Page 146 - iyi-yonetim-ilkleri

Manual On Good Administration Principles

Case 5: In the Decision dated 28/02/2018 of the Plenary Session of
Administrative Law Chambers on the application 2015/2958 E., 2018/682
K., it was stated that the case was filed for the annulment of the rejection
of the request to abolish the application of overtime tracking with face
recognition system of the personnel working in Tokat State Hospital.

As a result of the examination, it was stated that both in the Constitution
and in international conventions, the privacy of individuals, their family life
and personal data must be respected and it was explicitly stipulated that
this privacy could not be intervened, that interference with this privacy was
only possible in cases that might constitute an obligation such as national
security and public order or in the cases provided for by law. It was found
that the “face recognition system”, which enabled collecting personal data
by means of taking pictures of the personnel and matching them with the
pictures already registered in the system, did not have any legal basis that
regulated the “limits, procedures and principles of implementation”, in the
face of right to privacy. Considering that there was no assurance that the
collected data would not be used in any other way in the future, it was
concluded that the proceeding about which a lawsuit was filed, was in no
way in compliance with lawfulness.
Case 6: In the Decision dated 28/03/2019 of the Ombudsman Institution
on the application no. 2018/1898, the applicant claimed and complained
that the cameras placed in the rooms where the convicts were housed saw
all living spaces including the entrances of toilets and showers; therefore,
the management monitored and recorded all vital activities such as eating,
drinking, TV, chat, and that being monitored for 24 hours could not be
justified by security reasons; on the contrary, it was used as a pressure tool
and this arbitrary treatment was a violation of the basic fundamental rights
and freedoms regulated in Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on
Human Rights and Article 10 of the United Nations International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights as well as the principle of the right to privacy
regulated in the Turkish Penal Code. The applicant requested that in order
to put an end to the camera application initiated in the ward, which was
the living space of the prisoners and convicts, an on-site examination be
carried out to identify the violation and abolish the application.
As a result of the examination, it was stated that although it was legally
acceptable to monitor and record the activities of people in public sphere
through technological tools, it cannot be assumed that these activities
would not result in any interference with private life, in cases of such
monitoring and/or systematic and permanent image recording by public
institutions there would be a need to reveal and clarify that the monitoring

145