Annulment Of The Rule Extending The Deadline For Making Certain Services Accessible To Persons With Disabilities
Subject Rule
The rule subject to the lawsuit stipulates that, as a result of the audit, the relevant municipalities and public institutions and organizations, the owners of all kinds of buildings and open spaces open to the public, and the owners of public transportation vehicles may be given an additional period not exceeding eight years from the end of the period specified in the first paragraph to complete the deficiencies.
Grounds for the Request for Annulment
In the petition for the case, in summary; it was argued that the extension of the period determined by the rule is contrary to the positive obligation imposed on the state to take measures to ensure the protection of the disabled and their adaptation to social life, violates the principle of social state and the principle of equality, contradicts the state’s obligation to realize healthy and orderly urbanization, and that the extension of the period determined to fulfill these obligations violates the right to life, the right to protection and development of material and spiritual existence, the right to respect for private life, the right to education and the right to work.
Evaluation of the Court
Articles 2 and 3 of Law No. 5378 stipulate that all buildings and open spaces open to the public and public transportation vehicles must be made accessible to persons with disabilities. However, a transition period is envisaged for these places to be made accessible to the disabled. In addition, the third sentence of the third sentence of the sixth paragraph of the provisional Article 3, which was introduced by Article 34 of Law No. 6353, stipulates that an additional period not exceeding two years may be granted in order to fulfill the obligations specified in the first sentence. With Article 7 of Law No. 7252, this period was rearranged as “three years”, and with Article 15 of Law No. 7333, the period was redefined as “four years”. Finally, with the rule subject to the lawsuit, the phrase “…four years…” in the aforementioned sentence was changed to “…eight years…”, and in this way, the periods stipulated for the transition period in both Provisional Article 2 and Provisional Article 3 have been extended many times by legal regulations.
It is clear that the continuous extension of the period stipulated in the aforementioned articles of the Law for making all kinds of buildings and open spaces open to the public and public transportation vehicles accessible to the disabled will negatively affect the opportunity of the disabled to take part in the society, participate in the workforce and live individually.
In addition, the Law stipulates the establishment of a commission to inspect whether all kinds of buildings and open spaces open to the public and public transportation vehicles are made accessible to the disabled, and the provisional Article 4 of the Law stipulates that administrative fines will be imposed on those who are determined by the inspection commissions to have failed to fulfill their obligations as of the expiry of the deadline. However, the continuous extension of the deadline for making these areas and public transportation vehicles accessible to persons with disabilities renders the audit mechanism stipulated in the Law dysfunctional and eliminates the possibility of imposing administrative sanctions on those who do not comply with the obligations stipulated by the Law. The continuity of the time extension will lead to the unwillingness of those who are obliged to make these areas and public transportation vehicles accessible to persons with disabilities to fulfill their obligations.
On the other hand, it is clear that making all kinds of structures and open areas open to the public and public transportation vehicles accessible to the disabled will not impose an excessive burden on the relevant public institutions and organizations and private law persons; it is possible to make the said structures, areas and public transportation vehicles accessible to the disabled with some minor modifications and repairs and some additions to be made on the said structures, areas and public transportation vehicles.
Accordingly, taking into account the date of publication of the Law, it is concluded that the extension of the period foreseen for four more years to carry out the necessary works and procedures in order to make all kinds of buildings, open spaces and public transportation vehicles accessible to the disabled is contrary to the positive obligation imposed on the state in the context of the right to the protection and development of material and spiritual existence to take measures to ensure the protection of the disabled and their adaptation to social life
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that the rule is unconstitutional and should be annulled.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.
