23 Feb THAT THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE MEETINGS AND DEMONSTRATION MARCHES WAS NOT VIOLATED DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE MAY1 CELEBRATION WAS NOT ALLOWED TO BE HELD IN TAKSIM SQUARE
Events
The applicant Trade Union notified the Governor’s Office on 25/4/2016 in order to organize a commemoration and celebration open to everyone on May 1st Labor and Solidarity Day in Taksim Square. The Governor’s Office did not consider the request appropriate on the grounds that Taksim Square is not one of the eight areas designated for use in May 1st Labor Day events and on the grounds of public order and public security. In the case filed for the annulment of the aforementioned decision, the court decided to reject Taksim Square on the grounds that it should not be within the designated meeting and demonstration areas for 2016, and that there was no illegality in the administrative procedure established by observing public order and security. The applicant Trade Union applied for an appeal against the decision to dismiss the case, and the regional administrative court decided to reject the appeal application.
Count
The applicant claimed that the refusal to allow celebrations in Taksim Square on May 1 violated his right to organize meetings and demonstration marches.
The Court’s Assessment
A. Background Information
on 20/7/2015, 34 people lost their lives and 73 people were injured in a suicide bomb attack claimed to have been carried out by DAESH during a press release about the conflicts in Syria in Suruc. After this attack, Turkey has been subjected to numerous terrorist attacks. Until December 2016, numerous terrorist attacks were carried out in many districts of Istanbul.
B. Evaluation of the Concrete Event
The days of May 1st, when meetings with wide participation and demonstration marches are organized, are the days when public authorities take more measures to protect public order than usual. Therefore, on such days, the conflict between the measures taken to protect public order and the fundamental rights of people will be inevitable. According to the Constitutional Court, the intervention in question cannot be accepted in accordance with the requirements of the democratic social order if it cannot be shown that the restriction is caused by a mandatory social need and is proportionate. For this reason, the considerations based on the administration’s justification for limiting the right to choose the venue and the limited opening of the square to access should be examined.
The Plenary Session of the Constitutional Court is 6 of the Law on Meetings and Demonstration Marches No. 2911, which authorizes the largest property supervisor of the neighborhood to determine the place and route where meetings and demonstration marches will be held. he found his article in accordance with the Constitution. However, he found that the objective meaning of the rule does not allow people to completely ignore the freedom to choose the place and route where they will organize meetings and demonstration marches. In its decision, the Constitutional Court emphasized that the place of the meeting or the route of the demonstration march is of great importance in order to convey the views desired to be announced to the interlocutors and to achieve the purpose of the meeting. For this reason, he stated that the property manager should use this authority in such a way as to respect the freedom of the organizers to choose a venue. According to the Constitutional Court, observing the delicate balance between the individual benefit of individuals who want to organize meetings and demonstration marches having the freedom to choose a venue and the public benefit of protecting public order and the rights of third parties in determining the location and route is a requirement of the principle of proportionality. Dec.
6 of the Law No. 2911. the item of the highest authority in a meeting or demonstration purpose, size, nature, and considering the number of participants of Public Order and to determine the place for the protection of the rights of third parties within the framework does not exclude. As a matter of fact, public areas are effective and natural places where meetings and demonstration marches are organized. These areas also serve a number of social and cultural needs of the public, such as recreation, travel and entertainment. Therefore, these areas can lead to a conflict of different freedoms. In case of Deconfliction of fundamental rights and freedoms, a reasonable balance should be established between the freedoms and a way should be adopted in which both are protected to the extent necessary. In this context, if the organization of a meeting and demonstration march in a public space restricts the rights and freedoms of others, there should be an appropriate solution to ensure that both segments exercise their rights instead of banning meetings and demonstration marches in that space Jul. In this context, it is possible for the property supervisor to determine different locations and routes according to the size and purpose of the meeting, and to make Deceleration between these venues, if necessary, in order to ensure a balance between public interest and individual benefit. Deceleration between these venues is possible.
First of all, the general conditions at the time of the intervention should be taken into account in the evaluation to be made regarding the concrete event. Terrorist organizations in reference to the date of the meeting subject, by a suicide bomb attacks in crowded public places-Istanbul and Taksim Square, including the destruction of the vast majority in the country and seeks to affect more areas of the devastating effects. In addition, as a result of the terrorist attacks carried out for this purpose, a large number of security officers and civilians have lost their lives and hundreds of people have been injured. Considering that the mentioned terrorist attacks continued after May 1, 2016, it cannot be said that the security reasons of the administration for holding a meeting with wide participation in Taksim Square are not concrete and justified.
The administration, taking into account the symbolic importance of the Labor Day commemoration events in Taksim Square for the workers, allowed a limited number of representatives of the unions applying to the administration to hold a memorial meeting in Taksim Square on May 1, Labor and Solidarity Day. As a matter of fact, many representatives of non-governmental organizations and political parties participated in this event. In this context, the Union flag and flags of the applicant organisations and trade unions, where some belong to a group of about a hundred people carrying 2016 1 May Labour Day celebrations, historic stroll down Istiklal Caddesi in Beyoglu 29/4/2016 within the scope of the issued and has made a statement. In addition, some trade union representatives organized events on the square on 30/4/2016 and 1/5/2016.
On the other hand, the Governor’s Office has also proposed an alternative gathering and demonstration march organization area for celebration in different meeting areas. As a matter of fact, the request of the Organizing Committee, which included the general secretary of the applicant Trade Union, to hold a May 1 celebration at a venue determined by the administration was approved by the Governor’s Office.
The administration has limited the right to meetings and demonstration marches by evaluating that the security reasons for holding a large-participation meeting in Taksim Square are clearly more severe than the disadvantage caused by banning the meeting. However, the mentioned right has not been completely eliminated, it has gone down a narrow restriction path by proposing an alternative venue and allowing a certain number of people to hold a commemoration event in Taksim Square. In this context, it has been understood that a fair balance has been established between public order and security and the right to organize meetings and demonstration marches, and that a way has been adopted in which both rights are protected to the extent necessary. Dec.
As a result, it has been concluded that the restriction imposed on the right to organize meetings and demonstration marches in the concrete case is not of a nature that makes the said right meaningless, meets a mandatory social need and is proportionate.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the right to organize meetings and demonstration marches has not been violated on the grounds described.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.
No Comments