MHP Deputy Chairman Feti Yıldız targets the Constitutional Court

MHP Deputy Chairman Feti Yıldız stated, "The lack of a control mechanism against Constitutional Court decisions is a significant deficiency. The Constitutional Court cannot engage in judicial activism."

Don't leave your news choices to an algorithm - decide for yourself what you read. Add 12punto to your preferred sources!

MHP Deputy Chairman Feti Yıldız targets the Constitutional Court

MHP Deputy Chairman responsible for Legal and Election Affairs Feti Yıldız stated, "The lack of a control mechanism against Constitutional Court decisions is a significant deficiency."

The 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation had ruled earlier this evening not to comply with the Constitutional Court's decision regarding TİP Hatay MP Can Atalay, which stated that his rights to "the right to be elected" and "personal liberty and security" had been violated.

The Chamber filed a criminal complaint against the Constitutional Court members who voted in favor of the violation decision, accusing them of engaging in "judicial activism." The Chamber also sent the decision to the Speaker of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) to initiate the process of stripping Atalay of his parliamentary seat.

Following the event, MHP Deputy Chairman responsible for Legal and Election Affairs Feti Yıldız made a statement on his social media account, targeting the Constitutional Court.

Yıldız wrote the following:

“The monopoly on interpreting criminal laws is left to criminal judges. The judge is an inseparable part of judicial activities. The judge approaches the problem in a measured, dispassionate, and cool-headed manner, attempting to resolve the issue and reach the correct conclusion through either a strict interpretation tied to the text or an interpretation aimed at the purpose that reveals the will of the legislator.

Constitutional Court decisions should derive their power not from the fact that they will not be subject to the review of another legal authority, nor from being binding on everyone, but from competent and consistent legal justifications. A legal rule should not change in the hands of the practitioner. Can it be said that the constitution is whatever the judges say it is?

The principle of separation of powers can be damaged in various ways. One of these is judicial activism. Judicial activism manifests itself sometimes as the neutralization of the legislative body, sometimes as the annulment of legislative decisions, and sometimes as the judiciary taking the place of the legislative body.

The lack of a control mechanism against Constitutional Court decisions is a significant deficiency. Establishing legal norms is not a matter of reasoning. The Constitutional Court cannot engage in judicial activism.

It cannot create norms by taking the place of the legislative body, it cannot ignore existing norms, and it cannot reinterpret the constitution. Determining crime and punishment policy is, as frequently expressed in Constitutional Court decisions, at the discretion of the legislator, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey.”

HE HAD PREVIOUSLY LEVELED ACCUSATIONS AS WELL

Yıldız had also made a post last week, accusing the Constitutional Court of "activism."

In a statement on his social media account on November 1, Yıldız said, “The common feature of judicial activism everywhere in the world is that it occurs in the form of the judiciary exceeding the limits of legal oversight and interfering with the political discretion of the legislative body.

For example: Like the Constitutional Court's '367 decision' in 2007, which created a 'qualified quorum' not foreseen by the founding will during the first round of voting for the presidential election...”

News Source: 12punto