ANKARA - The Constitutional Court decided to annul the article of the law, which stipulates the closure of media organizations and the transfer of assets to the treasury, underlining that it is unconstitutional.

 

The Constitutional Court decided to annul the article, which stipulates the confiscation of the properties of media organizations "Law of the Amendment and Adoption of the Decree-Law Regarding the Measures Required to be Taken under the State of Emergency and Making Regulations on Certain Institutions and Organizations" unconstitutional.

 

'LIMITATION ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS'

 

In the reasoning of the annulment decision of the Constitutional Court, it drew attention to the fact that the law in question was aimed at eliminating the threats or dangers that caused the declaration of the State of Emergency, however, allowed it to be applied in a way that exceeded the state of emergency. In the decision of the Constitutional Court it was underlined: "The examination of the rule should be made in the context of the other provisions of the constitution, especially the article in which the restricted right is regulated, and of course the 13th article, which is of fundamental importance in terms of the limitation and assurance regime of the rights and freedoms in the ordinary period. The law in question imposes restrictions on freedom of expression and press by foreseeing the closure of private radio and television organizations, newspapers and magazines, publishing houses and distribution channels under certain conditions."

 

'COURT'S DECISION REQUIRED FOR CLOSURE'

 

In the 13th article of the Constitution, "Fundamental rights and freedoms can be restricted only by law and depending on the reasons specified in the relevant articles of the constitution without interfering with their essence. Recalling that these restrictions cannot be contrary to the word and spirit of the Constitution, the requirements of the democratic social order and the secular republic, and the principle of proportionality, the Constitutional Court said: "Accordingly, the restrictions on the freedom of expression and press must be made by law, and must comply with the reason for restriction stipulated in the Constitution, the requirements of the democratic social order and the principle of proportionality. Article 28 of the Constitution, which provides for the closure of periodicals only by the court decision, saw the closure as a heavy sanction and stated that a court decision was necessary even for temporary closure. The rule ignores the means to achieve the same goal by regulating the direct and permanent closure of these private radio and television organizations, publishing houses and distribution channels, and that would create fewer restrictions on freedom of expression and press. It is indisputable that direct closure constitutes the heaviest intervention in fundamental rights and freedoms among all the means to achieve the same goal. The Constitutional Court decided that the rule was unconstitutional and canceled for the reasons it announced."