Putting up a poster to announce a meeting is connected to constitutional protection; however, it does not provide a general exemption from the rules on the use of public space. By the same token, failure to obtain a permit does not in itself justify every administrative fine. The correct identification of the act, the purpose of the permit system, its effect on public order and the severity of the penalty must be assessed together.
The Constitutional Court's (AYM) decisions in Halil Devrim Ulaş and others, B. No: 2015/12590, March 6, 2019 and İbrahim Hallaç, B. No: 2016/9009, November 7, 2019 show this distinction. In both applications, administrative fines were imposed because of posters containing a meeting announcement. In the first, the court found no violation of the right to hold meetings; in the second, it found a violation. What explains the difference is not merely the existence of the poster, but the circumstances of the case and the reasoning behind the sanction.
Under which fundamental right does putting up a poster fall?
A poster may be a means of expressing an opinion. Where it is used to announce a specific meeting, however, it has a direct link with the preparation of that meeting. In the two decisions examined, the Constitutional Court (AYM) assessed the applications under the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches, guaranteed by Article 34 of the Constitution. The general limits of freedom of expression are described in the article freedom of expression.
This classification does not mean that every poster dispute must automatically be examined under the same right. The purpose, content and connection to an event of the poster must be determined. A cultural event announcement, a commercial advertisement, a political statement by one person and a call to attend a meeting cannot be treated as the same file. The applicable regulation and the effect of the interference on the right must be set out together. For the general framework of the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches, see the article right to hold meetings and demonstration marches; for the limits of bans and interventions, see the article bans and interventions in meetings and demonstration marches.
Is putting up a poster the same act as carrying a banner by hand?
Sticking a poster to a wall or a public structure and a person carrying a banner in their hands are physically different conducts. When applying Article 42 of Law No. 5326 on Misdemeanors (Kabahatler Kanunu), which regulates the putting up of posters, the official record must clearly show which act was performed and by whom. Being in the same group or being seen near a banner does not answer the question of who put up the poster.
Legal characterization: The sanctioned conduct must be linked to the act described in the law. If this is not established before moving to the proportionality discussion, the examination is incomplete. This distinction is not a rule that carrying a banner can never be restricted; it shows that different acts should not be merged under the same misdemeanor on assumption.
Why was no violation found in the Halil Devrim Ulaş decision?
The applicants' group glued posters on the stairs of a pedestrian overpass in Ankara to announce a rally. Law enforcement officers (kolluk) warned them to keep the shared-use area open and not to pollute the environment. The activity continued. The municipal police (zabıta) imposed an administrative fine of 2,000 TL per person on the applicants; in judicial review, the fine for two of the applicants was reduced to 1,000 TL.
The AYM linked the requirement of a permit for putting up posters on public property to the prevention of visual pollution. It took into account that there was no claim that the announcement of the meeting had been entirely prevented, and that persons could exercise their rights to hold meetings while complying with rules protecting the environment (§§ 42–45). The political nature of the poster was not accepted as an exemption independent of the harm caused to public space.
Direct quotation from the decision and the ruling
“For this reason, it should be regarded as reasonable to expect the applicants to fulfil this condition”
Where the quotation appears: AYM, Halil Devrim Ulaş and others, B. No: 2015/12590, March 6, 2019, § 42; the part of the sentence before the reference in parentheses. The condition in the sentence is the permit condition for putting up posters in an area open to public use.
The ruling of the Constitutional Court: The claim concerning the right to hold meetings and demonstration marches was declared admissible, and the court held unanimously that Article 34 of the Constitution had not been violated. This result concerns the merits of the application. In the event described, the AYM reached the conclusion that it could not be said that the sanction was unnecessary or disproportionate.
It cannot be argued that the decision removes putting up posters entirely from constitutional protection. The AYM first accepted that there was an interference and then examined whether the interference was justified. Therefore, enjoying constitutional protection and being exempt from every restriction are different matters.
Why was a different result reached in the İbrahim Hallaç decision?
In the İbrahim Hallaç application, posters concerning the right to severance pay and a congress to be attended by women workers were put up under a bridge in the city centre. The municipality moved away from the lower limit and imposed an administrative fine of 5,400 TL. An objection was rejected on the ground that it was established that the posters had been put up without permission. The AYM found that this reasoning was not sufficient to explain the necessity and the severity of the sanction.
The court sought, in addition to the breach of the permit condition, a showing of why the interference was necessary. It examined whether there was relevant and sufficient reasoning on matters such as persistence in polluting the environment despite prior warnings, conduct going beyond the exercise of the right, or disturbance of public order or the danger of such disturbance. It concluded that the concrete file contained no required findings on these alternatives (§ 45).
Direct quotation from the decision
“However, where the exercise of a fundamental right is concerned, the mere breach of the permit condition may not be considered sufficient to justify the application of a sanction”
Where the quotation appears: AYM, İbrahim Hallaç, B. No: 2016/9009, November 7, 2019, § 44; the part of the sentence before the reference in parentheses. This statement does not remove the permit condition; it requires that the constitutional justification of the sanction be examined separately.
Ruling on the amount of the fine and on redress
The AYM took into account that the applicant was unemployed, the position of the fine within the lower and upper limits applicable in that period, and the absence of an explanation for moving away from the lower limit. It stated that the amount of the fine could have a deterrent effect on the future exercise of the right to hold meetings (§ 46). Thus, the fact that the penalty was within the statutory range was not considered sufficient for proportionality. For the legal basis of the sanction and its foreseeability, the article the principle of legality of offences and penalties may also be consulted.
The ruling of the Constitutional Court: The right to hold meetings and demonstration marches under Article 34 of the Constitution was found violated, unanimously. To remedy the consequences of the violation, the decision was sent to the İstanbul Anadolu 5th Criminal Judgeship of Peace (İstanbul Anadolu 5. Sulh Ceza Hâkimliği) for a retrial. The claim for compensation was rejected. It should not be said that the AYM annulled the administrative fine directly or awarded moral damages.
What are the decisive differences between the two decisions?
| Comparison | Halil Devrim Ulaş and others | İbrahim Hallaç |
|---|---|---|
| Conduct examined | Posting posters on the stairs of a pedestrian overpass | Posting posters bearing a meeting announcement under a bridge |
| Necessity review | Warning, continuation of the activity and protection of the environment were considered together | Necessity of the sanction and its effect on public order were not shown with sufficient reasoning |
| Proportionality | No excessive imbalance was found in the concrete circumstances | Moving away from the lower limit and the economic situation were not sufficiently assessed |
| Ruling | No violation | Violation; retrial; compensation claim rejected |
The distinctions in the table are a summary of the reasoning of the decisions. It cannot be concluded that a prior warning is always a single and absolute requirement in every case. The İbrahim Hallaç decision contains alternative assessments in paragraph 45. The question of prior warning must be read together with the full necessity and public-order review of the concrete case.
Our assessment: These two decisions support neither of two shortcut approaches: that unpermitted posters always lead to a violation, or that without a permit the penalty applies in every case. The real examination is whether the public space rule has been applied without unnecessarily suppressing the fundamental right. The judicial reasoning must make visible the act, its concrete effect on public space and the burden the penalty places on the person.
Which documents matter in a challenge to a fine?
First, the official record of the administrative sanction, the notification document, the provision applied and the reasoning for the fine should be obtained. Photographs should show the location of the poster and how it was put up. If the person's connection to the act is disputed, the images and the content of the official record that bear on it should be examined separately. Focusing only on the content of the poster may overlook the question of whose act it was. The general conditions for an individual application are set out in the article individual application to the Constitutional Court.
Any permit application and the reply to it should be added to the file, if there is one. What should be specified concretely is how the public space was used, whether passage was actually blocked, whether a warning was given, and what other means remain for announcing the meeting. These are more explanatory data than an abstract claim that public order was disturbed.
In a challenge to the amount of the fine, the economic situation, the effect of the sanction on the person and the reason for moving away from the lower limit should be addressed separately. The amounts of 1,000, 2,000 and 5,400 TL in the decisions examined belong to past files. These figures are not the current penalty schedule. The amount of any new sanction should be checked separately, using the year of the act and the provisions actually applicable.
Which route of challenge should be considered?
Under the general rule in Article 27(1) of Law No. 5326, an administrative fine may be challenged before the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği) within fifteen days at the latest from the date of service or oral pronouncement (tefhim) of the decision. Exceptions, such as special law provisions and cases where the same act is decided together with another decision of the administrative jurisdiction, should be examined separately.
A remedy against the judgeship's decision is a different stage from the first challenge. First, it is evaluated whether the decision is final. If an objection route is open under Article 29, under the current regulation the period is two weeks from service of the decision. The fifteen-day period for the first challenge and the two-week objection period must not be used interchangeably.
Preparation of the challenge should not be postponed after service; records of service and of when the person learned of the decision must be kept. Ordinary effective remedies must also be exhausted before an individual application to the AYM. The general thirty-day period under Law No. 6216 is assessed in the context of exhausting remedies and learning of the final decision. Citing an AYM decision does not restart the ordinary objection period.
Conclusion
The constitutional review of an administrative fine for putting up a poster does not end with whether a permit existed. The link between the act and the person, the concrete effect on public space, the necessity of the sanction and the proportionality of the penalty must be shown. When the Halil Devrim Ulaş and İbrahim Hallaç decisions are read together, it becomes clear that the protection of the fundamental right must be balanced, with concrete reasons, against the protection of the environment and of shared-use areas. The AYM's other decisions on qualified rights are discussed in the article AYM decisions on qualified rights, and the soldiers' freedom of expression and the duty of political neutrality in the article soldiers' freedom of expression and the duty of political neutrality.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a poster containing a call to a meeting not be fined?
There is no such general rule. A call to a meeting is connected with constitutional protection; nevertheless, the rules on the use of public space may still apply. The necessity and proportionality of the sanction must also be explained.
Is the absence of a permit alone a sufficient justification?
Not in every case. In the İbrahim Hallaç decision, gaps in the reasoning on the effect on public order, the necessity of the interference and the severity of the penalty were decisive.
Does being near a banner prove that a poster was put up?
Not on its own. It must be shown which act was performed and by whom. The difference between carrying a banner by hand and putting up a poster in an area is examined in terms of the legal elements of the sanction.
Was compensation awarded in the İbrahim Hallaç decision?
No. A retrial was considered sufficient redress, and the compensation claim was rejected. The finding of a violation and the compensation outcome must be kept distinct.
Sources and legal bases
- AYM, Halil Devrim Ulaş and others, B. No: 2015/12590, March 6, 2019, §§ 10–16, 42–46 and the operative part (hüküm). Full text access may require a login session.
- AYM, İbrahim Hallaç, B. No: 2016/9009, November 7, 2019, §§ 44–53 and the operative part (hüküm). Full text access may require a login session.
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Articles 13, 26 and 34.
- Law No. 5326 on Misdemeanors (5326 sayılı Kabahatler Kanunu), Articles 27–29 and 42; official consolidated text, accessed October 13, 2026.
- Law No. 6216 (6216 sayılı Kanun), Articles 45–50.
- AYM, Qualified Rights: Decision Summaries (Nitelikli Haklar: Karar Özetleri), June 2025, printed pp. 330–332.