TAMER ARDA ERSIN – GÜRKAN DEMİRTAŞ
Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources; He sent a defense to the court in the lawsuit brought by Çiftçi-Sen against the amendment of the regulation opening the olive groves to mining activities, asking for the annulment and stay of execution. In defense of the Ministry; “The aforementioned assertion that every mining operation will always and in any case leave behind chemical waste, dust and smoke that will impede the vegetative and generative development of olive groves, without concrete determinations based on scientific research and examination , does not affect the legality of the settlement in question.”
Farmer-You; He has filed a lawsuit with the request of the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources to suspend and reverse the change in regulations that opens the olive groves to mining activities. The court, which decided to stay the execution, decided to assess the cancellation request later.
In its defense submitted to the court, the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources claimed that it lacked “subjective capacity” for Çiftçi-Sen’s objection. In defense of the ministry, the following statements were used:
“In legal actions for the annulment of a settlement, which is a general regulatory action, the action must affect the legitimate, personal and present interests of the plaintiff. This is an accepted question.
Thus, in order to bring an action for annulment, the operation must harm the particular interest of the claimant and there must be a serious and reasonable link between the operation and the claimant. However, what must be understood from the fact that the interest is up-to-date is that the breach of interest that occurred as a result of the disputed transaction must be a breach of interest in the past, which has lost its effects or is likely to be experienced in the future. Again, since the legitimacy of the advantage takes precedence over the fact that it is specific and up-to-date for the plaintiff and that the violation of interest constitutes the subjective condition for qualifying cases of cancellation, the action brought before that this condition is met must be rejected in terms of jurisdiction.
In defense, claiming that it is not known if each mining operation will leave chemical waste; It has been stated that the anticipation of this situation will not affect the legality of the settlement:
“The environmental effects of each mining operation vary depending on the type of substance, the mining method applied, the region where the activity is carried out and the specific conditions depending on the technology used. For this reason, each mining activity mining is always and completely develops the vegetative and generative development of olive groves, regardless of its specific conditions. It does not affect the legality of the regulation in question, if it is claimed that it will leave chemical waste, dust and smoke that will prevent it without revealing it with concrete determinations based on scientific research and examination.”
“IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO REPLACE SUMMARY ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES TO FOSSIL FUELS”
The Ministry, in its defense; He said it would not be possible to substitute alternative fuels for fossil fuels all at once, and therefore it would not be possible to move away from mining operations:
“The country’s need for energy resources is also in the public interest. Considering that energy resources are the most important building blocks of our daily lives, and energy and industrial products are the most important building blocks of production , there is a need to supply energy uninterruptedly, reliably and in the most appropriate way, and to provide this activity at affordable prices. These resources must be diversified in terms of energy supply and security. that energy resources are of vital importance as industrial raw materials as well as energy production and alternative resources cannot substitute for these resources, it is generally accepted that the countries main source of energy cannot moving away from fossil fuels is a result.
The Ministry, in its defense; The evolution of Turkey’s total electricity consumption between 2000 and 2020 and the increase in electricity consumption per capita, with data from TUIK, are as follows:
“According to statistics from the Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK), while Turkey’s total electricity consumption was 98,295,712 megawatt hours in 2000, it increased to 262,702,129 megawatt hours in 2020. While the consumption of electricity per capita was 2,198 kilowatt hours in 2007, it increased to 3,142 kilowatt hours in 2020”