Events
The applicant went to the bank branch to utilise the loan after being informed by the bank that he had a credit limit. The branch personnel stated that the applicant had to sign the contract by writing ‘I received a copy by hand’ on the contract in order to complete the loan transactions. Although the applicant stated that he could not do this because he was visually impaired and that he could overcome these deficiencies through different methods such as visually impaired alphabet and camera recording, the applicant was kept waiting in the bank branch for more than two hours and left the bank branch without being able to use the loan. The applicant filed a lawsuit for non-pecuniary damages against the bank before the civil court of first instance. The court partially accepted the case and ordered the defendant bank to pay the applicant the non-pecuniary damages. The regional court of justice, which examined the bank’s appeal application, decided to accept the appeal application and dismiss the case definitively.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that he was kept waiting for a long time in the private bank where he went in order to utilise a loan, on the grounds that it was not possible to determine how to sign his signature due to his visual impairment, and that the prohibition of discrimination in connection with the right to the protection and development of one’s material and moral existence was violated.
The Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, it is clear that the applicant is in a similar situation with other individuals who want to use a loan, except that he is visually impaired. Accordingly, the applicant’s inability to use a loan due to his visual impairment constitutes different treatment. Therefore, a difference has been created on the basis of disability in terms of the utilisation of credit between bank customers whose situations are similar.
In the case, it could not be demonstrated by the respondent bank that there was an objective and justifiable basis for the different treatment that the applicant was subjected to because he was visually impaired. The state has a positive obligation to ensure that persons with disabilities can live equally with other individuals, taking into account their special needs. As a matter of fact, there is an agreement in national and international regulations on the protection of persons with disabilities against discriminatory treatment.
According to the reasoning of the Regional Court of Appeal, the refusal to grant the loan was based on the hesitation of the bank staff in terms of the technical procedures to be carried out due to the applicant’s visual disability. Therefore, it was understood that the special needs of the visually impaired applicant were not taken into account. As a matter of fact, it could not be demonstrated that due diligence was shown by both the bank and the regional court of justice in terms of the effective implementation of an alternative measure that takes into account the applicant’s situation regarding the bank transaction in question. In this case, the main reason for the applicant’s inability to use the loan is based on the fact that he is visually impaired and the provisions of the legislation to be applied in this case are not applied by considering the constitutional principles. The regional court of appeal failed to provide a relevant and sufficient justification that national and international regulations regarding the legal proceedings of disabled individuals were interpreted in the light of constitutional guarantees.
As a result, it is concluded that there is no objective and justifiable reason for the treatment of the applicant on the basis of his visual impairment in terms of not being able to use a bank loan and being kept waiting at the bank branch for a long time.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that the prohibition of discrimination in connection with the right to the protection and development of one’s material and moral existence was violated.