17 July 2014 Thursday

Cezmi Demir and Others, no. 2013/293, 17 July 2014

Material and procedural aspect

It is concluded that the prohibition of torture guaranteed in Article 17 § 3 of the Constitution regarding it’s material and procedural aspect has been violated due to the fact that the state did not fulfil its positive obligations on protecting one’s physical and spiritual integrity through laws considering the disproportionality and ineffectiveness of the punishment imposed and that as a result of the length of the procedures some accusations against some defendants were time barred and penalties for some defendants were issued too late and led public officials who have tortured or allowed to practice it receiving no penalty or only too late.

17 July 2014 Thursday

Rahil Dink and others, no. 2012/848, 17 July 2014

Procedural aspect

Regarding the violation of the state’s procedural obligation described in Article 17 § 1 of the Constitution and the lack of effective investigation of the public servants and their superiors who were allegedly responsible and negligent in the Hrant Dink case, especially after the reopening of the case by the ECHR judgment.

16 July 2014 Wednesday

Nilgün Halloran, no. 2012/1184, 16 July 2014

No violation of freedom of expression

The applicant, a high ranked government executive, was expected to show more tolerance towards the criticism made by the other party regarding the meaningful timing of the decision to lift the security turnstiles in the entrance of the university campus, however she reacted severely against these criticism, that did not include any defamation nor harshness, defining them as a “reflection of his inferiority complex”. The Constitutional Court, assessed in this case that the decision ordering the applicant to pay 3.500,00 Turkish Liras as a result of a proceeding for compensation constitutes a disproportionate interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression.

25 June 2014 Wednesday

Tuğba Arslan, no. 2014/256, 25 June 2014

Right to reveal her/his religion or belief (headscarf)

The public power’s acts limiting the place and the form to wear a headscarf by religious belief interferes with the right of one to reveal her or his religion. This interference constitutes a violation of Articles 13 and 24 of the Constitution unless it fulfils the conditions specified in Article 13. In the concrete case, it is understood that there is no legal provision that limits the freedom of religion and belief and prevents the arbitrary behaviours of a public servant in the sense of Article 13. Therefore, the interference with the aforementioned freedom does not meet the statutory requirements.

25 June 2014 Wednesday

Abdullah Öcalan, no. 2013/409, 25 June 2014

Confiscation of a book

In this case and in the context of the “principle of proportionality”, the balance between the freedoms interfered due to the confiscation of the book and the public interest in this confiscation was examined as well as whether the reasons for the confiscation are convincing. The fact that these books were confiscated on the basis of a protection measure and that the intention to destroy some of the confiscated books did not comply with the procedure prescribed in the law, and in this context, was not compliable with the principle of proportionality in a democratic order of society. The applicant's freedom of expression and dissemination of thought and freedom of the press were violated.

18 June 2014 Wednesday

Hanefi Avcı, no. 2013/2814, 18 June 2014

Reasonable time in detention

While reviewing the reasonable time of the detention, the Constitutional Court considers the justifications for the decisions regarding the release requests and does not accept the generalization of some of the defendants by assuming that the others can be found in the same behaviour, on the basis that it prevents personalization. In this context, it was decided that in the concrete case the provisions in Article 19 § 8 of the Constitution were violated because the duration of the detention was unreasonable and the denial of the requests for release had formulated reasons.

29 May 2014 Thursday

Youtube LLC Corporation Service Company and Others, no. 2014/4705, 29 May 2014

Ex officio denial of access

In cases where the possibility of restriction of the freedom of expression is imposed, the scope and procedures regarding the use of such a competence should be defined with sufficient clarity. However, in the present case it is understood that the interference with the full blocking of access to youtube.com did not have a clear and distinct legal basis and was not foreseeable for the applicants.

08 May 2014 Thursday

E.T.Y.İ. A.Ş., no. 2013/596, 8 May 2014

Tax disputes

Although if there is a relationship that is predominant of public nature, including disputes concerning the tax origin, it is stated that there is a relationship with the taxpayers that have significant implications in the field of civil rights and obligations, especially property rights and it has been concluded that tax disputes should be considered within the scope of assurances regarding the right to a fair trial within the framework of the mentioned determinations. Therefore, it has been decided in the concrete application that tax disputes as a whole fall within the scope of the right to a fair trial.

02 April 2014 Wednesday

Yaman Akdeniz and Others, no. 2014/3986, 2 April 2014

Denial of access to Twitter.com

As the decision to block access applied by the TIB, constituted a heavy intervention in the freedom of expression of all users benefiting from the twitter network and not only the addressees of the decisions justifying the blockage and given based on certain URL’s and has no legal basis it violates the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution.

06 March 2014 Thursday

Mehmet İlker Başbuğ, no. 2014/912, 6 March 2014

Objection to detention

Considering the fact that an appeal examination could not be carried out due to the fact that the justification had not been announced since the enactment of the provision on the applicant, the claim that the deprivation of liberty was not legal and the request for release was not examined by the appeals authority and evaluating the judicial control provisions, the decision on the request for release not yet being decided by the court constitutes a violation of Article 19 § 8 of the Constitution.

06 March 2014 Thursday

Gülsim Genç, no. 2013/4439, 6 March 2014

Married woman's surname

The surname is one of the distinguishing important elements in determining the identity of an individual and is indispensable, inalienable. It is a personal right closely connected to the person and its spiritual existence. It is concluded that the relevant international conventions are preeminent and should be taken as the basis for the concrete dispute and that the interference with the right to the name of the applicant only on the basis of the relevant provision did not meet the principle of legality. Therefore, it was decided that the fact that married woman could not use her surname before the marriage violated her right to the protection and development of her spiritual existence.

20 February 2014 Thursday

Ercan Kanar, no. 2013/533, 20 February 2014

Protection of personal data

The applicant faced an interference with his right to respect for private life by the publicizing of intelligence-related assessments that can be considered as negative and related to his profession in his case-file although having no legal certainty and does not constitute a base for his imputation, therefore his right to respect for private life (protection of personal data) has been violated.