Events
The applicant, who is a lawyer, entered the courthouse by unlocking the entrance reserved for the disabled as the turnstile for lawyers was out of order. When the applicant showed his ID card to the police officer Y.Ç. on duty, Y.Ç. pointed to the open disabled entrance door and asked the applicant to close it. When the applicant pushed the door closed and headed towards the courthouse, Y.Ç. called after him and asked him to lock the disabled entrance door. When the applicant refused to do so, Y.Ç. asked the applicant to show his ID card. When the applicant refused to show his identity card and wanted to continue on his way, Y.Ç. took the applicant by the arm and took him to the Police Station of the Courthouse. The applicant presented his ID card and left the police station, and on the same day he lodged a complaint with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office (Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office). The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office initiated an investigation against Y.Ç. on the charges of exceeding the limit of the authority to use force, insult and deprivation of liberty. The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision of non-prosecution on 13/11/2020, and the applicant’s appeal against this decision was rejected by the 1st Criminal Judge of Peace.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his right to personal liberty and security was violated due to the unjustified detention at the courthouse.
The Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, the applicant was arrested by a police officer on the grounds that he refused to show his identity card and was taken to the Police Station at the Courthouse. According to Article 4 of the Law No. 2559 on the Duties and Powers of the Police, in order to exercise the power to stop, there must be a reasonable reason based on the experience of the police and the impression gained from the situation. Since the authority to ask for identification is dependent on the authority to stop, there must be a reasonable reason for the authority to ask for identification. In the concrete case, it is seen that the applicant, who first headed towards the lawyer’s entrance, then came to the disabled entrance, took out his ID card from his pocket and then passed through the door and proceeded to the elevators, was stopped and asked to re-examine his ID card after entering the courthouse and proceeding to the elevators was not based on a reasonable reason. Failure to close the disabled entrance door cannot be characterised as a reasonable reason for stopping and asking for identification. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was detained on the grounds that he did not comply with an obligation stipulated by law.
On the other hand, it was not alleged that the applicant’s actions constituted a criminal offence or that the applicant had committed or was about to commit a criminal offence. It is understood that the reason for the police officer’s detention of the applicant was the failure to show identification. However, it is seen that failure to show identification is regulated in the legislation as a misdemeanour, not a crime. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was held on a criminal charge.
From this point of view, the detention of the applicant, even for a short period of time, is contrary to Article 19 of the Constitution in the case where it is not possible to talk about detention for the purpose of fulfilling an obligation stipulated by law within the scope of the second paragraph of Article 19 of the Constitution or arrest, detention or arrest within the scope of the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Constitution.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that the right to personal liberty and security was violated.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking