1-     The Decision on “Unconstitutionality of the Rule foreseeing that Compensation Lawsuits cannot be Filed in the case of a Settlement”:

On 26/07/2023, in the file numbered E.2023/43, the Constitutional Court ruled that the fifth sentence of Article 253, paragraph 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271, as amended by Article 24 of the Law No. 5560, "In the event that a settlement is reached, a compensation lawsuit cannot be filed due to the crime subject to the investigation;..." section is contrary to the Constitution and is annulled.

"In all cases, it will not be possible to know the damage suffered due to the criminal act within the reconciliation process. Especially in cases where some technical data such as disability rate are needed, it will be difficult to determine the damage in a healthy way during the reconciliation process. Accordingly, it cannot be said that those concerned can have complete and accurate information in all cases regarding the damage that exceeds the act and cannot be subject to a compensation case if a compromise is reached. " The violation caused by the regulation is explained as such. 

Moreover, "In this context, during the reconciliation negotiations, a burden has been imposed on those concerned that they cannot bear with the rule regulating that a compensation lawsuit cannot be filed when a compromise is reached without any discrimination in terms of the lawsuits to be filed regarding the damages that are difficult to determine or impossible to predict in a healthy way. As a result, it was considered that a reasonable balance could not be established between the purpose of reducing the workload of the judiciary and the restriction imposed on the right of access to the court. In this respect, it has been concluded that the rule violates the principle of proportionality in terms of the sub-principle of proportionality. ".

2-     Decision on Violation of the Right to Freedom and Security of Person Due to Insufficient Compensation Paid Due to Detention Measures: 

The General Assembly of the Constitutional Court held on 27/04/2023, Gülseren Çıtak (B. No: 2020/1554) decided that the right to liberty and security of the person guaranteed in Article 19 of the Constitution was violated.

Within the scope of an investigation conducted against them, the applicant, who was detained on 01/11/2016 and released on 03/11/2016, was tried for membership of an armed terrorist organization, establishing or managing an armed terrorist organization; were acquitted as a result of the trial. In the acquittal decision, the attorney's fee was not ruled in favor of the applicant, and the applicant applied for an appeal against this decision. The regional court of justice corrected the verdict paragraph of the decision by adding a phrase regarding the granting of the attorney's fee to the defendant and decided to reject the appeal application on the merits.

Upon the finalization of the acquittal decision, the applicant filed a compensation lawsuit claiming that they were unfairly detained; the high criminal court decided to pay the applicant 500 TL in non-pecuniary damages. The applicant applied for an appeal by stating that the difficult process he experienced in the trial was not taken into account, that a very small amount was ruled according to the amount of compensation they wanted, and that it was unlawful not to include the attorney's fee he paid in the case. The regional court of justice decided definitively to reject the appeal application on the merits.

During this case, it was accepted that the applicant, who filed a compensation lawsuit by claiming that they were detained unfairly due to their acquittal, had exhausted the application methods in terms of the illegality of the detention - in the context of the new case-law - and the examination of the application was started on the merits. In the concrete case, it was decided to pay the applicant 500 TL in non-pecuniary damages for three days of detention. Although the awarded non-pecuniary damages need not be the same as the amount of compensation ordered by the Constitutional Court to be awarded in similar situations, it is concluded that they are sufficiently low to undermine the essence of the right to compensation in the circumstances of the concrete event.

The Constitutional Court  decided that the right to liberty and security of the person was violated on the grounds that although the court was authorized to carry out all kinds of research deemed necessary by the court or to have one of its judges in determining the amount of compensation to be given according to the general principles of the law of compensation, it did not conduct a research on this issue. On the other hand, even if it was accepted that this fixed attorney's fee was paid to the applicant, why the portion exceeding this amount would not be considered within the scope of pecuniary damage, whether there was a causal link between it and the unfair detention measure, if there was a causal link, whether this requested fee was necessary and reasonable.

3-     Decision Regarding the Right of Access to the Court to be Rejected in the Absence of the Condition of Lawsuit without Trying Other Possibilities to Ensure the Continuation of the Lawsuits in the Lawsuit of Uncertain Receivables Regarding Labor Receivables:

On 08/06/2023, the Constitutional Court ruled in the application of Faisal Çiftçi et al. the right of access to the court within the scope of the right to a fair trial guaranteed in the Constitution.

As a result of the lawsuit filed with the request of payment of labor receivables in the courts of first instance of the subject application being filed as an uncertain receivable lawsuit, it has been determined that there is no legal benefit in filing an uncertain receivable lawsuit instead of a general action lawsuit. However, it was emphasized that the applicants who could not determine their receivables while filing a lawsuit should be given time to clarify the result of the request before a heavy intervention such as the procedural rejection of the case.

As a result, it was considered that the rejection of the uncertain receivable lawsuits filed by the applicants before the conditions were met due to the absence of the condition of the lawsuit - considering the possibilities in the procedural law - was not a last resort. In the interference with the right of access to the court by rejecting the cases due to the lack of legal benefit, it was concluded that it was not appropriate to choose a heavy vehicle that made it impossible for the applicants to access the court, instead of choosing a lighter intervention tool in order to achieve the purpose of opening the case, which is the most effective in terms of resolving the dispute regarding civil rights.

1-     In its decision dated 27.02.2023, the Competition Authority terminated the investigation on the grounds that the commitment package submitted by the DSM group could eliminate the competition problems subject to the investigation in the investigation conducted on whether the DSM GROUP, which was examined in the application made by MODACRUZ, used its financial power crosswise in TRENDYOL and CABINET marketplaces, and whether it excluded competitors by providing competitive advantage, preventing data sharing and data portability.

2-     In the examination made by the Competition Authority on Elon R. Musk for the acquisition of the sole control of Twitter Inc., in accordance with its decision dated 02.03.2023, Article 11 of the Law on the Protection of Competition (Law) No. 4054;

It has been decided that;

-       Pursuant to Article 7 of the Law, it is subject to permission within the scope of the communiqué issued on the basis of this article,

-       Since there is no significant decrease in effective competition as a result of the transaction, the transaction should be allowed,

-       Additionally, due to the fact that the transaction in question took place without the permission of the Institution, Elon R. MUSK, who is the transferee in accordance with the Law, to impose an administrative fine at the rate of one thousandth of its gross income in Turkey for 2022.

  

Decision of the Personal Data Protection Board dated 06/07/2023 and numbered 2023/1154 on the Amendment to the Exception Criteria Regarding the Obligation to Register in the Data Controllers Registry:

As a result of the re-evaluation of the "annual financial balance sheet total" amount accepted by the Personal Data Protection Board as a criterion for introducing an exception to the obligation to register in the Data Controllers Registry with the Board decision dated 19.07.2018 and numbered 2018/87, taking into account Article 16 of the Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698 and Articles 8 and 16 of the Regulation on the Data Controllers Registry, as a result of the reevaluation of the "annual financial balance sheet total" amount in accordance with the economic conditions in our country, the Board decision dated 19.07.2018 and numbered 2018/87 has decided to change it as; "annual number of employees less than 50 and the annual financial balance sheet total less than 25 million Turkish Liras from natural or legal persons data controllers whose main activity is the subject of special personal data processing".

This decision entered into force on 25/08/2023, the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.