Constitutionality Review

Contested Provision

The contested provision stipulates that municipalities with a population below 2,000 shall be reclassified as villages.

Ground for the Request for Annulment

It was maintained in brief that the contested provision is unconstitutional since it fails to serve a public interest and that such reclassification would accelerate depopulation in small towns and villages, causing a demographic concentration in more populous administrative units, such as metropolitan municipalities. Furthermore, it was asserted that the abrupt restructuring of administrative entities based on data from a dynamic population registration system is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and legal security.

The Court’s Assessment

Neither Law no. 5393 on Municipalities nor any other statutory instrument contains any provision specifying which authority is competent to decide on the establishment of municipalities or villages and on the dissolution of their legal personality, or the procedure to be followed in this respect. However, given that the establishment or dissolution of municipalities must be effected by law or by Presidential Decree as a constitutional requirement, the Court considers that the procedure for reclassification of municipalities with a population under 2,000 into villages must likewise be carried out through the same legal instruments, namely law or Presidential Decree. In this regard, the contested provision does not fall contrary to Article 123 of the Constitution.

The contested provision regarding the reclassification of municipalities, as local authorities, into villages must be examined within the framework of the principle of local autonomy. It has been observed that although the legal personality of municipalities is terminated under this provision, the democratic will expressed by the local population for the duration of the five-year electoral term remains intact until the expiry of that term. Furthermore, the residents of the reclassified municipalities retain the right to vote in subsequent elections in order to elect the organs of the village legal entity, another local self-government unit, in the subsequent electoral term. Consequently, it has been concluded that the autonomy provided for in Article 127 of the Constitution is preserved notwithstanding the termination of the legal personality of municipalities under the contested provision.

It has been observed that the second to fifth sentences of Article 11 § 2, as well as Article 11 § 3 of Law no. 5393 set forth in detail the procedures and principles regarding the reclassification of municipalities into villages. In this regard, it has been concluded that the scope of the contested provision is formulated in a clear, explicit and comprehensible manner.

Nevertheless, statutes must be enacted in pursuit of a public interest in a state governed by the rule of law. The legislator has discretion as regards the establishment and classification of local government units. In this regard, provided that it determines the fundamental principles governing the establishment of local administrations and the relevant substantive and procedural framework, the legislator may dissolve or reclassify a municipality or village in order to ensure the effective and efficient provision of public services depending on the scale of the relevant unit. Consequently, the reclassification of municipalities with a population below 2,000 into villages under the contested provision cannot be said to serve any purpose other than the public interest, as it seeks to ensure the effective and efficient delivery of public services.

In the light of the foregoing, considering that the procedures and principles for reclassification of municipalities with a population below 2,000 into villages are regulated by law and that the dissolution of their legal personality is envisaged to take effect upon the first local elections, it has been concluded that the contested provision, enacted within the scope of the legislator’s margin of discretion, is compatible with the principle of the rule of law, the constitutional requirement for the dissolution of public legal entities by law, and the principle of local autonomy.

Consequently, the contested provision has been found constitutional, and the request for its annulment has therefore been dismissed.