25.12.2025 20:35
The Turkish Human Rights and Equality Institution assessed the rejection of a citizen's reservation request on the grounds that the entire guest group consisted of men as "discrimination" based on gender, and imposed an administrative fine of 50,000 lira on the business owner.
A decision that could serve as a precedent has been issued by the Turkish Human Rights and Equality Institution. According to the information obtained, a citizen applied to the institution with the claim that a business in a picnic area did not accept the reservation request due to the fact that the entire group of friends was male.
ANOTHER GROUP HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BEFORE
In the examination, it was stated in the opinion provided by the relevant business that no discriminatory treatment based on gender, race, ethnicity, language, or religion was conducted at the establishment, and that a reservation from a group consisting of men had been accepted before.
In the defense, it was claimed that a group of friends consisting entirely of men had disturbed other customers while receiving service from the business before, and therefore, the reservation request of the applicant was not accepted with the anticipation that a group of 8 people could lead to larger problems.
A FINE OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF LIRA WAS IMPOSED
In the investigations, it was seen in the screenshot of the WhatsApp correspondence provided by the applicant that the citizen's request was met with a negative response, stating "our garden is a family garden, have a good day."
As a result of TİHEK's investigations, it was decided that the prohibition of discrimination based on gender was violated on the grounds that the citizen was prevented from benefiting from the service offered equally compared to other individuals, and an administrative fine of 50,000 lira was imposed on the owner of the business.
"DIRECT DISCRIMINATION BASED ON GENDER"
In the justification of the board, it was stated that one of the grounds for discrimination listed in Article 3 of Law No. 6701 is gender.
The decision emphasized that any different treatment that prevents or makes it difficult for a person to benefit equally from legally recognized rights and freedoms compared to those in comparable situations due to their gender constitutes direct discrimination based on gender.
The decision pointed out that there was no concrete and objective basis for the claim that the applicant's group of friends could create unrest, and it was noted that there was no legitimate reason for the relevant business operating the picnic area to refuse the reservation.