Violation Of The Rights To Property And Effective Application Due To The Prolonged Return Of The Vehicle Towed To The Trustee Car Park
Events
The vehicle belonging to the applicant was stopped by law enforcement officers upon a tip-off that there might be a terrorist suspect and the vehicle was examined. When it was realised that the vehicle, which had no owner, was rented, the public prosecutor on duty ordered that the owner of the vehicle be contacted and handed over. Thereupon, the vehicle, which was towed to the trustee car park by the law enforcement officers, was returned to the applicant only 89 days later.
The applicant filed a lawsuit for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages claiming compensation for the damages he suffered due to the de facto seizure. The Assize Court dismissed the lawsuit stating that it did not fall within the scope of Articles 141 and 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271. Subsequently, the full judgement lawsuit filed by the applicant for pecuniary compensation was rejected on the grounds that there was no causal link between the damage and the administration’s action, there was no intent, fault or negligence of the administration in the incident and the damage was caused by the applicant’s own fault.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that the right to property and the right to effective remedy in the context of the right to property were violated due to the return of the vehicle, which was ordered to be returned to its owner, after a long time in violation of the principle of legality.
Assessment of the Court
1. Regarding the Allegation of Violation of the Right to Property
In the concrete case, it should be pointed out that there was no order of the chief of the law enforcement or prosecutor’s office or a seizure decision issued by the criminal judge of peace based on Articles 127 and 128 of the Law No. 5271 on the vehicle towed to the trustee car park. On the other hand, it should also be emphasised that there was no order to take the vehicle under custody, nor any allegation that the vehicle was used in a crime or obtained from a crime.
As a result, it is concluded that the applicant, who regained his vehicle only after 89 days due to the unreasonable delay in the process of determining the real owner of the vehicle after the Prosecutor’s Office order, was deprived of income, the actual seizure was an intervention that did not comply with the procedure specified in Articles 127 and 128 of the Law No. 5271, and the interference to the right to property violated the principle of legality.
The Constitutional Court decided that the right to property was violated for the reasons explained.
2. Regarding the Allegation of Violation of the Right to Effective Application in Connection with the Right to Property
The applicant’s vehicle was de facto seized for approximately three months. Since the vehicle was de facto seized, it is the obligation of the public authorities to determine the true owner of the vehicle. During a criminal investigation, especially in cases where the ownership of the property taken under custody is disputed, it may be considered reasonable that it may take a certain period of time to return the property to its owner. However, in the concrete case, it is obvious that the owner of the vehicle, whose licence is in the vehicle registration – unless the registration plate is forged – can be identified from the number plate query and then the address of the vehicle owner can be easily reached through the police PolNet or the address registration system.
How.ever, it is understood that the administration accessed the applicant’s information three months later. However, it could not be revealed why it took three months to determine the owner and the address of the vehicle. Therefore, although the Court accepted that there was no causal link between the damage and the administration’s action and that the administration had no intent, fault 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 period of time when it was possible to identify the applicant and his address in a short time.
Accordingly, despite the order of the public authorities to hand over the applicant’s vehicle to its owner after determining that it was not connected with the offences and suspects within the scope of the investigation, it could not be determined within a reasonable period of 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 behaviour should have been examined together and a decision should have been taken, the courts of first instance did not make an adequate assessment on the merits.
As a result, no compensation was paid to the applicant for the damages he claimed, despite the fact that the applicant was burdened with an unavoidable burden due to the failure of the public authorities to act in accordance with the conditions of reasonable urgency and care. In this respect, the rejection of the compensation claim imposes an excessive personal burden on the applicant. As a result, it has been concluded that the applicant has not been provided with an effective remedy, including the minimum guarantees, for the compensation of the damages incurred in the context of the right to property under the circumstances of the concrete case.
The Constitutional Court decided that the right to effective remedy was violated for the reasons explained.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.