Events
The vehicle belonging to the applicant was stopped and examined by law enforcement officers after a tip-off that there may be a terror suspect in the vehicle. Upon understanding that the vehicle in which the owner is not present is rented, the Public prosecutor on duty has instructed that the vehicle in question be reached and delivered to the owner. Upon this, the vehicle, which was towed to Police’s parking lot by the law enforcement agencies, was returned to the applicant only after 89 days.
The applicant filed a claim for material and non-pecuniary damages with a request for compensation for damages suffered due to the actual seizure. 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271 of the Criminal Court. and 142. stating that it does not remain within the scope of its articles, it has decided to dismiss the case. In addition, the full judicial case filed by the applicant seeking financial compensation was dismissed on the grounds that there was no connection of decency between the damage and the administration’s operation, that the administration had no intent, defect or negligence in the incident, and that the damage was caused by the applicant’s own fault.
Claims
The applicant claimed that the right of ownership and the effective right of application in the context of the right of ownership were violated due to the fact that the vehicle, which was decided to be delivered to the owner, was returned after a long time in violation of the principle of legality.
Evaluation Of The Court
1. Alleged Violation Of Property Rights In Terms Of
127 of the Law No. 5271 on the vehicle pulled into the Police’s parking lot in a concrete incident. and 128. it is necessary to point out that there is no decision on confiscation issued by a law enforcement officer or a prosecutor’s order or a magistrate’s court issued on the basis of its articles. On the other hand, it is also necessary to emphasize that there is no order to maintain the vehicle or an allegation that the vehicle was used in a crime or obtained from a crime.
As a result, due to the unreasonable delay in the process of determining the true owner of the vehicle after the prosecutor’s order, the applicant, who only regained his vehicle after 89 days, was deprived of income, the actual seizure of which occurred in accordance with Article 127 of Law No. 5271. and 128. it has been concluded that there is an interference that does not comply with the procedure specified in the articles and that the interference with the right to property violates the principle of legality.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the right to property has been violated on the grounds described.
2. With Regard to the Alleged Violation of the Right of Effective Recourse in Connection with the Right to Property
It seems that the applicant’s vehicle was actually confiscated for about three months. Since the vehicle was actually confiscated, it is the responsibility of the public authorities to determine the true owner of the vehicle. It may be considered reasonable that it will take a certain period of time for this item to be returned to its owner, especially in cases where the ownership of the item being stored is disputed during the criminal investigation. However, in a concrete case, it is obvious that the owner of the vehicle in the license plate can be identified from the license plate query – as long as the license plate is not fake – and then the owner’s address can be easily accessed via the safety PolNet or via the address registration system. However, it is understood that the information of the applicant was reached by the administration after three months. However, it has not been revealed why the identification of the car owner and his address took three months. Therefore, although it was accepted by the Court that there was no connection of decency between the damage and the administration’s operation, that the administration had no intent, defect or negligence in the incident, it is indisputable that the passive attitude of the public authorities caused the vehicle to be delivered in an unreasonable time while the applicant and his address could be determined in a short time.
Accordingly, the applicant’s vehicle and the suspects are not connected with the crime under investigation by public authorities determined that, despite instructions to be delivered to the owner, the owner of the vehicle that is actually confiscated the applicant within a reasonable time could not be determined, could not benefit from the applicant also owned vehicle during this time. Therefore, while the described attitudes of the public authorities and the applicant should be examined and decided together, there has not been an adequate assessment of the merits by the courts of instance.
As a result, despite the fact that the applicant was burdened with an excessive burden that was inevitable due to the fact that the public authorities did not act in accordance with the conditions of reasonable urgency and care, the applicant was not paid any compensation for the damages he claimed. The refusal of the claim for compensation in this minval imposes an excessive burden on the applicant personally. As a result, it was concluded that the applicant was not provided with an effective remedy in terms of compensation for damages incurred in the context of property rights in the circumstances of the concrete event, including minimum guarantees.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the right to effective recourse has been violated on the grounds described.