Individual Application

The Facts

As a result of the audit conducted by the finance experts at a university, some irregular transactions were discovered in the bank accounts. At the end of the investigation conducted into the case, the individual working as a specialist at the revenue office of the university was accused of having been engaged in embezzlement.

At the material time, a criminal case was instituted before the assize court also against the applicant, who was working as a director of the revolving fund at the university in question, on the ground that he had connived at the impugned act despite being aware of it and being in charge of the supervision.

The applicant, stating that he had not been found responsible for the impugned irregular transactions at the end of the examination made by the Court of Accounts, submitted the latter’s decision to the file.

At the end of the proceedings before the assize court, the applicant was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for facilitating the commission of embezzlement. During the subsequent proceedings before the regional court of appeal, although the applicant stated that the Court of Account’s decision had not been taken into consideration, the regional court of appeal upheld the assize court’s decision. 

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicant claimed that his right to a reasoned decision had been violated due to the trial courts’ failure to consider the Court of Accounts’ decision that was in his favour.

The Court’s Assessment

The right to a reasoned decision, which aims to ensure that individuals are subject to a fair trial, is enshrined under Article 36 of the Constitution safeguarding the right to a fair trial.

In the present case, prior to the applicant’s conviction, the Court of Accounts had concluded that the applicant had not been responsible for the irregular transactions in question. However, the assize court convicted the applicant on the ground that he had been negligent or delayed in duly performing his duties.

In determining the lack of any financial responsibility attributable to the applicant, the Court of Accounts concluded that the operations managers did not have an authority to supervise and control the accounting managers. However, the assize court decided to the contrary. The court failed to justify why it had reached such a conclusion despite being aware of the Court of Accounts’ decision.

In determining whether there had been a neglect of duty, it should be examined whether the operations managers (the applicant) had a duty to supervise and control the accounting office. The applicant’s claim that he did not have such an authority over the accounting office were not examined by the court.

The principle of state of law is a basic principle required to be observed in the interpretation of the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. It also necessitates that the judicial authorities, as much as possible, refrain from making contradictory decisions regarding the same material or legal facts. Otherwise, the principle of state of law, as well as the people’s confidence in the law may be undermined.

The assize court failed to make an assessment as regards the scope and content of the applicant’s supervising authority. Besides, the applicant’s request for appeal whereby he clearly referred to the Court of Accounts’ decision was dismissed without any justification.

Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to a reasoned decision within the scope of the right to a fair trial safeguarded by Article 36 of the Constitution.