SPY’nin 108 M addesinin İptali Anayasa’daki Parti Y asaklama Rejimini Fiilen Etkisiz Kılar mı?

Bir parti hakkında kapatma davası açılmış olması, dava kapatma kararı ile sonuçlanmasa bile; o partinin seçmenleri ve siyasal geleceği üzerinde olumsuz etkiler yaratabilmektedir. O halde, dava açma yetkisinin şüphe ya da siyasal baskılar nedeniyle kullanımından kaçınmak, yeterli ve kesin delil elde etmedikçe böyle bir yola başvurmamak gerekir. Partilerin Yasak­ lanması, Kapatılması ve Benzer Önlemler Hakkında” Venedik Komisyo- nu’nca hazırlanan raporda da belirtildiği gibi14; “demokratik bir toplumda, bir partinin kapatılması istisnai bir önlemdir. Yetkili devlet organlarının, bir partinin kapatılmasını yargı organlarından isteyebilmeleri için, temel hak ve özgürlükler veya anayasal düzen için gerçek bir tehdidin mevcut

13 Yasal tedbir niteliğindeki benzer bir hüküm, 5253 sayılı D em ekler K anunu’nda bulun­ maktadır (m d.15/331): “Feshedilmesi için hakkında soruşturma veya dava açılmış olan bir demek, fesih ve buna bağlı olarak dem ek mallarının devrine dair bir karar aldığı takdirde, soruşturma ve dava sonuçlanıncaya kadar devir işlemi yapılmaz.”

14 İngilizce ve Fransızca metinler için bkz., European Commission for Dem ocracy Thro­ ugh Law (Venice Commission), “Guidelines on Prohibition and dissolution o f Politicial Parties and Analogous M easures”, CDL-INF (2000) 1 ; Commission Européenne pour la Democratic par le Droit (Commission de Venice), “Lignes Directrices sur l ’interdiction et la Dissolution des Partis Politiques et les M esures Analogues”, CDL-INF (2000) 1. Rapo­ run İngilizce ve Fransızca metnine şu internet adresinden ulaşılabilir: http://venice.coe.int; Raporun özeti için bkz. Ekrem Ali Akartürk, A v ru p a H u k u k u n a U yum S üreci A çısın­ d an T ü r k H u k u k u n d a Siyasal P a rti Y asak la rı, Yeditepe Ünv. Yayını, İstanbul, 2008, s. 102- 103.

76 Doç. Dr. / Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ekrem. Ali AKARTÜRK

olduğunu gösteren yeterli kanıta sahip olmaları gerekir. Eğer yeterli kanıt elde edilememiş ise, davanın açılmaması gerekir”.

Ancak partinin kapatılması hakkında yeterli ve kesin delille’" elde edilmişse; Yargıtay Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığının bu davayı açması anaya­ sal görevidir. Öte yandan Anayasa Mahkemesinin davaya bakmakla görev­ li mahkeme olarak, delilleri değerlendirip, bu davayı sonuçlandırması ve iddialar hakkındaki hukuksal gerçeği ortaya koyması da anayasal bir gö­ revdir (Ay. md.69/III).

Hakkında kapatma davası açılmış bir partinin kapanma karan alması ile böyle bir dava ile muhatap olmayan bir partinin kapanma kararı alması arasında kayda değer bir fark bulunduğu açıktır. Davanın kapatma ile so­ nuçlanması ihtimali, davalı partinin kapanma kararını serbest iradesi ile değil, anayasal yaptırımları etkisiz hale getirmenin bir yöntemi olarak kul­ lanmasına yol açar. Öte yandan, hakkında kapatma davası açılmış iki parti olduğunu varsayalım. Davalı partilerden biri kapanma kararı alarak olası bir kapatma kararının olumsuz sonuçlarım bertaraf ederken, diğer davalı partinin böyle bir yola başvurmaksızın hukuksal mücadelesini dava süre­ cinde ve kapatılma tehdidi altında yapması eşitlik ve dürüstlük ilkesi ile bağdaşmaz.

Nitekim söz konusu iptal kararma muhalif üyeler bu sakıncalı duru­ mu karşı oy yazılarında dile getirmişlerdir15: “Bu durumda, kamu düzenini aynı ölçüde ihlâl eden ve söz konusu ihlâller nedeniyle cezalandırılmaları istemiyle haklarında dava açılan iki partiden biri kendisini feshederek ile­ ride verilebilecek bir kapatma kararının Anayasa’mn 69. maddesinin seki­ zinci ve dokuzuncu fıkralarında belirtilen bir başka ad altında kurulamama ve beş yıl süreyle bazı siyasi hakları kullanamama, 2820 sayılı Siyasi Par­ tiler Yasası’nm 107. maddesi uyarınca da malların hâzineye devri gibi olumsuz sonuçlarından kendisini koruyabilecek diğeri ise aynı olanağa sahip olamayacaktır. Bu durumun, siyasi partiler arasında eşit, adil ve hak­ kaniyete uygun bir dengenin kurulmasını engelleyeceği açıktır.”

SPY’nin 108. madde hükmünün iptal edilmesi nedeniyle, hakkında kapatma davası açılmış bir siyasal partinin kapanma kararı alması duru­ munda Anayasada öngörülen parti yasaklama rejimi davalı parti açısından 15 Bkz. F. Kantarcıoğlu, A. Akyalçm, M. Erten ve F. O to’nun karşı oy yazısı: AYM. E. 2010/17; K. 2010/112; Kt. 8.12.2010; Resmi Gazete: 05.02.2011-27837.

fiilen etkisiz hale gelir mi? Bu soruyu şu varsayımla somutlaştırarak yanıt­ layalım: Bir an için hakkında kapatma davası açılan bir partinin Anayasaya aykırı fiillerin odağı olduğuna ya da yabancı unsurlardan maddi yardım aldığına ilişkin çok ciddi delillerin bulunduğunu ve Yargıtay Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığının bu delillere dayanarak kapatma davası açtığını varsayalım. 108. madde veya benzeri bir kuralın yokluğu halinde, hakkında kapatma davası bulunan partinin hükmün açıklanmasından çok kısa bir süre önce kendini feshederek kapanması halinde Anayasa Mahkemesi kapatmaya dayanak oluşturabilecek delilleri ciddi bulsa bile, davaya devam edemeye­ cek ve davanın düşürülmesine karar verecektir.

Kaldı ki 1982 Anayasası’na göre (md. 153/11); “Anayasa Mahkemesi bir kanun veya kanun hükmünde kararnamenin tamamını veya bir hükmü­ nü iptal ederken, kanun koyucu gibi hareketle, yeni bir uygulamaya yol açacak biçimde hüküm tesis edemez.” Yüksek Mahkeme SPY md.108 hükmünü iptal etmek suretiyle parti yasaklama rejiminde Anayasa’da ön­ görülmeyen yeni bir uygulamaya yol açmıştır. Anayasa’da öngörülen parti kapatma rejimi böylece hakkında kapatma davası açılmış ve dava sürecin­ de kapanma kararı almış bütün partiler açısından hükümsüz hale getiril­ miştir.

Anayasanın 69. maddesi açık bir şekilde, “ Siyasî partilerin kapatıl­ ması, Yargıtay Cumhuriyet Başsavcısının açacağı dava üzerine Anayasa Mahkemesince kesin olarak karara bağlanır.” hükmünü ihtiva ettiğine gö­ re, hakkında kapatma davası açılmış bir partinin dava sürecinde kapanma kararı alması hem savcılık makamının kapatma davası açma yetkisini hem de bu davalara bakmakla görevlendirilmiş Anayasa Mahkemesinin yargı­ lama faaliyetinde bulunmasını anlamsız ve gereksiz kılar. Sonuç olarak; SPY’nin 108 maddesinin iptali nedeniyle, kapatma davası sürecinde ka­ panma kararı alan davalı parti açısından, Anayasa’nm 68. ve 69. madde­ sinde öngörülen yasak ve yaptırımlar etkisiz hale gelmiştir.

ANAYASA MAHKEMESİ'NİN SİYASİ PARTİLER YASASININ 108. MADDESİ HAKKINDA 77

VERDİĞİ İPTAL KARARININ PARTİ YASAKLAMA REJİMİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİLERİ__________

A BRIEF ASSESSMENT ON THE ABILITY OF SECTIONS 7, 8

AND 2 OF THE ENGLISH FOOD SAFETY ACT 1990 TO DEAL W ITH THE SALE AND SUPPLY 0>F UNSAFE FOOD

(1990 TARİHLİ İN G İLİZ GIDA GÜVENLİĞİ K A N U N U ’N U N 7, 8 VE 9. M ADDELE­ R İND EKİ D Ü ZENLEM ELERİN GÜVENLİ OLMA YAN GIDALARLA M ÜCADELE E T ­

M E HUSUSUNDA ETKİNLİKLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ)

Doç. Dr. / Assoc. Prof. Dr. Halide Gökçe TÜRKOĞLU*

ÖZET

Başta İngiltere ve Avrupa’nın diğer ülkelerinde yaşanan gıda kay­ naklı salgın hastalıkların yarattığı kamu baskısı neticesiyle hazırlanan 1990 tarihli İngiliz Gıda Güvenliği Kanunu, esas olarak güvenli olmayan gıda­ larla mücadele etme hususunda, 7, 8 ve 9. maddelerindeki düzenlemeler sayesinde önemli adımlar atmakla birlikte, yeni ihtiyaçlar ve teknolojik gelişmeler karşısında kısmen yetersiz kalmıştır. Her ne kadar, Avrupa Bir­ liği düzenlemeleri ile revize edilmiş olsa da, gıda sektöründeki hızlı geliş­ meler, İngiliz hukukunun bu alanında yeni yasal düzenlemelerin yapılma­ sını gerekli kılmaktadır.

A nahtar Kelimeler: İngiliz Gıda Güvenliği Kanunu, Gıda Kanunu, güvenli olmayan gıda, Tüketicinin Korunması Hakkında Kanun.

AB ST R A C T

1990 English Food Safety Act was enacted especially to ease the public concern on serious food scares in Britain and in other European countries. It can be accepted that 1990 Food Safety Act was successful to deal with the sale and supply o f unsafe fo o d because o f the provisions in sections 7, 8 and 9. However, due to the new requirements and technologi­

cal developments, these provisions became insufficient partially. Even though the Food Safety Act 1990 was revised by the European Union regu­ lations-, the fa st progress o f food sector proved that UK law system needs some new provisions to deal with the sale and supply o f unsafe food.

Keywords: English Food Safety Act, the Food Act, unsafe food, Con­ sumer Protection Act.

' k ' t e ’k

Numerous food scares precipitated the enactment of the Food Safety Act 1990, but it was actually the outcome of a long-term review of food legis­ lation reflecting the need to modernize and strengthen the controls over food1. The Food Safety Act 1990 is concerned with the safety of food2.

Since 1999, there have been significant changes in the food safety law in the United Kingdom. In particular, The European Union adopted the General Food Law Regulation (EC) 178/20023, which came fully into effect in 2005. Offences for breaches of these laws have been put into ef­ fect in Great Britain by the General Food Regulations 2004, which has also made changes to FSA 1990. In addition, the Food Safety Act 1990 (Amendment) Regulations 2004 changed the definition of “food” in the Food Safety Act to bring it in line, with Regulation (EC) 178/20Q24.

The Food Safety Act 1990 re-enacts the offence of rendering food injurious to health with the intent to sell the food for human consumption5.

A BRIEF ASSESSMENT ON THE ABILITY OF SECTIONS 7, 8 AND 9 OF THE ENGLISH 79

FOOD SAFETY ACT 1990 TO DEAL WITH THE SALE AND SUPPLY OF UNSAFE FOOD

Yaşar Üniversitesi H ukuk Fakültesi, Hukuk Tarihi Âııabiiim Dalı Öğretim Üyesi, e- m ail: halide.turkoglu@ yasar.edu.tr

1 Bradgate J. R. &Howells G. G. “Food Safety- An Appraisal o f the N ew Law ” (1991),

Journal o f Business Law, July, p. 320.

2 Howells G. G. &Bradgate I. R. & Griffiths M. B lackstone’s Guide to the F ood Safety

A ct 1990, (Blackstone, 1990), p. 9.

3 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 o f the European Parliament and o f the Council o f 28 January 2002 laying down the General Principles and Requirements o f Food Law, Establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down Procedures in matters o f Food Safety.

4 Food Standards Agency F ood Safety A ct 1990- A Guide fo r Food Businesses, 2009 Edition, p .6.

5 FSA 1990 s 7.

80 Doç. Dr. / Assoc. Prof. Dr. Halide Gökçe TÜRKOĞLU

This offence was also found in the Food Act 1984. The offence is commit­ ted by: “(a) adding any article or substance to the food; (b) using any arti­ cle or substance as an ingredient in the preparation of the food; (c) ab­ stracting any constituent from the food and (d) subjecting the food to any other process or treatment” (s 7(1)).

The definition of “article”, “substance” and “preparation” are given in the Food Safety Act 1990 section 53. “Preparation” is widely defined to include manufacture and “any form of processing or treatment” and “treatment” is in turn defined as including subjecting the food to hot or cold. “Process” is not defined. It has been suggested that a process must be a “continuous and regular operation”, although the House of Lords has held that a process can include any operation or series of operations carried on over a period of more than minimal duration, even if not repeated, pro­ vided there is some degree of continuity over a period of time6. In the Par­ liamentary debates on the Consumer Protection Act 1987, it was suggested that a process must alter some essential characteristic of the food product. However, it is concerned with consumer protection and public safety a court would give a wide and natural meaning to “process” to include such activities as slaughtering food animals, pasteurising milk, canning and bottling and so on and perhaps even washing vegetables7.

In recent years concern has expressed about the effects of chemicals used to treat fruit and vegetables. Citrus fruit are often treated with a wax chemical spray after picking: the long term effects of such sprays and their residues are unknown. Such treatment would appear to be capable of giv­ ing rise to liability under para, (a), (b) or (d) if the wide definition of “pro­ cess” suggested above is accepted. Similarly, spraying food with chemi­ cals could fall within either para, (a) or (d) and give rise to liability if it is shown that the spray has harmful effects, either in the short or long term.

The offence in the Food Safety Act section 7 can be committed by abstracting a constituent from food as well as by adding things to food. Case law indicates that a constituent can be abstracted by for instance evaporation8. But the offence in section 7 appears to leave one loophole. 6 Nurse v Morganite Crucible Ltd [1989] 1 All ER 113.

7 Howells &Bradgate &Griffiths, p. 17.

8 See Bridges v Griffin [1925] 2 KB 233; Dearden v W hitley (1916) 85 LJKB 1420.

No offence is committed by failing to subject the food to a necessary pro­ cess or treatment. Thus for instance, a failure to cook red kidney beans adequately prior to canning would not give rise to an offence under the Food Safety Act section 79.

In order to be an offence it must be demonstrated that the food was rendered injurious to health. For the first time there is a statutory definition of “injury to health” which is defined as “any impairment, whether perma­ nent or temporary”10. The provision clearly covers potential injury to the consumer, as well as any actual injury. Where a person has been so in­ jured, it may also be possible to claim damages under the Consumer Pro­ tection Act 1987.

The Food Safety Act 1990 states that in determining whether some­ thing is injurious to health, regard should be had to not only to the proba­ ble effect of that food on the person consuming it but also the probable cumulative effect of food of substantially the same composition on the health of a person consuming it in ordinary quantities11.

This direction, to have regard to both the immediate effect of the food in question and to the long-term effects of consumption of similar food, reproduces a similar provision in section 1 (4) of the Food Act 1984. However, it seems that the Food Safety Act section 7 (2) only applies to the Food Safety Act section 7 and to the definition of “food safety re­ quirements” in the Food Safety Act sections 8 and 9.

It would appear that “injury to health” could include food allergies and intolerances, coronary heart disease caused by consumption of saturat­ ed fats and dental caries. The definition is intended to reflect existing case law. In the context of allergic and intolerant reactions, the words “a person consuming it” in the Food Safety Act section 7 (2) are crucial. The court is directed to the effect of the food on a hypothetical consumer, not a particu­ lar individual who may have eaten food. Thus if the food in question pro­ duces a rare allergic reaction in a very small minority of cases, it is proba­ bly not injurious to health. The cream treated with boracic acid as a pre­

A BRIEF ASSESSMENT ON THE ABILITY OF SECTIONS 7, 8 AND 9 OF THE ENGLISH 81

FOOD SAFETY ACT 1990 TO DEAL WITH THE SALE AND SUPPLY OF UNSAFE FOOD

9 Howells &Bradgate &Griffiths, p. 18. For the opposite see M cM anus F. Environmental

Health Law , (Blackstone, 1994), p. 116.

10 The Food Safety Act section 7 (3) w hich is based on the existing case law, see Hull v ■ Horsnell (1904) 68 JP 591; Cullen v M cNair (1908) 6 LGR 753.

11 The Food Safety A ct section 7 (2).

82 Doç. Dr. /Assoc. Prof. Dr. Halide Gökçe TÜRKOĞLU

servative, which was perfectly safe to healthy adults but would adversely affect invalids or young children, was injurious. So, it was said that food was not injurious merely because “some exceptional individual is liable to have some particular injury done to his health”. However, it will only be held to be injurious if a substantial portion of the population is likely to be affected by it12. A food which caused an allergic reaction in a significant proportion of the population could therefore be regarded as injurious13.

The introduction of the notion of the cumulative effects of foods could be of great significance, given the increased knowledge as to how health can be injured by the consumption of even ordinary quantities of some products like cholesterol, alcohol or salt. However, difficulties of proof and more immediate demands on the limited resources of the en­ forcement authorities make it unlikely that this provision will be fully uti­ lised14.

Food will not be regarded as “injurious” merely because it can create adverse effects if consumed in excessive quantities. A hangover due to over indulgence in alcoholic drink might well be regarded as an “injury to health” but the drink in question would not be regarded as injurious. This may be important in the light of the reference in the Food Safety Act sec­ tion 7 (2) to cumulative effects. Modem health and nutritional research frequently reveals that common food staffs eaten over a period of time may have a serious adverse effect on. health15. The Food Safety Act section 7 (2) might therefore allow, for example, chips fried in saturated fat to be regarded as injurious to health and allow the chip vendor to be prosecuted if the chips were injurious when consumed in “ordinary quantities”. It is worth bearing in mind, that there is evidence that diet may vary according to social, economic and geographical factors so that “ordinary quantities” may vary from place to place. Thus it might be possible, in an area of high chip consumption, to establish that eating ordinary quantities of chips fried in saturated fat would be injurious to health. However, as noted, the Food Safety Act section 7 (2) repeats provisions contained in existing legisla- 12 Cullen v M acNaır (1908) 6 LGR 753, per Lord Alverstone CJ at 758.

13 Howells &Bradgate &Griffiths, p. 15.

14 Bradgate &Howells, p. 322.

15 Howells &Bradgate &Griffiths, p. 15.

tioi icli problems do not appear to have arisen. It is to be expected ilia :>n will be interpreted in a common sense way both by en- fbr horities and by courts. Moreover, in view of the existing de­ mands on their time and the problems posed by more imminent health risks, enforcement officers are unlikely to seek to utilise their powers un­ der Part II of the Act to raise health and nutritional standards, especially when such action would rely upon opinion which is frequently contradicto­ ry16.

With regard to newly discovered health risks, it is worth observing that although there is no “state of the art defence” available in proceedings under food safety provisions, there is a due diligence defence which would presumably be available to a food manufacturer or supplier etc who had followed currently accepted standards and prevailing expert opinion17.

The Food Safety Act section 7 (2) is not expressly applied to the en­ forcement powers in ss 11-13. This could mean that long-term health risks created by cumulative consumption of a food cannot be taken into account in order to trigger the enforcement powers in those sections. However, in the context of the relevant sections, the concept of “injurious to health” is probably sufficient flexible' to take account of cumulative effects without the specific reference in the Food Safety Act section 7 (2).

Under the Article 14 (4) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, while de­ termining if food is injurious to health or not, the probable immediate and/or short-term and/or long term effects of that food on the health of a person consuming it, and also on subsequent generations; and the probable cumulative toxic effects; and the particular health sensitivities of a specific category of consumers where the food is intended for that category of con­ sumers must be considered.

The offence requires some positive action to render the food injuri­ ous to health. Also it is not an absolute offence because it requires inten­ tion to sell the food for human consumption18. The meaning of intent in the general criminal law is unclear. Generally, if a defendant can be shown to have foreseen something as the natural and probable consequence of his