Page 147 - iyi-yonetim-ilkleri

Manual On Good Administration Principles

did not constitute an intervention in their private lives and they were
not registered (storage), meaning that within the scope of the powers
and duties granted to the criminal enforcement units and officers, it was
necessary to establish a uniform method of recording, storing, protecting
and destroying these images in a way that does not cause unrest among
the persons concerned, does not constitute an intervention in private life
and ensures the protection of personal data. It was also stated that in the
present case, although the cases of monitoring the common living spaces
in the penitentiary institution subject to the complaint and storing these
records were based on a legal basis and multiple security reasons, it carried
a serious risk of intervention of the principle of the right to privacy and it was
necessary to keep in mind that it would cause unrest among the persons
concerned, this sensitivity should be conveyed to the persons responsible
for this practice, the questions of the persons concerned subject to the
application should be clarified. The Ombudsman Institution recommended
the administration that the people responsible for the application be
conveyed this sensitivity to, the questions of the persons subject to the
application be clarified, an administrative proceeding regulating the
conditions in the institution that camera and storage system should carry
(legal and technical specifications such as determination of areas to be
monitored, forbidden areas, angle, resolution, sound recording, storage
time, authorisation to access to recordings, etc.) be conducted.
Case 7: In the Decision dated 02/09/2019 of the Ombudsman Institution
on the application no. 2019/9841, the applicant requested the removal of
certain clauses in his Social Security Institution Registration and Service
Scheme document.

As a result of the examination of the Ombudsman Institution, it was
identified that the applicant stated that the clause stating that “The person
concerned is subject to 15 years for the insurance period. (Due to disability)
He becomes eligible for retirement as of 08/03/2034” was concerning his
private condition and did not want anyone to know about it; however,
it was concluded that the applicant was the only one who could access
the records in question through e-Government and in case where the
applicant referred to the institutions for the acts and actions relevant to
social security, this information would be accessible only by the personnel
proceeding an act about the applicant upon request, it was not possible for
others to know about it and if the record in question was removed upon
the request of the applicant, it could result in an erroneous proceeding
about the relevant person since the required description would not be
viewed ant more on the program; therefore, there was no interference
with the right to data protection of the applicant.

146