Sokağa Çıkma Yasağına İlişkin Emirnameler: KKTC’de Salgın Hastalıkla Mücadelede Olağan Hukuk ile Olağanüstü TedbirlerDemet Çelik Ulusoy, Emine Uzuner
Tüm dünyada etkisini gösteren yeni tip korona virüs (Covid 19) salgın hastalığı, hükümetlerin etkin ve hızlı kararlar almasını ve anayasal devletin sınırlarının sorgulanmasını gerektiren bir dönem olmuştur. İçinde bulunduğumuz dönemin, koşulları ve ortaya çıkardığı sonuçları itibariyle olağanüstü olduğuna şüphe yoktur. Hukukun üstünlüğüne dayanan demokratik bir devlette, ister olağan isterse olağanüstü dönemlerde olsun, iktidarın kullanılması bakımından siyasi iktidarlar her koşulda hukukla sınırlıdırlar. Olağanüstü durumlarla olağan hukuk çerçevesinde hareket etmek hukuk devletinin sınırlarını zorlayabilir. Bu tür olağanüstü durumlarla mücadele etmek için olağan hukukun uygun araçları da sunması gerekir. Bu araçların bulunmadığı durumlarda ise olağanüstü hukukun uygulanması beklenir. Bu süreç içerisinde Kuzey Kıbrıs’ta da salgın hastalığın önlenmesi amacıyla hızlı tedbirler alınarak uygulanmıştır. Çalışmada, olağanüstü durum ilanına gerek duyulmaksızın, temel hak ve hürriyetlerin durdurulması sonucunu ortaya çıkaran sokağa çıkma sınırlamasının hukuki boyutu üzerinde durulacaktır. Konu, Anayasa’nın temel ilkeleri üzerinden incelenecek, olağan hukuk kurallarıyla alınan salgın tedbirlerinin anayasallığı tartışılacaktır
Orders for Curfew: Extraordinary Measures with Ordinary Law in Struggle against Epidemic DiseaseDemet Çelik Ulusoy, Emine Uzuner
A new type of coronavirus epidemic affects the entire world. It requires governments to make quick and impactful decisions that push the limits of the constitutional state. There is no doubt that this period is extraordinary due to the circumstances of the situation and the consequences it produced. However, political power is limited in a democratic state based on the rule of law, whether circumstances are ordinary or extraordinary. Legal boundaries get pushed in exceptional circumstances within the framework of existing rules. Ordinary law must offer appropriate tools to combat extraordinary times. In the absence of these tools, extraordinary law is usually enforced. In the process, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) Government has started to implement rapid measures to prevent epidemics. This study focuses on the legal dimension of the curfew. It reveals the outcome of the cessation of fundamental rights and freedoms without the need for an emergency declaration. The curfew will be evaluated based on the constitutional principles and the constitutionality of epidemic measures taken under the usual law regulations.
Extraordinary circumstances such as epidemics, economic depression, or natural disasters can cause arbitrary government action in certain circumstances. In these circumstances, governments must make rapid and effective decisions to deal with extraordinary crises. Therefore, power restrictions can be halted temporarily and political powers rarely remain on the edge of the constitutional state borders. Emergency declarations and international conventions are suspended, especially in democratic countries, since extraordinary measures are not taken with existing laws in the battle against epidemics. Therefore, the announcement of an unusual situation is preferred because the political power is not competent enough to appeal to extraordinary measures with legal powers in democratic countries. It was debated whether to impose a curfew with the emergency declaration of coronavirus cases that first appeared in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC).
The President of the TRNC requested a state of emergency per the Constitution, but the current government stated it was not necessary on that date. There have been several discussions on emergency declarations in public, and they have caused tension between the President and the government. The Constitution states that the Council of Ministers (CM) needs to meet under the minister of the Republic to declare a state of emergency. After that, the deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister said a curfew was out of the question. However, due to the increasing number of cases, more extreme measures were needed.
The government resorted to preventative measures limiting constitutional rights and freedoms. In this context, the curfew, which limits the freedoms of movement and residence, protected by the Constitution (Article 22), is the main subject of this study. The study focuses on the legal dimension of the curfew. It reveals the result of ceasing fundamental rights and freedoms without the need for an emergency declaration. In this context, according to the Curfew Law (1955, Chapter 156) by the CM’s Order, partial curfew was declared with few exceptions on March 23 2020. A regulation that predicts a curfew is an Order. The basis of the Order is Chapter 156, an English-era law on the island. An Order is a decision, verdict, written order, or legal process stemming from the Anglo-Saxon legal system in TRNC, especially in administrative law and judicial body proceedings.
In our current extraordinary time, the legislature gives broad regulatory power to the executive. Epidemic disease is a legitimate cause for declaring a curfew that imposes restrictions on travel freedom in the TRNC Constitution. Most importantly, rights and freedoms are limited only by law. Considering these basic constitutional rules, the legality and judicial supervision of the Curfew Law and the procedures carried out accordingly and their compliance with the Constitution, especially the fundamental rights and freedoms, should be examined. The law does not reflect the current political power enacted and applied here by the English government on that date. This law should not be enforced under the Constitution since it is unconstitutional. In our opinion, it is unconstitutional because Transitional Article 4 of the Constitution states, “The legislation in force on the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution shall continue to be in force, in so far as such legislation is not contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution.” Therefore, the law is not in line with the restraint regime of rights and freedoms (Article 11). Its limits must be clear, predictable, and transparent by law with legitimate reasons. The legislative branch has recently enacted the Law on Infectious Diseases. This law has been inadequate in the fight against the current epidemic in terms of limiting travel freedom. In the Curfew Law context, the Order, as an administrative regulatory action, its enforcement, and related decisions, should be discussed within a constitutional framework.