Constitutional Court ruling on CİMER: Annulled on grounds of being unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court has annulled Presidential Decree No. 101, which allowed applications to be made to public institutions and organizations via the CİMER platform. 

In a press release issued by the Constitutional Court, the reasoning for the annulment request was explained as follows:

"IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT IT IS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION"

"In the lawsuit petition, it was summarized that the rule, which concerns the freedom to seek legal remedies and the rights to petition and access information, contains regulations in a prohibited area that cannot be regulated by a Presidential Decree (CBK); that regulations stipulating limitations on fundamental rights and freedoms must be made exclusively by law; that the rule regulates matters already clearly regulated by law; and that it is not predictable for either individuals or the administration, and therefore it has been claimed that the rule is contrary to the Constitution."

The following statements were included in the Court's assessment:

"CANNOT BE REGULATED BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE"

The right to petition and the right to access information are constitutionally guaranteed under Article 74 of the Constitution. Article 104 of the Constitution states that fundamental rights, individual rights and duties, and political rights and duties located in the First and Second Sections of the Second Part and the Fourth Section of the Constitution cannot be regulated by a Presidential Decree. Considering the purpose of establishment contained in the rule subject to the lawsuit, it has been observed that the duties undertaken and activities carried out by CİMER fall within the scope of the right to petition and the right to access information guaranteed under Article 74 of the Constitution. In this respect, it has been understood that the rule containing regulations regarding the right to petition and the right to access information pertains to a prohibited area that cannot be regulated by a Presidential Decree.

On the other hand, an important relationship can emerge between the right to access information and many other fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, primarily freedom of expression, which also fall within the prohibited area that cannot be regulated by a Presidential Decree. In this context, it has been evaluated that regulations made regarding the right to access information may, in some cases, have effects and consequences in terms of other fundamental rights and freedoms that remain in the prohibited area in connection with this right, depending on their scope.

For the reasons explained, the Constitutional Court has decided that the rule is contrary to the Constitution and has annulled it.

LEGAL REGULATION REQUIRED

While the Constitutional Court decided that the annulment provision shall enter into force nine months after the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette, a legal regulation will need to be enacted for the practice to continue.