Court of Cassation: 'Constitutional Court's violation decision for Atalay has no legal value'

Yargıtay 3rd Criminal Chamber has ruled that the second violation decision of the Constitutional Court (AYM) regarding Turkey Labour Party (TİP) Hatay Deputy Can Atalay has no legal value, and decided not to comply with the decision.

Government-friendly Sabah newspaper reported that the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Court stated, "There is no legal value in the second violation decision issued by the Constitutional Court for Şerafettin Can Atalay, and there is no decision that can be applied within the scope of Article 153/6 of the Constitution."

Accordingly the Chamber has decided not to comply with the decision of the Constitutional Court.

Furthermore, the Court expressed that the decision in question is a "juristocratic" act.

What happened?

Imprisoned for one and a half year due to the Gezi Park trial, lawyer Can Atalay was elected an MP in the May elections.

Atalay’s applications for his release to perform his MP duties were rejected by courts.

In late September, the Court of Cassation, the top appeals court, upheld the Gezi verdict, ensuring his continued imprisonment.

In response, Atalay filed an individual application with the AYM, which ruled on October 25 that his election rights were violated.

Instead of directly implementing the AYM verdict, the relevant local court referred it to the Court of Cassation.

The Court of Cassation asserted that the AYM’s decision violated the Constitution and decided to file criminal complaints against its judges.

The AYM General Assembly issued a second violation decision in the Atalay file on December 21, 2023. The reasoned decision of the court was published in the Official Gazette on December 27, 2023.

After the announcement of the reasoned decision, the İstanbul 13th Heavy Penal Court panel, instead of implementing the decision which requested the release of Atalay, sent the file once again to the Court of Cassation 3rd Criminal Chamber, arguing in its unanimous decision, that the violation originated from the decision of the Court of Cassation.

What is juristocracy?

According to the definition on the Turkish page about the term on Wikipedia, "jüristokrasi" (juristocracy) means the rule of judges. It is a concept opposite to democracy, describing judges forming an oligarchic administration. The term carries a critical meaning. It represents an oligarchic form of governance.

Accordingly juristocracy is also defined by the usurpation of functions. In immature democracies, juristocracy is frequently observed, where the interpretive abilities of those at the helm of the judiciary come to the forefront, and the country is attempted to be governed through laws shaped by the interpretations of judges. (RT/PE)