New development in the lawsuit filed against Akın Gürlek's appointment as minister

Former YARSAV President Ömer Faruk Eminağaoğlu and lawyers Doğan Erkan, Sait Kıran, Selcik Ulusoy, and İsmail Çelik, affiliated with the Ankara Bar Association, filed a lawsuit with the Council of State on February 16, requesting the cancellation of the appointment of Akın Gürlek as Minister of Justice.

In the petition they prepared, the five lawyers argued that Gürlek's appointment to the ministry could not be interpreted as an automatic termination of his prosecutorial duties, and that this approach was unlawful. The petition stated that such an interpretation would effectively mean removal from office, which contradicts Article 139 of the Constitution, which includes the provision that "judges and prosecutors cannot be removed from office."

"THE APPOINTMENT IS CLEARLY UNLAWFUL"

According to the report by Aytunç Ürkmez from Cumhuriyet, the petition included the following statements:

"His appointment as minister cannot be interpreted as the existence of his own request. The oath taken after the appointment process does not eliminate the unlawfulness at the moment of appointment. As of the moment of the appointment process, there is a clear contradiction with the law, the constitution, and the rule of law."

The petition also emphasized that, in addition to the eligibility requirements for election regulated in Article 76 of the Constitution, the judiciary is an independent branch and this independence must be protected. For these reasons, it was claimed that the appointment in question was contrary to the Judges and Prosecutors Law No. 2802 and the Constitution, and its cancellation was requested.

REQUEST FOR STAY OF EXECUTION

The application also requested a stay of execution of the appointment decision without taking a defense, on the grounds that Gürlek, in his capacity as both Minister of Justice and President of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK), would exercise authority in matters related to judicial independence and judicial security.

NOTABLE DECISION FROM THE COUNCIL OF STATE

The 12th Chamber of the Council of State announced its decision regarding the application. It was notable that the chamber did not reject the lawsuit petition.

In its decision, taken by a vote of 4 to 1, the court ruled that the plaintiff lawyers had the standing to file the lawsuit. The decision stated that the case would be reviewed on its merits and that the lawsuit petition would be served to the Presidency. It was also stated that the request for a stay of execution would be evaluated after the defendant's defense is received or upon the expiration of the response period.

News Source: 12punto