Evidence that the Principle of Legality of Crimes and Punishments has been Violated Due to the Broad Interpretation of the Penal Norm
Events
The applicant is G, a company engaged in foreign trade at the time of the events. He was the chairman of the board of directors of Agricultural Products Marketing Industry and Trade Joint Stock Company (Company). The company purchased long and medium grain paddy from a company in the United States and brought it to Mersin Port on different dates. Upon notification that some of the products brought in were genetically modified organisms, samples of paddy product were taken and the products confiscated by the authorities as part of the investigation initiated by the Prosecutor General’s Office against the company managers, including the applicant. Dec. A lawsuit was filed alleging that he committed acts contrary to the Biosafety Law No. 5977.
The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, which examined the samples taken from the products, stated that sequences indicating that the product was genetically modified were found in the analysis report. It was stated that the expert reports prepared by experts at Istanbul Technical University also contain sequences indicating that the genetics of the products have been changed.
While the Prosecutor General’s Office opened a public case at the High Criminal Court with a request for sentencing against the applicant and some other persons, the indictment also demanded confiscation of confiscated paddy and rice-type goods. On the other hand, after determining that the rice sold by the company to the Ministry of National Defense through a tender did not comply with the Regulations on Genetically Modified Organisms and Their Products, the prosecutor’s office filed a lawsuit with a request for punishment. a decision was made to confiscate the goods with the applicant and other persons, and the case was merged with the other case at the high criminal court.
During the prosecution process, some reports from various laboratories stated that the products contained genetically modified organisms, but it was not clear whether this was caused by the rice itself or by contamination of the genetically modified organism. In his defence during the hearing, the applicant argued that the contamination of the products with genetically modified organisms could be caused by the conditions of transport or storage.
The High Criminal Court convicted the applicant and ordered the confiscation of the rice subject to the crime. After the Supreme Court of Appeals approved this decision, the applicant applied to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals with a request to appeal to the Criminal General Assembly of the Supreme Court (Criminal General Assembly). The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals, which examined the application, applied to the Criminal General Assembly with a request to overturn the decision. Criminal General Assembly rejected the appeal of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court.
The Allegations
Applicant claimed that the principle of legality of crimes and punishments was violated due to the fact that the scope of the law was expanded and the violation of biochemistry safety legislation, the right to a fair trial due to the erroneous evaluation of evidence, and the decision to convict for violating the trial rules. The law and property right due to the confiscation of the product contaminated with genetically modified organisms.
The Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, in terms of the principle of legality of crimes and punishments, it was firstly examined whether the applicant was punished on the basis of a law in a formal sense. In the paragraph (1) of Article 15 of the Law No. 5977, where the applicant was punished, it is arranged that the person who imports, produces or releases genetically modified organisms and their products into the environment in violation of the provisions of this Law will be punished. in this context, it was concluded that the applicant was punished based on a formal law.
Subjecting the penal provisions to an extenuating interpretation in a way that is contrary to the essence of the law may constitute a violation of the principle of legality of crimes and punishments. Examining whether the interpretations of the judicial authorities in the concrete case were of an expansive nature that would distract from the essence of the law, the Constitutional Court pointed out that paragraph (1) of Article 15 of Law 5977 contained the following considerations: “The term [Genetically modified organisms] and their products imported in violation of the provisions of this Law …”. 2 of the Law No. 5977. in the first paragraph of the article, it was emphasized that the concepts of genetically modified organisms and their products and transmitters are defined separately.
Considering these definitions, it is not considered possible to accept as a predictable interpretation that products containing substances defined as contaminated are considered within the scope of the crime in paragraph (1) of Article 15 of the Law. Considering the definition of the concept of pollutant in the law, it was concluded that it would be a challenging interpretation to exclude products containing pollutants from the usual meaning of the law to be evaluated within the scope of genetically modified organisms and their products.
In the concrete case, the high criminal court accepted that the concept of genetically modified organisms and their products covers not only products of the nature of genetically modified organisms, but also products infected by these organisms. The high criminal court did not need to explain whether the paddy product was a genetically modified organism or a product contaminated with genetically modified organisms, and ruled that both situations fell within the scope of the crime.
Supreme Court also ruled that the conviction was in accordance with the law. The Criminal General Assembly drew attention to the definition of ”[genetically modified organisms] and their products” and concluded that this definition also covers products contaminated with genetically modified organisms. In the final evaluation conducted during the legal remedy process, it was accepted that the paddy product imported by the company of which the applicant is the chairman of the board of directors was infected with genetically modified organisms and a decision was made based on this acceptance. In the light of this information, it has been concluded that the evaluation of paddy products contaminated with genetically modified organisms as genetically modified organisms and their products is an expansive and unpredictable interpretation that takes away from the essence of the legal regulation.
For the reasons explained, the Constitutional Court decided that the principle of legality of crimes and punishments had been violated.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.