A public lawsuit was filed against the applicant on 4/3/2010 for establishing and managing an organization to commit a crime, trafficking drugs and stimulants within the framework of organization activities and other crimes. The lower court ruled that, 8/3/2012 for the crime of being a member of an organization established for the purpose of committing a crime and for the crime of drug trafficking within the framework of the activities of an organization. The court upheld the decision of the lower court just about convictions for membership of an organization established to commit a crime and the court reversed the ruling of the first instance about the provision established for the crime of drug trafficking within the framework of the activities of an organization established to commit a crime. Thereupon, in the trial held again, it was decided to punish the applicant for the crime of drug trafficking within the framework of organizational activity. The court reversed the ruling of the first instance on 30/6/2016. The decision given in the lawsuit carried out in accordance with this about the court affirmed the decision of the lower court on 13/9/2018. On 12/12/2018, the applicant made an individual application claiming that his right to a fair trial was violated and stated that he was sentenced by the incomplete and erroneous evaluation of the evidence and the trial is not completed within a reasonable time. The constitutional court of the Republic of Turkey has determined that the applicant's lawyer learned the conviction decision on 11/10/2018 though the National Judicial Network Information System (UYAP) and it is obligatory to report within 30 days the violation as individual of learning, the court found the application inadmissible due to timeout.
The applicant was arrested on 13/3/2018 with the allegation that she was caught while going abroad illegally and committed the crime of being a member of an armed terrorist organization and she placed in the penal institution. When the applicant is arrested, she was pregnant. Stating that she was arrested on 31/08/2018 despite being pregnant, she was kept under adverse conditions in the Penitentiary Institution, and that the conditions of detention put her and her baby's health at risk, she claimed that her right to life, the prohibition of maltreatment and the right to liberty and security were violated and that she could not access health services and got infected made an made an individual application. It has been determined that the applicant's room in the penal institution where the necessary hospital checks were made and where she was placed was suitable for living conditions. In addition, it was determined that the applicant was last referred to the hospital on 17/8/2018. The applicant was released on 28/9/2018. The applicant was convicted of being a member of a terrorist organization on 10/04/2019. The legal remedy process is continuing. According to article 148 of the Turkish Constitution, ordinary legal remedies must be exhausted to make an individual application. The constitutional court of the Republic of Turkey decided that the application of individual application without using the complaint remedy in Article 4 of the Law numbered 4675 is inadmissible due to the violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment due to the adverse conditions. The constitutional court of the Republic of Turkey this examines the complaints based on the unsuitability of the physical and medical facilities of penal institutions within the scope of the ill-treatment prohibition. As a result of its examination, the Constitutional Court decided that the allegation that the prohibition of ill-treatment was violated due to the detention, the applicant, was inadmissible due to the lack of basis.
The applicants were dismissed from the profession pursuant to the relevant statutory decrees (KHK) on the grounds that they were correlation to the Fetullah Terrorist Organization / Parallel State Structure (FETÖ / PDY) while serving as a public official (judge / prosecutor). Upon this, they applied to Turkey Bar Association (TBB) to become a lawyer. Turkey Bar Association has accepted the application. The Ministry of Interior has not approved this decision. Upon TBB's insistence on its decision, the Ministry of Interior filed an annulment action against TBB’s decide. The applicants were involved in the case besides the TBB. As a result of the case, the court decided to cancel the transaction since it was stated in the relevant Decree that the dismissed persons could not be in public service again, as the profession of attorneyship has the nature of a public service. The case taken to the the court dismissed. The applicants lodged an an individual application on the grounds that the profession of lawyer was not a public duty and that the court made an unfair decision by making a mistake in evaluating the evidence and applying the legal rules, violating the right to a fair trial. The constitutional court of the Republic of Turkey evaluated the procedure for the dismissed applicant to be registered on the bar association with a court decision on the basis of Article 36 by Constitution and was decided as follows. The constitutional court of the Republic of Turkey mentioning about to the broad interpretation of the relevant Decree Law, the fact that there is no relationship of trust between self-employed lawyers and the state, similar to that of a civil servant, while lawyers are performing public service, this relationship is against the order established by the Constitution, it has decided that the allegation that the right to a fair trial was violated is admissible.
In the petition filed on 9/1/2018 to the penal institution where he was convicted, the applicant stated that he had not been able to benefit from the visitor right for about three years and requested that three new persons be added to the visitor list. The institution refused this request as it did not comply with the deadline for the visitor list. The applicant make a complaint execution judge filed and his request was rejected on the grounds that he did not comply with the required time. The applicant received a refusal decision after applying the necessary legal remedies. On 05/04/2018, he stated that he was not notified by the administration regarding the required time, and that his request was rejected solely based on time, and that he was prevented from communicating with his relatives due to the rejection mentioned and that the right to protect the person's material and moral existence and the principle of equality were violated made an individual application The constitutional court of the Republic of Turkey has evaluated the issue according to Article 20 of the Constitution. Accordingly, there is a connection between the applicant's right to respect for private life, since the applicant, who is convicted in a penal institution, communicates with the outside world and has consequences for limiting his social relations. Prisoners have been given the opportunity to make changes in the visitor name list of three people under the Law No. 5275, in case of necessity, and the compulsory situations here are not considered limited. The nature of the period specified for the naming list is also not disclosed. In addition, law enforcement officers are obliged to investigate whether there is any harm in visiting visitors. The fact that the public authorities observe such a wide margin of appreciation and refuse the applicant's request on the grounds that it has exceeded the required time shows that it is far from achieving a fair balance between the right to respect for private life and the aim. As a result, it is found that the privacy of private life has been violated. The fact that the execution judge gives a refusal, to which the applicant applied, showed that the court strictly applied the provisions of the legislation and that the violation was due to the court decision. Consequently, the constitutional court of the Republic of Turkey decided that the allegation that the right to respect for private life was violated was admissible.
The applicant registered a 486 square meter field, registered in Ankara's Yenimahalle district, Aşağıyurtçu Mahallesi, island 218, parcel 10, his name of allocative registration by paying 143.791.000 TL. Yenimahalle Municipality, which took over the rights of Asağıyurtçu village, whose legal personality has ended, filed a lawsuit for the cancellation and registration of the title for the real estate registered in the name of the applicant. The case was accepted and became final on 14/2/2011. The applicant filed a debt action against the municipality on 10/6/2013. As this case was dismissed, the applicant appealed. The appellant overturned the decision to dismiss the case, saying that it should be considered within the provisions of unjust enrichment. In the trial made upon this, the court of first instance partially accepted the case and decided to pay 143.79 TL to the applicant together with the legal interest to be incurred from the date of the case. The applicant appealed the decision on 5/2/2016 and requested the calculation to be made over the amount on the date of the case. The court upheld the decision of the lower court. Final decision was notified on 23/11/2017. The application made an individual application on 08/12/2017 with a claim that the real value of the real estate purchased for the price was not paid, instead, it was decided to pay fort he price in 1997, and that the claim was lost in value due to the intervening period and that his property right was violated. The constitutional court of the Republic of Turkey evaluated the issue within the scope of Article 35 of the Constitution. In the event that the receivable, which is evaluated in the context of the right to property, is depreciated in the face of inflation, the necessary measures should be taken by the public authorities in order to compensate the damage caused by the applicant's inability to benefit. In the present case, the amount of the property right of the applicant, which was considered and ordered to be returned, was not paid with the difference to compensate the loss of value. As a result, considering the period from the date of payment to the date of the lawsuit, it is understood that the applicant's receivable within the scope of property right was significantly depreciated against inflation. Therefore, The constitutional court of the Republic of Turkey decided that the allegation that the property right was violated was admissible.