The right to hold meetings and demonstration marches protects the peaceful expression of ideas together with others. Under the Constitution, no prior permission is required for an unarmed and non-aggressive meeting. However, there are statutory notice and order rules. A deficiency in notice, the peaceful character of the meeting, law enforcement intervention and a penalty imposed afterwards must be assessed separately. A procedural deficiency does not by itself justify every use of force or every penalty. [1; 2]
This article is for general information. The venue and time of the meeting, the participant’s personal conduct and the legal nature of the act applied may change the outcome.
What protection does a peaceful meeting enjoy?
Article 34 of the Constitution and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guarantee organizing and attending meetings. A meeting is one of the collective forms of exercising freedom of expression. In addition to the obligation of public authorities not to interfere, a duty to protect participants from attacks by third parties may also arise. [1; 3]
The protection is not limited to quiet events that cause no disturbance. Meetings may affect daily life to a certain extent. However, interests such as the safety of others and access to transportation and services are also weighed. In the review, the degree and duration of the disturbance, the effect of alternative venues or methods, and the severity of the interference matter.
One participant’s violence does not require that the conduct of all participants be regarded as the same. The applicant should explain their own act, their location and their connection with the intervention. On the other hand, a person’s participation in violence or conduct inciting violence may change the assessment of a peaceful-meeting defense. [5; 6]
Permission and notice are different
Law No. 2911 on Meetings and Demonstration Marches provides for procedures such as an organizing committee, notice, venue and time for the meetings within its scope. Article 10 of the Law provides for notice at least forty-eight hours before the meeting. The exceptions in the Law, the nature of the event and the constitutional assessment of peaceful reactions to sudden developments are also taken into account separately. [2]
The notice system should not turn into the administration arbitrarily granting or withholding permission for a meeting. Nor is the receipt of the notice an assurance given in advance as to the lawfulness of all conduct. Organizers need to keep the notice document, the delivery record, any route discussions and the administration’s response.
What is looked for in a ban decision?
A ban or postponement must rest on statutory authority, explain the concrete danger and be proportionate in scope. Long or repeated bans covering all events across a province carry a different weight from the risk specific to a single meeting. The phrase “public order” or “security” is not in itself a justification; it must be shown which events give rise to which danger. [1; 2]
As a counterargument, the administration may assert serious attack intelligence or a risk of clashes. In the application, the genuineness and currency of this ground, its link with the meeting and whether it could be managed with lighter measures are discussed. A court’s failing to assess a security document at all, and equally its finding a document sufficient on the basis of a general statement without examining its content, may create a review problem.
Assessing law enforcement intervention
Ending a meeting, dispersing it, use of force, apprehension and an administrative fine are different acts. Separate statutory conditions are required for each. Whether a warning was given, whether the warning was audible, whether an opportunity to leave was provided and whether the force used was necessary are examined. [2; 7]
The applicant should show not only the general situation of the crowd but also their own position. Time-stamped footage, recordings from different angles, witnesses, medical reports and law enforcement records are assessed together. A short video clip may not explain the whole event. A contradiction between the official record and the footage should be stated concretely.
Use of force amounting to ill-treatment is examined separately under Article 17 of the Constitution. The allegation that the meeting was unlawful does not remove this prohibition. A complaint about apprehension or pretrial detention, on the other hand, may require a separate route and time limit under the safeguards of personal liberty.
The Osman Erbil and Ferhat Üstündağ decisions
In the decision of Osman Erbil, Application No. 2013/2394, March 25, 2015, interference with a peaceful press statement and the penalty imposed were assessed. The Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi) found a violation of the right to hold meetings, taking into account the chilling effect of the threat of punishment even though the announcement of the judgment had been deferred. The complaint concerning the right to liberty was found inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis. [5, §§ 65–79 and the judgment]
The main contribution of this decision is that it shows that not executing the penalty immediately does not make the interference insignificant. The procedure for deferral of the announcement of the judgment (HAGB) in force on the date the decision was given should not be regarded as the same as the legal remedy that would apply today.
In the decision of Ferhat Üstündağ, Application No. 2014/15428, July 17, 2018, on the other hand, the Constitutional Court assessed whether the applicant’s words and conduct were of a nature inciting violence and decided that there was no violation. This result cannot be generalized to all protests; the individual’s specific conduct and the nature of the meeting are decisive. Taken together, the two decisions show that the statement “I took part in the meeting” is not sufficient on its own. [6, §§ 79–86]
Which application is made for which act?
| Act | Main route | Document to keep |
|---|---|---|
| Ban or postponement | Administrative action and, if the conditions are met, stay of execution | Ban decision, notice, reasoning, notification |
| Administrative fine | Competent authority under the law on which the sanction is based | Penalty record and notification record |
| Apprehension or pretrial detention | Special review and objection routes under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) | The act, interrogation and decisions |
| Criminal conviction | Applicable appeal to the regional court of appeal or to the Court of Cassation | Reasoned judgment, defense statements and evidence requests |
| Ill-treatment | Public prosecutor’s office and effective investigation routes | Medical report, footage, witnesses |
In an administrative action, the general sixty-day period is calculated from the written notice, unless there is a special provision. Because the meeting date is approaching, filing an action alone may not be sufficient; a stay of execution may be requested by substantiating the conditions of manifest unlawfulness and damage difficult or impossible to remedy under Article 27 of the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK). Filing an action does not by itself stop the ban decision. [4]
In the case of an administrative fine, it should not be assumed that the application is made directly to the administrative court or directly to the criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği). A special provision and other acts established together may change the competent judicial authority. The current general two-week period for objections under the Code of Criminal Procedure differs from the time limit for an administrative action. [4; 7]
An effective defense and application to the Constitutional Court
A defense should separately examine the statutory basis of the intervention, its peaceful character, personal conduct and proportionality. The applicant should answer the strongest fact asserted by the administration or the prosecutor’s office. For example, in an allegation of road blocking, the duration, alternative passage and the effect of the act should be explained; in an allegation of violence, the person’s conduct and the integrity of the footage.
Before applying to the Constitutional Court, the relevant effective remedies must be exhausted. That a criminal decision has become final while an administrative action concerning the same event is pending does not mean that all complaints are ready at the same time. For each interference, the final decision and the date of learning of it are recorded separately. The thirty-day period is calculated with this distinction in mind. [8]
Attorneys may lodge an individual application through the UYAP Attorney Portal. Instead of unnecessary details of the event, the chronology relevant to the violation, decisions, earlier claims and evidence are attached to the application form. Requests for a finding of violation, retrial and, where applicable, compensation are supported with reasons. An individual application cannot be turned into a general request for permission for all meetings not yet held. [8; 9]
Redress may not be only monetary. Retrial may be important for eliminating the consequences of a conviction or an administrative act. On the other hand, the expiry of the ban period does not mean that the resulting grievance ends in every case. The threat of punishment, records and personal consequences should be explained separately.
For the relationship of the defense with the reasoning of the decision, the articles on the right to a fair trial and, for the consequences of choosing the wrong route, the right of access to a court may be consulted.
Legal preparation before and after the meeting
Notice, choice of venue and the situation of foreign nationals
Article 3 of Law No. 2911 makes the organizing of meetings and demonstration marches by foreign nationals within the scope of this Law subject to the permission of the Ministry of the Interior (İçişleri Bakanlığı). There is also a special notice provision for foreign nationals addressing a gathering and carrying the items specified in the Law. For this reason, an absolute statement such as “no permission is required for any person at any meeting” should not be used. The general constitutional guarantee, the person’s status and whether the event falls within the scope of the Law are examined together. [1; 2]
The venue of a meeting is not merely a technical detail; it may matter for the message to reach its addressee. In a request for a change of venue, accessibility, security, conditions that make attendance harder and the purpose of the meeting should be explained. On the other hand, it cannot be said either that every choice of venue must be accepted unconditionally. The measures proposed by the organizer and why the administration does not consider the alternatives sufficient should be made a subject of concrete discussion in judicial review. [1; 2; 3]
The purpose of law enforcement is not to punish
Devrim Aydın, in his study examining intervention in meetings, emphasizes that the use of coercion should be a last resort, applied to the extent necessary in response to the specific resistance, and not turned into a means of punishment. The practical consequence of this doctrinal approach is to examine not only the name of the instrument used but the manner of its use and the conditions at the time of the intervention. The warning, the opportunity to leave, the person’s conduct and the duration of the use of force should be shown separately in the file. [10]
A single general assessment is not sufficient regarding the use of tear gas, the application of pressurized water or apprehension. A person’s being subjected to coercion in the same event and another person’s receiving a fine afterwards require different evidence and requests. When making an application, the relevant act, the authority responsible for the act and the legal remedy specific to that act are determined. If the attorney combines all consequences under a single request for annulment, problems of jurisdiction and admissibility may arise.
If the event has ended, how is the purpose of the application framed?
Even if the meeting date has passed, the sanction applied, a record kept about the participant or a chilling effect on similar activity may continue. Their concrete effect should be shown. On the other hand, a general individual application cannot be made on the basis of hypothetical obstacles concerning every future event. The act that affects the applicant personally, currently and directly is explained. [8]
If documents need to be shared between the file on the administrative act and the criminal investigation, the relevant decisions and records are submitted. A favorable result in one branch of the judiciary is not presumed to eliminate the other automatically. Even after a violation is found, the conduct of the retrial and the genuine elimination of the consequences of the sanction are followed. The final stage of the application strategy is to ensure the effect of the decision as much as to obtain it.
The relationship between the venue, time and message of the meeting
Freedom of assembly should not be assessed merely as people’s being able to gather anywhere. The venue and time chosen may matter for making the idea to be expressed heard. For the anniversary of a decision, a statement in front of a particular institution, or an event reacting to a current incident, postponement may change the effect of the message. The applicant should make this connection concrete. On the other hand, it cannot be said either that the choice of venue is an absolute authority not subject to any regulation. [1, Art. 34; 2, 3]
In an application against a ban or venue-change decision, the risk shown by the administration should be compared with the characteristics of the event. The number of participants, expected duration, the effect on transportation and surrounding services may be included in the assessment. If the administration has indicated an alternative venue, whether that venue is suitable for the message to reach its target audience should be explained. A mere dislike of the proposed venue and a change that practically renders the purpose of the meeting ineffective are not of the same nature. Showing this difference in the petition makes the proportionality assessment concrete.
How is the scope of a ban decision examined?
A ban aimed at a specific event and a ban applied for a long time to all meetings in a wide region do not carry the same weight. The dates, venues, types of events and exceptions covered by the decision should be examined. The question of why the general security rationale could not be achieved with a narrower measure is important. In addition, the authority granted by the underlying law, the authority that took the decision and the reasoning are reviewed separately. A problem of authority and a problem of proportionality should not be written in place of one another. [1, 2, 4]
The claim of urgency must also rest on documents. If the date of the event, the announcement, the organizational preparations and the day the ban decision was learned are shown, the consequence of the delay is understood. In a request for a stay of execution, instead of merely repeating the phrase “damage difficult to remedy,” it should be explained why holding the event later would not have the same effect. The court’s review is within the framework of the conditions in Article 27 of the Administrative Procedure Law; filing an action does not by itself stop the ban from being applied. [4]
Why is the participant’s individual conduct decisive?
That violence occurred within a crowd does not show that every participant engaged in the same conduct. Whether the person was at the scene, during which time period and what they did should be investigated separately. On the other hand, showing that the meeting began entirely peacefully does not by itself protect the applicant’s later violent conduct. The constitutional assessment considers the specific conduct, the context and the sanction applied together. [3, 5, 6]
For this reason, relying only on a short segment of video evidence may be problematic. The parts of the footage before and after the event, the time of recording, identification of the person and continuity of the recording matter. The defense may, instead of being content with saying “let the footage be examined,” explain which fact is seen in which seconds. If there is a difference between the official record and the footage, this difference should be clearly shown. If there is no footage, what witness statements, location data and other records may clarify should be stated.
A slogan or speech should not be taken out of context
In assessing words uttered during a meeting, the whole of the content, the setting in which it was uttered and its relation to violence matter. A statement containing merely disturbing or harsh criticism is not the same as a statement directing people to violence. The full text of the disputed words and the reasoning for the sanction should be submitted in the application. Conveying only the headline of the words or leaving out some parts makes it harder to understand the constitutional dimension of the event. The result of the Ferhat Üstündağ decision should likewise not be generalized detached from the specific speech and event context. [6]
Practical consequences of the Osman Erbil and Ferhat Üstündağ decisions
In the Osman Erbil decision, the effect of a sanction applied for participation in a peaceful meeting on the right to hold meetings was assessed. In the Ferhat Üstündağ decision, by contrast, content connected with violence and the specific event led to a different result. The purpose of using the two decisions together is not to present all meeting sanctions as unlawful. The real issue is to explain why peaceful conduct was punished or on which specific connection with violence the sanction relied. [5, 6]
A result such as deferral of the announcement of the judgment does not by itself eliminate the effect on the right to hold meetings. However, the procedure of an old decision should not be copied verbatim to the legal remedy applicable in a current file. The date on which the criminal decision was given, the procedure it was subject to and the specific application opportunity should be determined separately. A precedent supports the constitutional assessment; it does not replace the current legal-remedy review.
Confusing three separate requests in the same event
In a demonstration, a ban decision, police custody and physical intervention may occur together. A request to annul the ban, a claim that the person’s being held was unlawful and a complaint of ill-treatment are directed at different acts. For this reason, it should not be assumed that all legal routes are exhausted with a single petition. For each act, the competent authority, time limit, evidence and requested redress are determined separately. A common account of the event may be used; however, the legal functions of the routes of recourse must be preserved. [4, 7, 8]
Even if the event has ended, the effects of the sanction applied or the interference may continue. In the application, the current interest, the continuing consequences and the redress sought should be explained. If a chilling effect on participation in future meetings is asserted, the sanction on which it is based must be shown concretely. In this way, instead of an account of merely a past debate, a specific interference requiring constitutional review is presented.
For details of the subject, you may also see our articles on the legal limits of bans and interventions in meetings and demonstration marches, freedom of association and qualified rights in Constitutional Court decisions. For our firm’s work in this area, you may see the page on applications to the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights.
Conclusion
In a meeting-rights file, notice, peaceful conduct, the ban decision, use of force and the penalty should be assessed separately. An effective application makes the personal act visible and explains with concrete evidence why the interference was not necessary or proportionate. That the meeting is to be held on a specific date makes requesting interim legal protection in time especially important.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is prior permission required for a meeting?
The general constitutional rule is that no prior permission is required. The statutory notice procedures and the special permission provision concerning foreign nationals as organizers are assessed separately.
Does a lack of notice justify every intervention?
No. The peaceful character, the concrete danger and the proportionality of the intervention are assessed separately.
Can another participant’s violence be attributed to everyone?
It cannot be attributed automatically. The applicant’s personal conduct and connection with the event are investigated.
Does filing an action against a ban decision stop the decision?
As a rule, it does not. If the conditions are met, a stay of execution must be requested separately.
If the announcement of the judgment was deferred (HAGB), is a rights-violation claim meaningless?
No. The threat of punishment and the chilling effect may matter; the legal remedy applicable on the date of the event is determined separately.
Are multiple applications needed for the same event?
They may be. An administrative ban, a criminal sanction, holding and ill-treatment may require different routes.
Sources and legal bases
1 — Constitution, Arts. 13, 17, 19, 26, 34. Text.
2 — Law No. 2911 on Meetings and Demonstration Marches. Text.
3 — ECHR, Art. 11. Text.
4 — Law No. 2577, Arts. 7, 27. Text.
5 — Constitutional Court, Osman Erbil, Application No. 2013/2394, March 25, 2015. Decision.
6 — Constitutional Court, Ferhat Üstündağ, Application No. 2014/15428, July 17, 2018. Decision.
7 — Law No. 5271 (Code of Criminal Procedure), Arts. 90–109, 267–268. Text.
8 — Law No. 6216, Arts. 45–50. Text.
9 — Constitutional Court, UYAP Attorney Portal application guide. Guide.
10 — Devrim Aydın, “The Principles of Intervention in Meetings and Demonstration Marches” (“Toplantı ve Gösteri Yürüyüşlerine Müdahalenin Esasları”), Ankara University Faculty of Law Journal (Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 65/4, 2016, pp. 3283–3308. Study.