Violation Of The Right To A Reasoned Decision Due To The Rejection Of The Appeal Request Without Any Justification
Events
The applicant, who was successful in the exams held to meet the police force’s need for police officers, started police vocational training. As a result of the security investigation conducted on the applicant during the training process, it was determined that his spouse had been sentenced for forgery of official documents and the announcement of the verdict was deferred (HAGB). Thereupon, pursuant to Article 7 of the abrogated Police Vocational Training Centres Entrance Regulation (Regulation), the applicant’s right to be a candidate student was terminated and the applicant was dismissed from the Directorate of Police Vocational Training Centre (POMEM). In the lawsuit filed for the cancellation of the transaction, the Administrative Court dismissed the lawsuit. Upon appeal, the Council of State upheld the court’s decision and rejected the request for correction of the decision.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his right to a reasoned decision was violated due to the rejection of his appeal request without any justification in the cancellation case filed due to his dismissal from the police vocational training centre upon the discovery that his wife had been given a HAGB decision as a result of the security investigation.
The Court’s Assessment
Article 70 of the Constitution regulates the right to enter public service as a fundamental right and Article 13 of the Constitution stipulates that fundamental rights and freedoms can only be restricted by law. In the case subject to the application, the applicant was dismissed from the POMEM on the grounds that he did not fulfil the conditions required for candidates applying to POMEMs based on the provision in the abrogated Regulation.
Law No. 3201, which authorises the abrogated Regulation to regulate the conditions to be sought for POMEM students, does not include any regulation in terms of the qualifications of POMEM students, and the additional article 24 of the aforementioned Law is sufficient to state that the conditions to be sought for the students to be admitted to POMEM will be regulated by regulation.
In many decisions of the Constitutional Court, it has been evaluated that the HAGB does not resolve the merits of the dispute, does not qualify as a decision that concludes the trial with a judgement and does not produce a final result in this context. In this context, the Constitutional Court drew attention to the fact that accepting the Leniency Decision as a decision determining guilt may violate fundamental rights, especially the presumption of innocence.
The applicant stated both in the petition and in the appeal petition that the provision of the regulation on the basis of which the transaction subject to the dispute was based was contrary to the higher legal norms, and also stated that the HAGB was not a finalised decision, that its nature was controversial and that it had the same result as acquittal after the probation period had passed.
It is clear that the claim that the repealed Regulation provision, which is decisive in terms of the applicant’s civil rights and obligations and which may directly affect and limit the applicant’s right to enter public service, is contrary to the law and the Constitution, is a fundamental claim that may change the outcome of the case.
Again, the seriousness of the applicant’s allegations regarding the nature of the HAGB institution is evident with the issue of whether an exception can be made by regulation to the evaluation of the HAGB despite the regulation and judicial jurisprudence that the HAGB is not a decision that concludes the trial with a judgement and in this context does not have a final result on the defendant – the applicant is not the defendant but the spouse of the defendant – and the seriousness of the applicant’s allegations regarding the nature of the HAGB institution.
Therefore, the applicant should have the opportunity to put forward these allegations before the courts and the courts should meet the substantive allegations in their decisions in accordance with the right to a reasoned decision.
In the concrete case, it has been understood that the main arguments put forward by the applicant, which may have an impact on the result, were not examined by the court of first instance and no evaluation was made in the reasoned decision. In this context, the main issues regarding the dispute were not discussed by the court of first instance in the reasoned judgement.
Again, despite the applicant’s request for appeal with similar allegations, it has been observed that no explanation and justification has been made by the appellate authority. As a rule, if there is sufficient justification in the decision of the court of first instance on the merits, it may be considered reasonable for the appellate authority to make an assessment by referring to this decision.
In cases where there is no justification in the decision of the court of first instance, the fundamental objections raised by the applicants must be met by the appellate authority in a reasoned manner. In the concrete case, although the main claims of the applicant were not discussed and justified by the court of first instance, it has been observed that the main claims raised by the applicant were not met by the appellate authority. It has been assessed that this situation renders the judgement as a whole unfair.
For the reasons explained, the Constitutional Court decided that the right to a reasoned judgement within the scope of the right to a fair trial was violated.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.