The 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 with relevant municipal and public institutions and organizations, as well as to the 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
2 of the Law No. 5378. and 3. in its articles, it is mandatory to make all kinds of structures and open spaces that provide public services suitable for the accessibility of public transportation vehicles for disabled people. However, a transition process has been envisaged in order 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. it is attached to the provision that additional time may be given, not exceeding two years, in order to fulfill the obligations specified in the first sentence of the third October of the sixth paragraph of the article. 7 of the Law No. 7252. this period has been reorganized as “three years” with the article 15 of the Law No. 7333. with the article, the period has been re-determined as ”four years”. Finally, the phrase “…four years…” contained in the sentence referred to by the rule subject to the case has been changed to “…eight years…”, in this way it is necessary to temporarily 2. if necessary, temporary in article 3. 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 monitor whether all kinds of structures and open spaces that provide public services and public transport vehicles are made suitable for the accessibility of disabled people, and also provides for the temporary 4th amendment 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 prescribed period to make these areas and public transport vehicles suitable for the accessibility of disabled people makes the supervision mechanism provided for in the Law dysfunctional, and also eliminates the possibility of imposing administrative sanctions on those who do not comply with the obligations provided for by 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; with some minor modifications and repairs to be carried out on these structures, areas and public transportation vehicles, as well as some additions, it is possible to make these structures, areas and public transportation suitable for the accessibility of disabled people.
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 has decided that the rule is contrary to the Constitution and its cancellation on the grounds explained.