Events
While the applicant was working at the District Health Directorate, he was dismissed due to archive research and security investigation. Thereupon, the applicant started to hold a sit-in at 13.00 every day in a park close to the District Governor’s Office. The applicant, who continued his protest by chanting slogans in the park despite the warnings of the law enforcement officers, was detained and an administrative fine was imposed separately for each sit-in, pursuant to Article 32 of the Misdemeanors Law No. 5326, due to the sit-ins against him on different days. The individual objections of the applicant to the said administrative fines were definitively rejected by the relevant criminal judgeships of peace (judges) on different dates.
allegations
The applicant alleges that his freedom of expression was violated due to an administrative fine on the grounds that he violated the order because he held a sit-in alone on different dates.
Court’s Evaluation
In the concrete case, it was seen that the action subject to the sanction was stated in the minutes regarding the administrative fine as opposition to article 32 of the Law No. 5326 (contrary to the order), and there was no explanation about the action of the applicant in the said minutes.
In the concrete case, it was observed that a decision was taken by the District Governor’s Office to prohibit activities to be carried out by real and legal persons within the boundaries of the district, on different dates. However, there is no information in the application form and documents, or in the appeal files against administrative fines, that the aforementioned prohibition decisions have been announced. In the reply letter sent by the District Governor’s Office, no information was given about when the prohibition decisions came into effect, whether they were announced to the public or not, and if so, by what means. Again, there is no data on the ban decisions on the official website of the district governor’s office.
On the other hand, in concrete cases, it is seen that the judges’ failure to comply with the warnings made to end the sit-in action of the applicant is sufficient for the misdemeanor of violating the order regulated in Article 32 of the Law No. 5326. In their aforementioned decisions, the judges did not make any assessments about the existence of a previously announced order, which is one of the elements required for the misdemeanor to act contrary to the order, and the detection of the behavior of the persons in violation of this order.
In the concrete case, it has been understood that there was no order duly announced on the dates when the applicant carried out his actions. Therefore, it has been concluded that the implementation of the provision in the aforementioned Law regarding the violation of the order without the formation of the elements does not carry the element of legality in terms of the action of the applicant.
The Constitutional Court decided that the freedom of expression had been violated for the reasons explained.