Violation Of The Right To A Reasoned Decision Due To Failure To Provide A Separate And Clear Answer To The Allegations At The Legal Remedies Review Stage
Events
The applicant was imposed an administrative fine of 3,150 TL pursuant to Article 282 of the Public Hygiene Law No. 1593 with the Administrative Sanction Decision No. 493 of the Bismil District Security Directorate on the grounds that he violated the social distancing rule.
Bismil Criminal Judgeship of Peace rejected the applicant’s objection against the administrative sanction decision. The applicant’s attorney requested the cancellation of the fine on the grounds of jurisdiction on the grounds that the decision-maker in administrative sanctions to be imposed on citizens is the local authority, that law enforcement officers cannot notify the relevant person of the administrative sanction decisions they have issued without the approval of the local authority, that the decision of the Adana 4th Criminal Judgeship of Peace No. 2020/2751 Amended Work contains determinations in this direction, and that for these reasons, the decision of the Bismil Criminal Judgeship of Peace is against the procedure and the law. The aforementioned objection was definitively rejected by the decision of Diyarbakır 3rd Criminal Judgeship of Peace dated 30/9/2020.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that the right to a reasoned decision was violated due to the lack of a separate and clear response to the allegations that could change the outcome of the decision at the legal remedy examination stage of the application to the criminal judgeship of peace against the administrative fine imposed by the Provincial Hygiene Board based on the act of violating the social distancing measure taken within the scope of the new coronavirus outbreak.
Court’s Assessment
Considering the second paragraph of Article 294 of the Law No. 1593, which reads as follows: “Administrative fines stipulated in this Law shall be imposed by the local administrative supervisor.”, it has been evaluated that the claim that the Administrative Sanction Decision Record issued pursuant to Article 282 of the same Law is not in compliance with the law due to the fact that it was issued by unauthorised law enforcement officers is effective on the result in terms of the objection examination, in other words, it has the quality to change the outcome of the case.
Considering that the decision of the Bismil Criminal Judgeship of Peace does not make any evaluation regarding the legality of the administrative sanction decision in terms of the jurisdictional element, it is not clear from the reasoned decision whether the Diyarbakır 3rd Criminal Judgeship of Peace, which examined the legal remedy, examined for the first time whether the Diyarbakır 3rd Criminal Judgeship of Peace, which examined the legal remedy application for the first time, took into account the fundamental allegations that the administrative sanction decision was unlawful in terms of the jurisdictional element and that in a similar case, the Adana 4th Criminal Judgeship of Peace decided in favour of the objector.
In its grounds of rejection, the appellate authority did not carefully select the expressions indicating which of the allegations raised by the applicant for the first time in the legal remedy of appeal it did or did not take into account and did not give a separate and clear answer to the applicant’s aforementioned substantive allegations, leading to the suspicion that it did not examine the allegations that may affect the outcome of the case.
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.