Events
The applicant, G, who is engaged in foreign trade. He is the chairman of the board of directors of Agricultural Products Marketing Industry and Trade Joint Stock Company (Company) on the date of the events. The company purchased long and medium grain paddy from a company in the United States and brought it to Mersin Port on different dates. Upon the Decrees that some of the products brought in were genetically modified organisms, samples were taken from the paddy commodity by the officials within the scope of the investigation initiated by the public prosecutor’s office against the company managers, including the applicant, on charges of committing acts contrary to the Biosafety Law No. 5977, and the products were also confiscated.
Examining the samples taken from the products, the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey stated that sequences indicating that the product is genetically modified were found in the analysis report it organized. In the expert reports organized by experts at Istanbul Technical University, it has also been stated that the products contain sequences indicating that they are genetically modified.
The Prosecutor General’s Office opened a public case at the high criminal court with a request to punish the applicant and some other persons, and the indictment also requested a decision to confiscate the confiscated paddy and rice-type items. On the other hand, upon determining that the rice sold by the Company to the Ministry of National Defense by tender did not comply with the Regulation on Genetically Modified Organisms and Their Products, the prosecutor general’s office filed a lawsuit demanding that the applicant and other persons be punished and a decision be made to confiscate the commodity, and the case was merged with another case heard in the high criminal court.
During the prosecution process, some reports from various laboratories stated that the products contained genetically modified organisms, but it was not clear whether this was caused by the rice itself or by transmission of the genetically modified organism. In his defense during the trial, the applicant claimed that the transmission of genetically modified organisms to the products could be caused by the transport or storage conditions.
The high criminal court decided on the applicant’s conviction and the confiscation of the rice subject to the crime. After the Court of Cassation corrected and approved this decision, the applicant applied to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals with a request to file an appeal to the Criminal General Assembly of the Supreme Court (Criminal General Assembly). The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals, which examined the application, applied to the Criminal General Assembly with a request to overturn the decision. The Criminal General Assembly rejected the appeal of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals.
The Allegations
The applicant claimed that the principle of legality of crimes and penalties, the right to a fair trial due to the erroneous evaluation of evidence and legal rules, the right to property rights were violated due to the confiscation of the genetically modified organism-infected product due to the establishment of a conviction provision by expanding the scope of the law for conduct contrary to the biochemical safety legislation.
The Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, from the point of view of the principle of legality of crimes and punishments, it was firstly examined whether the applicant was punished based on a law in a formal sense. 15 Of the Law No. 5977, under which the applicant was punished. in paragraph (1) of the article, it was seen that the person who imports, produces or releases genetically modified organisms and their products to the environment in violation of the provisions of this Law will be punished, and in this context, it was concluded that the applicant was punished based on a law in a formal sense.
Subjecting the penal provisions to an extenuating interpretation in a way that departs from the essence of the law may violate the principle of legality of crimes and punishments. Examining whether the interpretations of the judicial authorities in the concrete case have an expansionary nature that departs from the essence of the law, the Constitutional Court decided that Law No. 5977 15. in paragraph (1) of the article “who imports [genetically modified organism] and its products in violation of the provisions of this Law…” he drew attention to the fact that the concept was included. 2 of the Law No. 5977. in the first paragraph of the article, it was emphasized that the concepts of genetically modified organism and its products transmitted are defined separately. Taking these definitions into account, the products containing the substance defined as contaminated are included in Article 15 of the Law. it was not considered possible to accept the evaluation of the crime in paragraph (1) of the article as a predictable interpretation. Considering the definition of the concept of infected in the Law, it has been concluded that it would be a challenging interpretation to exclude the consideration of products containing infected within the scope of genetically modified organisms and their products from the usual meaning of the law.
The high criminal court conducting the trial in the concrete case recognized that the concept of genetically modified organisms and their products covers not only products with the nature of genetically modified organisms, but also products infected by these organisms. The high criminal court, without needing to clarify whether the paddy product is a genetically modified organism or a genetically modified organism-transmitted product, made a decision by assessing that both situations fall within the scope of the crime. The Court of Cassation also found the conviction verdict to be in accordance with the law. The Criminal General Assembly, on the other hand, drew attention to the definition of “[genetically modified organism] and its products” and concluded that this definition also covers products infected with genetically modified organisms. In the final evaluation during the legal remedies process, it was accepted that the paddy product imported by the company of which the applicant is the chairman of the board of directors is genetically modified organism transmitted and the judgment was established based on this acceptance. In the light of this information, it has been concluded that the evaluation of paddy product infected with genetically modified organism as genetically modified organism and its products is an expansive and unpredictable interpretation that departs from the essence of the legal regulation.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the principle of legality of crimes and punishments has been violated on the grounds described.
Klicken Sie hier, um zu unseren weiteren Artikeln und petitionsbeispielen zu gelangen
