Individual Application

The Facts

The incumbent magistrate judge imposed a broadcast ban on an investigation which was conducted against certain former ministers by the Parliamentary Investigation Commission of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (“GNAT”) on account of the broadcasts breaching the confidentiality of the investigation and infringing the presumption of innocence. The applicant’s challenge against the decision was dismissed.

The Applicant’s Allegations 

Indicating that the public interest to receive information and documents concerning the investigation outweighed the personal interests of the ministers in having their reputation and rights protected, the applicant maintained that its freedoms of expression and the press had been violated due to the broadcast ban.

The Court’s Assessment

The Court has designated the parliamentary investigations as a “judicial task” entrusted to the GNAT and acknowledged them as a “judicial process” conducted by the legislative organ. In this respect, the parliamentary investigation is in the nature of a criminal investigation.

In the present case, it has been observed that the Law forming the basis for the impugned ban indeed includes no provision as to the broadcast ban to be imposed as a preventive measure within the scope of an ongoing criminal investigation. Therefore, the said Law cannot be said to have been formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizens to foresee the consequences which a given action or fact may entail in cases where a broadcast ban is imposed within the scope of a criminal investigation, as well as to clarify the authority of interference to be exercised by public authorities in such cases.

It has been accordingly concluded that the statutory arrangement, which does not satisfy the requirements of “foreseeability” and “certainty” in respect of the broadcast ban imposed as a preventive measure within the scope of an ongoing investigation, also failed to the meet the lawfulness requirement.

Consequently, the Court has found violations of the freedoms of expression and the press safeguarded respectively by Articles 26 and 28 of the Constitution.