Individual Application

The Facts

Construction of a temporary accommodation centre for Syrian immigrants was started in early 2016 in the district where the applicants live. The Governor’s Office banned, across the province, any protest activities targeting the accommodation centre for a period of one month, in consideration of the intelligence and request received from the provincial gendarmerie command.

In particular, a previous attack against the security forces, which resulted in the injury of two officers, during a similar event held in April, as well as the statements made by the heads of the PKK terrorist organisation gave rise to the relevant decision of the Governor’s Office. In this regard, the said ban was issued upon receiving the intelligence that an event would be organised by many non-governmental organisations together with persons from other provinces in order to protest the accommodation centre. The Governor’s Office extended the one-month ban four times for the very same reasons.

The applicants brought an action for annulment, requesting a stay of execution of the impugned ban, which was later dismissed by the administrative court. The applicants’ subsequent appeal was also dismissed by the regional administrative court.

The Applicants’ Allegations

The applicants claimed that their right to hold meetings and demonstration marches had been violated due to the ban imposed by the administration on meetings, demonstration marches and similar activities for a certain period.

The Court’s Assessment

Exercise of the right to organise meetings and demonstration marches may interrupt the flow of daily life to a certain extent and result in negative reactions. Existence of such situations alone is not sufficient for impeding the said right.

In the present case, it should be considered whether the threat likely to be posed to the public order and safety justified the one-month ban across the province on any events protesting the accommodation centre.

In order for an assessment in this regard, existence of an exceptional case, not arising from the state’s own acts, which will prevent the state from duly fulfilling its positive obligation to ensure the safety of those who want to exercise their right to hold meetings and demonstration marches and its obligations to protect the general public order and safety as well as the rights and freedoms of others, should be demonstrated.

In the instant case, only events organised to protest against the accommodation centres were banned. Therefore, the administration was in a position to fulfil its positive obligations regarding the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches in general terms.

The fact that the security forces had been attacked during a previous event organised for the same purpose cannot be regarded as an indication that the right to assembly would not be exercised peacefully, especially with regard to those who had not been involved in the impugned incident.

In addition, it is obvious that existence of terrorist organisations, which is a sad fact of our country, and their statements regarding the events on the agenda are not of an exceptional nature capable of justifying the impugned ban. Moreover, extension of the ban four times for the very same reasons also casts doubt on whether the relevant issues underlying the ban were subjected to detailed scrutiny.

In any case, even though it can be accepted that the issues stated in the gendarmerie intelligence report necessitated a ban in order to prevent any damage to the accommodation centre, especially in the area where it was being constructed, they were far from justifying the imposition of such a ban across the province.

Hence, in the impugned decision of the Governor’s Office, a fair balance could not be struck between the competing interests.

Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches.