The ban from the sky in Istanbul

In recent days, we have been encountering an unusual form of warning in Istanbul. Police drones are making announcements to citizens via loudspeakers attached to them. Following Fatih, people consuming alcohol in open areas on the Üsküdar coastline were also warned via drone, with the message: “Alcohol consumption is prohibited here.” Subsequently, individuals were asked to leave the area, and it was stated that penal action would be taken otherwise.

At first glance, this situation might appear to be a routine law enforcement practice. A group of people is consuming alcohol on the beach, and the police are intervening. However, the method used and the legal basis for the warning require closer examination. First, the legal status regarding alcohol consumption in open areas must be accurately established. In Turkey, there are various restrictions regarding the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Law No. 4250 on the Monopoly of Spirits and Alcoholic Beverages is one of the fundamental regulations in this field. However, there is no provision in the law that prohibits alcohol consumption in open areas in every case and in a general sense.

In this regard, the general order titled “Sale of Alcohol and Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages” issued by the Istanbul Governor’s Office in 2023 constitutes an important example. With the regulation in question, it was requested that the sale and consumption of alcohol be prevented in public areas such as parks, picnic and recreation areas, coastal strips, and beaches, except for licensed businesses. The regulation was debated in the public sphere as an “alcohol ban” and was taken to the judiciary.

The Istanbul 7th Administrative Court initially rejected the case. However, during the appellate review, the 10th Administrative Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court made a different assessment. In its decision dated December 27, 2024, with file number E.2024/826 and decision number K.2024/2045, the court concluded that the part prohibiting alcohol consumption in public areas was not in accordance with the law, thereby overturning the first-instance court’s decision and ruling for the cancellation of the administrative act in question.

There is another important point in the court’s assessment. It is stated that there is no provision in Law No. 4250 aimed at generally prohibiting alcohol consumption in open areas. The fact that the Provincial Administration Law No. 5442 grants the governor authority to ensure public order does not provide the opportunity to introduce a new ban that does not exist in the law. The administration must remain bound by the Constitution and the laws while exercising the authority granted to it.

Article 35 of the Misdemeanors Law No. 5326 is also quite clear in this respect. The article does not target the person consuming alcohol, but rather the person who “behaves in a way that disturbs the peace and tranquility of others while intoxicated.” In other words, simply drinking alcohol and disturbing the peace and tranquility of others while intoxicated are not the same thing. For the misdemeanor defined in the law to occur, the elements of intoxication and behaving in a way that disturbs the peace and tranquility of others must be present together.

This distinction is extremely important. It is one thing for a person to sit on the beach and consume a beverage, and another for them to behave in a way that disturbs those around them while intoxicated. In the latter case, there is a clear legal basis for law enforcement intervention. In the former case, merely having an alcoholic beverage in one’s hand does not, in itself, constitute the act defined in Article 35 of the Misdemeanors Law.

Indeed, the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court also states in its decision that it cannot be concluded that mere alcohol consumption disturbs public order, and that the sanction under Article 35 of the Misdemeanors Law can only be applied if alcohol consumption turns into behavior that disturbs the peace and tranquility of others at the level of intoxication.

After all this, the announcement made via drone on the Üsküdar coastline, “Alcohol consumption is prohibited here,” takes on a different meaning.

Which ban are we talking about?

If the person is only consuming alcohol, which article of the law is being violated? Has it been determined that the person is intoxicated? What behavior has occurred that disturbs the peace and tranquility of others? What is the legal basis for the penal action that is threatened?

The citizen needs to know the answers to these questions.

Article 13 of the Constitution states that fundamental rights and freedoms can only be restricted by law. Moreover, the restriction must be in accordance with the requirements of a democratic social order and the principle of proportionality. An instruction or law enforcement practice of the administration cannot replace the law. A new ban that does not exist in the law cannot be presented to the citizen through an administrative order. The use of drones by the police is, of course, not an inherently unlawful practice. Developing technology offers significant opportunities for crime prevention, locating missing persons, conducting search and rescue operations in disasters, and ensuring security in large areas.

Today, the drone’s target is people consuming alcohol on the beach. Tomorrow, it could be claimed that another behavior disturbs public order or is contrary to public morality. Young people sitting in a park at night, a group chatting on the beach, two people behaving affectionately in a public space, or any other behavior that a segment of society does not approve of could become the subject of the same surveillance mechanism.

It is not possible to say that all these examples have the same legal value. However, as the state’s area of intervention expands, the question of where the boundaries will be drawn becomes more important.

In a state of law, the citizen must know in advance what is prohibited. Expressions such as “You cannot behave like this here” or “This is not done here” do not constitute a legal ban on their own. If a person’s freedom is to be interfered with, it must be possible to show which legal regulation this is based on.

In the announcement made from the drone, one sentence in particular stands out:

“Otherwise, penal action will be taken.”

Which penal action?

According to which article of the law?

For which act?

A warning made without providing the answers to these questions brings with it a serious legal debate.

George Orwell’s novel 1984 is worth remembering today for this reason. One of the most chilling aspects of the surveillance order in the novel was not just that people were being watched. It was that people began to change their behavior, thinking they could be watched at any moment. Public spaces should not be allowed to turn into such a psychology.

Istanbul’s beaches, parks, and squares are common areas for millions of people.

Ensuring security in these areas is the duty of the state. It is also necessary to prevent people from harming each other’s rights. However, the concept of public order should not turn into an unlimited authority that decides how people should live.

Attorney Deniz Ali İlkem Demir