Click to read the article in Turkish
Protesting at İstanbul's Bakırköy Square to get their jobs back after being discharged from public service, teachers Nursel Tanrıverdi and Selvi Polat previously appealed against the administrative fines.
The Bakırköy 6th Penal Judgeship of Peace and the Bakırköy 5th Penal Judgeship of Peace have concluded that curfew is not a ban that is regulated by law and no fines shall be imposed for this reason.
The judgeship has also indicated that there is no explanation for the reason why the fine was imposed at the upper limit (3 thousand 150 lira).
CLICK - 'I want my job back' protesters to be paid damages
Fines imposed under the pretext of pandemic
Since they were discharged, teachers Nursel Tanrıverdi and Selvi Polat have been protesting at Bakırköy Square in İstanbul. Over the course of their protests, they were taken into custody several times.
They have been acquitted in court cases; however, the police are still fining them as per the Article 72 of the Law on Public Health on the grounds that they do not abide by the pandemic measures.
Nursel Tanrıverdi appealed against the recent two fines via her attorney Ferdi Yaman; the judgeships have cancelled the fines.
CLICK - 'Police don't have the authority to "fine citizens on the street"'
'Abiding by the measures is not obligatory'
In cancelling the fines, Mustafa Yusuf Sıbıç, the Judge of the Bakırköy 5th Penal Judgeship of Peace, has referred to the Article 13 of the Constitution, which says, "Fundamental rights and freedoms may be restricted only by law and in conformity with the reasons mentioned in the relevant articles of the Constitution without infringing upon their essence."
The Judgeship of Peace has noted that "the obligation of quarantine" is not among the restrictions foreseen by the Article 72 of the Public Health Law, which is cited as the ground for fining people.
The ruling has referred to Article 232 of Public Health Law no. 1593, which regulates the administrative fines to be imposed on people in case they fail to observe the bans cited in that law or to abide by the related restrictions.
Within this context, the Bakırköy 5th Penal Judgeship of Peace has concluded that "the failure to abide by the obligation of quarantine due to COVID-19 as part of the struggle against epidemic or infectious diseases is not an obligation openly regulated in the Law no. 1593" and, thus, "it is not possible to apply Article 232 of Law no. 1593 for the related act."
'Police report doesn't indicate the violation
The Judgeship has also noted that the police report as to the related administrative fine is undue. The ruling has read:
Considering that the accountable report containing concrete data as to the nature of the violation subjected to the administrative fine and the ways in which the act in question happened and giving detailed information about the violation in question was not submitted to our Judgeship, it has been ruled that the appeal shall be accepted and the administrative sanction shall be lifted.
'Not among the bans in the law'
Turgut Aydın, the Judge of the Bakırköy 6th Penal Judgeship of Peace, also gave a similar ruling on June 21, 2021.
The judge has underlined that curfew is not among the bans cited in Article 72 of the Public Health Law no. 1593:
It has been seen that the measures to be implemented are cited in a limited manner in the Article 72 of the Law no. 1593 (on Public Health) and curfew is not among the measures indicated.
'Why imposed at the upper limit?'
The ruling of the Judgeship has also questioned the reason why it was not explained why the administrative fine was imposed at the upper limit.
Similarly, the Bakırköy 6th Judgeship of Peace has concluded that "the grounds and accountable reports as to the administrative fine have not been presented and the fine was imposed at the upper limit" and ruled that "the appeal is justified." Accordingly, the Judgeship has accepted the appeal and lifted the related administrative sanction. (AS/SD)
