Page 51 - On-merged

THE OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TÜRKİYE

• Using the powers granted to ensure public benefit and to provide public order
shall not be discretional;

• Powers shall be exercised in order to provide public benefit and ensure general
public interest

Case Study

In the Decision dated 27/12/2007 and numbered 2007/939 E., 2007/939 K. of
the Plenary Session of Administrative Law Chambers, it was requested to annul the
privatisation proceeding of Petkim Petrokimya Holding A. Ş . (PETKİM) through the
sales of 51% of its public shares.
As a result of the examination conducted, it was emphasized that all the administrative
acts must be motivated undisputedly by public benefits, that the administration must
not have any motives that would derive personal or political benefits or benefits to
the third parties, must not deviate from its powers with a view to obtaining financial
interests, must consider “overriding public benefits” in case of conflicts concerning
more than one public benefits; accordingly, the administrative act must be proceeded
considering all kinds of benefits and all sorts of prejudices to be resulted from the act
after the judicial audit of its purposes and if a specific purpose was laid down in the law,
the act must serve to the purpose in question.
IMPARTIALITY

The principle of impartiality refers to the objective provision of the services by the
administration or public officials regardless of identity, beliefs, thoughts and similar
characteristics of persons or groups.

The requirements of this principle are as follows:
• The administration should prohibit discrimination and ensure non-privileged
and equal treatment,

• Public officials should act independently of personal, family and similar interests.

• The official should not take part in a decision and process in which he or she, or
any close member of his or her family has an interest.

Case Study

In the Decision of the 12th Chamber of the Council of State dated 12/06/2014 and
numbered E.2014/3085, K.2014/4911, it was understood that an investigation was
launched against the plaintiff on the grounds that he had not come to work, and the
investigator, who was the disciplinary supervisor of the plaintiff, gave the plaintiff

50 2019 ANNUAL REPORT