Page 58 - On-merged

THE OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TÜRKİYE

(Hungarian Civil Liberties Union - TASZ), the Court made it clear that when public
bodies implement measures that prevent the information of the general public in the
fields concerning the general public, more careful scrutiny of the case as per Article
10 of the European Convention of Human Rights would be carried out and that the
function of the press was not limited to the media or professional journalists.

The Court found that the decision of refusal on the request of information formed a
monopoly of information and such administrative obstacle was a violation of Article
10 of the Convention. The Court pointed out that the ‘right to information’ was more
widely interpreted and it concluded that the interference with the applicant’s rights was
a violation of the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the
Convention on the grounds that it might cause deterrence from the matters concerning
the general public and entities of vital importance.
REASONABLE TIME LIMIT FOR TAKING DECISIONS

Conclusion of an application to the administration by individuals within an admissible
time frame taking sui generis aspect of the application means reasonable time limit
for taking decisions. As the determination of such a time frame individually for every
application is difficult, it is important to conclude every proceeding within the shortest
period of time possible by considering the characteristics of each of the applications.

The principle of reasonable time limit for taking decisions include the following:

• Compliance with the deadlines set for the applications to be concluded in the
legal arrangements,

• In the event that a time limit for taking decisions is not specified, completion
of the process as quickly as possible according to the characteristics of the
application,

• Non-extension of the time for taking decisions deliberately, arbitrarily or
negligently.
Case Study

In the Decision dated 22/12/1993 and numbered 1993/2193 E., 1993/4343 K. of
the 8th Chamber of the Council of State, it was stated that a lawsuit was filed by the
plaintiff, who was a graduate student in the master programme of the Legal Structure
of the European Community, with a view to annulling the decision dated 13/08/1991
no.84 of the Board of Directors on the withdrawal of the proceeding dated 09/10/1990
and no.72 on the lateral transfer of the Plaintiff to the Department of the Private Law
as the Department Head of the Private Law did not accept the transfer.

2019 ANNUAL REPORT 57