The Constitutional Court Ruled That The Principle of Legality Was Violated In hTe Application In Which The Adverse Law Was Applied To The Past

The Constitutional Court’s decision dated 6.3.2024 and numbered 2021/26923 (“Decision”) was published in the Official Gazette dated June 11, 2024 and numbered 32573.

The decision evaluates whether the Applicant’s right to request a review of the administrative fine imposed in violation of the prohibition of retroactivity of the law against the Applicant and the principle of legality have been violated.

The Applicant operates in the fast-moving consumer goods retailing sector and the Unfair Price Evaluation Board (“Board“) of the Ministry of Trade, General Directorate of Domestic Trade decided that the Applicant had made an excessive price increase and imposed an administrative fine. The Applicant claimed that the article of the law on which the administrative fine was based entered into force after the date of the price increase and requested the annulment of the administrative fine. The Criminal Court of Peace decided to reject the objection on the grounds that the price increase was fixed, and the Applicant’s appeal to another criminal court of peace against the decision was also rejected. Thereupon, the Applicant filed an application claiming that the principle of legality in crime and punishment and the right to request review of the judgment were violated due to the lack of an opportunity to apply to the higher court against the administrative fine.

The Constitutional Court concluded that (i) the Applicant was imposed an administrative fine according to the article of the law that entered into force later, although there was no specific and foreseeable criminal provision on the date of the act in question, (ii) the court did not examine the Applicant’s objections that the law against the Applicant was applied retroactively, and concluded that the principle of legality in crime and punishment regulated in Article 38 of the Constitution was violated. The Applicant’s claim that the right to request a review of the judgment was violated was found to be inadmissible due to lack of grounds.

The full text of the Decision can be reached through this link. (Only Available in Turkish)