12.09.2025 20:00
The Supreme Election Council has completed the justification for its decision to lift the suspension of the CHP's congresses in 5 districts of Istanbul, while rejecting the appeal regarding the dismissal of the provincial administration. The justification states that, according to the statutes and regulations of political parties, the district election boards do not have any authority to suspend an ongoing congress process.
The Supreme Election Council (YSK) accepted the application made by the Republican People's Party (CHP) on September 5, requesting the removal of the decisions of the district election boards in Istanbul regarding the inability to hold CHP district congresses, using its authority of "complete unlawfulness." The YSK lifted the decisions taken by the district election boards of Sarıyer, Tuzla, Bakırköy, Başakşehir, and Ataşehir to halt the ongoing congress process due to complete unlawfulness and decided that the congresses should continue from where they left off.
YSK COMPLETED THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DECISION REGARDING THE CONTINUATION OF CHP'S ISTANBUL DISTRICT CONGRESSES The justification for the YSK's decision has been completed. In the 9-page justification, it was stated: "With the Interim Decision of the Istanbul 45th Civil Court of First Instance numbered 2025/254, it was decided to temporarily halt the election activities of the district congresses and the provincial congress initiated by the Central Executive Board of the Republican People's Party, which are included in the congress calendar, only for the district congresses and provincial congress to be conducted by the Istanbul Provincial Organization. Although it was decided that the ordinary congresses initiated in the mentioned districts by the district election boards of Tuzla, Sarıyer, Başakşehir, Ataşehir, and Bakırköy could not be held, since the district election boards do not have any authority or jurisdiction to halt a congress process that has started and is ongoing in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 2820, the decisions taken by the district election boards of Tuzla, Sarıyer, Başakşehir, Ataşehir, and Bakırköy constitute a state of complete unlawfulness."
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REJECTION DECISION REGARDING THE ISTANBUL PROVINCIAL CONGRESS On the other hand, in the application petition, the CHP requested that it be determined that the precautionary measure decision of the Istanbul 45th Civil Court of First Instance dated September 2, 2025, regarding the Istanbul Provincial Congress, could not be executed due to material and legal impossibility, but the Council rejected this objection.
In the justification for the rejection decision, it was emphasized that according to Article 79 of the Constitution, the task of the Supreme Election Council is to carry out and enforce all transactions related to the orderly management and integrity of elections, to examine and finalize all complaints and objections regarding electoral matters during and after the election. It was reminded that the duties and powers of the Supreme Election Council are fundamentally regulated in Article 14 of Law No. 298 on the Basic Provisions of Elections and Voter Registers and Article 6 of Law No. 7062 on the Organization and Duties of the Supreme Election Council.
"IT IS CLEAR THAT ELECTION BOARDS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED REGARDING EVENTS BEFORE ELECTION DAY" It was stated in the justification that election boards have been given a more limited 'supervision and control' authority for the organ elections in the congresses of political parties, and that the supervision and control duty of the district election board begins with the transition to the election and ends with the recording of the elections and the finalization of the objections made. It was noted: "Agenda items, decisions, and requests for the annulment of the congress, other than the organ elections held in the congresses of political parties, are outside the duties of the election boards. According to the duties and powers granted by the Constitution and laws, it is clear that the election boards are not authorized regarding events that occur 'before election day,' except for limited matters such as the approval of lists determining the party members who will participate in the congress."
THE ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE OF YSK ON THE SUBJECT Indeed, according to the established jurisprudence of our Council on the subject, the election judge (district election board president) carries out a limited supervision and control activity regarding the election day operations of the elections of the provincial and district organs of political parties and the elections of the delegates to the grand congress. In cases that do not contain a state of complete unlawfulness, objections to the decisions of the district election board are rejected by the Supreme Election Council on the grounds that the mentioned decisions are final, but it is emphasized that reports, objections, and claims regarding states of complete unlawfulness can always be examined based on the authority and duty granted by Article 79 of the Constitution, even after the election results are finalized.
"ELECTION BOARDS HAVE LIMITED AUTHORITY IN POLITICAL PARTY CONGRESSES" In the justification, it was noted that according to the Constitution and legal provisions, the Supreme Election Council and election boards, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant legislation, divide the management and control activities in elections into three basic stages: "before the election," "on election day," and "after the election." Unlike presidential, parliamentary, local government elections, and referendums, it was stated that in the congresses of public institutions, professional organizations, trade unions, and political parties, election boards exercise limited authority. It was noted that: "Due to the limited supervision and control over the operations related to 'election day' and 'after the election,' it cannot be considered an usurpation of authority under Article 138 of the Constitution for judicial authorities to implement the decisions made by the courts in accordance with the provisions of the Turkish Civil Code and the Associations Law, pursuant to Articles 29 and 121 of Law No. 2820 on Political Parties, regarding operations related to 'before the election,' where election boards do not have supervision and control authority."
In the justification, it was emphasized that in a decision that has become a precedent in 2006, the election boards' supervision duties and powers in the electoral congresses of political parties are clearly stated to be different from the "management" and "control" duties given regarding parliamentary and local government elections as stated in Articles 67 and 79 of the Constitution, and that election boards have been given a more limited "supervision" duty and authority.
Elbette, mevcut HTML içeriğini bozmadan metni İngilizce'ye çevirebilirim. Ancak, çevirmemi istediğiniz metni belirtmediniz. Lütfen çevirmemi istediğiniz metni paylaşın, böylece size yardımcı olabilirim.