Despite being acquitted in a case in which Müslüm Doğan was tried, the ban on travelling abroad was not lifted. Doğan stated that he had been living in Sweden with his family for years, that he had a workplace, and that he had suffered material and moral damage due to the travel ban imposed on him, and pointed out that his “right to respect for private and family life” had been violated, and made an individual application to the Constitutional Court.
In the reasoned decision of the Constitutional Court published in today’s Official Gazette, the following determinations were made:
“The protective measure in the form of a ban on travelling abroad imposed on the applicant interfered with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life. The applicant brought his objections to the judicial authorities, but the investigation and prosecution authorities rejected the applicant’s requests without making relevant and sufficient assessments. Moreover, despite the decision to acquit the applicant, it was decided to continue the said measure in violation of the conditions of judicial control.
When the entire process is evaluated, it cannot be said that the judicial authorities have established a fair balance between the public interest expected from the measure implemented in order to ensure the sound conduct of the trial and the applicant’s right to participate in the trial and exercise his right to defense by taking into account the applicant’s ties in the country where he lives, the nature of the crime he is accused of, the status of evidence and the possible final penalty, and the interests of the applicant. It should also be emphasized that he did not discuss alternative measures that could be alternative to the measure in question, and that he did not conduct a rapid and meticulous criminal investigation/prosecution in a way that would reduce the negative effects of the intervention on the applicant’s private and family life.
As a result, it was concluded that the intervention in the form of a ban on travelling abroad, which lasted about a year, was not in line with the requirements of a democratic social order and the principle of proportionality.”
For these reasons, the Constitutional Court ruled that Doğan’s “right to respect for private and family life” had been violated, and also ruled that 30 thousand TL be paid in non-pecuniary damages.
Source: www.cumhuriyet.com.tr
