Events
The vehicle belonging to the applicant was stopped by the law enforcement officers upon the notification that there might be a terrorist suspect, and the vehicle was examined. Upon realizing that the vehicle, which the owner was not in, was for rent, the on-duty public prosecutor ordered the owner of the vehicle to be reached and delivered. Thereupon, the vehicle towed to the trustee’s parking lot by the law enforcement was returned to the applicant only 89 days later.
The applicant filed a lawsuit for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages demanding compensation for the damages he suffered due to the actual seizure. The High Criminal Court decided to reject the case, stating that it did not fall within the scope of Articles 141 and 142 of the Criminal Procedure Code No. 5271. Thereupon, the full remedy action brought by the applicant for pecuniary compensation was rejected on the grounds that there was no causal link between the damage and the action of the administration, that the administration did not have any will, fault or negligence in the incident, and that the damage was caused by the applicant’s own fault.
allegations
The applicant claimed that the right to property and the right to an effective application in the context of the property right were violated because the vehicle, which was decided to be delivered to its owner, was returned after a long time in violation of the principle of legality.
Court’s Evaluation
- In Terms of Alleged Violation of the Right to Property
It should be pointed out that in the concrete case, there was no seizure decision given by the law enforcement chief or the prosecutor’s office or the criminal judgeship of peace, based on Articles 127 and 128 of the Law No. On the other hand, it should be emphasized that there is no order to keep the vehicle or any claim that the vehicle was used in the crime or obtained from the crime.
As a result, the applicant, who recovered his vehicle only after 89 days due to the unreasonable delay in the determination of the real owner of the vehicle after the Prosecutor’s Office instruction, was deprived of income, the actual seizure was an intervention that did not comply with the procedure specified in Articles 127 and 128 of Law No. 5271, and the property It was concluded that the interference with his right violated the principle of legality.
The Constitutional Court decided that the right to property had been violated for the reasons explained.
- Regarding the Alleged Violation of the Right to an Effective Application in Relation to the Right to Property
It is observed that the applicant’s vehicle was actually confiscated for about three months. Since the vehicle has actually been seized, it is the responsibility of the public authorities to determine the real owner of the vehicle. During the criminal investigation, it may be reasonable to take a certain period of time for the item to be returned to its owner, especially in cases where the ownership of the item is in dispute. However, in the concrete case, it is obvious that the owner of the vehicle with its license can be determined from the license plate query – as long as the license plate is not fake – and then the address of the vehicle owner can be easily reached via the police PolNet or the address registration system. However, it is understood that the applicant’s information was reached three months later by the administration. However, it has not been revealed why it took three months to determine the owner and address of the vehicle. Therefore, although the Court has accepted that there is no causal link between the damage and the action of the administration, and that there is no intention, fault or negligence of the administration in the incident, it is indisputable that the passive attitude of the public authorities caused the delivery of the vehicle in an unreasonable time, while the applicant and his address could be determined in a short time.
Accordingly, despite the order of the applicant’s vehicle to be handed over to the owner by determining that it was not related to the crimes and suspects within the scope of the investigation by the public authorities, it was not determined within a reasonable time that the applicant was the owner of the vehicle that was actually seized, and the applicant could not benefit from the vehicle in his possession during this period. Therefore, while the public authorities’ and the applicant’s declared attitudes should be examined together, a decision should be made, but the courts of instance did not make an adequate assessment on the merits.
As a result, despite the unavoidable burden on the applicant due to the failure of the public authorities to act in accordance with the conditions of reasonable urgency and care, no compensation was paid to the applicant for the damages he claimed. In this context, the rejection of the claim for compensation imposes an excessive personal burden on the applicant. As a result, it has been concluded that an effective remedy including minimum guarantees was not offered to the applicant regarding the compensation of the damages incurred in the context of the property right in the circumstances of the concrete case.
The Constitutional Court decided that the right to an effective application had been violated for the reasons explained.