Page 110 - iyi-yonetim-ilkleri

Manual On Good Administration Principles

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.

Case 2: In the Decision dated 15/04/2015 and numbered E.2014/5076.,
K.2015/2184 of the15th Chamber of the Council of State, it was stated that
a lawsuit was brought by the applicant with the request of non-pecuniary
damage of 10.000 ₺ (Turkish Liras) for gross service negligence due to non-
disclosure of the patient file to the patient and on the grounds that wrong
diagnosis and false treatment were in question during the pregnancy
follow-up and the applicant was not well-informed on the process, which
led to the loss of their baby.

As a result of the examination of the information and documents in the file,
it was found out that patient file and other information and documents
were not open to the access of the patient during the legal termand it
was discussed whether the violation of the right to information constituted
a service negligence. Such cases as inadequate number and quality of
the personnel in the information units of the subject administration,
lack of necessary training of the personnel, lack of attention and care in
the service of the personnel, and incorrect/inaccurate and incomplete
responses to the requests cause the administration to be wrongful due to
“malfunctioning of the administration”, and that the applications related
to the exercise of the right to information which are considered after the
completion of the legal term will be an indicator of “delay in the service”.
Accordingly, considering the fact that the patient file and epicrisis report
along with death certificate requested under the right to information were
not provided in time for the plaintiff, which would cause suspicion and
mental collapse in the case of the mother and father whose baby were
stillborn due to malfunctioning of health services, it was concluded that
non-pecuniary damage request shall be met.
Case 3: The Decision of the Ombudsman Institution numbered 2018/9516
and dated 14/01/2019 is about the case of an applicant, who requested
the Ombudsman Institution to examine the decisions of the Right to
Information Assessment Board within the framework of an understanding
of human rights-based justice and legality and conformity with principles of
fairness, due to the rejection of his request based on the lack of documents
relevant to the fact that the applicant requested for information from his/
her workplace and that the Institution in question did not meet the request
within the scope of defined legal term.

109