Events
The applicant was the chairman of the board of directors of G. Agricultural Products Marketing Industry and Trade Joint Stock Company (the Company), which is engaged in foreign trade, at the time of the events. The Company purchased long and medium grain rice from a company in the United States and brought it to the Port of Mersin on different dates. Following reports that some of the imported products were genetically modified organisms, the public prosecutor’s office initiated an investigation into the company’s executives, including the applicant, on charges of violating the Biosafety Law No. 5977. As part of this investigation, officials took samples of the rice and seized the products.
The Turkish Scientific and Technological Research Organisation, which examined the samples taken from the products, stated in its analysis report that sequences indicating that the product was genetically modified were found. Expert reports prepared by experts at Istanbul Technical University also stated that the products contained sequences indicating that they were genetically modified.
The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office filed a public case in the high criminal court with a request for the punishment of the applicant and several other individuals. The indictment also requested a decision on the confiscation of the seized rice and rice-type goods. Meanwhile, upon determining that the rice sold by the Company to the Ministry of National Defence through a tender did not comply with the Regulation on Genetically Modified Organisms and Products, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office filed a lawsuit requesting the punishment of the applicant and other individuals and the confiscation of the goods. This case was combined with another case heard in the High Criminal Court.
During the prosecution process, some reports obtained from various laboratories stated that the products contained genetically modified organisms, but it was stated that it could not be determined whether this was due to the rice itself or the contamination of genetically modified organisms. In his defence during the trial, the applicant argued that the contamination of the products with genetically modified organisms could have been caused by transport or storage conditions.
The High Criminal Court ruled to convict the applicant and confiscate the rice in question. Following the Court of Cassation’s decision to overturn this ruling, the applicant appealed to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Court of Cassation, requesting that the case be referred to the Criminal General Assembly (Ceza Genel Kurulu) of the Court of Cassation. The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Cassation, having examined the application, appealed to the Criminal General Assembly requesting that the decision be overturned. The Criminal General Assembly rejected the appeal of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Cassation.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that the principle of legality of crimes and penalties had been violated by establishing a conviction through the broad interpretation of the law for conduct contrary to biochemistry safety regulations, that the right to a fair trial had been violated due to the incorrect assessment of evidence and legal rules, and that his right to property had been violated due to the confiscation of products contaminated with genetically modified organisms.
The Court’s Assessment
In the specific case, with regard to the principle of legality of crimes and penalties, it was first examined whether the applicant was punished based on a formal law. In Article 15(1) of Law No. 5977, under which the applicant was punished, it is stipulated that a person who imports, produces or releases genetically modified organisms and products into the environment in violation of the provisions of this Law shall be punished, and in this context, it was concluded that the applicant was punished based on a formal law.
Interpreting criminal provisions in an expansive manner that deviates from the essence of the law may violate the principle of legality of crimes and punishments. In the specific case, the Constitutional Court, examining whether the interpretations of the judicial authorities were expansive in nature and deviated from the essence of the law, noted that Article 15(1) of Law No. 5977 referred to ‘[genetically modified organisms] and products imported in violation of the provisions of this Law…’. Article 2(1) of Law No. 5977 separately defines genetically modified organisms and products and the concept of contamination. Considering these definitions, it is not possible to accept as a foreseeable interpretation that products containing substances defined as contaminated fall within the scope of the offence in Article 15(1) of the Law. Taking into account the definition of the concept of contamination in the Law, it has been concluded that considering products containing contaminants as genetically modified organisms and products would be a forced interpretation that deviates from the ordinary meaning of the law.
In the specific case, the high criminal court conducting the trial accepted that the concept of genetically modified organisms and products covers not only products that are genetically modified organisms themselves, but also products contaminated by such organisms. The High Criminal Court ruled that both situations fell within the scope of the offence, without needing to clarify whether the rice product was a genetically modified organism or a product contaminated with genetically modified organisms. The Court of Cassation also found the conviction to be in accordance with the law. The Criminal General Assembly, drawing attention to the definition of ‘[genetically modified organisms] and their products,’ concluded that this definition also covers products contaminated with genetically modified organisms. In the final assessment during the legal proceedings, it was accepted that the rice product imported by the company of which the applicant was the chairman of the board of directors was contaminated with genetically modified organisms, and the ruling was based on this acceptance. In light of this information, it was concluded that the assessment of the rice product contaminated with genetically modified organisms as genetically modified organisms and products constituted an expansive and unpredictable interpretation that deviated from the essence of the legal regulation.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the principle of legality of crimes and penalties had been violated based on the reasons stated.