Press Release Nr: Individual Application 13/15
27/10/2015

PRESS RELEASE ON INADMISSIBILITY DECISIONS CONCERNING THE FACT THAT INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS CANNOT BE LODGED AGAINST THE JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME BOARD OF ELECTION

On 27/10/2015, The Second Commission of the First Section of the Constitutional Court decided that Muhammet Emin KARAPAÇA’s Individual Application (Application No: 2015/15762) was inadmissible and the Second Commission of the Second Section of the Constitutional Court decided that the Individual Application lodged by Toplumsal Uzlaşma Reform ve Kalkınma Partisi (Application No: 2015/16438) was also inadmissible, due to the fact that the provision “No appeal shall be made to any authority against the decisions of the Supreme Board of Election” provided for in article 79 of the Constitution covers individual application as well.

Facts

Muhammet Emin KARAPAÇA, the applicant, participated in general elections held on June 2015 as an independent candidate for parliament. In consequence of the decision on renewal of the election, the Supreme Board of Election demanded in its decision dated 31/8/2015 and numbered 1573 the receipt of the amount put in the consignment of the subdivision of treasury also from the recurrent candidates. The applicant lodged an individual application directly to the Constitutional Court against the mentioned decision of the Supreme Board of Election.

Toplumsal Uzlaşma Reform ve Kalkınma Partisi, the applicant, has been declared by the Supreme Board of Election to be among the parties having competence to participate in the election to be held on 1 November 2015, with the decision dated 26/8/2015 and numbered 1551. The Office of Chief Public Prosecutor declared on 17/9/2015 that it is not possible for the applicant Party to participate in the general elections on the grounds that it does not have sufficient organisation in accordance with the conditions specified in article 36 of the Law on Political Parties numbered 2820. The Supreme Board of Election decided, in consequence of assessment of the records that the Office of Chief Public Prosecutor had sent, in its final judgment dated 18/9/2015 and numbered 1702 that the applicant Party was not capable of participating in the general elections to be held on 1 November 2015 on the grounds that it did not have sufficient organisation in cities and counties to be able to participate in the election to the effect that the Law seeks. The applicant Party lodged an individual application directly to the Constitutional Court against the decision of the Supreme Board of Election.

Allegations

Muhammet Emin KARAPAÇA, the applicant, asserted that the principle of equality and his right to free election defined in articles 10 and 67 of the Constitution respectively were violated, stating that in the decision rendered by the Supreme Board of Election dated 31/8/2015, there is no clarity on whether or not the amount to be put into the subdivision of treasury is also valid for the recurrent candidates and that he has not been able to apply for candidacy for this reason.

Toplumsal Uzlaşma Reform ve Kalkınma Partisi, the applicant, asserted that their right to a fair trial and right to be elected defined in articles 36 and 67 of the Constitution respectively were violated, stating that the official reports made by the Office of Chief Public Prosecutor through the offices of governors do not reflect the truth, that proceedings were carried out against the applications made by the Office of Chief Public Prosecutor to the Supreme Board of Election without taking any statement of defence, and that as a result, the decision rendered by the Supreme Board of Election was contrary to the law and without due process.

The Court's Assessment

Both applications have been assessed, in line with the judgments delivered by the Plenary of the Constitutional Court on Atila SERTEL’s and Oğuz OYAN’s applications,in the light of the provision prescribed in the 3rd paragraph of article 45 of the Law on Establishment and Rules of Procedures of the Constitutional Court numbered 6216 that the procedures which the Constitution leaves out of the scope of judicial review cannot be the subject matter of individual application, and in the light of the provision provided for in article 79 of the Constitution that “No appeal shall be made to any authority against the decisions of the Supreme Board of Election”.

The Court has concluded in this context that the legislator aims not to apply to any authority including the Constitutional Court against the decisions of the Supreme Board of Election, when the provision provided for in article 79 of the Constitution that “No appeal shall be made to any authority against the decisions of the Supreme Board of Election” is assessed along with its reasons which depict that “Since the finality of the decisions of the Supreme Board of Election and abiding by those decisions lead to hesitations, such a basis was introduced in this article that no appeal shall be made to any authority against the decisions of the Supreme Board of Election”.

As a result, the Court, having reached the conclusion that the applications were lodged against decisions which the Constitution has left out of the scope of judicial review, decided that the applications were inadmissible due to lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae.

 

 

This press release prepared by the General Secretariat intends to inform the public and has no binding effect.

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Turkey © 2015
Number of Visitors: