11 June 2018 Monday

Galip Şahin, no. 2015/6075, 11 June 2018

No violation of the presumption of innocence

The applicant, a lieutenant colonel at the Turkish Naval Forces Command, was dismissed from his office as a result of the administrative investigation by the Command following the criminal proceeding conducted against him, which was still pending. The action for annulment filed by the applicant was dismissed by the Supreme Military Administrative Court. In his individual application, the applicant alleged that the indicted charges were ill-founded and that he was not heard during the proceedings. No violation of the presumption of innocence has been found.

07 June 2018 Thursday

Nihat Akbulak [Plenary], no. 2015/10131, 7 June 2018

Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial, with respect to the requests for a retrial, for lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae

The applicant was convicted for sexual assault with a final judgment. Alleging that new significant evidence was found, he requested a retrial. However, the Plenary of the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the alleged violation of the right to a reasoned decision under the right to a fair trial on the ground that it cannot be the subject-matter of an individual application, as it is out of the joint protection of the Constitution and the European Convention of Human Rights (Article 6).

17 May 2018 Thursday

Kadri Ceyhan [Plenary], no. 2014/1924, 17 May 2018

Inadmissibility of the alleged violation of the right to life due to negligence on the part of public officers

The applicant was seriously injured on the field of shooting practice of a military unit as a result of the explosion of material likely “war ammunition”.  As the criminal case filed by the Military Prosecutor’s Office was not concluded within a reasonable time, the applicant lodged an individual application. However, the criminal case resulted with the conviction of the accused in the meantime. The applicant failed to seek remedy for his injury before the administrative courts. Consequently, the Plenary of the Constitutional Court found inadmissible the alleged violation for the failure of exhaustion of ordinary remedies.

09 May 2018 Wednesday

Naziker Onbaşı and Others, no. 2014/18224, 9 May 2018

Violation of the right to life due to failure to conduct an effective criminal investigation into the death resulting from a mine accident

The applicants’ brother lost his life as a result of gas poisoning in a mine operated by a hard coal company. The request for permission for investigation against the alleged responsible officials was refused by the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. Furthermore, a decision of non-prosecution was issued by Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office regarding those persons. In the individual application lodged by the applicants, the Second Section of the Constitutional Court found a violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life.

18 April 2018 Wednesday

Cembeli Erdem, no. 2014/19077, 18 April 2018

Violation of the right to life due to failure to conduct an effective criminal investigation into the use of firearm by a police

The applicant, a hearing-impaired, was shot during an armed conflict between the police and a group of terrorists, and remained paralysed. Even though the criminal examination showed that the bullet was fired by a police officer, the Governor’s Office refuse to grant a leave for investigation regarding the concerned police officer putting forth that he acted with the intention to warn the crowd. On 18 April 2018, the First Section of the Constitutional Court found a violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life, safeguarded in Article 17 of the Constitution, concerning the obligation to conduct an effective investigation.

12 April 2018 Thursday

Erdal Tercan [Plenary], no. 2016/15637, 12 April 2018

Judgment concerning the detention of a former Justice of the Constitutional Court

The applicant, a former Justice of the Constitutional Court, was taken into custody within the scope of an investigation on the coup attempt of 15 July 2016. He was detained for his alleged membership of an armed terrorist organization. On 12 April 2018, the Plenary of the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the alleged unlawfulness of detention for being manifestly ill-founded; found no violation of the right to personal liberty and security as regards the alleged unreasonable length of detention; and found a violation of the right to personal liberty and security as regards the alleged review of detention without being brought before a judge/court.

15 March 2018 Thursday

Şahin Alpay (2) [Plenary], no. 2018/3007, 15 March 2018

Violation of the right to personal liberty and security due to failure to redress the previously found violation and its consequences

In the applicant’s first individual application (no. 2016/16092), the Constitutional Court found a violation of his right to personal liberty and security and his freedoms of expression and press. He submitted a request for release following the Court’s judgment but his request was rejected. Therefore, he lodged another individual application in which the Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to personal liberty and security safeguarded by Article 19 of the Constitution, as the inferior courts failed to comply with the Constitutional Court’s judgment finding a violation, and nor did they demonstrate the existence of “a strong indication of guilt” based on new facts.

 

01 February 2018 Thursday

Binali Özkaradeniz and Others [Plenary], no. 2014/4686, 1 February 2018

Violation of the right to respect for private and family life due to disposal of untreated sewage to a stream

The applicants are residing in a village located near a stream, to which sewage was disposed without any treatment. However in the “Environmental Status Report” issued afterwards stated that no waste water treatment facility was constructed in the region despite being envisaged to be completed in the work termination plan. The administrative court dismissed the actions filed by the applicants. The Constitutional Court found a violation of the right to respect for private and family life safeguarded by Article 20 of the Constitution, noting that the public authorities are to prevent disposal of raw sewage to stream which would adversely affect people’s health.

11 January 2018 Thursday

Mehmet Hasan Altan (2) [Plenary], no. 2016/23672, 11 January 2018

Violations of the right to personal liberty and security and the freedoms of expression and press

The applicant, a well-known journalist, author and academician, was taken into custody in the framework of an investigation initiated in the sequel of the coup attempt of 15 July, 2016. He was, afterwards, detained on remand for attempting to overthrow the Government or prevent it from performing its duties and for his membership to a terrorist organization. His request of appeal was dismissed without a hearing. In his individual application, the applicant maintained that his detention unlawful, that his right to liberty and security and his freedoms of expression and press were breached. He also complained that his apprehension was unlawful, that his access to investigation file was restricted, that magistrate judge did not conform to the principles of independence and impartiality, that his appeal was reviewed without a hearing and that the prohibition of ill-treatment was violated.

21 December 2017 Thursday

Ayhan Bilgen [Plenary], no. 2017/5974, 21 December 2017

Alleged violation of the right to personal liberty and security due to detention of the applicant who was an MP

The Court found a violation a violation of the right to personal liberty and security on the grounds that although there was no doubt that a call was made on behalf of the Central Executive Board through the social media account of the HDP by provoking people to pour out into streets and clash with the security forces and that the applicant was a member of the HDP’s Central Executive Board, the investigation authorities failed to demonstrate “a strong indication of the applicant’s guilt” for having failed to reach any factual findings as to the fact that the applicant was present at the meeting of the Central Executive Board when it was allegedly decided that the call in question would be made; that the applicant made statements in support of this call; and that therefore the call was made within his will.

21 December 2017 Thursday

Selahattin Demirtaş [Plenary], no. 2016/25189, 21 December 2017

Alleged violation of the right to personal liberty and security due to detention of the applicant who was an MP

The Court declared the application inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded on the grounds that the inferior court’s conclusion that the detention measure was proportionate and conditional bail would remain insufficient on the basis of the severity of punishment prescribed for the imputed offences and the gravity of the acts committed by the applicant cannot be regarded as unfounded or arbitrary; and that as regards the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention, there was no circumstance requiring an examination as to the applicant’s allegation that his detention order had a political motive which was contrary to the motives specified in the Constitution.

05 December 2017 Tuesday

İrfan Öztekin, no. 2014/19140, 5 December 2017

Alleged violation of the right to property due to damage caused to the house during the construction of a school

The Court found a violation of the right to property on the grounds that the applicant’s request for compensation of the damage brought to his house by the landslide resulting from the administration’s construction activity was dismissed as the building did not have a licence; that therefore, the applicant’s house was damaged because of the administration’s fault but the applicant was not paid any compensation; that the inferior courts’ strict approach involving a disregard for the public authorities’ attitude and behaviour in the course of events imposed a personally excessive and extraordinary burden on the applicant; and that the fair balance needed to be struck between public interest and the applicant’s right to property was upset to the detriment of the applicant and that the interference was not proportionate.