Violation of the Principles of Equality of Arms and Contradictory Trials Due to the Weakening of Procedural Possibilities
Events
Saturday Dec.10/10/2015, after obtaining the necessary legal permits, some non-governmental organizations decided to organize a rally on peace, labor and democracy in Ankara between 12.00-16.00 hours. On 10.10.2015, while the crowd gathered in front of Ankara Train Station was preparing for a rally, a large number of people were killed and a large number of people were injured in two consecutive explosions at 22 Dec.04.
The applicant claimed that despite the intelligence information obtained before the bomb attack, there was a service defect due to the administration’s failure to take adequate measures on the day of the incident, that his mental integrity was impaired due to his presence at the scene and the events he experienced. he was a witness and filed a lawsuit for moral damages. Court dismissed the case and the applicant’s objection was rejected by the regional administrative court.
The Allegations
Applicant claimed that the principles of equality of arms and contradictory trial had been violated due to the weakening of procedural facilities in the case he filed with a claim for moral compensation due to the terrorist attack.
Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, the court conducted some research on whether the applicant was present at the scene and came to a conclusion based mostly on the information sent by the administrative authorities. Addition, the court requested the administration to determine whether the applicant was at the scene by examining data such as photos, videos, minutes, hospital, police, prosecutor’s records, MOBILE images and HTS records, but the administration stated that there were no records of the applicant’s name in the investigation initiated due to the incident and that he was injured. In this context, it was assessed that the public authorities did not conduct sufficient research on whether the applicant was present at the crime scene.
In addition, it was observed that no examination and evaluation was made regarding the photos that the applicant claimed were taken at the crime scene, his claim that his friend had signed the autopsy report was not investigated, and all these issues were not discussed. in the decision. Addition, no subpoena was sent to the treatment documents related to the medical report submitted by the applicant, and it was not investigated whether the medical diagnosis made in the report was medically determined related to the explosion incident. This case, it is understood that the evidence, which clearly has an impact on the merits, has not been investigated by the court of first instance and has not been taken into account in the evaluation of the result.
The applicant put forward the claim of service failure by emphasizing that the defendant administration did not take the necessary measures, the intervention of the security forces after the explosions aggravated the consequences of the attack, but the judicial authorities did not investigate and evaluate the incident. In the context of these allegations of the applicant. In the present case, the conclusion that there was no Deceptive link between the explosion and the psychological distress experienced by the applicant was not based on a research and examination appropriate to the concrete case.
Accordingly, when the judicial process was evaluated as a whole, it was determined that adequate examination and research were not conducted by the judicial authorities on the claims put forward by the applicant in the compensation case, and evidence affecting the merits was excluded from evaluation. evaluation. The lack of any research and evaluation by the court on the claims put forward by the applicant that may affect the outcome of the decision, and the fact that the court decided by giving priority to the administration’s account of the way the incident occurred, resulted in the applicant being placed in a weaker position than the defendant administration. This deficiency in the trial could not be compensated by the regional administrative court upon the applicant’s appeal request. Therefore, this situation has damaged the fairness of the trial as a whole.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court ruled that the principle of equality of arms and contradictory proceedings had been violated.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.