Violation of Freedom of Expression and the Right to Organize Meetings and Demonstrations Due to Decisions to Postpone the Announcement of Judgments
Events
The applicants were sentenced to imprisonment or fines for expressing their opinions in various ways or for their actions at meetings and demonstrations they attended, but they were placed under probation with a five-year suspended prison sentence (YAGB).
Allegations
The applicants claimed that the HAGB decisions issued against them for various crimes violated their freedom of expression and their right to organize meetings and demonstrations.
Th e Court’s Assessment
The Constitutional Court has previously ruled in numerous decisions that HAGB decisions and probation periods imposed for expressing various opinions constitute interference with and violations of certain fundamental rights and freedoms, such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and the right to organize meetings and demonstrations.
In specific applications, it has been accepted that HAGB decisions, which were issued as a result of actions contrary to various guarantees of the right to a fair trial, primarily the equality of arms, the right to defense, the right to legal counsel, and the right to a reasoned decision, constituted an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression or their right to organize meetings and demonstrations. In this context, it is necessary to determine whether the interventions resulting from HAGB decisions issued at the end of separate trial processes against the applicants meet the criteria of legality.
The current legal regulations are insufficient to resolve the problems arising from the application of the HAGB institution; they cannot systematically eliminate the deterrent effect on the applicants’ various fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to organize meetings and demonstrations. Indeed, it is clear that the legal amendments to the HAGB institution in Law No. 5271, the Supreme Court’s case law on the subject, and the practices of the courts of first instance are insufficient to resolve the problems detailed in the decision.
It has been concluded that the legislation establishing the HAGB institution as a whole contains structural problems that lead to the continuous violation of fundamental rights and freedoms, primarily freedom of expression, and that these problems cannot be eliminated outside the scope of the legislature’s regulations, for example, through the interpretations of the judiciary. Under the current circumstances, the courts of first instance and the Court of Cassation have been unable to prevent the HAGB institution, which is applied to all decisions subject to appeal, from violating the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs protected by Articles 26 and 34 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court, as a result of all its evaluations, concluded that the interventions arising from the application of the HAGB institution, which is the subject of the applications, did not meet the criteria of legality.
The Constitutional Court ruled that freedom of expression and the right to organize meetings and demonstrations had been violated for the reasons stated.