Events
The applicant who succeeded in the exams held to meet the police officer needs of the police department has started his police professional education. As a result of the security investigation conducted on the applicant during the training process, it was determined that his wife was sentenced for forgery in the official document and the announcement of the sentence was left undone. On top of this, 7 of the Entry Regulation (Regulation) of the mülga Police Vocational Training Centers. in accordance with the article, the applicant’s right to be a candidate student has been terminated and the process of dismissal from the Directorate of Police Vocational Training Center has been established. In the case filed with a request to cancel the transaction, the Administrative Court decided to dismiss the case. On appeal, the Council of State ruled on the approval of the court’s decision and also rejected the request to correct the decision.
Claims
The applicant claimed that his right to a reasoned decision was violated due to the fact that the appeal request was rejected without any justification in the cancellation case filed due to the removal of his wife from the police vocational training center as a result of the decision as a result of the security investigation, which was made.
Evaluation Of The Court
Article 70 of the Constitution. in its article, the right to enter the civil service is regulated as a fundamental right and is again regulated by Article 13 of the Constitution. in its article, the rule is given that fundamental rights and freedoms can only be limited by law. In the case subject to the application, the applicant was dismissed from POMEM on the grounds that he did not meet the conditions required for candidates applying to POMEMS, taking as a basis the provisions contained in the relevant Regulation.
In the Law No. 3201 authorizing the October Regulation on the regulation of the requirements to be sought for POMEM students, no regulation has been included in terms of the qualifications of POMEM students, annex 24 of the said Law. in the article, it is stated that the requirements to be sought for students who will be admitted to POMEM will be regulated by regulation.
In many decisions of the Constitutional Court, it has been assessed that the HAGB has not decided the merits of the dispute, that it is not a decision that concludes the trial with a verdict, and that it has not produced a final result in this context. In this context, the Constitutional Court has pointed out that the adoption of the decision as a decision determining guilt may violate fundamental rights, especially the presumption of innocence.
The applicant stated that the provision of the regulation on the basis of the dispute resolution is contrary to the norms of the upper law both in the petition and in the appeal petition, and also stated that the is not a final decision, its nature is controversial, and after the probation period has elapsed, it has the same result as an acquittal.
The applicant’s civil rights and obligations in terms of a decisive nature, scope, and also the right to enter into public service provision repealed its laws and regulation that directly affect the claim of unconstitutionality may be restricted in the case of a fundamental nature that can change the outcome of the claim is clear. Again, it is obvious that the is not a decision that concludes the trial with a verdict, and in this context, the applicant’s claims to the nature of the HAGB institution cannot be excluded by the regulation despite the regulation and judicial case law that the defendant, not the defendant, is the defendant’s spouse, do not have a final result, and the applicant’s claims to the nature of the HAGB institution are serious. Therefore, along with the fact that the applicant has the opportunity to assert these claims before the courts, in accordance with the right to a reasoned decision, the courts must also meet the claims based on their decisions.
In the concrete case, it was understood that the main arguments put forward by the applicant that could be effective in the outcome were not examined by the court of instance and no assessment was made regarding the issues mentioned in the reasoned decision. In this context, the main issues related to the dispute were not discussed in the reasoned decision by the court of cassation.
Again, although the applicant filed an appeal with similar claims, it was found that no explanation had been given by the appellate authority for these issues and no justification had been established. As a rule, if there is sufficient justification for the merits of the decision of the court of cassation, it may be considered reasonable to make an assessment by the appellate court with reference to this decision. In cases where there is no justification for the decision of the court of first instance, the main objections raised by the applicants must be met by the appellate authority in a reasoned manner. In the concrete case, although the main claims of the applicant were not discussed in the decision by the court of first instance and no justification was established, the main claims put forward by the applicant were also not met by the appellate authority. It has been assessed that this situation makes the trial as a whole unfair.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the right to a reasoned decision within the scope of the right to a fair trial has been violated on the grounds described.