Considerations on the Conditions Provided for the Restriction of Freedom for the Purposes of Protection due to an extremely dangerous Infectious Disease
Nil Karabağ BulutThe institution of restriction of freedom for the purposes of protection is regulated as a guardian-ship measure under the Turkish Civil Code (TCC), and under conditions specified in Article 432 of TCC, it allows compulsory placement or detainment in a certain establishment of individuals in need of personal protection. Restriction of freedom by compulsory placement/detainment in a particular establishment aims to protect the relevant individual needs. Such restriction requires the need for protection to arise from the causes of weakness listed under Article 432 of TCC. This measure, which was first introduced into Turkish Law by the TCC numbered 4721, is regu-lated within the guardianship provisions; however, it serves for the protection of the society ra-ther than the protection of the person concerned due to its conditions of implementation. It seems that the legislator stipulates the protection for instances where the person concerned also poses a threat to society. Furthermore, restriction of freedom due to an extremely dangerous in-fectious disease serves, in itself, the purpose of protecting society. Implementation of forced treatment is not regulated under these provisions even though forced treatment is a feasible method to overcome the need for protection specifically when this need is due to lack of mental capacity. The absence of provisions regarding forced treatment may result in lifelong detainment of individuals who lack mental capacity. The reasons stated so far reveals that the institution of restriction of freedom for protection and, in particular, its conditions for implementation must be revised following the objectives of the guardianship institution. Hence, this study aims to evalu-ate the conditions set forth under Article 432 of TCC within this context.
Koruma Amacıyla Özgürlüğün Kısıtlanması Kurumunun Ağır Tehlike Arz Eden Salgın Hastalık Hali Bakımından Elverişliliğinin Değerlendirilmesi
Nil Karabağ BulutTürk Medeni Kanunu’nda bir vesayet tedbiri olarak düzenlenmiş olan koruma amacıyla özgürlüğün kısıtlanması kurumu, kişisel korumaya ihtiyaç duyan gerçek kişilerin TMK m 432 hükmünde sayılan şartlarla belirli bir kuruma zorla yerleştirilmelerini veya belirli bir kurumda zorla alıkonulmalarını düzenlemektedir. Özgürlüğün belirli bir kuruma yerleştirilmek veya orada alıkonulmak amacıyla kısıtlanması, kişinin ihtiyaç duyduğu kişisel korumanın sağlanması amacına yöneliktir. Bir kişinin özgürlüğünün bu şekilde kısıtlanması, koruma ihtiyacının TMK m 432 hükmünde sayılan zayıflık halleri dolayısıyla ortaya çıkmış olmasına bağlıdır. Türk Hukuku’na ilk defa 4721 sayılı Türk Medeni Kanunu ile girmiş olan bu tedbir, vesayet hükümleri arasında yer almakla birlikte, uygulanması için öngörülen şartlar itibariyle, ilgili kişinin korunmasından ziyade toplumun korunmasına hizmet edecek şekilde düzenlenmiştir. Kanun koyucu, TMK m 432 hükmünde sayılan zayıflık halleri dolayısıyla ortaya çıkan koruma ihtiyacının karşılanmasını, ilgili kişinin toplum için tehlike oluşturması şartına bağlamış görünmektedir. Bunun yanı sıra, hükümde sayılan zayıflık hallerinden ağır tehlike arzeden bulaşıcı hastalık dolayısıyla kişi özgürlüğünün kısıtlanması, başlı başına toplumun korunması amacına hizmet etmektedir. Kanun koyucu, koruma amacıyla özgürlüğün kısıtlanmasına ilişkin hükümler arasında zorla tedaviye yer vermemiştir. Özellikle, korunma ihtiyacının ayırt etme gücünün bulunmaması dolayısıyla ortaya çıkmış olduğu hallerde zorla tedavi, kısa sürede kişinin korunma ihtiyacının ortadan kalkmasını sağlayabilecektir. Kanun koyucunun TMK m 432 vd hükümlerinde bu yönde bir düzenleme getirmemiş olması, ayırt etme gücü olmayan kişilerin ömür boyu bir kurumda kalmaları sonucunu doğurabilecektir. Buraya kadar ifade edilen sebepler, koruma amacıyla özgürlüğün kısıtlanması kurumunun vesayet kurumu ile öngörülen amaçlara uygun bir şekilde, özellikle şartları itibariyle yeniden düzenlenmesini gerektirmektedir. Çalışmanın amacı, TMK m 432 hükmü kapsamında öngörülmüş olan şartların, bu açıdan değerlendirilmesidir.
Certain conditions of restriction of freedom for protection that are regulated are incorporated from Article 19/II of the Turkish Constitution, which aims to provide the legal basis of preventive measures under Article 432 of the Turkish Civil Code (TCC). Hence, mental disorder, mental disability, alcohol and drug addiction, extremely dangerous infectious disease, and vagrancy are specified in line with Article 19 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, Article 432 of TCC is a measure of deputyship that solely aims for the protection of personality. The preventive measures are intended for the protection of public health and safety. Therefore, interpretation of the conditions provided by Article 432 of TCC must be carried out bearing in mind its nature of deputyship measure.
One of the grounds for the restriction of freedom for protection set forth by Article 432 of TCC is “extremely dangerous infectious disease.” The restriction of freedom based on a serious infectious disease aims to protect the public. Inclusion of extremely dangerous infectious disease to Article 432 aims to prevent the spread of the disease; therefore, the purpose is to protect the public. Thus, the measure in question holds a just cause and pursues maintaining public safety, particularly public health. The spread of the disease to this extent not only endangers the health of individuals but also has adverse effects, primarily on the healthcare system and also on other areas such as economy and education, thus causing living conditions to be oppressive. Consequently, recent outcomes of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic have demonstrated the necessity of implementing such a provision.
However, the application of forced treatment is beyond the scope of Article 432 of TCC, and the desired protection cannot be achieved through this provision. In case of serious infectious disease, Article 432 lacks legal legitimacy for the protection of public health. This provision excludes forced treatment, even under the assumption that individual protection is linked to treatment.
Moreover, the restriction of freedom for protection as per Article 432 requires a decision issued by the court of deputyship. However, any delay arising from this requirement would only cause further spreading of the disease during a pandemic such as Covid-19. In such a case, there is a public interest in isolating the patient without requiring a court order. For reasons explained thus far, the prevention of the spread of an extremely dangerous infectious disease cannot be maintained by implementing the deputyship measure of the restriction of freedom for protection. In other words, instances of extremely dangerous infectious disease should be removed from the scope of the relevant provision.
Furthermore, the Public Healthcare Law numbered 1593, dated April 24, 1930, is still in force under Turkish law. To enable the implementation of immediate measures, the aforementioned law needs modernization. In addition, a balance needs to maintained between the limited interest for the protection of freedom of infected or suspected patients and the elimination of extremely dangerous infectious diseases considering public interest. Therefore, the principle of proportionality should be applied regarding isolation and forced treatment, and general principles and rules of implementation concerning forced treatment should be thoroughly regulated.
The condition of potential “endangering of the society” is also required for the application of the said measure in addition to the instances of the need for individual protection specified under the provision. This additional condition is only suitable in relation to the implementation of extremely dangerous infectious disease from among the instances listed under Article 432. Therefore, the conditions of “endangering the society” and the “extremely dangerous infectious disease” should both be removed from Article 432 TCC. The restriction of freedom for protection serves to protect those who need protection for certain reasons and is regulated under the institution of “deputyship.” The judge should rule in issues concerning the application of Article 432 of TCC bearing in mind the purpose of the deputyship institution. The condition of endangering the society should be interpreted narrowly and must only be applied to instances of extremely dangerous infectious disease taking into account the purpose of the relevant provision. In line with the principle regulated under Article 23 of the TCC where personal rights of an individual are also protected against his or her actions, the application of such a measure should a fortiori be allowed in instances where the focus of protection is the individual himself or herself. This is the case while bearing in mind that forced placement or detainment is possible even for the purposes of public protection.
