ANTALYA REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
TO BE SENT TO
TC ……… TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT
DECISION NO.: 498.06441/…….
DATE OF DECISION: 02/04/2018
CASE:
Claim: In 2017, a single-story building was constructed on the land located at Merkez ………….. Neighborhood …. Name ….. Parcel ………. By that time, if the property had been sold ………… additionally, the subscriber obtained electricity and water for the building in accordance with the real estate and zoning plan to apply for the benefits of this document; therefore, the allegation that the mayor disregarded court decisions, forged a document, and committed fraud against official institutions.
DATE OF NOTICE:
Subject of the Objection: Our request for the revocation of the investigation authorization issued pursuant to the decision dated ………… and numbered ………. by the Alanya Governor’s Office.
INSTRUCTIONS
I was shocked when I received the decision regarding the Alanya Governor’s Office’s investigation authorization dated ……… and numbered ……… However, since I believe the relevant decision violates procedural and legal norms, I am obligated to file my objection within the prescribed timeframe. Therefore, the relevant provisions of Law No. 4483 on the Prosecution of Public Officials and Other Public Servants have been clearly violated.
While I was preparing this document, the Building Registration Certificate was obtained by the individuals who approached me, and the necessary applications for the subscriber were submitted to the relevant departments of the Alanya Municipality. To reiterate, the document filled out by T is a completed document requested by the Alanya Municipality. Therefore, I do not accept the allegations made against me or the claims of favoritism.
Article 4, Paragraph 3 of the aforementioned Law states: “Under this Law, complaints and other abstract and serious allegations or complaints regarding public officials and civil servants must be based on signs and documents identifying the person or incident; the submission of a report, complaint, or petition requires the petitioner’s correct first name, last name, and signature, as well as the indication of their work or residential address.” However, the document submitted to me is not based on any evidence, and the allegations remain unsubstantiated.
.
The relevant provisions of Law No. 4483 on the Prosecution of Public Officials and Other Public Servants have been clearly violated.
First, according to the final paragraph of Article 6 of Law No. 4483, the competent authority decides whether or not to authorize an investigation based on this report. Such decisions must be substantiated.
In the decision communicated to me, only the complainant’s abstract statements were cited as grounds; thus, it is believed that permission for an investigation was granted using vague language, and that the reasons justifying this permission were used to raise suspicion, that expressions were used in a manner likely to cause doubt, and that permission for an investigation against me was granted without a valid justification, relying solely on the complainant’s one-sided statements; this situation is contrary to the final paragraph of Article 6 of Law No. 4483.
As reiterated in Article 6 of the same law, “the person or persons assigned to conduct the preliminary investigation, inspectors from the Ministry, and the appointing authority possess all the powers granted under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and there are no provisions in this law regarding how such matters should be handled; the examination of the statement of the public official or other public servant, by taking their views and collecting the necessary information and documents, and by submitting a report containing a situation report to the competent authority, falls within their own authority. If the preliminary investigation is conducted by more than one person, differing opinions are stated separately in the report along with their justifications.”
.
The competent authority decides whether to initiate an investigation based on this report. Such decisions must be substantiated.” When all these matters are considered together, the decision communicated to me constitutes a violation of procedure and the law. This is because the abstract claims in the decision are not substantiated by documents, and the preliminary investigation was not conducted in accordance with the legal provisions set forth in the law.
The inspector or official authorized to conduct the preliminary investigation collects statements from the person subject to the investigation and, if applicable, the complainant, along with witness statements, and gathers all evidence, information, and documents related to the investigation. The authorized inspector or official conducting the preliminary investigation prepares a report evaluating the findings and evidence resulting from the preliminary investigation and submits the matter to the competent authority. During the preliminary investigation, no objections were raised to my views; therefore, the decision issued based on the prepared report also constitutes a violation of the law.
Although the person subject to the complaint does not admit to the allegations, for the reasons stated above, the complainant’s claims are abstract and general in nature. They should not have been accepted by the Alanya District Governor; their acceptance is unlawful and contrary to the law. This is an unfounded accusation made by the complainant with the intent to harm me. For these reasons, I cannot accept the accusation.
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST
For the reasons stated above and other relevant considerations, I earnestly request that your objection to the decision dated 0……….. and numbered ………. by the Governor of Alanya, regarding the granting of permission to investigate me, be rejected; that there is no basis for granting such permission; and that my objection be accepted.