20.03.2026 14:01
The Minister of Justice, Akın Gürlek, responded to the claim made by CHP leader Özgür Özel that he has a residence in Luxembourg by saying, "I have not been to Luxembourg." It has been revealed that the contract of the company where Gürlek served on the board for a while does not contain a provision regarding the board's activities being physically located in Luxembourg, and therefore, there is no obligation to travel to that country as part of his duties.
The recent claims made by CHP Chairman Özgür Özel regarding Justice Minister Akın Gürlek have opened a new topic of discussion. The process that began with Özel's statement, "He has a yacht in Luxembourg," quickly evolved into a different debate through a board membership that Justice Minister Akın Gürlek held in the past.
According to the information obtained, establishing a direct connection between these two topics is technically quite controversial. Sources indicate that Gürlek's statement, "I did not go to Luxembourg," is a direct response to Özel's "yacht" claim; however, the association of this statement with the board membership is considered a "context shift."
In the second part of the claims expressed by Özgür Özel, it is alleged that Gürlek served as a board member in a Luxembourg-related company of Eti Maden and received a fee for this role. However, according to sources close to the matter, this position is a representation role that is often seen in public enterprises and is in accordance with the legislation, carried out during his tenure as Deputy Minister.
BOARD MEMBERS PLAY A ROLE MORE IN STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES
According to sources familiar with the subject, while the daily operations of the company are managed by professional management in Luxembourg, board members play a role more in strategic decision-making processes. As is known, the board of directors is the highest decision-making body of a company and conducts its activities in accordance with the commercial law of the country it is in and the provisions of the company's articles of association.
For this reason, it is particularly emphasized that board membership does not require physical presence in Luxembourg.
THERE IS NO OBLIGATION IN THE CONTRACT TO BE PRESENT IN THE COUNTRY
Additionally, when examining the company's articles of association and the legal system it is subject to, it is stated that there is no obligation for board members to be present in the relevant country. In this context, it is noted that there is no contradiction between Gürlek's not having gone to Luxembourg during his term and his board membership.
The general opinion in Ankara's corridors is that while Özgür Özel's claims create a discourse in the political debate arena, they contain incomplete or contextually detached elements from a technical and legal perspective.
In summary, the assessment expressed in the corridors is as follows: The discussion is fed more by the difference between political discourse and technical reality than by a legal contradiction.