Translation in English
28.07.2016 — 5291
Criminal Offices of Judge of Peace
of Golbasi (ANKARA)
MISCELLANEOUS CASE DECISION
MISCELLANEOUS CASE N. : 2016/781 M. Case
Request : Denied access decision approval
Denied access date : 23/07/2016
Request date : 24/07/2016
Decision date : 25/07/2016
With Turkish Republic Prime Minister Office Security Affairs General Directorate official communication and pursuant to the article 8/A, added to law number 5651 that came into effect since the publication on the Official Gazette number 29327 on 15/04/2015 and with 29th article of the Law №6639 (Law on Amendments to Some Laws and Decree Laws), due to contents praising terrorism, encouraging violence and crime, menacing public order and national security, in non-delayable case requested to decide for the removal of their contents and/or blocking of the internet addresses listed below:
The request within the concept of ‘’Protection of the right to life and safety of persons and property, protection of national security and public order, prevention of crime’’ is founded in accordance with the procedure and the law, on demand, as shown in the article in (b), in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 8/A of Law no. 5651, relating to the internet content in non-delayable case mentioned above, our Directorate decided to take administrative measures to remove content/block access. In this context, related access and content providers were notified about content removal/access blocking.
The decision of blocking access and removing content taken by the Directorate on the request of related ministries and presidency stated in the second paragraph of the law numbered 5651 is submitted for the approval of the judge of criminal offices of judge and peace within 24 hours. The Judge explains his decision within 48 hours, otherwise the decision shall be lifted automatically. In accordance with the provision, the decision of removing content/preventing access taken by TIB (Presidency of Telecommunication and Communication) is submitted to the approval of your judge of criminal offices.
With registered official communication and pursuant to the Article 29 of the Law №6639 (Law on Amendments to Some Laws and Decree Laws) and Article 8/A, added to the Law №5651 that came into effect since the publication in the Official Gazette number 29327 on 15/04/2015, due to the contents in non-delayable case, appearing in the internet addresses that praise terrorism, encourage violence and crime and threaten public order and national security, it is understood that the decision given by TIB Presidency regarding the removal of the content or the blocking of the access regarding the following internet addresses is in compliance with the procedures/laws and it was needed to decide to approve the injunction on preventing access and removing of the contents on the internet addresses specified in the request file.
THE COURT HAS DECREED THAT: Justification as explained above
Within the scope of Article 8/A of Law no. 5651, with the decision dated 03/09/2015 and numbered 34403158–041.99.00–2015.391816 issued by Presidency of Telecommunication and Communication,
In accordance with the second paragraph of Article 8/A of Law no. 5651 it was decided
-to approve the injunction on removing contents/blocking access of the internet addresses listed below that praise terrorism, encourage violence and crime, threaten public order and national security in order to ensure the protection of persons’ lives and property and to prevent crime.
– to send the decision to the Presidency of Telecommunication and Communication
According to the 6th paragraph of Article 9/A of Law no. 5651, against the decision given by the judge, it may be appealed according to the provisions of Law №5271
The above mentioned decisions, provided that it be possible to appeal by applying to our court, were taken in accordance with the Article 267 and following articles of Criminal Court Law, within 7 days after the notification after the examination of document 25/07/2016.
Katip////////////// . Hakim//////////////
Il caso di Gianluca Costantini ci interroga sulla libertà d’espressione e sulla democrazia autoritaria