Siyasi Parti Kapatma Davalarının Hukuki Niteliği
İlhami Öztürk, Arif Emre SümerDemokratik siyasi yaşamın vazgeçilmez bir unsuru olan siyasi partiler ile ilgili esaslara hukukumuzda, Anayasa’nın 68 ve 69’uncu maddeleri ile 2820 sayılı Siyasi Partiler Kanunu’nda yer verilmiştir. Her ne kadar siyasi partilerin varlığı demokratik siyasi hayat için zaruri olsa da Anayasa’mız, bazı durumlarda siyasi partilerin kapatılabileceğini düzenlemiştir. Buna göre; bir siyasi partinin tüzüğü, programı ve faaliyetlerinin Anayasa’nın 68’inci maddesinin dördüncü fıkrasında düzenlenen ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin kuruluş felsefesini ifade eden esaslara aykırı olması durumu ile partinin yabancılardan parasal destek alması hâllerinde siyasi partilerin temelli olarak kapatılmasına karar verilebilir. Siyasi partilerin kapatılmasına, Yargıtay Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığının düzenleyeceği iddianame üzerine Anayasa Mahkemesi tarafından görülecek parti kapatma davası ile karar verilir. Siyasi parti kapatma davalarının hukuki niteliğinin ne olduğu hususunda tartışmalar bulunmaktadır. Bu soruya verilecek cevap, parti kapatma davalarında uygulanacak hukuk kuralları ile bu dava sonucunda verilen hükümlerin sonuçlarını tespit edebilmek maksadıyla oldukça önem arz etmektedir. Doktrinde bir görüş, siyasi parti kapatma davalarında ceza muhakemesi hukuku kurallarının uygulanacak olması sebebiyle, bu davanın ceza davası niteliğinde olduğunu belirtmektedir. Buna karşılık doktrinde başka bir görüş, siyasi parti kapatma davalarında ceza muhakemesi hukuku kurallarının uygulanacak olmasının bu davaları tek başına ceza davası niteliğine kavuşturmayacağını ifade etmekte, söz konusu davanın yargılama hukukunda bulunan diğer dava türlerinin kapsamına doğrudan girmeyen, kendine özgü niteliğinin bulunduğunu belirtmektedir. Anayasa Mahkemesi kararlarında da parti kapatma davalarının hukuki niteliği hakkında istikrarlı bir tespit bulunmamaktadır. Yüksek Mahkeme, çeşitli dönemlerde yukarıda zikredilen iki görüşün de kapsamına değerlendirilebilecek kararlara imza atmıştır. Bu çalışmada, doktrindeki görüşler ve Anayasa Mahkemesi kararlarından da yararlanmak suretiyle siyasi parti kapatma davalarının hukuki niteliği irdelenecektir.
Legal Character of Political Party Closure Cases
İlhami Öztürk, Arif Emre SümerAlthough the existence of political parties is often deemed indispensable for the proper functioning of democratic political life, our constitution provides that political parties can be closed down in certain cases. In Turkish law, the principles regarding “political parties,” which are indispensable elements of democratic political life, are laid down in Articles 68 and 69 of the Constitution and in the Law on Political Parties No. 2820. According to these provisions, a political party may be permanently closed if its statutes, programs, and activities contradict the principles that express the founding philosophy of the Turkish republic, as shown in the fourth paragraph of Article 68 of the Constitution, or if it receives financial support from foreigners.
The decision to close a political party is made by a party closure case held by the Constitutional Court upon the bill of indictment prepared by the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Appeals. However, under our law, the legality of political party closure cases is debatable. The answer to this question of legality is critical to determine the appropriate legal rules to be applied in party closure cases and the validity of the judgments given in such cases. An opinion in the legal doctrine states that a political party closure case is in the nature of a criminal case considering that the rules of criminal procedure will also be applied in case of the closure of a political party. Another view in the existing body of law argues that the application of the rules of criminal procedure law in political party closure cases does not, in itself, convert these cases to criminal cases. There is no consistent determination regarding the legal nature of party closure cases in the decisions of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court has signed decisions that can be considered within the scope of both or either of these views at various times. There is no consistency in the decisions of the Constitutional Court as to what the legal nature of such cases is. In our study, we will try to determine the legal nature of political party closure cases in the light of the views in the doctrine and the decisions of the Constitutional Court.
The vital importance of political parties to democratic political life does not mean that they are permitted to exercise their right to engage in political activity under any and all circumstances. In the presence of certain circumstances, the mandatory closure of political parties and the termination of their legal personality do not mean that their right to engage in political activity has been denied. Rather, in some cases, it is legitimately possible to close down a political party in Turkey. In the case of the occurrence of one or more of these circumstances, a lawsuit will be filed before the Constitutional Court by the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation for the closure of the political party. As a consequence of this lawsuit, if the court is convinced that there is at least one circumstance supporting the closure, the political party may be closed down or partially or completely deprived of state aid. If, however, the Court determines that there exists no reason for closure, the request for closure will be rejected.
There are different opinions in the doctrine about the legal nature of political party closure cases. There is no consistency in the decisions taken by the Constitutional Court regarding this issue. These different opinions generally focus on the question of whether political party closure cases are criminal cases or specific cases. According to one opinion in the doctrine, primarily based on the provision in Article 52 of the Law on the Establishment and Judicial Procedures of the Constitutional Court No. 6216, which states that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code appropriate to the nature of the case will be applied in party closure cases, these cases have a criminal character. Another view states that political party closure cases and the sanctions imposed as a result of these lawsuits differ from the classical criminal prosecutions. Hence, these cases have their own distinctive character. The Constitutional Court has long held in its decisions that these cases are criminal cases and recently has overruled the case law stating that the legal nature of these cases has a unique character.
When the opinions in the doctrine and the decisions of the Constitutional Court are taken together, we conclude that the political party closure cases are peculiar forms of “criminal cases.” Two main points support this conclusion. First, the sanctions imposed as a result of party closure cases are similar to two types of sanctions in the Turkish Criminal Law system.
In the Turkish Criminal Law system, although the existence of an intentional crime is usually accepted by rule in order to impose security measures, this rule is not always valid. For example, in the fourth paragraph of Article 54, which regulates the confiscation of goods constituting one of the security measures of the Turkish Penal Code, it is regulated that “goods whose production, possession, use, transportation, purchase, and sale constitute a crime” will be confiscated. As can be seen here, even when there is no crime and no criminal yet, it is possible to order security measures. The aim here is to prevent crimes that may be committed in the future by seizing certain substances that are deemed to pose a danger to public security, even when there is no crime yet. The sanctions imposed in the case of political party closure are also security measures imposed for similar reasons. Here too, the aim is to prevent political parties from committing and inciting people to commit crimes, especially by using their power of influence over the masses.
The second primary pillar of our argument is that because the sanctions imposed as a result of these cases are severe, it would be more appropriate to impose them only when subject to strict rules of reason such as are found in criminal proceedings. The principle of being used as a last resort applies in criminal law. If the alleged violations can be remedied with any other sanctions of the law, the criminal law will not be applied. When working with the criminal law, it is essential to adhere to a very strict procedure because the sanctions imposed as a result of criminal actions are so severe.
The sanctions imposed in political party closure cases are also highly severe sanctions imposed against political parties, which are of great importance to the nation’s democratic political life. When the provision in Article 52 of the Law on the Establishment and Trial Procedures of the Constitutional Court is evaluated in the context of these reasons, it is understood that political party closure cases are criminal cases. Therefore, accepting these sanctions as criminal law sanctions and mandating that the rules of criminal procedure are valid in order to impose these sanctions reveal that party closure cases are appropriately defined as criminal cases.
