08.05.2026 02:27
While the Council of State's ruling on Metin Özçelik was interpreted by the public as a "return to duty," legal experts emphasized that the decision does not cover the final dismissal status under the decree law, pertains only to a different administrative procedure, and contains legally controversial aspects despite being based on an acquittal; therefore, it was stated that Özçelik's reinstatement to public office is not possible.
In 2014 and 2015, news that the Council of State's 5th Chamber had annulled the decision to dismiss Judge Metin Özçelik from the profession, who processed release requests without authority for police officers and media executives detained in numerous investigations such as "espionage," "illegal wiretapping," "December 25 conspiracy," "Selam Tevhid conspiracy," and "Tahşiye conspiracy," caused widespread public reaction.
KHK DISMISSAL CONTINUES IN THE SAME MANNER
Legal experts evaluating the issue emphasized that Metin Özçelik had previously been dismissed from public service under a Decree Law (KHK) and that this decision had become final. Therefore, it was stated that there is no possibility for Özçelik to return to the profession in his current situation.
THE COUNCIL OF STATE DECISION CONCERNS A DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
It was noted that the annulment decision by the Council of State's 5th Chamber pertains not to the dismissal process carried out under the KHK, but to a separate administrative action established under the last paragraph of Article 69 of Law No. 2802 on Judges and Prosecutors. This action covers evaluations regarding the nature of the wiretapping decisions Özçelik made during his tenure.
ACQUITTAL DECISION WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
It was reported that the criminal proceedings for these acts resulted in an acquittal, and the Council of State took this outcome into account in its annulment decision. However, it was stated that the acquittal being granted on the grounds that "it was not proven that the accused committed the alleged crime" carries separate legal significance. According to experts, such acquittal decisions do not have absolute binding force in administrative law.
ONE MEMBER VOTED AGAINST THE DECISION
It was shared that during the Council of State's review, one member of the panel voted against the decision, and the Council of State prosecutor issued an opinion favoring the dismissal of the case. This situation indicated that the decision contains legally controversial aspects.
CONCLUSION: RETURN TO DUTY IS NOT POSSIBLE
In conclusion, it was emphasized that the annulment decision by the Council of State's 5th Chamber does not eliminate Metin Özçelik's finalized dismissal status under the KHK and does not lead to his return to public service.