A. The Rule Governing the Issuance of a Specially Stamped Passport to Lawyers

The Rule Under Consideration in the Case

The rule under consideration provides that lawyers who have an investigation or prosecution for certain crimes on their rights should not be issued a passport with a special stamp limited to the period of investigation or prosecution.

Justification of the Cancellation Request

In summary, in the case petition; It was stated that the rule in question limits the freedom of travel by stipulating some conditions for lawyers to be a holder of a specially stamped passport, and it was argued that the rule is contrary to the Constitution.

Assessment of the Court

It is clear that the failure to issue a specially stamped passport to the person concerned on the grounds that he is being investigated or prosecuted for certain crimes, as provided for in the rule, does not lead to the fact that the person is qualified as a criminal and criminal charges are being applied against him.

The fact that the legislator provides for certain conditions when making arrangements for people who can use specially stamped passports is only a limitation on obtaining such passports. Accordingly, as a holder of a specially stamped passport, the rule on the subject of the case, which can be summarized as providing for some conditions for accessing the opportunities provided for by the Constitution, is 23. there is no aspect limiting the freedom to travel abroad that is guaranteed in the article.

It can be said that lawyers who have and do not have investigations or prosecutions for certain crimes may be said to be in a similar situation in order to be able to make comparisons, as a rule, a difference is made between them dec

The inability of lawyers involved in the scope of the rule in question to obtain a specially stamped passport is not permanent and is limited to the duration of the continuation of investigations or prosecutions conducted for the aforementioned crimes against them.

An appropriate balance has been established between the intended purpose and the vehicle provided for by the rule by providing for the dec difference in the conditions related to obtaining the opportunity to obtain a specially stamped passport. In this context, according to the purpose of foreseeing the difference in question introduced by the rule, lawyers covered by the rule are not burdened excessively. As such, there is no direction contrary to the principle of equality in the rule.

The Constitutional Court has decided that the rule is not contrary to the Constitution and rejected the cancellation request for the reasons explained.

B. The Rule That Imposes Restrictions on the Freedom to Travel Abroad

The Rules of the Case

The subject of the case, which is determined to pose a threat to national security in general rules, the structure, formation or membership in groups or terrorist organizations or those in contact with them due to cancelled the passports of iltisak or have a passport and rights specified in these rules have been established for those who did not meet the requirements of the administrative process, provided that the results of research to be done by law enforcement units, according to the Ministry of interior it is arranged that can be given a passport.

Justification of the Cancellation Request

In summary, in the case petition, it was stated that the rules give authority to the administration in an area where the Constitution clearly provides for a judge’s decision, eliminates the opportunities for people to work abroad, creates an immeasurable interference in their private lives, and the rules are contrary to the Constitution.

Assessment of the Court

Article 23 of the Constitution in its article, it is stated that the freedom of a citizen to travel abroad can only be limited depending on the reason for the criminal investigation or prosecution and only by a judge’s decision.

In terms of those who are allowed to obtain a passport, the rules impose a restriction on their freedom to travel abroad, since certain conditions are stipulated by the rules of the case. On the other hand, granting this opportunity to some people with the rules leads to the fact that a passport cannot be obtained for those who are not allowed, so the rules in question also provide for a restriction on this freedom in terms of these people.

13 Of the Constitution, which is a dimension of freedom of travel and is specifically secured for the freedom to travel abroad. it should not be contrary to the limitation reasons specified in the Article and the assurance provided for here.

It is clear that in the rules of the case, the issuance of passports to people is limited, regardless of the reason for the investigation and prosecution of the crime and the judge’s decision.

Article 23 of the Constitution according to the article the freedom to leave the country may be restricted on account of a criminal investigation or prosecution, the judge in the case when the rule is connected to the assurance of protected some of the reasons for the aforementioned limitation of the Constitution of the predicted bounding into the reasons specified in item does not fit and therefore it is observed that contrary to the assurance of the judge that is linked to. As such, the rules restrict the freedom to travel abroad in violation of the Constitution.

For the reasons explained, the Constitutional Court decided that the rules were contrary to the Constitution and that their cancellation would take effect a year later, starting with the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette.