Photo: Pexels
Click to read the article in Turkish
Homes of thousands of people are now submerged in the water because of a dam built in the ancient city of Hasankeyf in Batman, southeastern Turkey.
One of them was denied a home in the new residential area built by the government because they were living alone and officially "unmarried."
Examining their application, the Constitutional Court has ruled that the prohibition of discrimination had been violated.
According to the ruling published in the Official Gazette, the applicant's mother died in 2008 and their father died in 2010.
A law amendment was passed to move Hasankeyf town center, which was going to submerge in the water, to a new residential area.
As per conditions specified in provisional article 8 of Law No. 5543, the people to be affected by the dam were given properties. However, the applicant, who was neither married nor living with their family, was not able to benefit from that because the law required "possessing the qualities of a family."
The Batman Provincial Directorate of Environment and Urbanization rejected an application by the person. Their lawsuit demanding the overturn of the administrative decision was also dismissed. Finally, they filed an individual application with the Constitutional Court.
Examining the application, the top court ruled that prohibition of discrimination was violated in relation to right to property.
Equality before the law
Citing Protocol No. 1 (property) and Article 14 (discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Constitutional Court said rights and freedoms should be provided with no discrimination.
When different treatment does not have an objective and reasonable justification, it is discrimination, the court stated, citing the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
In the applicant's case, there was no reasonable justification for their different treatment, the court concluded.
"It should be ruled that prohibition of discrimination, which is guaranteed in article 10 of the Constitution, in connection with right to property, which is regulated by article 35 of the Constitution, was violated," it stated.
A copy of the ruling will be sent to the local court for the retrial of the case and the elimination of the violation, the court further stated. (AS/VK)
