Violation Of Freedom Of Expression Due To Administrative Fine Imposed Due To Sit-in Protest
Events
The applicant was working at the District Health Directorate when he was dismissed from his job due to an archive search and security investigation. Thereupon, the applicant started a sit-in protest in a park close to the District Governorate every day at around 13.00. Despite the warnings of the law enforcement officers, the applicant, who continued his protest by chanting slogans in the park, was detained and administrative fines were imposed on him separately for each sit-in protest pursuant to Article 32 of the Law on Misdemeanours No. 5326 for the sit-ins he organised on different days. The applicant’s separate appeals against these administrative fines were rejected by the relevant criminal judgeships of peace (judgeships) on different dates.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his freedom of expression was violated due to the administrative fine imposed on him on the grounds that he had acted contrary to the order for staging a sit-in on different dates.
The Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, it was observed that the minutes regarding the administrative fine stated the action subject to the sanction as opposition to Article 32 of the Law No. 5326 (behaviour contrary to the order) and there was no explanation regarding the applicant’s action in the said minutes.
In the concrete case, it has been observed that the District Governorate has taken a decision to ban the events to be organised by real and legal persons within the borders of the district on consecutive and different dates. However, there is no information in both the application form and documents and in the files of objection to administrative fines that these banning decisions were announced. In the response letter sent by the district governorship, no information was provided as to when the banning decisions entered into force, whether they were announced to the public, and if so, by which means. Again, the official website of the district governorship does not contain any data on the banning orders in question.
.
On the other hand, in concrete cases, it is seen that the judges deemed the failure of the applicant to comply with the warnings to end the sit-in protest sufficient for the misdemeanour of violation of the order regulated in Article 32 of Law No. 5326. In the said decisions, the judges did not make any evaluation on the existence of a previously announced order and the determination of the behaviour of persons contrary to this order, which are among the elements required for the misdemeanour of contravening the order in accordance with the aforementioned Law.
In the concrete case, it is understood that there was no order duly announced on the dates when the applicant committed the acts. Therefore, it has been concluded that the application of the provision on behaviour contrary to the order in the aforementioned Law without its elements does not carry the element of legality in terms of the applicant’s action.
The Constitutional Court decided that the freedom of expression was violated for the reasons explained.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.