The Turkish Constitutional Court (“CC”) published a decision dated 22.05.2024 with application number 2022/31465 in the Official Gazette on 22.10.2024 concerning an individual application claiming the violation of the right to access to the court. According to the aforementioned decision, the claim of violation of the right of access to the court was examined, and the application subject to the decision was made upon the decision to "consider the case as not filed" due to the lack of the address and identity numbers of the defendants in the elimination of joint ownership case.
In this case, the CC requested an opinion from the Ministry of Justice (“Ministry”) The Ministry argued that the applicant was represented by an attorney and emphasized that according to Article 2 of the Attorneyship Law, attorneys have the authority to conduct research as part of their professional duties. The Ministry highlighted that the attorney, acting on behalf of the client, has the right to gather the necessary information. However, the applicant’s attorney responded, asserting that Turkish Citizenship Identification Numbers (“TCIN”) and shareholder addresses were unavailable in the land registry. He stated that attempts to obtain such information in writing from public authorities were unsuccessful due to the Personal Data Protection Law (“PDPL”), which precluded the sharing of such information, thus making it difficult to gather the necessary details on the shareholders.
In its examination, the CC referred to Article 119 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assessing the interpretation of the law and concluding that including the TCIN in the case petition is not mandatory. The CC underlined that this deficiency should not negatively impact the judicial process and noted that the requested TCIN data constitutes personal information within the scope of PDPL, emphasizing that personal data should be obtained in compliance with personal data protection principles and that obtaining such information unlawfully constitutes a crime.
While the CC accepted that the case petition must include the defendants’ address information, it found that dismissing the case as “considered as not filed” due to the applicant’s inability to provide these details within a strict deadline lacked a legal basis. Furthermore, the CC emphasized that in cases of the elimination of joint ownership, the court could investigate the addresses of the shareholders of the property through various public institutions.
The CC considered that the dismissal of the case due to the applicant’s inability to determine some shareholders' addresses and remedy this deficiency was unfair, given the nature of the case. The court concluded that the applicant’s right to access the court within the scope of the right to a fair trial was violated and ruled that the effects of this violation should be remedied.
In conclusion, this CC decision serves as a critical determination regarding the protection of the right to access to court and the principle of a fair trial, further ensuring that individuals can participate equally in legal proceedings, thus reinforcing the effectiveness and reliability of the judicial system. Moreover, as seen in recent discussions, the decision reaffirms the necessity of carefully addressing information-gathering activities conducted by parties and their attorneys during judicial proceedings within the personal data protection law framework.