Lawyers file objection to court in IMM case

Hüseyin Ersöz, one of the defense attorneys in the IMM case, has filed an objection to the decision rejecting his request for the recusal of the judge. The application claims that the natural judge principle and the right to a fair trial have been violated during the proceedings.

Hüseyin Ersöz, who represents Ramazan Gülten, Aykut Erdoğdu, Ulaş Yılmaz, and Yavuz Oğhan, submitted a petition objecting to the Istanbul 40th High Criminal Court's decision dated March 9, 2026, which had denied the recusal request.

DEBATE OVER IMPARTIALITY AND INDEPENDENCE

According to a report by Halk TV, the application filed on March 16 alleges that procedural and legal irregularities have occurred since the beginning of the trial process. It is argued that this situation has raised serious doubts regarding the impartiality and independence of the court panel.

In his petition, Ersöz stated, 'During the hearing of your court's file on March 9, 2026, prosecution proceedings were initiated in a manner contrary to the procedures stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code, and the objections raised by the defense counsel regarding this matter were not taken into consideration by your court panel.'

'CONTRARY TO THE NATURAL JUDGE PRINCIPLE'

The objection petition further argues that the appointment of a new panel to hear the IMM case at the Istanbul 40th High Criminal Court is 'contrary to the natural judge principle.'

The defense side stated that an extraordinary judicial process has been experienced since the beginning of the investigation and that the new appointment has undermined confidence in the independence of the court.

LEAKING OF THE INDICTMENT TO THE PRESS CRITICIZED

The petition also criticized the fact that the indictment was reflected in the press before it reached the defense attorneys. The defense stated that they learned about the contents of the indictment and certain developments regarding the trial process through the media.

It was noted that this situation strengthens suspicions that case information was 'leaked' to outside parties during the investigation and prosecution stages.

The defense petition requested that 'the decision to reject the request for the recusal of the judge be reversed in accordance with Article 28 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK) and that your panel withdraw from the case.'