Page 60 - iyi-yonetim-ilkleri

Manual On Good Administration Principles

Case Studies

Case 1: In the Decision dated 27/12/2007 and numbered 2007/939 E.,
2007/939 K. of the Plenary Session of Administrative Law Chambers, it
was requested to annul the privatisation proceeding of Petkim Petrokimya
Holding A. Ş . (PETKİM) through the sales of 51% of its public shares.
As a result of the examination conducted, it was emphasised that all the
administrative acts must be motivated undisputedly by public benefits, that
the administration must not have any motives that would derive personal
or political benefits or benefits to the third parties, must not deviate
from its powers with a view to obtaining financial interests, must consider
“overriding public benefits” in case of conflicts concerning more than one
public benefits; accordingly, the administrative act must be proceeded
considering all kinds of benefits and all sorts of prejudices to be resulted
from the act after the judicial audit of its purposes and if a specific purpose
was laid down in the law, the act must serve to the purpose in question.

Case 2: In the Decision dated 23/06/2016 of the Ombudsman Institution on
the application no. 2015/5199, the applicant claimed that his land, which
was determined as the zone allocated for public service according to zoning
plans, was expropriated 19 years ago and requested the municipality to
indemnify the loss, to zone the land for construction or exchange it with an
equivalent immovable property.
As a result of the examination and investigation of the Ombudsman
Institution, it was stated that the administration’s intervention on the
property owned by the applicant, which originated from the Law on Zoning
and had been ongoing since 1997, impelled the applicant to uncertainty
about the future of his/her property, this situation reduced the value of the
immovable property along with the sale potential to a considerable extent;
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; and this practices meant the abuse of
the power granted by the Law on Zoning.

59