133 / 516
this framework, the Constitutional Court states the purpose of the prin-
ciple of equality as same rules for same legal positions, matters and
prevention of discrimination before the laws. The Constitutional Court
emphasizes in its decision that the principal of equality should be
understood as “legal equality”. Hence, same provisions should be
applied for the persons with same status. As for the joint stock compa-
nies, even if the elements are same for all joint stock companies,
because the joint stock companies with a large amount of authorized
capital play distinctive and exceptional role in the social and econom-
ic life in the state, these should be evaluated separately from the joint
stock companies with a small amount of authorized capital. Hence, the
Constitutional Court underlines the differentiation between joint stock
companies with a large amount of authorized capital and joint stock
companies with a small amount of authorized capital and clarifies that
they are not on the same “legal status”.
Another matter that is provided as grounds by Trabzon 2
nd
Criminal
Court of Peace is legality of penalties. The Constitutional Court states
that the sanction for the non-compliance of the recruitment of attorney
at law for the obligors is explicitly regulated under the article 35/3 of
the Legal Profession Act and it had been enacted before the contraven-
ing act was committed. Hence the relevant provision cannot be con-
strued as being contradictory with the principle of no punishment
without law.
The Constitutional Court lastly states on the subject of amendment
to the Regulation on the Legal Profession Act, which is amended pur-
suant to the article 35/3 of the Legal Profession Act. The Constitutional
Court indicates that consistency evaluation of the Legal Profession
Regulation to the Constitution is not one of the statutory duties of
Constitutional Court thus this matter shall not be subject to the control
of constitutionality.
Conclusion
According to my opinion, the decision of the Constitutional Court
concerning the rejection of the annulment application is a proper deci-
sion because the joint stock companies with large amount of autho-
rized capital have important economic and social functions for the
COMMERCIAL LAW
119