The symposium was attended by Prime Minister of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Mr. Tufan Erhürman, President of the Turkish Constitutional Court Mr. Zühtü Arslan, President of the Court of Cassation Mr. İsmail Rüştü Cirit, President of the Council of State Mrs. Zerrin Güngör, President of the Court of Accounts Mr. Seyit Ahmet Baş, Deputy Speaker of the Turkish Grand National Assembly Mr. Mustafa Şentop, Chief Ombudsman of the Ombudsman Institution Mr. Şeref Malkoç, members of higher judiciary as well as a large number of guests.

Delivering a speech at the symposium, President of the Constitutional Court Mr. Arslan noted “I would like to start my speech with a simple question: Why does State exist? In response thereto, books of numerous volumes were written both in the East and the West. In my opinion, one of the most satisfactory response is the one given by the late Ali Fuad Başgil, one of the leading jurists raised in this region. According to him, raison d’etre of States is “to ensure citizens to live in peace by assuring security and liberty”, which shall be achieved by binding the State with law; in other words, by establishing and maintaining a state of law along with its all rules and institutions”.  

 “Ombudsman Office and Individual Application Mechanism are Constitutionally Coetaneous”

Mr. Arslan, indicating that the right to petition had a long past, stated “Siyasetnâmes, the works which provide guidance about government administration to rulers, advise rulers to listen to the complaints of the public at certain intervals, to find solutions for their grievances, thereby securing the justice. The aim pursued by the councils established in this way is, inter alia, to ensure the public to know that the necessary actions to be taken in the interest of justice. In his work Siyasetname, Nizamülmülk mentions the deterrent effect of the procedure whereby the ruler deals with public complaints and dispenses justice two days in a week. Through this practice, tyrants abstain from doing wrong countrywide for the fear of being complained of”.

Noting that the existing ombudsman service and individual application mechanism, also known as constitutional complaint, date back to the said tradition of complaint and plea, Mr. Arslan stated that today’s complex social life and concerns diversified in parallel therewith brought along specialization and institutionalization.

Mr. Arslan, pointing out the constitutional amendment of 2010 as a milestone in terms of the right to legal remedies, reminded that the Ombudsman Institution and the individual application mechanism before the Constitutional Court were constitutionally coetaneous.  

“Remedies make sense as long as they are effective”

Mr. Arslan, stating that the objective of these institutions, in the broadest sense, is to safeguard the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individuals against the public authority, pointed out that the establishment of both constitutional institutions has been a revolutionary development in pursuit of the protection of fundamental rights. Also stating that with the more effective use of these remedies, it would be better understood that they were great acquisitions for our country, Mr. Arslan added that the remedies would make sense as long as they were effective.

 “The ECHR has laid particular emphasis on the fact that the Constitutional Court has made decisions in accordance with the ECHR’s case-law on the right to life”

President Mr. Arslan, also mentioning the individual application process, stated as follows:

 “The Constitutional Court has demonstrated that the remedy of individual application has been effective since 2012, despite all difficulties. As a matter of fact, the European Court of Human Rights has underlined at every opportunity that the individual application has been an effective domestic remedy, which was once again confirmed in its decisions of last week. In these decisions, the ECHR found the applications concerning the curfews started to be imposed at the end of 2015 and the operations carried out in this scope inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The ECHR indicated that the impugned complaints were also pending before the Constitutional Court and accordingly held that they must first be examined by the Constitutional Court. The Strasbourg Court laid particular emphasis on the fact that the Constitutional Court made decisions in accordance with the ECHR’s case-law on the right to life. Indeed, the Constitutional Court has meticulously examined the individual applications before it and has found many violations. Considering all these, the ECHR noted that the remedy of individual application to the Constitutional Court must be exhausted. Thus, those who are making an effort to prove that the remedy of individual application in Turkey is ineffective have failed once more.

“Objective purpose of the remedies is to prevent new violations of rights”

Pointing out the impossibility that neither the Ombudsman Institution nor the Constitutional Court could redress all violations of rights in the country, President Mr. Arslan stated that the objective purpose of the remedies must be particularly dwelled on. Mr. Arslan added that the said purpose is to prevent new violations of rights by making the necessary changes in the legal system, rather than redressing the concrete violation in each complaint and application.