A peaceful assembly and demonstration march is not a right made conditional on prior permission. Nevertheless, statutory rules exist on notification, place, time and safety. Breaching those rules and losing the peaceful character of an assembly are not the same thing. Each ban, dispersal, use of force and subsequent penalty must be justified on its own conditions.
This article addresses the right of assembly under Article 34 of the Constitution and the decision of the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM) in Dilan Ögüz Canan [GK], Application No. 2014/20411, 30 November 2017. The aim is not to draw a single conclusion for all conduct, but to show which distinctions must be made when the right is interfered with. Violent conduct and peaceful participation must not be lumped together under the same assessment.
What does the right to hold assemblies and demonstration marches protect?
Article 34 of the Constitution grants everyone the right to organize assemblies and demonstration marches without prior permission, unarmed and without violence. The right enables people to express shared views together in public space. Being a participant and being an organizer may create different responsibilities, but both are important for constitutional protection.
The fact that an assembly advocates a view that the majority does not share, or sharply criticizes public authorities, does not place it outside protection. An assembly held in public may have a certain effect on ordinary life. No nuisance or short-lived disruption can be accepted as a ground for removing the exercise of the right.
On the other hand, the right is not wholly independent of the rights of others and of public security. The grounds for restriction in the Constitution apply together with the conditions in Article 13 of the Constitution: legality, democratic society and proportionality. Administrative authorities and courts must tie abstract references to security to the concrete facts.
What is the difference between notification and permission?
The notification system provided for under Law No. 2911 on Meetings and Demonstration Marches (Toplantı ve Gösteri Yürüyüşleri Kanunu) does not turn the constitutional right into a permit dependent on the discretion of the administration. Notification may help public authorities prepare for security and order. Failure to comply with the notification obligation is a separate legal question.
Legal characterization: Procedural non-compliance is an element of the assessment of interference; it is not a fact equivalent to the assembly being violent. Therefore, the inference that “there was no notification, so every interference is lawful” does not complete the constitutional review.
What did the Constitutional Court emphasize in the Dilan Ögüz Canan decision?
The application concerns criminal proceedings brought for participation in a demonstration and a decision to defer the prosecution. The decision assessed the conditions of the assembly and the applicant’s personal conduct. Descriptions suggesting that the applicant actually served a prison sentence or was directly acquitted do not accurately reflect the procedural outcome under review.
Direct quotation from the decision
“a meeting or demonstration march organized without fully complying with the procedures set out in law does not, on its own, remove the peaceful character of the meeting or march.”
Source of the quotation: Constitutional Court (AYM), Dilan Ögüz Canan [GK], Application No. 2014/20411, 30 November 2017, § 41. The quotation is an English rendering of the relevant sentence of that paragraph.
This finding does not mean that procedural rules are unimportant. The Court explains that peaceful character and procedural compliance are different questions. Without identifying the participant’s conduct and a concrete reason requiring intervention, the necessity of interference cannot be accepted merely on the ground that the assembly did not comply with the statutory procedure.
The Court’s ruling: The Court found, by majority, a violation of the right to hold assemblies and demonstration marches. Because there were dissenting opinions, the decision cannot be described as unanimous. The ruling also cannot be generalized to say that every sanction for unauthorized or unnotified assemblies is prohibited.
Our assessment: The main practical consequence of the decision is the need for individualized review. The conduct of some persons within a group must not be attributed to other participants without any link to them. Likewise, a participant’s own act of violence cannot be made invisible merely because the general purpose of the assembly was peaceful.
How is it determined whether an assembly is peaceful?
The participant’s own conduct
The objects a person carries, their actual behavior, statements, and participation in or incitement to violence are assessed on concrete evidence. Being present at a place does not mean taking responsibility for all the acts of the whole group. The link between the general picture of the crowd and the official record (tutanak) drawn up about the person must be established separately.
Tension arising during an assembly does not retrospectively turn all of the initially peaceful participation into violence. Conversely, unlawful conduct that a person later engages in during an initially peaceful assembly may create separate liability. The timeline therefore matters.
Place, duration and effects on third parties
The place and duration of the assembly, its effect on transport or public services, the possibilities for alternative arrangements and the conduct of participants are examined together. A balance is sought between the effective exercise of the right and the rights of third parties. Where alternatives that entirely eliminate the visibility of the assembly and the reach of its message to its target audience are considered sufficient, the reasons must be explained.
Concrete traffic or safety effects can be documented. However, general, always-applicable risk statements whose content is vague do not alone justify banning all assemblies in a given city. The scope and duration of the interference must also be consistent with the reasoning.
Why are bans, dispersal and use of force examined separately?
A prior ban on an assembly, the dispersal of an assembly that is already under way, and the force used during dispersal are different acts. The existence of a ban does not mean that all force used was lawful and proportionate. Conversely, a problem with the use of force does not make every participant’s every act lawful.
For a ban, the concrete danger, the competent authority, the legal basis, the place and the duration are important. Where a narrower arrangement as to place or time could achieve the aim, the reason why a general ban is necessary must be explained. The period during which the ban applies and the conduct it covers must not be left unclear.
Whether a warning was given before dispersal, whether people had a real opportunity to leave, and the timing and intensity of the intervention may matter. If injury is alleged, health records and footage are examined separately. Issues relating to the prohibition of ill-treatment or the right to life cannot be dealt with merely under the heading of the right of assembly.
Does a penalty imposed afterwards also count as interference with the right?
Yes. Even where the assembly actually took place, a subsequent criminal investigation, conviction or other sanction for participation may have a deterrent effect on the right. The review is not limited to whether the assembly was dispersed on the day it took place.
Consequences such as the deferral of prosecution may matter for the pressure of proceedings on the person. However, it cannot be assumed that every deferral has the same effect. Its duration, its conditions and its effect on the person’s future exercise of the right are assessed. The Dilan Ögüz Canan decision shows that the absence of an actual prison term does not remove the constitutional review of interference.
Which documents are needed in an alleged rights violation?
The ban decision, notification documents, the announcement of the assembly, incident records, video recordings, witness information, medical documents and service papers should be preserved together. Footage showing the period before and after the event is important, not only a short excerpt. The date and source of each recording must be explained, and third parties’ data must not be published unnecessarily.
The petition should distinguish between the conduct for which the person is held responsible and whether the evidence actually shows that conduct. The statement that “the assembly was peaceful” must be supported by a concrete account of events. The reasons why the risk relied on by the administration is insufficient, or why a less intrusive interference was possible, should also be explained.
The route of application depends on the type of interference
Administrative bans, administrative fines, criminal proceedings and claims of use of force are not subject to the same procedure. The appropriate remedy, whether an annulment action, an objection to a sanction or a legal remedy in criminal proceedings, is determined by the concrete act. Particularly for short-term bans, the need for temporary legal protection and the substantive review should be considered together. Constitutional Court decisions on administrative fines for poster hanging are examined separately in the article poster hanging penalty and the right of assembly.
An individual application to the Constitutional Court is generally made within thirty days from learning of the final decision, after effective remedies have been exhausted. This period is not a common deadline for all applications starting from the date of the event. Interim measures may be requested from the Court only subject to the conditions in its Internal Regulation; it cannot be said that every assembly ban is automatically lifted by an interim measure.
For details, see our articles on qualified rights in Constitutional Court decisions, the right to hold assemblies and demonstration marches, interference with freedom of association and organization and the right to an effective remedy. For our work in this area, see the page on Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights applications.
Conclusion
In interference with a peaceful assembly, procedural non-compliance, violence, the risk to public order and the severity of the sanction must be examined separately. The Dilan Ögüz Canan decision shows that punishing without making these distinctions may raise a constitutional problem. The legal assessment should concretize the person’s conduct, explain the necessity of the interference, and consider the less intrusive tools that were available.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does an assembly for which no notification was made automatically lose its peaceful character?
No. The Constitutional Court states that a procedural non-compliance does not, on its own, remove the peaceful character of an assembly. The breach of the notification obligation and the conditions of interference are assessed separately.
Can violence by one person in a crowd be attributed to everyone?
Personal conduct and connection must be investigated. Being in the same place alone is not an adequate basis for holding someone responsible for the acts of others.
If there is an assembly ban, is every use of force lawful?
No. The lawfulness of the ban and the necessity and proportionality of any use of force are assessed separately. Allegations of injury and ill-treatment must be investigated effectively.
If an assembly took place, can a later penalty not amount to a rights violation?
It can. A sanction imposed afterwards may also have a deterrent effect on participation. The interference must be lawful, necessary and proportionate.
Are all assembly disputes brought before the same court?
No. Bans, administrative sanctions, criminal judgments and claims of use of force may be subject to different remedies. The route and time limits should be determined by the nature of the act and the service documents.
Sources and legal bases
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Articles 13, 17, 26 and 34.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Dilan Ögüz Canan [GK], Application No. 2014/20411, 30 November 2017, in particular § 41, the reasoning and the operative part; access to the link may require a session.
- Law No. 2911 on Meetings and Demonstration Marches, provisions on notification, regulation and interference.
- Law No. 6216, Articles 45–50; Constitutional Court Internal Regulation (AYM İçtüzüğü), Article 73.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Qualified Rights: Summaries of Decisions (Nitelikli Haklar: Karar Özetleri), June 2025, section on the right to hold assemblies and demonstration marches.