Canan Kaftancıoğlu’s response from CHP to the Supreme Court

CHP Headquarters gave a written response to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court, which dropped Canan Kaftancıoğlu’s political party membership. In the letter sent, it was stated that the decision to drop the membership was against the Constitution, the Law on Political Parties and the Turkish Penal Code, and a call was made to “return from the decision”.

news"> Abone Ol

newsylist-news

CHP Istanbul Provincial Chair Canan Kaftancıoğlu’s political party membership was dropped by the Supreme Court of Appeals Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office. A few days after the letter reached the headquarters, a response letter dated 16 June was written with the signature of General Secretary Selin Sayek Böke.

According to the news of Mahir Kılıç from Habertürk; In the letter sent, it was stated that the decision to dismiss the membership was contrary to the Constitution, the Law on Political Parties and the Turkish Penal Code.

Stating that the Office of the Chief Prosecutor uses an authority that is not in the law, Böke said, “The Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Court cannot delete a party member from the registry by using an authority not given by the law. We regret to state that this personalized and erroneous result, which is completely detached from the basic principles of law, did not surprise us.”

CALL FOR RETURN

Calling for the decision to drop the party membership, CHP Secretary General said, “We invite you to act within the legal limits drawn by the law while performing your duty, we request the necessary.”

The following statements were included in the letter sent from the CHP to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals:

“Political party membership of our Istanbul Provincial President, Ms. Canan Kaftancıoğlu, with your letter of interest.”
It has been notified to the Presidency of the Republic that his duties in the party organs were terminated and his duties were recorded in our party registry.

Article 3 of the Law No. 5252 on the Enforcement and Implementation of the Turkish Penal Code as a justification for your action, which is clearly contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and international conventions to which Turkey is a party, the Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 and the Law No. 2820 on Political Parties. , Articles 158 and 159 of the Turkish Penal Code No. 765 and Article 11 of the Law No. 2820 on Political Parties are shown.

When evaluated in terms of the Turkish Penal Code and the Law on Political Parties; Pursuant to the annulment decision of the Constitutional Court in 2015 regarding Article 53 of the Turkish Penal Code, party membership is not affected during the execution process pursuant to the provisions of the Turkish Penal Code. Even if it is assumed for a moment that the sentence given to Canan Kaftancıoğlu in terms of both laws causes her membership to be dismissed, the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation may request the removal of the contradiction by giving our party time and apply to the Constitutional Court after this stage, or directly apply to the Constitutional Court to determine the violation of this contradiction. 104/2 of the Law on Political Parties. In accordance with the article, it is necessary to request a warning decision. According to the law, our party is given a period of 6 months with a warning decision. Since the sanction of not complying with the warning decision was canceled by the Constitutional Court in 2009 and no regulation was made to replace it, there is no legal sanction for not complying with the warning decision.

As you can see, your Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor has established a transaction by using an authority that is not in the law. The Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Court cannot delete a party member from the registry by using a power not given by law.

Finally, there is an obligation to address one last issue regarding the proceedings of the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor. Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Constitution, “The State is obliged to specify which legal remedies and authorities the relevant persons will apply to and their duration in its proceedings”. In the process of the Attorney General, these ways and authorities were not specified. The reason is that such a transaction is not regulated in the law. However, it has become necessary to ask in the face of the clear constitutional provision. To whom and under what conditions will an application be made against this procedure?

Article 3 of the Law No. 5252 on the Enforcement and Implementation of the Turkish Penal Code and 11/4 of the Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, which is understood to constitute a basis for your interpretation that can never be legally adopted. Even when the article is interpreted alone, it is understood that the conclusion reached by your Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor is against the law. Against the 5th and 53rd articles of the Turkish Penal Code of the aforementioned provisions, especially the Constitutional Court annulled the provision 1(b) of the 53rd article of the Turkish Penal Code, dated 08.10.2015 and M:2014/40, K:2015/ Considering the reasoning of the decision no. 85, which derives its source from Articles 2, 12 and 67 of the Constitution, it is clearly and distinctly understood how low the conclusion reached by your Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor is.

“SURPRISE US”

Dear Attorney General,

We regret to state that this personalized and erroneous result, which is completely detached from the basic principles of law, did not surprise us.

We would like to remind you that the word “Cumhuriyet” in your title obliges you to fully comply with the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey by performing your duties with full independence and impartiality. This is the foundation of your legitimacy. Acting on the contrary will not make the office, but those who occupy the office controversial. Our hope is that you will immediately reverse your unlawful and biased decision by taking the first step to ensure that the judiciary, whose reliability has been widely debated in recent years, gain the trust it deserves.

We invite you to act within the legal limits drawn by the law while performing your duties.

Please do accordingly.”

To our YouTube channel for video news subscribe

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

On Key

Related Posts