Events
While the applicant was working at the District Health Directorate, he was terminated due to archival research and a security investigation. Upon this, the applicant started to hold a sit-in action every day at around 13:00 in a park located close to the District Governor’s Office. Despite the warnings of the law enforcement agencies, the applicant, who continued his action by shouting slogans in the park, was detained and charged with 32 of the Misdemeanor Code No. 5326 due to the sit-ins he had performed on different days. in accordance with the article, an administrative fine was applied separately for each act of residence. The applicant’s separate objection to these administrative fines was rejected by the relevant magistrates (judges) definitively on different dates.
Claims
The applicant claimed that his freedom of expression had been violated due to an administrative fine on the grounds that he had acted contrary to the order because he had been sitting alone on different dates.
Evaluation Of The Court
32 of Law No. 5326 on the action subject to sanctions in the minutes on the administrative fine in a concrete case. it was noted that it was stated in the form of opposition to the article (contrary to the order), and in the minutes in question there was no explanation for the applicant’s action.
In the concrete event, it was seen that a decision was taken by the District Governor’s Office decisively and on different dates prohibiting activities to be carried out by natural and legal persons within the district borders. However, there is no information in the application forms and documents, as well as in the appeal files for administrative fines, that these prohibition decisions have been announced. The reply letter sent by the District Governor’s Office also did not provide information on when the prohibition decisions came into force, whether they were announced to the public and, if they were announced, by what means they were made. Again, there is no data on the prohibition decisions in question on the official website of the district governor’s office.
However, in concrete cases, the judges do not comply with the warnings made by the applicant who has taken a sit-in action to end his action in accordance with Article 32 of the Law No. 5326. it is seen that he has accepted sufficient for the formation of a misdemeanor in violation of the order regulated in his article. The judges did not make any evaluations about the existence of a previously announced order, which is one of the elements necessary for the formation of a misdemeanor of conduct contrary to the order in accordance with the Law referred to in these decisions, and the detection of people’s behavior contrary to this order.
In the concrete case, it was understood that there was no duly declared order at the time of the applicant’s actions. Therefore, it was concluded that the application of the provision on conduct contrary to the order contained in the aforementioned Law without the formation of its elements does not carry the element of legality in terms of the applicant’s action.
The Constitutional Court has decided that freedom of expression has been violated on the grounds described.