The administration immediately began to take measures after the emergence of the new type of coronavirus epidemic (COVID-19). The administration started to establish administrative acts and discuss whether the decisions taken in this context are lawful or not to reduce the spread of the epidemic and then terminate it. Hence, these measures have reached a dimension that restricts fundamental rights and freedoms. For example, curfew has been declared across the country between some dates, citizens over the age of 65 and under 20 (and then under 18) have been forbidden to go out, the activities of the business have been restricted for certain periods, and some of them have been completely restricted. Also, wearing a mask has been obligatory in some cities, and it is decided that schools will provide distance and online education. As can be seen, it has come to the fore whether these measures can be taken in the ordinary period, because these measures taken against the epidemic restricted the rights and freedoms. Thus, it is debated whether the declaration of a state of emergency is necessary. I argue that these measures cannot be taken in the usual period, as I stated in my article. Administrations can only use the powers given to them by law and take decisions allowed by legislation following the principle of “legality of the administration.” However, all of the decisions of the administration are the measures that are written in the State of Emergency Law, the examples of which we wrote above, and only can be taken according to that law. Therefore, it should be noted that many of the decisions taken at the moment are based on the wrong legal basis, and therefore, they are not lawful. I think the measures taken are definitely in the public interest; however, it should be noted that a measure’s just being in the public interest does not make it lawful. Following this, we can assume that, for example, during the curfew, the taxi driver who was called by a person to take him to the hospital did not violate the curfew, because it is in the public interest. However, the taxi driver was fined, and it was the right decision. We should say that these regulations are valid not only for the citizens but also for the administrations. Therefore, the administration must also act following the law.

During this period, an issue was discussed in terms of administrative law in our country in which administrations can receive donations and organize an aid campaign for citizens whose businesses were closed due to the epidemic, so they had to stay at home during the curfews, for the unemployed ones, and for all other citizens who need it. Central administration stated that it is illegal for municipalities to organize aid campaigns and receive donations without obtaining permission from the Governorate following Law No. 2860. As a matter of fact, the amount in the bank accounts opened by two (Ankara and İstanbul) metropolitan municipalities to receive donations was blocked. Municipalities, on the contrary, argued that they are subject to Municipality Law No. 5393 and Metropolitan Municipality Law No. 5216, and they can receive and accept donations according to these two laws. It is stated in the laws numbered 5216 and 5393 that the municipality can accept donations and that social assistance is among its duties. Municipalities are right in this regard, because it is very clear that municipalities can collect donations in the relevant laws. There is no point to even discuss this. The municipalities are “local administrations,” and it is a unit assigned to perform public service. It is also clear that they can collect donations following the right granted to them by the law to meet local common needs. Therefore, it would be more beneficial for all administrations to be in coordination without ignoring the “principle of integrity of administration” instead of discussing which administrations can collect aid, receive donations in such a difficult period and to cooperate with each other to fulfill the urgent needs and public services, rather than to engage in political discussion and struggle with each other.

Another problem I mentioned in my study is that the administration could not achieve unity in practice while taking measures. For example, fines were imposed on people in some places, especially the elderly ones, who do not comply with the curfew, whereas in other places, they were only warned and sent to their homes. Again, although all schools have returned to online education and even the Ministry of Health Science Board meetings are held online, the exams of high school entrance and university entrance (YKS) will be held face-to-face, which is not lawful in terms of the principle of administrative stability too. Allowing 2.5 million students to attend this exam in crowded schools and classrooms and not delaying the exam is an approach that shows there is no unity in practice even though it is recommended that citizens must wear masks, maintain social distance, and not go to crowded places. Again, for example, the decisions have caused differences in practice, such as markets and bakeries being open at certain times, restaurants being sometimes allowed to do takeout and being closed some days, and barbers and hairdressers being allowed to be open only between certain hours during the day and being closed too early compared with other workplaces. Therefore, some of the workplaces have been economically in a more difficult situation than other permitted workplaces. However, the virus has the same infectious rate in the market, bakery, and hairdresser. Also, all of the previously closed businesses are still operating although the effect of the virus is continuing at present (mid-June) and the number of cases has reached around 1,500 again in our country. All these show that unity is not achieved in practice and stable decisions cannot be made by the administration. Unity problems in all this practice can cause the citizens who strictly abide by the measures start not to comply with the measures anymore. To avoid such problems, the administration should ensure equality in terms of every person and business and should take the legal measures decisively and stably so that unity can be achieved to comply with the measures.

Finally, I will discuss the “responsibility of the administration” in this study, which may arise from the aforementioned problems. It should be noted that the administrations that establish the administrative acts illegally may be liable to compensate them if there is any damage caused by these acts. Therefore, if the relevant persons or businesses, for example, are materially/morally damaged due to decisions such as the curfew taken on the wrong legal basis or without unity in practice, the business/people who are over 65 years old and under 20 years of age will be able to demand compensation from the administration based on the grounds for the aforementioned law. It should also be said that the administration can be held responsible for those who prove their damages and the injustice of the administration during this pandemic.