200 thousand TL fine to the notary who required witnesses in the power of attorney process for a visually impaired academician

Dr., who is 90 percent visually impaired, went to a notary public in Aksaray in April 2025 to get a power of attorney. Faculty Member Önder İşlek was told that no action could be taken without two witnesses due to his visual impairment. When İşlek asked about the legal basis of the practice, he was told that in accordance with the provisions of Article 89 of the Notary Law No. 1512 and the Unified Circular No. 5 of the Turkish Notaries Union, it is mandatory to prepare the powers of attorney that require transactions in the land registry, and that the presence of 2 witnesses in such transactions for visually impaired people is a requirement arising from the legislation.

İşlek objected, arguing that this decision was not in force. When the notary insisted on not taking action, he filed a criminal complaint with the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor's office decided that there was no need for prosecution. İşlek, who received a rejection response from the judgeship to which he applied to object to the decision of the prosecutor's office, applied to the Turkish Human Rights and Equality Institution (TİHEK).

THE REASON WAS GIVEN FOR THE DECISION OF THE STATE COURT

The Human Rights and Equality Institution of Turkey also stated that the Circular No. 2 of the Notaries Union of Turkey dated 2014, which stipulated the obligation to have witnesses for the visually impaired, was annulled by the decision of the 8th Chamber of the Council of State dated 13/3/2024 and numbered 2019/4831 E., 2024/1405 K., and that the practice of carrying out all transactions of visually impaired individuals in the form of regulation was abolished and no witnesses will be required in the approval processes.

IT WAS CONSIDERED THAT THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION WAS VIOLATED

The Turkish Human Rights and Equality Institution announced its decision as follows:

"When all the issues within the scope of the file are evaluated together for the stated reasons; the interlocutor Notary's decision to make the power of attorney condition on the presence of two witnesses due to the applicant being visually impaired is not based on an objective and reasonable justification, the practice in question is based on stereotypes and assumptions regarding disability, questioning the applicant's capacity to take legal action and declaration of will solely due to his disability, and it is a reflection of an approach that does not adequately consider the freedom of disabled individuals to make their own choices, capacity to act independently and individual autonomy, and in this respect, the practice in question is based on the applicant's disability." On the other hand, considering that the Turkish Notaries Union has implemented the necessary administrative and technical regulations to facilitate the access of visually impaired individuals to notary services, and that it has not been demonstrated that it had a decisive role in the formation of the discriminatory treatment that emerged in the concrete case, it was concluded by the Respondent H.Ö. that the prohibition of discrimination was violated, and that the effect and result of the violation. "It has been decided to impose an administrative fine of 200 thousand TL on the addressee H.Ö regarding the action subject to violation, taking into account the economic situation and legal position of the addressee."

'I DEFENDED THAT THE ARTICLE PRESENTED TO ME WAS WRONG'

Explaining what happened to DHA, Önder İşlek said, "When I went to a notary in Aksaray to get a power of attorney, he said that he could not do anything without two witnesses. When I asked for the reason, they said that the regulations and laws were like that because I was visually impaired. I knew that it was not like that. I knew that it was a misunderstanding arising from an old regulation. They were kindly showing an article about illiterate people in the old notary law, which article was misinterpreted and how. I told them that it was not that article, but that it covered different individuals and that this was the case." "I talked about the decisions of the Notaries Union and the Council of State regarding the issue, and they stated that they did not want to take action," he said.

'I APPLIED TO THE TURKISH HUMAN RIGHTS EQUALITY INSTITUTION'

Stating that he was discriminated against on the basis of disability, İşlek said that he applied to the Human Rights Equality Institution of Turkey and said, "I called the police and complained about the situation. They took our statements. The prosecutor's office decided not to prosecute, thinking that it was not a crime. I appealed to the judgeship again. Unfortunately, the result did not change. They did not take our statement and explanation into consideration. I also applied to the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Turkey on the grounds that I was discriminated against based on disability. Here, as a disabled individual, obstacles are being placed in front of me. I cannot do what other people can do just because I am visually impaired. I stated that the relevant notary office did not step back and hindered me both in social and economic life. The Turkish Human Rights and Equality Institution imposed an administrative fine of 200 thousand lira on the relevant notary. As a result, I think it is very important that this decision sets an example for other institutions. If the decision sets an example, our people in the relevant public institutions and private institutions will show the necessary sensitivity. Instead, they become individuals who facilitate their work, so that disabled people do not have to fight for their rights.” he said.