A. 4 Of the Law No. 7183. “… and the source contained in Paragraph (d) of Paragraph (1) of the Article “…and the source… Examination of the Phrase ”
In Law No. 7183, the criteria related to the preparation of the budget in the context of the resources to be provided by the Turkish Tourism Promotion and Development Agency (Agency) and the basic principles related to the procedure to which expenditures in this context are subject are determined without specifying the 5 of the said Law. in paragraph (4) of the article, it is stipulated that the procedures and principles related to the preparation, implementation, expenditure and accounting of the agency budget will be regulated by a regulation to be issued by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism within the framework of the opinion of the relevant institutions.
With the rule subject to the lawsuit, it is stipulated that the Agency can provide resources to increase the share of tourism in the country’s economy and to achieve the goals set out in Law No. 7183. However, no general framework has been drawn up in the Law on the qualifications that the person, facility, enterprise or investments to be transferred resources should bear, and no provisions have been made regarding which principles the Agency will provide resources depending on. For this reason, it has been evaluated that the rule does not contain measures against arbitrary practices, does not allow the persons responsible for paying the tourism share to predict under what conditions the resource will be provided and the Agency to be accountable.
In this respect, the principles to which it will be subject are regulated in a clear, clear, understandable, applicable and objective manner, and granting the Agency the authority to provide resources without taking protective measures against arbitrary practices is incompatible with the principles of certainty and a democratic state.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the rule is contrary to the Constitution and its cancellation on the grounds explained.
B. 7 Of the Law No. 7183. In the Second Sentence of Paragraph (2) of Article “…based exclusively on the independent audit reports submitted to him… Examination of the Phrase ”
In the rule subject to the lawsuit, it is stipulated that the Court of Accounts cannot perform an audit separate from the independent audit related to the Agency, and in this context, it will conduct an examination on the basis of the independent audit report submitted to it without requesting any information or documents from the Agency.
An independent audit is essentially a type of audit in which the financial statements and financial information of trading companies are examined. However, unlike commercial companies, the Agency, which was established mainly for the purpose of realizing the public interest, not to make a profit, will generally carry out the activities listed in the Law in accordance with the principles and rules of public law. On the other hand, the principle of the democratic state requires that certain legal consequences be attached to them if irregularities are detected in the operations of the financially audited Agency. The Law also does not provide for any provisions regarding the legal consequences that may arise regarding the actions to be taken in the event that the audit of the Agency is not ensured in accordance with the Jul-ture or certain irregularities are detected in its financial transactions and in this context Agency officials. Accordingly, it has been concluded that independent audit is not a method that ensures that the Agency, which will generally carry out the activities provided for in the Law in accordance with the principles and rules of public law, uses public resources in accordance with the public interest. In this respect, it is incompatible with the principle of a democratic state for the Court of Accounts to prepare the report to be sent to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey on the Agency exclusively by conducting an examination on the basis of the independent audit report submitted to it.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the rule is contrary to the Constitution and its cancellation on the grounds explained.
C. 8 Of the Law No. 7183. Examination of the Second Sentence of Paragraph (4) of the Article
In the rule subject to the lawsuit, it is stipulated that the provisions of the legislation on recruitment of personnel to public institutions and organizations will not be applied to the personnel to be employed by the Agency.
In the context of the employment of personnel, which will result in the use of public resources, it is necessary for the democratic state and the principles of certainty that the Agency is subject to certain principles. The provision that the provisions of the legislation on recruitment of personnel to public institutions and organizations will not be applied to the personnel to be employed at the Agency without any regulations in the Law on personnel to be employed at the Agency does not allow the Agency to be accountable in the context of the use of public resources according to objective criteria, and people who want to work at the Agency can foresee the principles to be applied in the employment of personnel. In this respect, the rule violates the principles of democratic state and determinism.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the rule is contrary to the Constitution and its cancellation on the grounds explained.
Klicken Sie hier, um zu unseren weiteren Artikeln und petitionsbeispielen zu gelangen
