Page 244 - kdk-sempozyum-3

fullest extent cannot be sought and course of the events and personal
impression are sufficient about this matter. Hence, since in this ruling
it is stated that the burden of proof is upon a public organization and
is also departing from the fact that the related person has never had
an issue before in his professional career, new debates may take place
in administrative law and new developments may occur.

Another judgement is similar to the one that I covered in part “F”
about creation of practical solutions. An interesting administrative
duty is determined here and it must be a different heading from the
standpoint of the administrative law. It is not possible to find such a
heading or title in the administrative law that is developed with the
help of judiciary. Yet, in a case where a person’s ID was bearing an
original and fresh stamp or not was not understood, this person is put
in a disadvantaged situation. Upon a complaint by such persons, the
judgement says that practical solutions must be devised.
A public administration or organization is able to generate a practical
solution in order to not to cause any victimization. Such an assessment
is raised by the judgement.
Without doubt, the judgements to be criticized must also be discussed
here. For instance, a public organization experiences `a shift of
missions` and continues to adopt a wrong-doing as a best practice
and renders it legitimate. The administrative law guides us that if
you charge a fee under the name of `fee for access to information
and documents` rather than `answer sheet evaluation expenses
fee` which is the real purpose of the ÖSYM (university central exam
placement center), there would be no non-compliance with law. And
even it would be more appropriate for ÖSYM to continue to demand
such fees under the name of `fee for access to information and
documents` rather than the other reason, in line with the general
communication on fees for access to information and documents. At
the end of the day, since the matter is a fee, it may be evaluated that
legitimization of the procedure may be the question instead of the fee.
I would like to talk over the main issue now, in order not to exceed
my time any further. I want to draw your attention to a point that
the Ombudsman of Turkey identified in view of the actions and
procedures between the Ombudsman and the public sector: a duty is

rd
242 | 3 INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTIONS