The Mustafa Sevinç decision of the Turkish Constitutional Court examines the limits imposed by the principle of legality on environmental administrative fines. It also addresses when conduct in a digital environment may satisfy the material elements of an environmental administrative offence.
No completed sale, delivery or financial gain had been established in the underlying case. Nevertheless, a social-media post, a telephone number and a product image were considered sufficient to find that salep tubers had been made an object of trade.
The underlying case
The applicant posted on social media that anyone seeking salep tubers could contact the stated telephone number. He claimed that he did not sell the tubers and merely referred interested persons to licensed cooperatives and associations. One of the associations did not confirm this account, and the applicant could not produce an official document authorising production or sale.
An administrative fine of TRY 73,747 was imposed under Article 9(1)(f), read together with Article 20(1)(k), of Environmental Law No. 2872. Before the Constitutional Court, the applicant alleged violations of the principle of legality and the presumption of innocence.
Legality in environmental administrative offences
The Court held that the conduct was classified as an administrative offence and therefore fell within the criminal-law safeguards of Article 38 of the Turkish Constitution (§ 13). The fact that the sanction was imposed by an administrative authority did not remove the requirement that the conduct have a clear statutory basis and remain within the limits of the statutory definition.
The weight of the public interest in environmental protection does not authorise punishment of conduct that the legislature has not made sanctionable. The protective purpose of environmental law informs interpretation within the limits of legality; it does not displace those limits.
Does making something an object of trade require a completed sale?
The Court did not confine the statutory concept to a completed sale. It accepted that unlawfully presenting a protected plant as an object of sale may fall within the provision even if no sale is ultimately completed. As the statute did not expressly require proof of a completed transaction or financial gain, the interpretation adopted by the administrative courts was not considered an unforeseeable expansion of the offence (§§ 22–24).
The legality complaint was declared admissible but no violation of Article 38 was found. The decision is therefore not a violation judgment.
When digital conduct becomes an environmental offence
The decision is particularly important for environmental criminal law because it concerns the point at which the prohibited conduct is complete. The expression “making an object of trade”, rather than “selling”, may move that point to a stage preceding the conclusion of a contract or delivery.
Not every digital post automatically satisfies the offence. Its wording, presentation of the product, contact information and surrounding circumstances must be assessed together. In Mustafa Sevinç, the invitation to prospective buyers, the telephone number, the product image and the association’s failure to confirm the defence formed a body of evidence.
The post was not treated merely as evidence of an earlier sale. It was itself regarded as a mode of making the protected plant an object of trade. Yet technical attribution of a post to a particular account is not enough on its own. The legal connection between the digital conduct and the statutory offence must still be established.
The presumption-of-innocence complaint was rejected as manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible. The Court found no automatic presumption of guilt, but an assessment based on concrete evidence (§§ 26–29).
Significance for environmental criminal law
The judgment confirms that environmental administrative offences remain subject to the principle of legality. It also shows that the distinction between selling, offering for sale and making an object of trade determines the reach of a sanction. Digital conduct may operate not merely as evidence but as the direct manner in which an offence is committed.
Environmental sanction exposure may therefore begin with a social-media post. The existence of digital data is not, however, identical to fulfilment of the statutory offence. The decisive issue remains the legal connection between the digital act and the conduct defined by law.
Decision and legal sources
Turkish Constitutional Court, Mustafa Sevinç, Application No. 2021/58404, 31 October 2024
Turkish Environmental Law No. 2872, Articles 9(1)(f), 20(1)(k) and 25; Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, Article 38; Misdemeanours Law No. 5326.