Refusing to Abide by Violation Decisions Made by the Constitutional Court in the Context of Determining Crimes That Form the Exception of Legislative Immunity
Adem SözüerFulfilling the requirements of violation decisions rendered by the Constitutional Court within the scope of an individual application is a legal obligation. Despite this obligation being clearly stated in the 1982 Constitution and Constitutional Court Law, as exemplified in the case of Kadri Enis Berberoğlu, the first-instance courts that authorize eliminating the consequences of such violations fail to fulfill the requirements of the Constitutional Court’s decisions. The Constitutional Court’s decision regarding Şerafettin Can Atalay (2) has also not been implemented by the competent and authorized first-instance court. This time, however, the failure to implement the Constitutional Court’s decision regarding an individual application had emerged through a different method and process. Indeed, instead of performing the necessary procedures indicated by the violation decision the Constitutional Court had issued, the competent first-instance court forwarded the file to the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation. Deeming itself competent and authorized, this Criminal Chamber issued a decision titled “Non-Implementation of the Constitutional Court Decision” and contains several aspects in terms of being a precedent. Due to this particular circumstance, the study will examine not only the impact and binding nature of the decisions the Constitutional Court renders regarding an individual application within the context of the Şerafettin Can Atalay (2) Decision but also the discussions regarding legislative immunity and its exceptions in light of the relevant precedents of the Constitutional Court. In this context, study will also include the past precedents of the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation and the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation regarding exceptions to legislative immunity. This paper’s evaluation and conclusion section takes the form of a decision analysis examining whether Article 14 of the Constitution is directly applicable in terms of the exceptions to legislative immunity, as well as whether using interpretation to determine the crimes to be considered within the scope of this Article is compatible with the principle of legality. Furthermore, the study will provide recommendations regarding the effective implementation of individual application decisions.
Yasama Dokunulmazlığının İstisnasını Oluşturan Suçların Belirlenmesi Bağlamında Anayasa Mahkemesince Verilen İhlal Kararlarının Yerine Getirilmemesi Sorunu
Adem SözüerAnayasa Mahkemesinin bireysel başvuru kapsamında verdiği ihlal kararlarının gereklerinin yerine getirilmesi hukuki bir zorunluluktur. 1982 Anayasasında ve Anayasa Mahkemesi Kanunda da açıkça ifade edilen bu zorunluluğa rağmen, Kadri Enis Berberoğlu örneğinde olduğu gibi, ihlalin sonuçları ortadan kaldırmakla yetkili ilk derece mahkemeleri Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlarının gereklerini yerine getirmemişlerdir. Anayasa Mahkemesinin Şerafettin Can Atalay (2) kararı da yetkili ve görevli ilk derece mahkemesi tarafından uygulanmamıştır. Ancak bu kez Anayasa Mahkemesi bireysel başvuru kararının uygulanmaması farklı bir yöntem ve süreçte ortaya çıkmıştır. Nitekim yetkili ilk derece mahkemesi kendisine gönderilen Anayasa Mahkemesi ihlal kararının gereği olan işlemleri yapmak yerine dosyayı Yargıtay 3. Ceza Dairesine göndermiştir. Söz konusu Ceza Dairesi ise kendisini yetkili ve görevli sayarak “Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararının Uygulanmaması” şeklinde ve birçok yönüyle bir ilk olma özelliği taşıyan bir karar vermiştir. Bunun üzerine Anayasa Mahkemesine başvurulmuş Şerafettin Can Atalay (3) kararanında da mahkeme yine ihlal kararı vermiş yerel mahkemem bu kararı da uygulamayarak dosyayı Yargıtay 3. Ceza Dairesine yollamış söz konusu daire de ilk kararındaki iddiaları içeren kararını tekrarlamıştır. Bu karar ise TBMM başkanlığına yollanmış orada okunarak Şerafettin Can Atalay’ın milletvekilliği düşürülmüştür. Her yönüyle olağandışı bu süreçle ilgili olarak çalışmamızda özellikle Şerafettin Can Atalay (2) ve Şerafettin Can Atalay (3) kararları bağlamında bireysel başvuru üzerine verilen kararların etkisi ve bağlayıcılığı konusunun yanı sıra yasama dokunulmazlığı ve istisnaları tartışmalarını Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin ilgili içtihatları çerçevesinde inceleyeceğiz. Bu kapsamda Yargıtay 3. Ceza Dairesinin ve Yargıtay Ceza Kurulunun, yasama dokunulmazlığının istisnalarına yönelik olarak geçmiş içtihatlarına da yer verilecektir. Bir karar analizi şeklindeki incelememizin değerlendirme ve sonuç kısmında ise Anayasadaki yasama dokunulmazlığın istisnaları bakımından 14. madde hükmünün doğrudan uygulanmaya elverişli bir nitelikte olup olmadığı, bu madde kapsamında sayılacak suçların yorum yoluyla belirlenmesinin kanunilik ilkesiyle bağdaşıp bağdaşmadığını irdeleyecek, bireysel başvuru kararlarının etkin biçimde hayata geçirilmesi konusundaki önerilerimize yer vereceğiz.
In Türkiye, the individual right to appeal to the Turkish Constitutional Court was introduced into the Turkish legal system through Law 5982 dated September 12, 2010, by amending Arts. 148 and 149 of the Turkish Constitution. These amendments ushered in a new era in the Turkish legal system. Matters such as identifying the scope of individual appeals to the Constitutional Court, the persons who have the right to appeal, and the procedures for such appeals were clarified through Arts. 45-51 of Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Procedural Rules of the Constitutional Court dated March 30, 2011.
Alongside individuals becoming able to lodge complaints to the Turkish Constitutional Court, the constitutional court began to investigate cases of rights being violated by persons and institutions using public authority on September 23, 2012. Since this date, anyone can appeal individually to the Turkish Constitutional Court if they claim that their fundamental rights and freedoms that are protected by the Turkish constitution and that fall under the protection of the European Convention on Human Rights are being violated by public authorities. Accordingly, not all fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution can be the subject of an individual application: only those protected both by the main text of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as well as by the Additional Protocols to the ECHR, to which Türkiye is a party.
As regulated in the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, the individual complaint to the Constitutional Court is modeled on the individual complaint to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The route of individual complaints to the Constitutional Court in Türkiye is a relatively new legal route. However, when looking at the decisions of the Constitutional Court, these decisions are seen to mostly be in line with the case law of the ECtHR and to aim to effectively protect human rights and freedoms without unlawful factors or pressure.
According to Para. 3 of Art. 148 of the Constitution and Para. 1 of Art. 45 of Law No. 6216, anyone may apply to the Turkish Constitutional Court if they claim that their fundamental rights and freedoms as protected by the Constitution and as also guaranteed by the ECHR and its protocols to which Türkiye is a party are being violated by authorities. Para. 1 of Art. 148 of the Constitution gives the Turkish Constitutional Court the power and duty to decide on these applications. According to Para. 6 of Art. 49 of Code No. 6216, the Turkish Constitutional Court’s examination of individual complaints is limited to the question of “whether a fundamental right has been violated” and “how such a violation can be remedied”.
According to Art. 148 of the Constitution and Article 49 of Law No. 6216, the issues to be considered on appeal cannot be examined in individual petitions. According to Article 50 of this law, in the case of a judgment of infringement, no substantive review can be made while deciding on the measures to be taken to remedy the infringement and its consequences.
These provisions should be evaluated together using the Turkish Constitutional Court’s power and duty to decide on individual applications as regulated in Paras. 1 and 3 of Art. 148 of the Constitution. Within the scope of this duty, the Turkish Constitutional Court is obliged to examine and decide on individual complaints alleging violations of fundamental rights and freedoms under the common protection of the Constitution and the ECHR. The Turkish Constitutional Court conducts this examination in accordance with the guarantees of the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.
The Code gives the Turkish Constitutional Court wide discretion in determining how to remedy the violation and its consequences. The only limitation is the provision at the end of Para. 1 of Art. 50 of Code No. 6216, which states that the Turkish Constitutional Court cannot decide as an administrative regarding an act or process. Accordingly, this limitation states that the Turkish Constitutional Court cannot act in place of the administration when deciding on how to remedy a violation and its consequences. When considering the nature of individual applications, this restriction applies not only to the administration but also to the legislative and judicial bodies. The court decides how to remedy the violation and its consequences and forwards the decision to the competent authorities so that they can take the necessary measures.
In this context, the Turkish Constitutional Court generally leaves the competent authorities a margin of discretion as to how and by what means a violation and its consequences are to be remedied. The competent authority then takes into account the nature of the violation decision and takes the necessary steps to remedy this violation and its consequences. In some cases, the Turkish Constitutional Court may determine the principles of how and by what means a violation and its consequences shall be remedied by considering the characteristics of the specific case. In such a case, the competent authorities should act in accordance with these aforementioned principles. In exceptional cases, the nature of a violation that has been decided to have occurred may leave the competent authorities with only one possibility: eliminate the consequences of the violation. In this case, the Turkish Constitutional Court clearly indicates the measures to be taken to eliminate the violation and its consequences, and then the competent authority takes these measures.
According to Art. 2 of the Constitution, the Republic of Türkiye is a constitutional state. The court decisions on how to settle disputes cannot be considered non-binding in a state governed by the rule of law. In fact, the last paragraph of Art. 138 of the Constitution states that the legislative and executive bodies as well as the administration are obliged to comply with court decisions.
