Harsh reaction from the Palace to the ECHR's Osman Kavala ruling: 'We do not recognize those who do not recognize this'

Chief Advisor to the President Mehmet Uçum has issued a harsh reaction to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Grand Chamber's ruling that businessman Osman Kavala should be released "as soon as possible."

The ECHR, drawing attention to the seriousness of the violations identified in its ruling, stated that Turkey must ensure Kavala's release. The court also ordered Turkey to pay non-pecuniary damages to Kavala.

Following the ruling, Uçum made a statement accusing the ECHR of issuing "political project rulings." Arguing that the ECHR is not a higher judicial authority, Uçum claimed that the court's decisions do not have directly binding consequences on national judiciaries.

"It is clear that Turkey is being forced to reconsider its status as a party to the ECHR and the possibility of individual applications to the ECHR. All interlocutors must know that if decisions continue to be made against Turkey based on political calculations, this situation will become inevitable."

Uçum also opposed interpretations that Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights makes ECHR rulings "fundamentally binding." Arguing that this approach means not recognizing "national judicial independence," Uçum stated, "We do not recognize those who do not recognize this."

ALSO REACTED TO AMOR

One of the names targeted in Uçum's statement was Nacho Sanchez Amor, the European Parliament's Turkey Rapporteur. Amor had stated that the ECHR's Kavala ruling was one of the clearest answers regarding the debate on judicial independence in Turkey.

Uçum, on the other hand, described Amor's statements as "baseless" and stated that they do not accept the criticisms directed at Turkey's Minister of Justice and the judicial system. Uçum also evaluated the West's stance on ECHR rulings as "biased" and "hypocritical."

Uçum's statement is as follows:

"BOTH THE ECHR AND AMOR SHOULD KNOW THEIR PLACE!

Once again, following a ruling issued by the European Court of Human Rights as a political project, some insolent individuals, including the European Parliament's 'Turkey Anti-ism Officer' Amor, have begun to speak out against Turkey.

First of all, let us state that national judicial independence is not only independence from the legislative and executive powers and various power centers within the country, but also independence from forces and authorities outside the country. International conventions and authorities cannot be positioned in a way that eliminates the independence and primary nature of the national judiciary, nor can they be interpreted as such. It must be emphasized that national powers are primary; international regulations and decisions are secondary.

The ECHR is not a court of first instance, nor is it a hierarchically superior judicial authority in any way. Therefore, ECHR oversight is not a hierarchical oversight. It cannot be expected that ECHR rulings will have the same consequences as the rulings of hierarchical judicial authorities. Only those acting with a colonial mentality could expect this.

There is no fundamental binding nature in ECHR rulings at any stage. The binding nature of ECHR rulings on courts is the obligation for the court to re-examine the file in which the violation was identified, limited to the subject related to the violation. As clearly seen in our positive law in Article 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CMK) and Article 375 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), violation rulings issued by the ECHR for finalized court decisions do not have the power to directly affect the relevant court decisions. Even when courts conduct a retrial through the retrial process that is activated upon request, no binding legal result is produced. Courts may evaluate the merits of the ECHR ruling and find their previous decisions appropriate in accordance with their former opinion, or they may take the violation ruling into account and establish a new judgment, either partially or entirely.

"WE DO NOT RECOGNIZE THOSE WHO DO NOT RECOGNIZE THIS"

In this context; interpreting Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights as meaning that ECHR rulings are fundamentally binding means not recognizing national judicial independence and the principle that the national judiciary is primary. We do not recognize those who do not recognize this. The authority to comply or not comply with violation rulings belongs to the relevant national courts.

The insolence of any international authority attempting to give instructions to our national judiciary is unacceptable. Those who constantly engage in exploitation politics by citing judicial independence must respect the independence of the national judiciary.

On this occasion, we strongly condemn the arrogant and baseless statements of European Parliament Turkey Rapporteur Nacho Sanchez Amor. No one can speak out against the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Turkey. On the other hand, it is not anyone's place or duty to comment on the independence of the Turkish judiciary. The West's biased and hypocritical practices regarding ECHR rulings are also known to everyone. You should go and face your own fraudulent authorities and judicial bodies that are ravaging Europe, covering up racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, racist crimes, and murders. Reckon with your legal, political, and actual aggressions that do not recognize refugee rights.

As the ECHR continues to issue political project rulings, it loses all value for Turkey. It is clear that Turkey is being forced to reconsider its status as a party to the ECHR and the possibility of individual applications to the ECHR. All interlocutors must know that if decisions continue to be made against Turkey based on political calculations, this situation will become inevitable. If it comes to this point, the collapse of the ECHR system will also be unavoidable."