THE CONTESTED ALANYA ON DUTY CRIMINAL COURT
attractive:
address :
THE CONTESTED INSTITUTION:
SUBJECT OF OBJECTION: My objection to the curfew is the administrative fine.
EXPLANATIONS:
Although I do not accept that I have violated the Curfew Restriction and other claims against me within the scope of the circular issued by the Ministry of Interior, the legal basis of the curfew is Article 11/C of the Special Provincial Administration Law and Articles 27 and 72 of the Public Hygiene Law.
Although the Provincial Administration Law has clearly given the Governors the authority to make decisions and take measures on some issues, I think that imposing a curfew based on this law is contrary to the principle of “determinism of the rule of law” regulated in Article 2 of the Constitution. When articles 27 and 72 of the Public Hygiene Law No. 1593 are examined, it is seen that they include powers such as quarantining sick and suspected cases in homes or hospitals for a certain period of time, conducting examinations for travelers, and applying quarantine in a certain region in connection with epidemic diseases.
I believe that the situations in the relevant articles are contrary to Articles 13 and 15 of the Constitution. believe that the situations in the relevant articles are contrary to Articles 13 and 15 of the Constitution. Article 13 of the Constitution in case the fundamental rights and freedoms in Article 15 of the Constitution are restricted under certain headings. when the article i believe that the situations in the relevant articles are contrary to Articles 13 and 15 of the Constitution.
Article 13 of the Constitution in case the fundamental rights and freedoms in Article 15 of the Constitution are restricted under certain headings. when the article is examined, war, mobilization or states of emergency should occur when it is possible to restrict a person’s fundamental rights and freedoms. However, although the coronavirus epidemic is a disease, it does not meet the conditions specified in the Constitution and is in violation of Articles 27 and 72 of the General Hygiene Law. I am of the opinion that the curfew imposed under the Provincial Administration Law and the General Hygiene Law is against the provisions of the Constitution.
Again, the curfew that caused me to be punished was implemented not by law but by a circular am of the opinion that the curfew imposed under the Provincial Administration Law and the General Hygiene Law is against the provisions of the Constitution.
Again, the curfew that caused me to be punished was implemented not by law but by a circular. This practice is also contrary to the essence of the Constitution.
Application for objection to the administrative fine imposed on the same subject on the same grounds, Republic of Turkey Adana 5. It was accepted by the Criminal Court of Peace “in accordance with Article 28/8-b of the Misdemeanors Law No. 5326, due to the illegality of the administrative sanction decision”.pplication for objection to the administrative fine imposed on the same subject on the same grounds, Republic of Turkey Adana 5. was accepted bypplication for objection to the administrative fine imposed on the same subject on the same grounds, Republic of Turkey Adana 5. It was accepted by the Criminal Court of Peace “in accordance with Article 28/8-b of the Misdemeanors Law No. 5326, due to the illegality of the administrative sanction decision”.
The administrative fine imposed on the applicant by the said Court was “dated 24.02.2021 and 2021/1183 D.İs it was removed by a numbered Decision”. I believe that this decision constitutes a “precedent decision” and I submit the decision as an October supplement to this petition.
The administrative fine imposed on me was issued by the administrative law enforcement. However, the authority in this matter belongs to the Local Administration Directorate, not the law enforcement. It is unlawful in termshe administrative fine imposed on me was issued by the administrative law enforcement. However, the authority in this matter belongs to the Local Administration Directorate, not the law enforcement. It is unlawful in terms of authority for the law enforcement to impose an administrative fine. As a result of the appeal against another administrative fine issued on the same grounds and the same subject, the Court of Cassation considered 19.
The case law of the Criminal Chamber assessed the illegality in terms of the aforementioned authority as follows:
“Administrative fines written in this Law are imposed by the local civil administrator.Administrative fines written in this Law are imposed by the local civil administrator. although it contains the provision “; Since the authority to make the administrative sanction decision belongs to the local civil authority, it has been assessed that the transaction will be unlawful in terms of the ”authority” element in terms “Administrative fines written in this Law are imposed by the local civil administrator. although it contains the provision “; Since the authority to make the administrative sanction decision belongs to the local civil authority, it has been assessed that the transaction will be unlawful in terms of the ”authority” element in terms of the obligation to keep the incident (misdemeanor) record of the administrative fine.
For all these reasons, I request the cancellation of the administrative fine imposed on me.
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST:
For the reasons I briefly explained above, upon acceptance of my objection, I respectfully submit and request the cancellation of the administrative fine in the amount of TL 3.150,00 issued in violation of the law.ST: For