21.11.2024 10:02
The Constitutional Court (AYM) has made an important decision regarding passport cancellations. This landmark ruling is closely related to the passport rights of citizens. The Constitutional Court (AYM) annulled the legal provision that prohibited the issuance of passports to those deemed to have obstacles to leaving the country by the Ministry of Interior.
The Constitutional Court found the provision of the Passport Law, which states that passports will not be issued to those identified by the Ministry of Interior as having obstacles to leaving the country for general security reasons, to be unconstitutional in the case brought by the Ankara 19th Administrative Court.
The decision of the Constitutional Court, which was published in the Official Gazette, stated that the expression in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 22 of the Passport Law No. 5682, amended by Article 3 of Law No. 3463, which states "…to those identified by the Ministry of Interior as having obstacles to leaving the country for general security reasons…" is contrary to Articles 2, 13, and 23 of the Constitution.
FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ANNULLED
The Constitutional Court annulled the provision in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 22 of the Passport Law No. 5682, amended by Article 3 of Law No. 3463, which states that "…passports will not be issued to those identified by the Ministry of Interior as having obstacles to leaving the country for general security reasons…" as unconstitutional.
NOT OF A GENERAL NATURE
The Constitutional Court's decision included the following statements:
"… It is understood that the limitation imposed by the rule in question, which states that passports or travel documents will not be issued to those identified by the Ministry as having obstacles to leaving the country for general security reasons, is not a general limitation but is directed at specific individuals."
EMPHASIS ON THE FREEDOM TO TRAVEL ABROAD
In this regard, it has been observed that the freedom to travel abroad, as stipulated in Article 23 of the Constitution, can only be limited due to criminal investigations or prosecutions and must be guaranteed by a judicial decision. Therefore, it is seen that the rule violates the guarantee of a judicial decision linked to the reasons for limitation specified in the Constitution by leaving the ability to travel abroad to the discretion of the administration. Consequently, it has been concluded that the rule restricts the freedom to travel abroad contrary to the wording of the Constitution and the reasons for limitation provided in the Constitution.