Violation of the freedom of expression and the right to organize meetings and demonstration marches due to non-compliance with the legality of the intervention
Events
The applicants were tried in different criminal cases on the allegation that their participation in meetings held on various dates or their statements of opinions constituted a crime according to criminal law and that they committed these crimes on behalf of a terrorist organization. Applicants were punished for the crimes corresponding to the acts they claimed in the criminal code and were punished with fines in various amounts, considering that they had committed these crimes on behalf of a terrorist organization.
The Allegations
Applicants claimed that their freedom of expression and rights to organize meetings and demonstrations had been violated due to their conviction of committing a crime on behalf of a terrorist organization for participating in a demonstration march or expressing an opinion, although they were not members of the organization.
The Court’s Assessment
In a similar application, the Constitutional Court examined the claim of the applicant, who was convicted of committing a crime on behalf of a terrorist organization despite not being a member of a terrorist organization due to his participation in a demonstration organized on call, and made a decision. The claim that the terrorist organization’s right to organize meetings and demonstration marches was interfered with (Hamit Yakut, B. No: 2014/6548, 10/6/2021).
As a result of the evaluations made by the Court, the 220 of the Law No. 5237. he concluded that the paragraph (6) of the article is not obvious in terms of content, purpose and scope, and cannot provide legal protection to the applicant against arbitrary interference with his constitutional right. 34 Of the Constitution. It is protected by Article 220 of the Law No. 5237 and therefore. It is understood that the intervention arising from the implementation of paragraph (6) of the article does not meet the requirement of legality.
In addition, the Constitutional Court has applied the pilot decision procedure in order to ensure that, on the one hand, all similar applications are resolved by the relevant authorities instead of being examined and concluded with a violation, and on the other hand, the structural problem is eliminated. The source of the violation is eliminated by eliminating it. For this reason, the Constitutional Court decided to postpone the examination of applications of the same nature as the existing application and new applications that will continue to be received after this date for one year from the date of publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Newspaper in accordance with paragraph (5) of Article 75 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court.
Undoubtedly, it is at the discretion of the legislative body to make legal regulations, which are an important part of the state policy to be adopted in the fight against terrorism. However, in Hamit Yakut’s application, the Constitutional Court examined the lawfulness criteria of the intervention within the scope of its constitutional powers and duties and clearly stated that the interventions were carried out on the basis of paragraph (6) of Article 220 of Law No. 220. Since the Law No. 5237 is not specific and predictable, it was necessary to make changes to the relevant legal regulation.
Hamit Yakut’s decision was published in the Official Gazette dated 3/8/2021 and numbered 31557 and notified to the legislative body for the solution of the structural problem. Just as no legislative amendments have been made to paragraph (6) of Article 220 of Law No. 5237 within the specified period, the legislative body has not made any legislative amendments aimed at making paragraph (6) of Article 220 of Law No. 5237 accessible.
It is predictable and final in accordance with the principles stated in the decision of the Constitutional Court and is based on Article 13 of the Constitution. Prevention of arbitrary behavior of bodies using public power in the sense sought in the article. This situation led to the failure to fulfill the requirements of the Constitutional Court’s pilot decision and continued the unlawful interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression and the rights to organize meetings and demonstration marches in the applications whose review was postponed.
In the concrete case, there is no reason to deviate from the principles of the Constitutional Court’s Hamit Yakut decision and the conclusion reached. As a result, the Constitutional Court concluded that the interventions made to freedom of expression and the right to organize meetings and demonstration marches arising from the implementation of paragraph (6) of Article 220 of Law No. 5237 did not meet the requirement of legality.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court ruled that the right to freedom of expression and the right to organize meetings and demonstration marches were violated.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.