of the shareholders of a land. The applicant alleged that its right to property and right to a fair trial were violated in consequence of a decision ordering the payment of a compensation on the ground that it has partly confiscated the land without expropriation. The Constitutional Court found the application inadmissible for falling out of its competence ratione personae.

21 November 2013 Thursday

Ş. Ç., no. 2012/1061, 21 November 2013

Inadmissibility of the application for being manifestly ill-founded

The applicant, a military officer, was temporarily appointed to another city for a term of 12 months. He complained, inter alia, that he received allowance only the first six months of his term of office, unlike other officers appointed, and that the Supreme Administrative Military Court was not an independent tribunal due to its formation. The Constitutional Court found the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial, the alleged lack of independence of the Supreme Administrative Military Court and the allegation concerning the counsel’s fee inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded.

21 November 2013 Thursday

Firas Aslan and Others, no. 2012/1158, 21 November 2013

Violation of the right to personal liberty and security

The applicants were detained for being a member of an illegal armed organization in December 2008. They alleged that the decision on their continued detention was worded in a stereotyped manner; that their appeal was examined without audience and that they were not notified with the Public Prosecutor’s opinion. The Constitutional Court found a violation of their right to personal liberty and security and dismissed the other allegations.

07 November 2013 Thursday

Mehmet Ali Emir and Others, no. 2012/850, 7 November 2013

Violation of the right to life

The applicants’ relatives lost their life during another earthquake occurred after the 2011 earthquake disaster of Van. They complained about that those responsible did not fulfilled their obligation concerning the supervision of the conformity of the building in question and that there was no available legal remedy to appeal the decision of the Chief Public Office of the Court of Cassation. The Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to life.

07 November 2013 Thursday

Kamil Koç, no. 2012/660, 7 November 2013

Violation of the right of access to court

The applicant was under treatment following an accident when the decision on his appointment to another city was issued. His request for annulment was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Military Court for being time-bared although the statute of limitation started running upon the delivery of the decision and he brought an action within the prescribed period. Moreover, certain information and documents of the case file were not submitted to the applicant.  The Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to access to court under Article 36 of the Constitution.

07 November 2013 Thursday

Özkan Şen, no. 2012/791, 7 November 2013

Violation of the right of access to court

The applicant was injured following the explosion of a mine during his military service. He filed an action for compensation against the relevant administration in which the counsel's fee was determined based on the amount of rejected claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. He alleged that the regulation pertaining to this practice was in breach of the Constitution and requested its annulment and the reassessment of the awarded compensation. The Constitutional court dismissed the alleged unfairness of the compensation amount and found a violation of right to access to court.

07 November 2013 Thursday

Ramazan Tosun, no. 2012/998, 7 November 2013

Violation of the principle of presumption of innocence

The applicant, a specialist gendarme at the Turkish Armed Forces, was ex officio retired. His request for the annulment of this treatment was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Military Court (SAMC). He alleged, inter alia, that his right to defense was restricted as the opinion of the Prosecutor of SAMC was not notified to him and that the decision of rejection of the applicant’s request for annulment was in breach of the presumption of innocence. The Constitutional Court found a violation of the presumption of innocence and dismissed the other complaints.  

02 October 2013 Wednesday

Adnan Oktar (2), no. 2013/514, 2 October 2013

Inadmissibility of the allegations due to incompetence ratione materiae, non-exhaustion of legal remedies and being manifestly ill-founded

The applicant was allegedly subjected to insults published via ‘www.facebook.com’ website. He filed a criminal complaint on the ground that his individual rights, his dignity and reputation were manifestly attacked. However, his complaint was dismissed by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office for lack of proof. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was also rejected. The Constitutional Court found the application inadmissible on the ground that the complaints fell out of its competence ratione materiae and were manifestly ill-founded and that the legal remedies were not exhausted.

17 September 2013 Tuesday

Serpil Kerimoğlu and Others, no. 2012/752, 17 September 2013

Violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life

A relative of the applicants had been trapped under the debris of a hotel building collapsed during an earthquake and had lost his life. The applicants alleged that the conformity of the building to earthquakes had not been properly supervised by the authorities and that there had been no available legal remedy in order for them to appeal the decision issued by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Cassation. The Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to life safeguarded by Article 17 of the Constitution and awarded the applicants non-pecuniary compensation.

17 September 2013 Tuesday

Hayrettin Aktaş, no. 2013/1205, 17 September 2013

Inadmissibility due to non-exhaustion of available legal remedies, being manifestly ill-founded and incompetence ratione materiae

The applicant complained about the devaluating effect of the calculation of his property’s value in order to be expropriated, the failure to consider his action for the annulment of the calculation process as a prejudicial issue, his being deprived of his property due to the continuing expropriation process as well as about the lack of reasoning in the court decision. However, the Constitutional Court found inadmissible the complaints, for non-exhaustion of legal remedies, being ill-founded and falling out of its competence ratione matariae.