Cancellation of Some Articles of the Law No. 7244 on the Effects of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Economic and Social Life
A.
Provisional 13 of the Turkish Commercial Code Numbered 6102. examination of the phrase “… exceptions and …” in paragraph (3) of the article
In the rule subject to the lawsuit, it is stated that the Ministry of Commerce is authorized to determine the exemptions related to capital companies by taking the opinion of the Ministry of Treasury and Finance.
The fact that the legislative power belongs to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TGNA) and that this power is inalienable is a requirement of the separation of powers principle, and the inalienability of the legislative power essentially means that the law-making power cannot be transferred. It cannot be used by any institution other than the Turkish Grand National Assembly. Although it is sufficient for the legislative body to authorize the executive body with general statements in terms of derivative regulatory transactions, it may be contrary to the Constitution to authorize the executive body with general statements to make regulations on issues provided for by law in the Constitution. The principle of inalienability of legislative power.
The rule subject to the lawsuit, which provides that the Ministry of Commerce is authorized to determine exceptions for capital companies, gives unlimited, indefinite and broad regulatory authority to the executive, leaving the regulation of all relevant issues to the regulation, without determining the general principles related to capital companies. Authority to determine the exceptions granted to the Ministry of Commerce without drawing a legal framework. In this respect, it has been concluded that the rule is incompatible with the principle of inalienability of legislative authority.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court ruled that the rule was unconstitutional and annulled it.
B.
Law No. 6585 Oct 1st article (3) of the paragraph numbered in the first sentence of the “ … making arrangements…” examination of the phrase
In the rule subject to the lawsuit, it is stated that an Unfair Price Evaluation Board (Board) will be established to make regulations on exorbitant price increases and stocking practices of manufacturers, suppliers and retail enterprises, impose administrative fines and take all kinds of measures. By conducting inspections and inspections when necessary.
The freedom of private enterprise guaranteed by the Constitution means that every natural or private legal entity can establish a business to engage in economic and commercial activities in any field, engage in any professional activity and carry out this activity. He/she may carry out his/her activity and profession as he/she wishes without the intervention of the state or third parties. The rule subject to the lawsuit restricts the freedom of enterprise by giving the Board the authority to make regulations regarding exorbitant price increases and stocking practices of manufacturers, suppliers and retail enterprises. 13 Of the Constitution. according to the article, it is mandatory that the regulations that impose restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms are made by law, the principle of proportionality is observed in the regulations, and the regulations must comply with the reasons for restrictions provided for in the Constitution.
The Rule leaves the regulation of these issues entirely to the Board without regulating any legal framework, basic principles and principles in order to regulate exorbitant price increases and stocking practices of manufacturers, suppliers and retail enterprises. In this case, it has been concluded that the rule is incompatible with the condition that fundamental rights and freedoms are restricted by law.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court ruled that the rule was unconstitutional and should be annulled.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samle by clicking here.