Court explains reasoning behind Gürsel Tekin's appointment: 'Individuals not distant from the party'

In the lawsuit filed by Özlem Erkan for the cancellation of the 38th Ordinary CHP Istanbul Provincial Congress held on October 8, 2023, the court had removed CHP Istanbul Provincial Chair Özgür Çelik and his administration from office with an interim injunction decision issued on September 2. Five individuals, including Gürsel Tekin, were appointed as trustees in place of the provincial administration.

The Istanbul 45th Civil Court of First Instance had ruled to reject the objections made by the CHP and to continue the injunction. The court has now explained the reasoning behind that decision.

In its decision, the court cited the initiation of a criminal case regarding the CHP Istanbul Provincial Elections as one of the reasons for issuing the interim injunction. Regarding the appointment of Gürsel Tekin, Zeki Şen, Hasan Babacan, Müjdat Gürbüz, and Erkan Narsap, the court used the phrase "individuals not distant from the party" as the reason for their selection.

"THE AIM WAS FOR THE ELECTIONS TO BE OBJECTIVE"

The court stated that the aim was for the appointed committee to keep the ongoing Istanbul Provincial Election Congress process objective and impartial, free from suspicion and conflict. In its reasoning, the judge noted that the plaintiff, Özlem Erkan, and her lawyer, Cevahir Kılıç, had submitted a list to the court containing the names of people they requested to be appointed to the CHP Provincial Presidency. It was stated that the names on this list were investigated, and the 5 most suitable individuals were selected to be tasked as a board to lead the provincial organization to elections and manage routine affairs during this process.

BEYOND A SIMPLE ALLEGATION

The Istanbul 45th Civil Court judge explained the reasoning for removing the High Board and Convention delegates from office by stating that the allegations regarding the 38th Ordinary Convention were more than just simple claims. The judge argued that the requirement for prima facie evidence had been met, suggesting that the elections in question were conducted contrary to the principles of democracy and equality, and that the will of the delegates was influenced in exchange for various benefits. Citing these reasons, the phrase "this decision was taken to prevent the drawbacks of them remaining in office" was used in the reasoned decision.

In its reasoning, the court explained why the interim injunction it issued was not an interference in the elections with the following justifications: "The fact that there is little time left until the end of the 2-year term of these individuals, that the 38th Ordinary Convention and the 21st Extraordinary Convention have already been held, and that it will not be these individuals but the newly elected Convention delegates who will vote in the 39th Ordinary General Assembly is proof that our decision is not an interference in the elections," emphasizing that the purpose of the interim injunction was for the appointed committee to manage the Istanbul provincial elections.

The judge argued that the objections raised by CHP lawyers, who claimed that the party was being managed by the court and that the judiciary had exceeded its boundaries, were untrue. The judge emphasized that although there was no requirement for the appointed board to be party members, these names were chosen at the court's discretion.