Page 52 - iyi-yonetim-ilkleri

Manual On Good Administration Principles

Case Studies

Case 1: The Decision of the Ombudsman Institution dated 28/04/2017 and
application no. 2017/2171. The applicants applied to our Institution for not
having been admitted to the exam premises and not having been allowed in
the building on 12/03/2017 with the justification that they were late according
to the exam rules determined by the Centre for Assessment, Selection and
Placement, stipulating that “Admission of the candidates in the building shall
be completed 15 minutes before the start of the exam. Candidates shall not be
admitted to the exam premises after 09.45 a.m.”. The applicants demanded a
relief for their aggrievement from the Ombudsman Institution.
As a result of the evaluation made based on the principle of proportionality, the
Institution came to the conclusion that the rule of having to be present in front
of the exam building 15 minutes before the start of the exam was “convenient”
in terms of meeting the aims of the administration; however, the sanction that
candidates who are present in front of the building between 9.45 and 10.00
“shall not enter the exam building” did not provide the elements of “necessity”
and “proportionality” and that the intervention on the right to education
through an administrative sanction was not proportionate; therefore, this
sanction was unlawful and unfair.
The administration was recommended to help the applicants, who were
aggrieved because of not being allowed in the exam building although they
were present before the start of the exam, by reconsidering the rule of being
present in front of the exam building 15 minutes before the start of the exam
and to act proportionately in the event that similar radical decisions are made
for future exams and to thoroughly inform the candidates and their families
through the means of communications and media.
Case 2: It was stated in the Recommendation dated 18/01/2018 and no.
2017/10316 of the Ombudsman Institution that the administration’s
intervention on the property owned by the applicant, which originated from
the Law on Zoning and had been ongoing for thirty years, was an intervention
that affected the essence of right of property and impelled the applicant to
uncertainty about the future of his/her property and it was determined that as
his/her right of property was intervened, the fair balance, which was supposed
to be present between personal interest and general public interest, was
disturbed to the detriment of the applicant and the relevant intervention forced
the applicant to endure a difficult and extreme inconvenience; it was decided
that not relieving the victimisation of the applicant, who lodged a complaint
due to the fact that 365 m2 of the relevant property, whose surface area is
500m2, was designed as a “parking area”, was unlawful and inappropriate. The
administration was recommended to:

51