The Rule That is the Subject of the LawsuitThe Rule That is the Subject of the Lawsuit
With the rule subject to the lawsuit, as a result of the audit, it is stipulated that additional time, not exceeding eight years from the end of the period specified in the first paragraph, may be given to the owners of all kinds of structures and open spaces that provide public services and owners of public transportatie Rule That is the Subject of the Lawsuit
With the rule subject to the lawsuit, as a result of the audit, it is stipulated that additional time, not exceeding eight years from the end of the period specified in the first paragraph, may be given to the owners of all kinds of structures and open spaces that provide public services and owners of public transportation vehicles to complete the deficiencies Oct.
Justification of the Cancellation Request
In summary in the lawsuit petition; the extension of the period determined by the rule is contrary to the positive obligation of the state to take measures to ensure the protection of disabled people and their adaptation to public life, violates the principle of equality with the principle of the social state, violates the obligation of the state to realize healthy and orderly urbanization, the extension of the period determined for the fulfillment of these obligations is the right to life, the right to the protection and development of material and spiritual assets, the right to respect for private life, it was stated that it violates the right to education and the right to work, and it was argued that the rule is contrary to the Constitution.
The Court’s Assessment
Article 2 and 3 of Law No. 5378 require that all public service buildings, open areas and public transportation vehicles be made accessible to disabled people.rticle 2 and 3 of Law No. 5378 require that all public service buildings, open areas and public transportation vehicles be made accessible to disabled people. However, a transition process has been envisagand 3 of Law No. 5378 require that all public service buildings, open areas and public transportation vehicles be made to disabled people. However, a transition process has been envisaged to make these places suitable for the accessibility of disabled people. However, the number 6353 is 34 of the Law. the provisional established by Article 3. In order to fulfill the obligations specified in the first part of the third sentence of the sixth paragraph of the article, an additional period of not more than two years may be granted. Article 7 of Law No. 7252 With the article, this period was re-regulated as “three years”, and with the article 15 of Law No.ith the article, this period was re-regulated as “three years”, and with the article 15 of Law No. 7333, the period was re-determined as “four years” Finally, the phrase “…four years…” in tith the article, this period was re-regulated as “three years”, and with the article 15 of Law No. 7333, the period was re-determined as “four years” Finally, the phrase “…four years…” in the sentence mentioned in the rule in question has been changed to “…eight years…” in order to ensure that both the temporary 2nd and the temporary 3rd in the article, the way has been taken to extend the periods stipulated for the transition process many times by legal regulations.
It is clear that the continuous extension of the period stipulated in the aforementioned articles of the Law in order to make all kinds of structures and open spaces that provide public services and public transportation suitable for the accessibility of disabled people will negatively affect the ability of disabled people to participate in society, join the workforce and live individually.
In addition, the Law provides for the establishment of a commission to inspect whether all kinds of public service buildings, open areas and public transportation vehicles are made accessible to disabled people, and also includes a temporary article 4 of the Law.n addition, the Law provides for the establishment of a commission to inspect whether all kinds of public service buildings, open areas and public transportation vehicles are made accessible to disabled people, and also includes a temporary article 4 of the Law. it is attached to the provision that an administrative fine will be applied for those who are determined by the audit commissions that they have not fulfilled their obligations stipulated in the article since the end of the period. However, the continuous extension of the period foreseen for the said areas and public transportation vehicles to be made accessible to disabled people renders the inspection mechanism foreseen in the Law ineffective and eliminates the possibility of administrative sanctions being imposed on those who do not comply with the obligations foreseen in the Law.owever, the continuous extension of the period foreseen for the said areas and public transportation vehicles to be made accessible to disabled people renders the inspection mechanism foreseen in the Law ineffective and eliminates the possibility of administrative sanctions being imposed on those who do not comply with the obligations foreseen in the Law. On the other hand, the continuity of the extension of the period will lead to the unwillingness of those who are obliged to make these areas and public transportation suitable for the accessibility of disabled people to fulfill their obligations.
On the other hand, it is clear that making public all kinds of buildings and open spaces and public transportation suitable for the accessibility of disabled people will not impose excessive burdens on relevant public institutions and organizations and private legal entities; it is possible to make these structures, areas and public transportation suitable for disabled people with some minor renovations and repairs to be carried out on these structures, areas and public transportation vehicles with some additions.
Accordingly, taking into account the date of publication of the Law, it was concluded that extending the prescribed period for carrying out the necessary works and operations for the purpose of making all kinds of structures and open spaces and public transport vehicles suitable for the accessibility of disabled people for another four years during the past period is contrary to the positive obligation to take measures to ensure the protection of disabled people and their adaptation to public life imposed on the state in the context of the right to protect and develop material and spiritual assets
The Constitutional Court ruled that the rule was against the Constitution and annulled it on the grounds explained.