Constitutional Court rejected application filed by Hatip Dicle
Constitutional Court rejected application filed by Hatip Dicle
Has it was widely expected Turkey’s Constitutional Court has rejected an application filed by Hatip Dicle, who last month was stripped of his mandate by the Supreme Election Board (YSK). The rejection was motivated by the fact the Court lacks jurisdiction in the case.
The top court pointed to Article 79 of the Constitution (the decisions of the YSK are not open to judicial review). A rapporteur with the top court had already recommended the dismissal of the appeal as he also indicated that YSK decisions are not open to judicial review and so the application cannot be accepted.
Late last month Hatip Dicle’s lawyers appealed the YSK ban at the top court based on a constitutional provision which says no authority other than Parliament can strip a deputy of his or her mandate. They said although the Constitution says an appeal can be filed regarding a parliamentary decision to strip a deputy of his mandate at the top court and that YSK decisions are not open to judicial review, since the YSK usurped the authority of Parliament, they can still appeal the YSK decision.
According to Article 84 of the Constitution “The loss of membership [of a deputy], through a final judicial sentence or deprivation of legal capacity, shall take effect after the final court decision on the matter has been communicated to the Turkish Parliament.”
The YSK on June 21 voted unanimously to strip Dicle of his mandate because of an earlier, separate terrorism-related conviction. Dicle was convicted of “disseminating the propaganda of the outlawed [Kurdistan Workers’ Party] PKK” in 2009 by the Ankara 11th High Criminal Court, and the Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the decision in March of this year. The court sentenced Dicle to one year, eight months in prison on terrorism charges.
The top court pointed to Article 79 of the Constitution (the decisions of the YSK are not open to judicial review). A rapporteur with the top court had already recommended the dismissal of the appeal as he also indicated that YSK decisions are not open to judicial review and so the application cannot be accepted.
Late last month Hatip Dicle’s lawyers appealed the YSK ban at the top court based on a constitutional provision which says no authority other than Parliament can strip a deputy of his or her mandate. They said although the Constitution says an appeal can be filed regarding a parliamentary decision to strip a deputy of his mandate at the top court and that YSK decisions are not open to judicial review, since the YSK usurped the authority of Parliament, they can still appeal the YSK decision.
According to Article 84 of the Constitution “The loss of membership [of a deputy], through a final judicial sentence or deprivation of legal capacity, shall take effect after the final court decision on the matter has been communicated to the Turkish Parliament.”
The YSK on June 21 voted unanimously to strip Dicle of his mandate because of an earlier, separate terrorism-related conviction. Dicle was convicted of “disseminating the propaganda of the outlawed [Kurdistan Workers’ Party] PKK” in 2009 by the Ankara 11th High Criminal Court, and the Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the decision in March of this year. The court sentenced Dicle to one year, eight months in prison on terrorism charges.
