Cancellation of the Rule on Extending the Deadline for Disabled People to Access Certain Services
Subject Rule
In the rule subject to the case, as a result of the audit, the relevant municipalities and public institutions and organizations, owners of all kinds of public buildings and open spaces, as well as owners of public transport vehicles, it is stipulated that additional time may be given, not exceeding October from the end of the period specified in the first paragraph, to complete the deficiencies.
Reasons for the Cancellation Request
In summary, the petition of the case states that extending the period determined by the rule is contrary to the positive obligation imposed on the State to take measures to ensure the protection of persons with disabilities and their adaptation to social life, is contrary to the principle of the social state and the principle of equality, is contrary to the obligation of the state to realize healthy and orderly urbanization, and extending the period determined to fulfill these obligations violates the right to life, the right to protection and development of material and spiritual assets, the right to respect for private life, the right to education and the right to work.
Evaluation of the Court
In Articles 2 and 3 of Law No. 5378, it is stipulated that all public buildings and open spaces and public transportation vehicles must be made accessible to the disabled. However, a transition period has been envisaged in order to make these places accessible to disabled people. In addition, in the third sentence of the third sentence of the sixth paragraph of the provisional article 3 added by Article 34 of Law No. 6353, it is stipulated that additional time may be granted Oct, not exceeding two years, for the purpose of fulfilling the obligations specified in the first sentence.
This period was regulated as “three years” by Article 7 of the Law No. 7252, and the period was redefined as “four years” by Article 15 of the Law No. 7333. Finally, along with the rule subject to the lawsuit, the phrase “…four years…” in the said sentence has been changed to “…eight years…” and thus both Temporary 2. both in the article and in the Temporary 3. the periods stipulated for the transition period in the article have been extended many times by legal regulations.
It is clear that the continuous extension of the period provided for in the aforementioned articles of the Law regarding making all kinds of public buildings and open spaces and public transportation vehicles accessible to disabled people will negatively affect disabled people’s opportunities for participation in society, participation in working life and individual life.
In addition, the Law provides for the establishment of a commission to monitor whether all types of public buildings and open spaces and public transport vehicles are made accessible to disabled people, and in the provisional Article 4 of the Law, it is stipulated that administrative fines will be imposed on those who are determined by the audit commissions that they have not fulfilled their obligations by the expiration of the period.
However, the continuous extension of the period for making these areas and public transportation accessible to disabled people makes the supervision mechanism provided for in the Law dysfunctional and eliminates the possibility of imposing administrative sanctions on those who do not comply with the obligations provided for in the Law. The continuous continuation of the extension of the period will lead to those who are responsible for making these areas and public transport accessible to disabled people not wanting to fulfill their obligations.
On the other hand, it is clear that making all kinds of public buildings and open spaces and public transport accessible to disabled people will not impose an excessive burden on relevant public institutions and organizations and private legal entities; it is possible to make the structure, area and public transport accessible to disabled people with some minor modifications and repairs and some additions to be made to the structure, area and public transport in question.
Accordingly, considering the date of publication of the Law, it was concluded that extending the prescribed period for carrying out the necessary works and operations for making all kinds of buildings, open spaces and public transport accessible to disabled people for another four years is contrary to the state’s positive obligation to take measures to ensure the protection of disabled people and their adaptation to social life within the scope of the right to protect and develop their material and spiritual existence.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court ruled that the rule was unconstitutional and annulled it.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.