Precedent decision from court: Governor cannot ban all protests and events

2025-05-27 09:14:13


	WAN - Erzurum Regional Administrative Court has ruled the governorate's decision to ban protests against the trustee initiative unlawful.

	 

	Immediately after the local elections held in Wan (Van) on 31 March 2024, Abdullah Zeydan, who had been elected as Co-Mayor of the Metropolitan Municipality, was asked to give his mazbat to the AKP candidate. Upon this, protests started in the city and the Governorate of Van issued a 15-day "ban on demonstrations and events".

	 

	ADMINISTRATIVE COURT DECISION

	 

	An application was made to Van 4th Administrative Court for a "stay of execution" against the decision. The Administrative Court claimed that the police attack against the protests "did not contradict the requirements of democratic social order" and that the ban decision "complied with the principle of proportionality". The court ruled on 20 October 2024 that the ban was "appropriate".

	 

	Lawyer Mahmut Kaçan applied to the 6th Administrative Case Chamber of Erzurum Regional Administrative Court. The court ruled on the application on 9 May 2025. In its decision, the court stated that the governorate's 15-day banning decision covering the entire province had no basis.

	 

	It was pointed out that the governorship cannot take a general decision such as banning all kinds of demonstrations and events. In the decision, it was stated that "the governorship made a decision to ban all meetings that would cover the entire province and were not specific, the banning decision did not meet the conditions of legality and there was no legal accuracy in the decision". The court ruled for the cancellation of the transaction subject to the lawsuit.

	 

	'THE DECISION IS A PRECEDENT'

	 

	Speaking about the decision, lawyer Mahmut Kaçan said, "This decision has redrawn the fine line between 'security' and 'freedom'. By cancelling the governorate's 15-day blanket ban, the Court of Appeal has made an important statement of principle. The court said that blanket bans are incompatible with democracy and that only concrete threats can restrict rights. The court has belatedly reminded the administration of the law by pointing out that general grounds such as 'terrorist risk' are not sufficient. The decision is a precedent for similar bans."

	 

	MA / Adnan Bilen