Constitutional Court annuls authority granted to the President: Emphasis on 'legislative power cannot be delegated'

The Constitutional Court has annulled the authority granted to the President through an amendment to the Law on the Protection of the Value of Turkish Currency.

Article 1 of the Law previously stated: “The President is authorized to regulate and restrict the buying and selling of foreign exchange, money, stocks, and bonds, as well as precious metals, precious stones, and any goods and assets manufactured from or containing these; the refining of precious metals; the export or import of all such goods and assets, commercial instruments, and any means and documents used to secure payment; and to take decisions for the purpose of protecting the value of Turkish currency.”

"LIMITATION ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS"

The 13th Chamber of the Council of State applied to the Constitutional Court on the grounds that the article in question was unconstitutional. In its ruling evaluating the application, the High Court emphasized that the authority to make decisions regarding the protection of the value of Turkish currency was granted to the President, and included the following assessments:

“The rule grants the President the authority to regulate and restrict matters concerning the ability of individuals to engage in debt-incurring and disposal transactions or commercial activities related to their assets within the scope of the aforementioned rights. Article 13 of the Constitution states that fundamental rights and freedoms can only be restricted by law. The rule grants the President the authority to make decisions that directly affect a significant portion of economic activities, namely the trade and movement of foreign currency and valuable goods. Granting the President the authority to make direct regulations without establishing the basic principles and foundations regarding the protection of the value of Turkish currency in the law is inconsistent with the principle that legislative power cannot be delegated.”

In line with these justifications, the Constitutional Court decided that the regulation in question was unconstitutional and ordered its annulment.