The High Council of Judges and Prosecutors in Turkey: Roundtable Discussion on Its New Structure and Operations
Moderator Discussants Ali Bayramoğlu Ahmet İnsel İbrahim Okur Leyla Köksal Tarhan Mithat Sancar Uğur Yiğit Yücel Sayman The High Council of Judges and Prosecutors in Turkey: Roundtable Discussion on Its New Structure and Operations
Türkiye Ekonomik ve Bankalar Cad. Minerva Han Sosyal Etüdler Vakf› No: 2 Kat: 3 Turkish Economic and Karaköy 34420, İstanbul Social Studies Foundation Tel: +90 212 292 89 03 PBX Fax: +90 212 292 90 46 Demokratikleşme Program› [email protected] Democratization Program www.tesev.org.tr
Discussants: Design: Myra Ahmet İnsel, İbrahim Okur, Publication Identity Design: Rauf Kösemen Leyla Köksal Tarhan, Mithat Sancar, Page Layout: Gülderen Rençber Erbaş Uğur Yiğit, Yücel Sayman Coordination: Sibel Doğan Production Coordination: Nergis Korkmaz Moderator: Ali Bayramoğlu Prepared for Publication by: Printed by: İmak Ofset Basım Yayın San. ve Tic. Ltd. Şti. Koray Özdil, Levent Pişkin Atatürk Cad. Göl Sok. No : 1 Yenibosna Editor: Ferda Balancar, Belgin Çınar Bahçelievler/İSTANBUL-TÜRKİYE Tel: 0212 656 49 97 Translator: Fethi Keleş Copies: 500 Editor in English: Lis Amado
TESEV PUBLICATIONS ISBN 978-605-5332-30-3 Copyright © November 2012 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced electronically or mechanically (photocopy, storage of records or information, etc.) without the permission of the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV). All views and opinions appearing in this publication belong to the moderator and discussants and may be partially or completely against the institutional views of TESEV.
TESEV would like to extend its thanks to the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), the Open Society Foundation, and the TESEV High Advisory Board for their contri- butions with regard to the publication and promotion of this report. Contents
TESEV’s Preface, 5
1. POST-REFERENDUM STRUCTURE AND PRACTICES OF THE HIGH COUNCIL OF JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS, 8 1.1. HSYK’s Structural Transformation, 8 1.2. HSYK Election Process, 17 1.3. “Performance Evaluation” as a Scoring System, 25 1.4. Training Prospective Judges and Prosecutors and the Justice Academy, 29
2. HSYK’S OPERATIONS AND IMPACT ON ONGOING CASES, 33 2.1. The Operation of the New HSYK, 33 2.2. The Practices of the New HSYK and Controversial Cases, 34
3. JUDICIARY’S PROBLEMS BEYOND THE HIGH COUNCIL OF JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS, 42 3.1. Specially Authorized Courts, 42 3.2. Judicial Law-Enforcement vs. Administrative Law-Enforcement, 45 3.3. Strengthening the Defense, 47 3.4. Appellate Courts, 49
Common Points and Recommendations, 52
Conclusion: Analysis of the new HSYK and Roundtable Discussion, 53
About the Authors, 57 4 the decision the Constitutional Court made in regards in regards made Court Constitutional the decision the amending the were constitution of intensely critical of supportive circles referendum,even the Following judiciary. the upon influence gaining more government the into translate would amendments the that critical opposing constitutional amendments, however, were groups Political perceptions. and expectations hopeful in these origins its had referendum the to extended support public The mutation. asimilar undergo also could entities government bureaucratic insinuate other would supervision civilian to subject body pluralist participatory, power, of center amore into bureaucratic a otherwise HSYK, the transforming addition, in Turkey. judiciary the of composition In hierarchical centralist the within role asubstantial has HSYK that given structure, administrative democratic a more with judiciary the provide would HSYK the concerning amendments that high particularly were Expectations structure. pluralist amore with (HSYK) Prosecutors and Judges of Council High the and Court Constitutional intended to equip was the package amendments The judiciary. the transform to initiative an represented essentially 2012 September 12 of referendum in the brought to the ballot amendments constitutional The in general. judiciary the as well as bodies, judiciary supreme of administration the reforming toward steps of anumber took (JDP) Party Development and “rule law”, Justice the of by the bound be also must itself judiciary the that emphasizing adiscourse With regime. tutelary the corroborate to served has judiciary, which the involves history recent in Turkey’s reform of areas critical most the of One Koray Özdil, TESEV’s Preface TESEV Democratization Program Democratization TESEV Serap Yazıcı titled “Judicial Conundrum: Opinions and and Opinions Conundrum: “Judicial Yazıcı titled Serap by edited report in a2010 HSYK the of evaluation normative and academic an published previously we fact, of amatter As HSYK. new the of practices and operations structure, the assess to thisstudy together put to we decided developments, these all of In light law. of rule the on based regimes democratic in councils similar with in comparison centralist and control-prone excessively remained HSYK the that However, judiciary. the of critiqued they levels various of representation the of in terms structure new HSYK’s toward approach apositive had reports The 1 reform in Turkey raised concerns along the same lines. same the in Turkeyalong reform concerns raised judiciary the about drafted reports International office. from removed were Ergenekon cases and Dink Hrant Feneri, Deniz in the prosecutors which waysin the of aresult as judiciary the of independence the to respect with public the among confidence however,coup. It of crisis has, in aserious ushered 1980 the of perpetrators the against indictment an for up having drawn in 2003 credentials professional his of stripped was who prosecutor the Kayasu, Sacit and in 2005; indictment Şemdinli the having authored for office from removed prosecutor the Sarıkaya, decisions it issued on of Ferhat the reinstatement the to thanks feedback positive received election the after instituted HSYK The process. election subsequent the of as well as elections, HSYK the to Judges and Prosecutors of Turkey” (CDL- Turkey” of Prosecutors and Judges (CDL- Turkey” of Prosecutors and Judges for Council High the On Law Draft the on Opinion “Interim Commission, R Human of Protection “ Thomas, Hammarberg, A D (2010) 42) and “Opinion on the Draft Law on on Law Draft the on “Opinion 42) and D (2010) ights in Turkey”, 2012.Venice Turkey”, in 2012.Venice ights A dministration of Justice and and Justice of dministration A D(2011) 004). D(2011) 1
5 6 was shared about ongoing trials regarding individuals individuals regarding ongoing trials about shared was information not-yet public where However, sections report. the into over carried been has roundtable the in discussions the of part Asubstantial format. report the of requirements stylistic keeping in mind the report, the into possible as smoothly as discussion the of content the convey to effort an We made Balancar. editor, thisstudy’s by Ferda areport into turned and compiled were meeting the of minutes this study. The on advised has who Bayramoğlu, Ali with consultation up in drawn were report the and May 2012, 21 on in Ankara held for roundtable points discussion Main conversations. face-to-face through parties relevant directly the with discussed and to communicated were critiques that ensured roundtable The reform. judiciary the of aspects contested several and HSYK the both regarding opinions exchanged positions political comingvarying from parties where platform ashared provided also This in detail. and perspective insider’s an through practice and situation current the we treated aresult, As for speakers. time sufficient affording group in asmall field the of practitioners and experts by discussion direct generate opinions. diverse with experts and debate; in the addressee direct the HSYK, from representative referendum; one the of course the over positions divergent adopted which Association), Judiciary Yargı (Democratic Demokrat Prosecutors) and Judges and of Association YARSAV as such (The associations professional prosecutors judges and from representatives discussions by meeting of the roundtable attended on is based Operations” and Structure New in Turkey: its on Discussion Prosecutors Roundtable Judges and of Council High “the titled report This Turkey”. Recommendations Reform on Constitutional in 2 reasons, any representative was able to attend. to able was representative any reasons, in Turkey. community litigator defense Citing scheduling A Bar Turkish of Union the of directors of board the from arepresentative invited we these, to addition In ssociations, the the organization that represents 2 With the roundtable, we intended to to we intended roundtable, the With democratic runningTurkey’s of system. democratic legal for the necessary platform discussion and information emerging recommendations contribute to the the and thisreport that Recommendations”. We hope and Points “Common titled heading separate recommended solutions discussed are under a and areas problem common These judiciary. the of administration the and HSYK the of status current problems recommended and solutions concerning the the to in have regards emerged points common certain positions, political and organizational on based roundtable in the disparities sharp were there While exchanges. those exclude to not we decided therefore, case; the regarding allegations the to speak could in attendance parties different that important is it we thought and statements, available publicly included largely case thisparticular about exchanges Roundtable case. Feneri Deniz the to relating sections the concerned that to exception An attendance. in those by effect the to made suggestions the things other among considering report, in the included not were meeting the attending not Uğur Yiğit (Democratic Judiciary, Co-president) (Democratic Yiğit Uğur Law) of University, Professor (Ankara Sancar Mithat Tarhan (YARSAV, Köksal Leyla Member) Board Circuit) First the of Head (HSYK, Okur İbrahim Science)Political of University, Professor (Galatasaray İnsel Ahmet Discussants: Yeni Newspaper Daily Bayramoğlu, Şafak Ali Moderator: May 2012 21 Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) New Structure of the High Council of Recommendations the on and Remarks shortcomings? What kind of picture are we looking at? we looking are picture of kind What shortcomings? practical the of some were What structure? new the criticize strongly who for those concerns emerging additional there Are shortcomings? any we witness Did realized? been have expectations the To extent expected? what they get what structure new the supported and suggested who individuals the Did are: discuss to we want topics The experience. old ahalf and is ayear only structure HSYK’s new sessions. three into divided be will meeting This Bayramoğlu: Ali
7 8 Bayramoğlu Ali and two other members, the minister and the the and minister the members, other two and bodies judiciary supreme from members Five State. of Council the from members alternate two and principal two and Appeals, of Court Supreme the from members alternate three and principal three undersecretary, chair, its Ministry the as Justice of Minister membership, the including aseven-person had HSYK the Constitution youknow, 1982 the under As about. brought structure new the what later us consider Let were. things how we started, where today, at looking consider to Before Ithink we need Okur: İbrahim questions. asking and critiques raising by topic the on expand each we will that, up now.have ended After we where HSYK, the to respect with far so traveled Okur, we have road for us the summarize youmight if Mr. first. Okur İbrahim to floor the give like to I would Bayramoğlu: Ali 1.1. HSYK’s 1. Post-Referendum Structure and Tra ns Judges and Prosecutors Prosecutors Judges and Practices of the High Council of f or S m tr a tion uctu ra l
Elections Board) Elections YSK (Supreme the of reports budget, inspection secretariat, the that was in 2007 beginning problems with controversial became decrees reason main The bodies.” judiciary supreme two these from only people by directed one be would State of Council the and Appeals of Court Supreme the from members onlyof composed Acouncil in itself. body political adifferent become would it bodies, judiciary supreme from onlymembers included Ifcouncil the balances. and checks of for asystem provided undersecretary the and minister the of participation “The time: that at argument of line following the offered ministry The exist. to cease would problem the removed, they once judiciary, and the of independence the upon ashadow cast participation their that was idea The council. in the undersecretary the and minister the of participation the about was debate then, the Until body. in the representation no had decisions Council the to subject those that fact tothe raised discussion public serious no was there sinceday However, one. 2008, up until contested been has in there undersecretary the and Justice of Minister the of participation The contention. of subject a been has HSYK in 1982, established Ever was it since ruling. ultimate the be would Review Committee, a body,12-member whose decision Appeals the by issued decision afinal by followed decisions, re-examination the made also it later] [and decisions, the made council seven-member This formed membership.the seven-person undersecretary were drafted within the Ministry of of Ministry the within drafted were being a body composed only of judges. Currently the the Currently judges. onlyof composed abody being from HSYK the prevents Council the to members of appointment President’s The Council. in the ensured was representation abroad-based aresult, As well. as Council, in the seats their to on held undersecretary the and minister The participants. 30 of composed Academy Justice the of session plenary the by elected was representative This HSYK. join the to able be now would Turkish of Academy session Justice plenary 30-person the by elected representative A judges. not are and scholars legal are or law practice who four members of President, the by appointment, for the allowed It also bodies. judiciary supreme comingthe from those of spots the secured State of Council the from two and Appeals of Court Supreme the from members three of incorporation The 2802. No. Law to subject are who courts, administrative from three and courts judicial from them of judges, ten seven of representation way for the It paved the reform. HSYK the of aspect noteworthy most the Ithink thiswas in it. decisions., participating Council to subject ones the were judges, who include now ministry, would the from representatives and bodies judiciary supreme of members only of comprised which Council, the that established It was transform. to had Justice, of Ministry the of authority the to subject were Committee Inspection and budget secretariat, whose Council, the of composition the that be to came view dominant the 2010, was it When change. to needed HSYK the of structure the that arguing began openly organizations and entities Several norms. EU with in harmony not was HSYK the of composition the that demonstrated clearly reports progress and reports visit EU advisory reform, judiciary EU on the with underway were that negotiations the Also, 2007-2008. of as entity questionable publicly a into HSYK the turned pseudo-decrees of problem the so-, would it not or whether –or items change the would Council the which to extent surrounding the Controversies board. the by discussed be to items agenda the set that Ministry the It was Justice. law. Legal recourse was made available in the event of of event in the available made was law. recourse Legal by established were duties circuit’s Each matters”. disciplinary concerning resolutions objection in the mayparticipate not Justice of Minister “the that astipulation also was There step. amajor was It mechanism. objection effective for an provided has This objection. the minister, evaluates and convenes the and circuits three words Assembly, in other General 22-person the members, seven the by is acircuit,that by made adecision against objection any in another. was If there Appeals of Court Supreme comingthe from those grouping then circuit, and grouping by the appointed President members in one as practice such no was there circuit, same in the placed not were source same comingthe from people is, That representation. balanced and have afair to was intention the that, With affiliation. of basis the on and evenly circuits three to seven of groups in distributed were later) Justice of Minister the about (we’ll Council talk 22-person the of members 21 now, stands structure new the As decisions. amend to have ability didnot the committee, seven-member the to members alternate five of addition the by formed Committee, previously, Objections the stood HSYK As judges only. of comprised abody into turn would HSYK the that concern the relieved Council in this members non-judge of participation The professors. university are two other the and lawyers are them of two members, four non-judge has Council İbrahim Okur İbrahim
9 10 have trust in such a judiciary under these conditions.” these under in such ajudiciary have trust myself, of the judiciary amember not Iwould judiciary. As in the trust that workload, ensure youreducing cannot prosecutor, per documents 1,200 and judge. per Without “Looking at the national average, 1,500 that makes (İbrahim Okur) (İbrahim waiting to be heard. About five thousand judges and judges and thousand five About heard. be to waiting were courts in the files court six million and offices, prosecutors’ at documents investigation six million Appeals, of Court Supreme the at files court thousand 260 million one HSYK, new the as office we took when year, is that last of In January one. awrong be would thisquestion consider not does that diagnosis Any in Turkey Now, like before? judiciary didthe look how of. care taken be could system the blocking previously troubles that ensures which drafted been has package amendment an aresult, As agenda. the set to members paved for the been chair. has road The circuit’s that by is set agenda circuit’s Each authority. that has chairwho acting is the it now agenda, the set to authority the had previously Minister the While ruled. being are matters disciplinary concerning files when meeting Assembly the may attend not however, Assembly; he General maythe chair Minister The made. are resolutions actual the where meetings circuit the mayattend He not weakened. been has Justice of Minister the of position the addition, In Court. Constitutional the of that than larger times half and is one that abudget has HSYK The use. can we that budget We have independent an HSYK. under placed now Ministry,were the of auspices the within previously secretariat, the and Committee Inspection The established. were Committee Inspection independent an and independentAn secretariat resolutions. the to actively contribute could judiciary the of members not are who those that ensured It was website. our on available are resolutions the of texts At the thistime, public. the to accessible and independence, the resolutions were rendered To decisions. impartiality dismissal ensure objectivity, topics studied by TESEV The post-Second World War World post-Second The TESEV by studied topics the is among which process, democratization the is reason 2007.That after them debating publicbegan the reason, for some And years. for 30 was HSYK how That’s mechanisms. control ideological built as were names in words their these including boards and Councils etc. Court Military Supreme courts, supreme Board, Elections Supreme Council, Education Higher “supreme” word “high”. the or with to referred are that Constitution in the bodies the at look you can are, these structures what If youwonder surveillance. and control under it keep to them allow would that manner in a system state the restructured council military coup, the military September 12 the youknow, after As future. in the structure democratic a create and HSYK of structure current the understand then we can identified, ismission accurately If this regime. military September 12 the by it to entrusted mission the carefully consider to needs first one practices, its and HSYK the To analyze to able be Yiğit: Uğur up. process the speed to is able Appeals of Court Supreme the that ensured It was each. to added were circuits New members. have staff now more Appeals of Court Supreme the and State of Council the To justice. reaching have effect, trouble that youwill thisworkload, reducing Without conditions. these under ajudiciary in such have not trust would myself, I judiciary the of amember As 42%. around to down was rating approval ago, judiciary’s the years afew made University Bilgi In apoll judiciary. in the ensuretrust youcannot workload, that reducing Without conditions? these under possible be going is that How to judiciary. the trust to citizens and function to judiciary the that youexpect conditions, these Under 17,000 files. of is in charge who youhave ajudge in İstanbul files, 40-50 some over ajudge preside would districts in small While injustice: is this there then judge. And per prosecutor, 1,200 and per documents 1,500 makes average, that national the at words, looking In other cases. of entireity the with tasked were prosecutors four thousand political occupation. The bureaucracy of the Ministry Ministry the of bureaucracy The occupation. political a to subjet was election HSYK 2010 the that argue to continue and Yargı have argued Demokrat we as However, relations. power of set anew of emergence for the allowed This judiciary. in the problems of solvers into turned now They issues. judiciary to respect with consulted be to began They judiciary. the of matters vis-à-vis status subject acquired time first for the prosecutors judges and thisright, With HSYK. the to members as, voted be and vote, to right the given were prosecutors judges and Constitution: 1961 the under accorded was than entitlement significant historically and advanced a more prosecutors judges and granted referendum 2010 The structure. HSYK ademocratic one, but old the of extension an represented that astructure not was wanted we what Yargı. course, Of Demokrat as that supported we change.And to needed structure democratic anti- This years. way for 30 same the functioning have that been structures the on began debate In 2007, intact. remained judiciary the of structure the replaced, were laws essential Although structures. political and social the it with along and 2000s, in transforming Turkey, began economy the all of first achange. In underwent structure economic the and nation-state the of composition The Europe. Eastern on that of ramifications the witnessed We all 1991. in Wall Berlin the of fall the with aclose to came order Yiğit Uğur authority.” the to habit, succumbed prosecutors judgesand Following seized. uponand old encroached a30-year were rights formal Our the process. directed and the elections in intervened of Justice of the Ministry bureaucracy The subjet occupation. apolitical to was election “2010 HSYK so to the Competition Authority. That means the the means That Authority. Competition the to so does State of Council the And Authority. Procurement Public the to amember appoints still Appeals of Court Supreme The example. you an give me Let one. old the we didto as body new the to remarks same the we direct principles, of in terms consistent To era. previous be the of habits the to clinging is judiciary The there. was tutelage the that clear undeniably it this made 2012; in January Organization of National Intelligence of the Undersecretary door office the on knock the with came so does it that sign first The judiciary. in the before as continues It all gone? No. role that Is role. for tutelary one old the critiqued have We No. council those? current the Does plurality. and voices havefor multiple didnot it room Because one? previous the of we critical were Why exist? to cease council previous the we critiqued points the vote? Have the of aresult as about came actually what Also, elections. the of because legitimacy of issue aserious has We think this body framework. relations in apower elections HSYK the Wediversity. explain and democracy of amatter are they perspective, From abottom-up relations. power of manifestations are they perspective, From atop-down ways. different in two elections explain Actually, youcan votes. affirmative of huge enjoy numbers East Middle in the leaders Many Constitution. 1982 the affirmed electorate the of 92% issue, well, the at look would you If how that’s cast. were votes may 6,500 say that Now, authority. you the to succumbed prosecutors judges and habit, old a30-year Following seized. and upon encroached were rights formal Our process. the directed and elections in the intervened Justice of (Uğur Yiğit) (Uğur
11 12 Ahmet İnsel Ahmet them from becoming more grave and acute. acute. and grave more becoming from them prevent will amendments legal law,the course of but simply amending by of care may taken that be issues of kind the not are These society. the and state the between themselves position judiciary the of members how is, that about world, judiciary the mentalityof the about problems are there then And 2010. have after that emerged issues the of source the at are that problems organizational five or arefour There mechanism. governance pluralist more entailing and structure, atop-down without rights employee protect to prosecutors other the judges and representing one bodies, separate have to two better It be would all. at exist to needs HSYK if discuss all of first to We need İnsel: Ahmet in dispute. is aquestion legitimacy democratic Its elections. the of because legitimacy of crisis aserious has We thisbody think that itself. HSYK about talk to we need now Right changed. achange.So, has nothing represented actually version new the whether check to body. bothered one new No the to structure previous the to made they criticism the Yargı directed Demokrat except organization change.Unfortunately, no the was that form, and evaluation performance as renamed was conduct of go away? certificate The No. judiciary in the structure hierarchical the Did that. to changes No intertwined. still are administration the and judiciary ordinary
Mithat Sancar Ministry of Justice is one of those.” of Justice Ministry of the bureaucracy powers. The the tutelary space the of sanctioned as Turkey utilized are in of ministries of anumber bureaucracies The it represented. the and mentality bureaucracy by atutelary supervised and dominated for along time been has judiciary “The matters who and which mentality control that that control mentality which and who matters it structure, oligarchic the about youtalk when other. waythe or in one Therefore, judiciary entire the on reflect will looks thisbody of structure the way The prosecutors. judges and of behavior the upon have impact course of will abody such of presence The powers. extensive very has it judiciary, and the within activity all guides and controls that is abody HSYK thisstructure. of character oligarchic the about discussions multiple were there Afterwards, stood. it as adopted Constitution the were independence judiciary regarding problems serious be would there that raised were concerns discussed, being was Constitution 1982 the time At the Constitution. 1982 the with existence into came HSYK important. is very like HSYK bodies supreme of status judiciary, the the of independence the For Mithat Sancar: (Mithat Sancar) and for the lack of a solid ground in favor of the the in favor of ground asolid of lack for the and out carried was discussion the way in which particular for the responsible are actors the of all Although ground. solid asufficiently on referendum 2010 September 12 the of aresult as about came that amendments the of positioning the before obstacle an put for Turkey. for a model search the interrupted also This significantly has in thisbody undersecretary the and minister the of participation the with concerned have been for long HSYK about debates that fact The oligarchy. judiciary the of calculations the disrupted tutelage, the represent to expected be otherwise would who undersecretary, the and minister the of participation the that developments interesting such were There visible. more became system the of essence going the downhill, began partnership However, the concerned. when was judiciary the as far as intact largely was this partnership forebecause the to come didnot shaken, crises the was system tutelary the of segment military the when Even amentality. shared they because body. was That that in participating undersecretary the and minister the about have complaints didnot any in HSYK part took who judiciary supreme of members outset, At the state”. the of “interests the protect and of aware are and well state” “the know to considered are who individuals have been justice of ministers years, of couple last the until actually governments, Party Development and Justice initial In the structure. general that of representatives have been always justice of ministers that September, 12 see youwill after liberalization in experiment first the witnessed which era, Turgut the at If youlook those. Özal of is one Justice of Ministry the of bureaucracy The powers. tutelary the of space sanctioned Turkey the as utilized are in ministries of anumber of bureaucracies up. The in thisset role aspecial played Justice of Ministry the of bureaucracy The represented. it mentality the and bureaucracy atutelary by supervised and dominated been time for along has judiciary The structure. the judiciary was tasked with the duty to protect the the protect to duty the with tasked was judiciary the Constitution, the of preamble In the design. despotic this within play to arole given been has judiciary The one. a despotic but design, ademocratic is not it And design. is aparticular This prosecutors. the judges and the means is,judiciary the That Constitution. current the by stipulated framework the within judiciary the about talking we are that means HSYK of framework the within judiciary Discussingthe entity. that in representation no has defense the Because HSYK? we discuss when defense the about we talking aren’t Why is not. it actually We but judiciary. is think there it of the system outside institutionallybeen cast has defense In country, our the defense. the to respect with case the is not That prosecutors. judges and the to respect with case is onlythe that But judiciary. the of operation the of in terms body important most the be to appears HSYK instance, For system. the from disentangled as and authorities state of organization the from independent as HSYK the we treat if way out I’d all of a goingFirst not find saythis, like to to we are Yücel Sayman: Sayman: Yücel judiciary. the of problems the of solution the mean automatically not would amendment thisparticular that see to necessary also was it however appropriate, and one afair was possible as much as structure oligarchic the dissolve to concern the course, Of issue. the of aspects other the upon ashadow cast one pluralist a with replaced and dissolved be must structure oligarchic the that notion The process. amendment Constitutional the of course the over bottlenecks particular some were to. There supposed were they as Assembly Turkish the at National Grand processes the way into their find didnot they good, however quite government. recommendationsproposed The were the convince to enough hard work didnot it or efforts these of government the inform sufficiently didnot justice of ministry the of bureaucracy the form, either final its taking was amendment proposed the When amendments. the before efforts preliminary some were There responsibility. the of share lion’s the has government Ithink the amendments,
13 14 democratic design, but a despotic one.” despotic a but design, democratic design. it is And not a is aparticular the This prosecutors. the and judges it is means not.actually is, That the judiciary ofoutside judiciary. We the system think it is but there cast institutionally been has the country, defense our “In Sayman Yücel main structure has not changed. No matter how many many how matter No changed. not has structure main of. So, care the taken be to is yet that And public. the over exercised one is the tutelage real The government. the over established bureaucracy the or military the that control the just is not tutelage The there. surfaced problems other then But indeed. discarded was it and discarded, be to needed Constitution 1982 the by created framework The changed. now has that HSYK, the over control held that State, of Council the and Appeals of Court Supreme is the that judiciary, supreme the was it amendments, the Before place. took amendment the that is good it Granted, thisservice. monitors and organizes that body is the now. up until HSYK And extent alarge to this function serving have been prosecutors judges and Both state. the protect to function the given been has judiciary The judges”. the to judiciary the leave won’t “We Iused: that aline Ihad elections bar the of course the Over state? the ajudge would protect how just object, Iwould horrified. Iwas state. the going protect to were they saying that were clearly. They very that I saw Association, Bar the of president the Iwas When state. (Yücel Sayman) (Yücel represent prevent the members of the council from from council the of members the prevent represent they authority and power the factor; threatening in Turkey, is a established not thisparticipation culture is democratic because but balance, of element for an provide could in thisbody undersecretary the and minister the of participation The rights. having voting prosecutors judges and with disagree We judiciary. didnot the of system the determining undersecretary one and minister one judges and supreme five to objecting we were is that judiciary the of independence the by we meant judiciary... What the of independence the and law rule the emphasize YARSAV of bylaws the In fact, amendment. of kind thisparticular to but amendment, of kind any to opposed categorically not we were And amendment. YARSAV We the as opposed consequences. excruciating more with and system, previous the didin it than blatantly more itself manifests oligarchy this HSYK, Inside the forward. marching oligarchy democratic thiswas in his writings, emphasizes always İnsel Ahmet As powers. of separation the of principal the over control having central control, under judiciary keeping the is obvious; course of purpose The effect. onlyanominal had items other promptly. The effect into put have been judiciary the to only amendments pertaining those Constitutional the all of that given otherwise, argue can one no guess I judiciary. the of structure change is the to referendum September 12 in the amendments Constitutional the for reason main the saying that by start like to I would Leyla Köksal Tarhan: don’t. they that see we actually And themselves. by much mean not will HSYK to amendments the done, is not that if fact, In is apart. HSYK which of system entire the critique and consider to judiciary, we need the of problem the about talking If we are system. the from separately To HSYK discuss to up, it is think right it Idon’t wrap enforcement must be considered as awhole. as considered be must enforcement law- judicial the and association bar as such Issues transformed. be must it and debate of subject the be to needs itself structure the youintroduce, amendments
Court of Appeals, 160 members were elected. I do not not Ido elected. were members 160 Appeals, of Court Supreme the to members elect to time was it When remaining in Ankara. families their with themselves, by went colleagues our of Several families. of unity the to paid was attention no meantime, In the practices. of kinds these with We faced were etc. scores their and records, disciplinary their requirements, professional like Things that. of for all pretexts necessary foundthe they course of And like punishments. looked that YARSAV of appointments given directors all were YARSAV, from Candidates request. and founders didnot they places to appointed were They places. YARSAV from various to exiled candidates all were Appeals, of Court Supreme the to appointments in and elections HSYK after decree first the With today. exists that HSYK the create Party) People’s YARSAV with do to (Republican CHP or anything have not does This it. affirmed then and adjustment an made Court did. The Court Constitutional the what is not that But it. revoke should they wrong, was something find they if adjustment: an effected and powers its exceeded Court Constitutional the ever, time first the For effort. engineering an quite with faced are we that demonstrate results the But election. in the YARSAV, candidates certain we supported As prosecutors. judges and of is composed that acouncil We too. beings, want human are prosecutors judges and all After will. exercising free their Leyla Köksal Tarhan . This is totally an amendment made to to made amendment an is totally . This deny that, everyone is aware of that. of is aware everyone that, deny You can’t transformation. organized is an there But T.: K. L. there? camera ahidden place you Did Appeals? of Court Supreme in the ballots secret in the cast were votes how youknow can How O.:İ. State? of Council the and Appeals of Court Supreme the to elected were they after together acts that group a formed there fair. that and then is it How accurate is very thisvotingsystem that assume Well, let’s T.: K. L. short. vote one were they because get elected couldn’t who those were There all. at votes get any didnot colleagues our of Some for them. votes many that were there means That O.:İ. get elected? women three or Okay, onlytwo could why T.: K. L. elected. were votes of number highest got the who candidates 160 the and for 160 cast were votes people, 320 these Of round. final in that candidates 320 were There round. afinal we held procedure, designated previously the to According votes. 160 cast voter each seats vacant is, for 160 That memberships. vacant of number the as votes many as cast voters the candidates, 5,000 of atotal From among vote. would who members HSYK to delivered were files candidate The in afile. compiled was evaluations performance their including candidates about information the of All in November. HSYK the of members to lists emergent the Later, candidacy. their we distributed withdrew colleagues our such, of 70 As us. notified elected be to want didnot who those and published, was candidates the all of list the follows: as worked system the rules election the of Because blame. no had They O.:İ. of those who were not elected? Where were the women? the were Where elected? not were who those of fault the was what but elected, were who those blame
15 16 women are spouses of bureaucrats. of spouses are women of those women. ofall are them Only And five of Appeals. the Supreme to Court judiciary. 160 elected individuals were for 2%. the entireabout 1to supreme That’s the case representation, previously it 33%, was to 30 right now it is the Ministry, it is 24.3%. of of the rate In terms website of the official Tarhan: to Leyla Köksal According voters? of women percentage the is,the proportion of women in That what the judiciary? is Going İnsel: the rationAhmet to back of women, what is İ. O.:İ. judges. women fewer are there now And judiciary. the in oligarchy the end would they saying that came They thissystem. supported they because elected were is, they That bureaucrats. of spouses are women those of all And women. are them of five Only Appeals. of Court Supreme the to elected were individuals 160 judiciary. supreme entire for the case the That’s 2%. 1to is about it now right 33%, to 30 previously was it representation, of rate the of In terms 24.3%. is Ministry,it the of website official the to According T.: K. L. voters? women of percentage the is,is what That judiciary? in the women of proportion is the women, what of ration the to back Going İ.: A. possible? is that How Kaynak. voting for Nazım block was there saying that youare And members. 387 from votes got he 190 year This members. 250 from votes 230 with elected was Kaynak, Nazım Appeals, of Court Supreme the of President you’re voting. Previously, saying there’s block the but ballot, there’s is asecret it So and avotingbox O.:İ. women have been appointed as presiding judges. presiding as appointed havewomen been more office sincewe took saythat Ican judges. women more fewer. are not there now It Right is actually prosecutors? judges and of recruitment the to respect with Justice of Ministry the of influence and role is the What A HSYK. to chosen newly members those of practices the of aresult is eventually This members. the of places the changing now are who people the are these So Appeals. of Court Supreme in the tenure no had who people with filled all it’s now Right annuled. was condition This Appeals. of Court Supreme the in for four years having of served condition the imposed previously Presidents of Committee the In addition, Alevis. are they because removed were they that It is said removed. were four individuals these elected was president new the Once Chambers. Civil of Assembly the judges to successful assigned usually they Actually three. other the were So diligent. very and in research interested highly was person that that closely very Iknow mine. of acolleague was them of One successful. highly all were They places. other to assigned were Chambers Civil of Assembly recently, the judges from Most four investigating places. different judges to investigating assigns and members, the of circuits places, the changes committee This Presidents. of Committee the called Appeals of Court Supreme the within is abody there Furthermore, dismissal. concerning those except decisions, HSYK any against law the to have recourse you cannot now Right minister. the by made decisions the to object to remedy the least at was there review. Previously judicial to open be to need decisions HSYK of All possible. as soon as here established be must transparency for Criteria offenses. disciplinary concerning decisions against law the to have recourse cannot one that prosecutors for judges and threat serious is a it promotion, regarding decisions of case In the T.: K. L. investigation? and inspection of sphere the on change in HSYK the of effects the are what ask, to Tarhan,Ms. need Ithink we also A . B.: . B.: . B.: prosecutors. judges and of rights employee the to in relation voice have to a needs HSYK think that Ialso committees. in separate be to prosecutors for judges and is necessary it happen, for thisto And budgets. these have to asayin setting needs HSYK And budgets. separate have own to their need offices prosecutors’ and However, courts courts. of budgets the manage prosecutors public chief conditions, existing Under HSYK. of budget the sets that Justice of Ministry the Currently, is it courts. the of budgets the determining in role have to adefinitive needs HSYK judges. candidate the designate should HSYK and Justice of Ministry the from representatives of composed acommittee then possible, be If won’t that HSYK. by designated be entirely judges must candidate fact, In judges. candidate of determination in the for HSYK arole be must Ithink internship. there of years two of completion after candidate” thisparticular want don’t say“No, we to say, difficult final the is rather it has together. YARSAV represented the front that said together. said that front YARSAV the represented “ayes” the referendum,came in the we, as honest, To capacity. be representative limited had They own. its of a platform create to tried Yargı also Demokrat instance. first of courts from come to votes 2,000 – 1,500 about had They taking. for their was judiciary supreme the thinkingthat were They election. the before confident YARSAV very was structure. this transform to held was far. referendum The so Turkey in agreement we are recently. had Ibelieve crises YARSAV against judiciary the and reaction also was There success. in electoral our share important an had structure HSYK’s former against reaction The elections. HSYK recent most the consider to needs one process, election HSYK the To understand O.:İ. E HSYK 1.2. 3 is the it and candidates, the evaluates thiscommittee Although judges. candidate of recruitment the handles representatives Justice of Ministry of mostly composed Currently, acommittee O.:İ.
lection Pr rd Circuit that eventually eventually that Circuit ocess that’s not what the Ministry did. It is unfair to blame a blame to did. It is unfair Ministry the what not that’s But in October”. elections the until prosecutors and judges the influencing “Keep follows: as inspectors the have this; could instructed done it well very have It this. do could to have obligation did not any Ministry The withdrawn. were Inspectors cancelled. were places in 99 in were progress that inspections September, 13 on Minister the of instruction the at September, 12 on and place took referendum this: The thing sayis to important most the And election. the over pressure organizational systematic, any exercise didnot Ministry for it”. The voted who only those of prerogative the is Yargı”, not body Demokrat “This YARSAV from are they if or matter no colleagues, our all of rights the defend to need “We we said vote, we the won us now. behind day One all after That’s person”. educated an of vote the of equivalent the be ashepherd’s vote would “why said who those by deserved well aresponse So, was it referendum. the “ayes” of in percentage the Remember, also was that vote. got a58% winners the people, thousand 10 of It’s interesting, effect? have anegative these didall party, apolitical to next position its outbursts, critical Its votes? few YARSAV get so to it caused that of consider, needs one faults the Also, were what underto influence conditions? these yougoing judges are many How experience. academic an was it because in CV my it Iput semesters. for six-month Academy Security National the at training academic attend bureaucrats 40-50 some year, of. Every ashamed there”. be to nothing That’s in it put he “Unashamed said, They it. on reported in CV. my press the And Academy’ Security ‘National line the left They line. that even removed Board Elections Supreme The project. administration court the of leader project as Iserved that indicating CV in my aline was There CVs. our on even prohibitions imposed and broadly ban the YSK interpreted The stumping. on aban imposed So, they judiciary”. for the trouble for votes”, create would “this ask and door every on stump, go the knock would on “people that said being It was list. asix-person with vote in the Yargı“nay”. participated Demokrat And
17 18 of any profession. We do not propose a requirement arequirement We propose not do profession. any of members appoint can Assembly National Grand The U. Y.: candidates? the to respect with yousuggesting are criteria What İ.: A. prosecutors. judges and the by elected be must remaining one-third The basis. majority qualified a on them elect to groups parties’ political want Assembly. We National Grand the by elected be HSYK of two-thirds least Yargı, at that we asked Demokrat As Assembly. National Grand the or public the by directly elected be must members HSYK established, be to for thisconnection In order authority. exercises it whom of behalf on public with established be must connection of kind some therefore, people; the of behalf on powers exercises branch, executive the and branch legislative which, like the branch judicial the of administration the It concerning judiciary. is acouncil the administers and Constitution the of section judiciary the in is regulated that body It is apermanent organization. aprofessional is not HSYK organizations. professional and Yargı YARSAV and non-governmental are Demokrat organizations. professional of examples are chambers professional other Associations, Bar of Union the Constitution, the Under organization. professional a is not However, HSYK that we noted prosecutors. judges and of composed be must it therefore and organization, is aprofessional HSYK is that judiciary misperceptionA widespread among of the members U. Y.: system? election the and elections the think about Mr. you youhave do what what said. to Yiğit, response in remarks their offer to participants Iinvite while. Mr. for a Okur, elections of issue the us on focus let A for us. voted who prosecutors judges and the us and both to is unfair process this directed Ministry the that arguing But meetings. We held efforts. individual our we spent candidates as course, Of sensitivity. such with acted that Ministry . B.: . B.: recent recent election? most in the happened what about and system election the of politicization the about your ideas are What A system. election the and elections the regarding ideas our are These well. as for thismodel, groundwork preparatory the laid We actually election. an via office assume to prosecutors chief and chairs committee To them. localizing clearly, more sayit we want We in favor of are powers. the centralize won’t So, we matters. disciplinary handle will Committee Ethics the And appointments. and promotion of in charge be will Committee Executive Judiciary The U. Y.: going be? to function its What’s work? to supposed Committee Ethics Judiciary is the How A localization. for we argue and Committee, Ethics Judiciary the and Committee Executive Judiciary the committees, two is this: We propose body. recommendation Our this of powers the disperse to we need Therefore, entity. an such against do can is a nothing judge prosecutor There and power. that is actually election HSYK in the place same the around gathered people 6,500 reasons the of one body. In fact, influential and apowerful such is there when offices these of duties the perform can’t with independence, individual character, you identity; do to has prosecutor. prosecutor ajudge Being and ajudge of and duties the perform never can you everything, governs and everything controls all, it does power one Where those. than other anything prosecutor. ajudge of You and duties do the can perform youcannot anything, do can power of body one where done, be can anything where in aplace So, want. they whatever do can HSYK of control takes Whoever decentralized. be to needs that structure governance rigid avery has HSYK is that issue other One prosecutors. judges or be must appointees that . B.: . B.: . B.: the Constitution prohibitedthe Constitution only from the candidates although Furthermore, Ministry. the and bureaucracy the of influence the under for thislist voted futures, own their about were they as concerned prosecutors, words, judges and In other meetings. held and courthouses various visited They list. Ministry’s the of in favor worked and country the over all courthouses to traveled candidates not were who bureaucrats Ministry received, association our information the to According choice. that to limited were They YARSAV. against solution only is the list Ministry’s the that told was government the And deliberately. in fear thisparticular rubbed They base. the among YARSAV found be to prosecutors. is nowhere and judges among base voter YARSAV a10% about has and picture, the of out vote nationalist secular Take the nationalists. secular with connections the is, built, that they alliances the get after could they maximum the is about saying. 2,500 Iam what That’s U. Y.: votes. YARSAV 2,500-3,000 end in the some But garnered O.:İ. Okur’s. Mr. from different So, saying something youare A provinces. in the 500 about of membership YARSAV prosecutors, a chief had judges and presiding and chairs committee HSYK, courts, supreme the among dominant most was YARSAV mentality the Even when that. showed election the of result The YARSAV influential. that that not known was fact YARSAV. of fear imaginary in an pumped It was itself YARSAV and Ministry the of bureaucracy the So, both fear. the instigate and multiply would which manner YARSAV YARSAV too. in a blamed, be is to acted actually. here, culprit only the is not bureaucracy The chairs. committee and prosecutors chief through didso considerably. They process election in the intervened Ministry the of bureaucracy The U. Y.: . B.: . B.: must have position.” aseparate must have positions, equal while must the judges prosecutors and footing. defense on equal are an The prosecutors by thethat fact and judges is weakened defense “The National Assembly elected the members, since since members, the elected Assembly National Grand the if appropriate is more it Ibelieve members, Turkey of Republic the of President appointing of Instead council. the to members designating be should Assembly TurkishThe National Grand position. havejudges must aseparate the while have positions, must equal prosecutors and defense The footing. equal an on are prosecutors judges and that fact the by is weakened defense The bodies. in separate them place and prosecutors, of that judges and of status the between distinguish to We need different. are aprosecutor of those and ajudge of duties The problem. another is yet which body, same in the are prosecutors judges and The representation. any mayfind not people thousand 10 of wills the there’s that risk the system, current In the matters. vote asingle even since that ever said We have council. in the groups all of representation the forestalled cancellation Court’s Constitutional The system. vote single the to go to back necessary is absolutely it Ithinkthispoint at lists. different of emergence in the resulted This seats. vacant of number the as votes many as cast to allowed was judge each cancellation, Court’s Constitutional the after But person. for one vote one judge casting each on is based envisaged was that system election The O.:İ. sense. substantive in exercisinga from them prevented we were but rights, formal some We granted were place. took that election anti-democratic avery It was announced. even were candidacies before effect, take to supposed was it before back date15 ban the pulled and everyone cover to prohibition the YSK expanded stumping, (İbrahim Okur) (İbrahim
19 20 worst possibleworst ever be. that ” could disappear. the But into the method was being that came of State method could thatthere and the co-optation the and Council of Appeals at the Supreme Court elections in the beimplemented later that this method could it feared that prevented because “Constitutional Court The rulings by the 3 the by rulings The council. in the may participate Assembly National by the Grand President elected those and the by elected members the is, that both members, may elect both or President, the by of instead Assembly National Grand the by elected be could is going what So, inside. on members misinterpret Imay there, represented not If Iam there. happening is what of have idea and an there representation find must society in the segments different minister. I don’t think that is necessary. The 3 The minister. is necessary. think that Idon’t the of approval the requires aprosecutor investigate to decision The Justice. of Minister the of approval is, the that circuit, to that of president the of approval That’s the method of “both there’s a list and there there there’s and alist “both of method the That’s be. ever could that possible worst the was being into came that method the But disappear. could there method co-optation the that and State of Council the and Appeals of Court Supreme the at elections the in implemented be later could thismethod that feared it because that prevented Court Constitutional that. in doing aim Court’s Constitutional really not was democracy safeguarding Otherwise, State.. of Council the and Appeals of Court Supreme the at effect in system the maintain thischange to blocked Court Constitutional the that. rejected Court Constitutional the but seat, vacant for each vote one cast voter each that asked administration HSYK the fact, In prosecutors. judges and first-grade are candidates The cast. are votes thousand 10 about I believe İ.: A. change that. need definitely We straightly. enforced be must Circuit’s resolution rd Circuit are still subject to the the to subject still are Circuit (Ahmet İnsel) rd the voting system. I believe this perspective or this or thisperspective Ibelieve votingsystem. the of nature the and memberships vacant of number the given election, in the YARSAV majority the win would that confidence of alevel was there Apparently bodies. judiciary supreme on YARSAV influence an had that in attendance, Iwas where those including places, in many openly. voiced issues the It was about talk and here language diplomatic gowe’ll beyond that hoping Iam authority. own its upon a restriction imposing was government the that didmean actually amendment revokedwhich the Court Constitutional on article in the election the to relating section The S.: M. matters. secondary are others the job. HSYK’sAll main actually That’s promotions. their and rights employee prosecutors’ and judges’ evaluating be to needs HSYK addition, In method. previous the to reverting of instead representation proportional with roll of candidates open of system the consider to Ithinkfuture, we need in the behind is going left be to If thissystem doubts. more far create they and explicitly recognized not are they that except there, are issues same method, worst also and current is the which candidates, of roll aclosed of case in the but issues, create indeed may BGroup.This or AGroup an or aBParty A party, there’d that an fear be was There HSYK. within being into come will groupings rigid very rolls, open are there if is that chosen is not method third the reason the Iguess one. is asmaller environment electoral the when arise that issues the about We know individuals. specific elect voters method, In that effort. engineering aserious requires that And majority. a win youcan’t method in that however individuals, on is based Okur İbrahim by suggested method The representation. possible four them,ensuring broadest or three have could been there list, a representative is clearly. there So, out when laid be to need promises is that system that of advantage The roll. that of basis the on representation proportional havecould been There HSYK. nor Ministry the neither by discussed However, thisis candidates. of roll open an method: another have could been there In fact, list”. isn’t any preferable to have a Ministry of Justice that that Justice of have to aMinistry preferable is it accountable, politics holding of purpose directly, for the that and accountable authority political the holding prevent HSYK as such councils high think that who democrats radical also are There anti-democratic. called automatically is not countries in these system the and Justice, of aMinistry within entirely is administered judiciary the and HSYK as such bodies such no are there where countries indeed are clear. is not that There toward attitude their is feeling that My abody? for such need is no there think it does or vote prosecutors judges and all where Yargı a system entirely opposing is Demokrat HSYK, to However,the election. in the appointment of members regarding objections their Mr. have here, raised Yiğit today like thisone,and meetings attended previously Yargı who Demokrat from Colleagues this revocation. to due jeopardized was reform HSYK the of core the In opinion, my made. be to need that changes of kind the out lay is to matters What made. was this decision why debating sense now,much make Right doesn’t it intervention. calculated carefully extremely an It word. one is apparently out canceled actually they article; an of sentence one or paragraph one revoking of amatter not It was strategy. engineering an fine so was there in which one see didI Never revocations. countless analyzed and I read far, So in engineering. work incredible is an represents that what that see youwill decision, Court’s Constitutional the If analyze youget to application. arevocation filing in CHP role amajor had confidence the new to conditions.”adjusting in theresults oligarchy itself reproducing by its magic one way or works the other,fist which Oligarchy’sinspire tendencies. oligarchic iron which conditions the de deto jureand facto with place respect taken has shift but no serious now changed, has structure obvious.quite This is for even years, character though its oligarchic in thatexistence remained is astructure “This (Mithat Sancar) (Mithat election resulted in a new HSYK that came into being being into came that HSYK in anew resulted election the of time the at happened that All issue. real the was thisbody control would Who rolls. over battles were there why That’s this entity? of in charge be to is going who was is,question the mind. That of state that with elections the toward proceeded prosecutors judges and of world the and bureaucracy Justice of Ministry the both election, the of time the at created being are rolls When it. to history prior there’s also but that, all reinforced Constitution 1982 The appetite. for agovernment’s mouthwatering are HSYK as such Entities arms. of power the by office to brought or office into voted are they whether attitudes, culturein Turkey,political change don’t governments the Given we had. system election the not thiswas if even issues have these Yes, nevertheless we would but S.: M. election? the concerning article the of revocation the of aresult as thishappen Did A tendencies. historically-rooted the by created areas dark the of all into life breathe would which being into came composition new a decision, revocation Court’s Constitutional the After S.: M. we have? structure the youdiscuss Can A conditions. new the to adjusting by itself reproducing oligarchy in the other, the way or results which one magic its works fist iron Oligarchy’s tendencies. inspire oligarchic which conditions facto de jure and de the to respect with place taken has shift serious changed, no now but has structure This obvious. is quite character oligarchic its though even for years, in existence remained that is astructure This HSYK. is that entity Turkey have high-level to the decided is in it ours. as contention of amatter much as system respective is the country this: In EU-member no tell me let But cons. and pros own its has Each well. as systems, other are There system. the administers . B.: . B.: . B.:
21 22 question to HSYK is this: To you do HSYK to extent what question My ones. written poorly many so are there that Isee now right but well, as past in the indictments quality poor were you this, there tell Ican past. in the indictments Istudied times were There indictments. some at Ilooked here, Icame do? Before they do exactly what and block they do how block, they that power, of is sources it what those are who Just them. block judiciary the within power of sources some imply that himself actually can Justice of Minister The it. carry who people the and responsibility sense, ethical and in apolitical identifying, of in terms crucial is very judiciary?” the within and thisbody within why and is doing what “who of question The questions. these to answers satisfactory find to achallenge quite why? It and is is doing now what Who responsibility. that bear who individuals the and responsibility about there’s confusion HSYK, new year, the is, that after past in the easy,but was explanation an offering and clear quite was situation the responsible, individuals the and sources their know youwould cases, in problems were there ago, ayear whenever until year. Up past in the Ihad troubles of have kind the didI law of aprofessor as during career my time At no recently: often quite I’ve said something here repeat accurately, I’ll more or Ifelt angry. disappointed, greatly Iwas decisions, court and indictments some Ireviewed When that. about upset feel public the and aspects controversial of anumber quite have today cases many that We know legitimacy. of aproblem has judiciary the judiciary, then the by made decisions the trust not does society the of segment If a certain society. in the perception the with related is closely legitimacy its therefore and impartiality the cultureindicates, judiciary on we conducted study TESEV the as but cases, going individual not on focus to Iam take. to able not was it those are there and take, didnot it efforts apply. are both There because not, could and did not Isay not. could and didnot it but impact, its reduce to or shadow that of get out have to things afew done could HSYK Actually it. upon cast was shadow heavy manner, dubious even and a and in acontroversial judges and prosecutors in a given region would be be would region in agiven prosecutors judges and the and regions, different into to divided be would country The in place. be would strategy different a then it, revoke didnot Court If Constitutional the U. Y.: election. an through designated being members you’re HSYK that opposing got is nevertheless I impression the but is about, your objection what not that’s Perhaps election. an way of by designated being members HSYK is to your objection that impression have to the Icame intervention. this particular is youhave that critiqued only There’s thisperception I’m to. what not that’s objecting Actually Fair enough. S.: M. that. emphasized we consistently talks, and writings our In it. of version progressive more even for an argued favor, we in its Assembly, actually we argued National by the Grand ratified amendment was package Later, Constitutional the we want. when system of kind the see you’ll ours, of package that at look a take If youcan 2010. in April package amendment ourown Assembly, we announced National Grand the to presented amendment was Constitutional package the Before us. from stem not does elections HSYK about youhave mentioned ambiguity The Y.: U. this? all about do to planning doing or is,is HSYK what ask to Iwant question The Venice and reports. commission reports, visit advisory reports, in EU progress expressed being are HSYK regarding shortcomings and issues have. These I concern is amajor That cure. to challenging very ailments and heal to difficult very are wounds that Turkey create that climate can toward is heading judiciary The in thisregard? your responsibility with to youcoming terms to are exactly How problems? these solve to your plans are What organization? an as for your role and emerges situation this in which atmosphere in the is your responsibility What for thisoutcome? responsible yourself consider CVs were published abbreviated, on the grounds that that grounds the on abbreviated, published CVs were candidates’ Even the participation. and transparency more have could been there allowed, was If stumping election. during the stumping on a ban have to problem amajor It was press. the of members to open were meetings the anyone, by attended not were ourmeetings of some While did not. some attended, Some all. to open were ours but meetings, held We also invited. and selected were viewpoint aparticular held who people certain Only meetings. the to invited not were Alevis are who prosecutors Judges and prosecutors. chief by organized were meetings The Ministry. the of authority and means the on relying held were meetings These T.: K. L. ameeting. hold to Ministry thing for the another it’s have to ameeting, It candidates thing is one for the O.:İ. Adana… Mersin, In İstanbul, T.: K. L. record. the on that have let’s all process, election during the meetings conducted actually Justice of Ministry Tell the in which provinces us the O.:İ. ballot. in the exercised was will free how which to extent the shows YARSAV This candidates. in favor of voted courthouses smaller the of None fact: noteworthy avery is actually There influence. and power undue exercised Justice of Ministry the is that problem The obtained. be nevertheless would result desired the and regions provinces, into divided be still would country go the through, didnot amendment Even the if before. times countless this We is here. debated himself Okur İbrahim election. the about said Yiğit Uğur what with I agree T.: K. L. judiciary. the of in terms problem acute more even in an resulted have would This candidates. voting for specific But that’s not what HSYK wanted. wanted. HSYK what not that’s But O.:İ. Isaw.what That’s that. mentioning help Ican’t that. of sight the by shocked Iwas group. up, for the lined waiting all over, were were they hours p.m., but business 5:30 was building. It the of up in front lined were prosecutors judges and All members. HSYK and undersecretary the included group The Courthouse. Aksaray by We stop to were funeral. Kılıç’s Hakan Prosecutor from We ourway back on were example. specific you a offer me Let criticisms. fair were They Indeed. T.: K. L. Ministry. the represented symbolically inspectors the that criticisms were There İ.: A. climate. electoral in that happened it how That’s candidates. as them we nominated why That’s staff”. Ministry among counted be cannot inspectors committee, inspection the of members “as saying that were they but that, to opposed We too. were Yes. candidates, as We them had T.: K. L. candidates. the among also were inspectors correctly, Ministry’s If Iremember İ.: A. us. by right exploded that bomb saythis, a to it’s end, inI’m the And sorry revocation. a awarded Court Constitutional The stumping. on aban put HSYK for thisresult. responsible We all are T.: K. L. case. the was that idea no Ihad Really? A etc. information duty, marital military of completion history, academic on information was included they all laughable, were there out were CVs that The purposes. for propaganda used have could been they . B.: . B.:
23 24 and taking over the grievances caused by the previous previous the by caused grievances the over taking and assuming is also it whitewashing, of act an only not is This caused. it grievances countless of ahistory had which HSYK a30-year acquits whitewashes, HSYK This aggrieved. were decisions dismissal awarded were who people of acouple them,only to According saythat. that bureaucracy Justice of Ministry and together, put HSYK they current law is the it draft the With that. says who one the not Iam Indeed, Y.: U. aggrieved. also were public become didnot names whose Tens but we know people. It’s three others not of S.: M. decades. in three people only three aggrieved thisbody we saythat period, this 30-year of end At the prosecutors. judges and of thousands of tens on decisions It made years. for 30 work at was HSYK old The possible. as soon as democratized be must structure This that. of reverse the see today, we’ll bars behind are tomorrow powerholders yesteryear’s if Division, Warfare like aSpecial function Courts Authorized way today’s Specially like the Just it. transform to anything do didnot they that, all underwent they when But wreck. old acentury even 80-year, You’re an about in rubbles. talking judiciary for quite it takes some courage to undergo such a colleagues, these congratulate to Iwant all, of First Y.: U. thiselection? after emerged that one is the astructure of kind what Alright, A Yes, absolutely. T.: K. L. election? the over influence significant a had So, Tarhan, Ms. Ministry you’re the saying that A happens. what that’s coming, be would they that word the give have they to.It Once doesn’t L . K. T.:. K. . B.: . B.: B.: . need to replace thisentity. replace to need You one. is atransitory it and permanent be cannot thiscouncil that is understood it Kurdishthe question, to respect with autonomy democratic of is talk there while amendments, Constitutional to thanks state the and society the of areas in other democratization and localization toward inclines path the While era. new the toward move its regarding consensus create to and HSYK former is the that rubble up the clean is mission to Its HSYK. interim is atransitional, HSYK today’s is that opinion My direction? opposite the in we went region, the and world the with harmonize to out we set while that explain to supposed we then are How univocal. more and centralist, more authoritarian, more is even that replacement have to a we came structure, univocal centralist, authoritarian, previous the demolished referendum 2010 the though even And univocal. and authoritarian highly centralist, is very that judiciary of a system up with we ended unfortunately But democratization. and localization yousee in 2012, East Middle the and world in the events of run the at youlook When realized. quickly foundand have must been grievances their redress waysto and located have must been individuals body, thisis anew that aggrieved claims council If this dismissal. their to respect with just not senses, in all resolved problems their all had decisions Court Military Supreme to due rights their of stripped were who individuals the of all See, grievances. caused and didinjustice structure old the demonstrateshow that practice good Actually, us aparticular we have before grievances. their with deal and prosecutors judges and of care power, take to not and judiciary the of control take to was aim main its that allegations the to such, gave it credibility as do didn’t it Because one. new the of installation for the groundwork alegitimate laid HSYK old the of demolition the now, stand things As damage. the ascertained and one old the from itself separating line have athick drawn entity, would anovel it If being. seriously were into it came HSYK new the before exacted grievances and cruelty unfairness, the over in taking conscience and There’s dangerous. rationality no body. is very This career; that is the dilemma they will face. will they dilemma is the that career; the of requirements the on focus they will or done is justice ensurethat prosecutors judges and the Will troubles. other to lead will it and aproblem become will evaluation such, performance as proceed things if But trials. of duration long the on back cut and files of number the reduce to aims part for its Ministry the because adopted is being doing. method This they’re work the of quality the compromise to be will duty their fulfill to prosecutors judges and many way only for this the workload, aheavy such Under result. the be inevitably will about, us complain of law, most sloppy of something think thisphenomenon I system, evaluation performance of thiskind with Now, that. of any consider really youdon’t stranded, going is it you leave to alright, wheels the are solid, car is the satisfaction, there’s customer whether But year”. in one manufacture to youneed cars of number yousay, that maximum planning, is the “this Soviet from well very it Iknow is, and we encounter logic the numbers, those in at ayear.decisions we look When thousand one make to expected are courts family the and instance first of aday.decision courts civil The one than more make judgeto the needs system, scoring In the criterion. only be will examination, entrance university the of case like in the just score, the etc.’ and hard-working not hard-working, bad, judge is ‘that good, of more no be will there system, So, there’s if ascoring qualitative. the over prevail will assessment quantitative that we know system, is ascoring there When evaluations. promotional in system is ascoring end, inthere the it at look we when But inspectors. the by filed forms evaluation performance the are There on. so and duty to loyalty progress, and behavior professional prosecutors’ and judges’ as such criteria evaluation qualitative are In there theory, prosecutors. judges and of promotion grade the to in relation 2011 September 30 on made resolution HSYK the me I have before İ.: A. scor 1.3. “P ing e rf system o rm a E nce v a lu a tion ” a s a pressure. much have didnot as 1980s in the judiciary the means ca of number the as well as population, and same the remained scores the Well, if İ.: A. now. flexibility only more there’s since1983, same the have they been Actually O.:İ. today’s scores. as same the are they for 2009, scores of list the at Ilooked years. of couple past in the prevalent been especially It has well. judiciary, as in the tendency of kind is that there hour. that, in one Isee As patients of number certain a attend to need physicians the practice; medical in Same journals. in certain articles thismany publish youto asking criterion is the there world, academic work”. In of the amount “completing aparticular of idea the That’s in that. ashare EU has The criteria over quantitative assessment qualitative ones. prefers administration public all dominates now that governance of notion new the speaking, Generally for an independent judiciary.important thisis since very prosecutors, judges and of votes the with office into brought be to needs prosecutors and judges of performance the evaluate will that HSYK words, a In group. other the of members evaluate will who individuals the elect to needs in question group The evaluation. performance the of care take bodies elected that So, is important it themselves. judiciary the of members by performed be thisevaluation that crucial is judiciary, absolutely it the of independence the For freedom. academic of core is the This faculty. by, the of evaluated members well, performance having their faculty the of Members universities. of case in the as Just judiciary. the of members the within from elected be largely must evaluation the do will that thisbody And possible. extent the to framework transparent and established apre- with evaluation of for asystem is aneed there Here, public. the to service provide they that given prosecutors, judges and the of performance the evaluate to needs body one that inevitable It course is of ses, increased, then that that then increased, ses,
25 26 a performance object for the prosecutor.a performance ” becomes citizen Each criteria. performance meet prosecutor into object that an will the everyone help transforms analysis is highly alarming. Suchcriterion aperformance of range authority, defined having and such aperformance clearly Turkey,“In with not avery prosecution is office an work”. In any case… In addition, when it comes to to comes it when In addition, case… work”. In any of amount “completing or aspecific files, of number the of basis the on only score to isI think amistake it İ.: A. that… above are No, they O.:İ. performance analysis? to subject not they Are them,too, then. us score Let İ.: A. decision.final the render It who is them point. that at scored be to need Appeals of Court Supreme the of members Then Y. S.: there. tried being Turkey of cases and Rights, Human of Court European the ajudge’s to brought whether are decisions of basis the on points us give Let itself. assessment the score us also Let assessment. qualitative a conducting be also we would appeal, under files of number the If we know appeal? under are that files of number the cover not that does why system, a scoring time? If of there’s period in what and completed, files of number is the What analysis. performance of types two are There here. Ihave but thisconcern Alright, İ.: A. doubled. number The 12,000. some are there now Right 1980s. in the prosecutors judges and 6,000 about were There times. those from increased also prosecutors judges and of number the But O.:İ. (Ahmet İnsel) (Ahmet result. a as form evaluation is aperformance there now and Regulations Committee Inspection in the included was it and ground, legal lacks in question article The in practice. is still it didnot, it Even though through. go didnot draft that But certificate. performance the call we now that document issuing the of for the allow to amended be could 2802 No. Law that articleso an included and adraft together put Justice of Ministry the conduct, of certificate like the something to reference any without enacted was law the Because draft. the from removed was conduct of certificate the concerning provision Commission, the Venice the of members the of visit the after But conduct. of certificate onlymentioned draft the Assembly, National Grand the to forwarded was law law. by the time At the regulated are activities whose council the of inspectors the now are there council, new the With Justice. of Ministry the of inspectors the by issued conduct of certificate onlythe was there performance, regards as system, former In the Y.: U. powers. prosecutors’ of enhancement the of aresult as trial of object an into turn might society entire the period, next the in criteria qualitative by supported is not evaluation of If thistype consideration. given be to needs Failure dangerous. very that’s prosecutor.for the And object aperformance becomes citizen Each criteria. performance meet prosecutor the help will that object an into everyone transforms analysis performance a Such is alarming. highly criterion performance having a such and authority, of range defined clearly avery not Turkey, with office is an prosecution In in your career”. advance youwill faster the court, to youbring people of number higher saying “the way of youare”. another That’s successful more the cases, those youconclude faster the and open you cases of number the prosecutor, higher the “the You’re criterion. telling is aterrifying This cases. the close they which with speed the and file prosecutors cases of number the on is based Scoring files. in court rates failure to reference no Isaw prosecutors, scoring And then it is said, “people don’t trust the judiciary judiciary the trust don’t “people is said, it then And manner. fast in alightning decide also they and also, workload have You they aheavy it, response. appeal in sayanything youcan’t lost, was it why asks public The lost. was case the why understand way to there’s no case, the of conclusion the at youlook then And examples. such multiply will system performance qadi Ottoman an youwere if even fast, Youthat decide can’t fast. incredibly decisions makes There’s who thisjudge Iknow example. aspecific I’ll give performance, of issue the On S.: Y. on. evaluated be needs performance what That’s adecision. of rate appropriateness of anotion be must There people. 20 with have deal to judge the will case, In that arrest. for their request a with court the to them of all sends prosecutor the and people, 20 are saythere custody.into Let’s consider the number the prosecutor orders of persons to needs words, one In other ones. interim also but decisions final to just not applied acriterion be must This decisions. of appropriateness to attention pay is to performance regarding proposal Our changed. be to needs That such. as continues nevertheless practice the But HSYK. the by retained authority an That’s have powers. not such does prosecutor Achief cetera. et investigations allows or conducts who one be would officer supervising A term. that understand we commonly sense the in prosecutors of a`supervisor` is not prosecutor chief A hierarchical. is not aprosecutor and prosecutor chief a between relationship the prosecutor. Inchief fact, the to in regards that issue can else someone clerks, own their to in relation that issue cannot prosecutors or prosecutor chief the While prosecutors. to comes it when record that issue to continue nevertheless they 657. No. Law to But amendment an after lifted was it management, staff in modern irrelevant became thispractice that grounds the On record. disciplinary of issuing of acertificate practice the was there past, in the relations officer officer-junior in supervising Secondly, basis. ahave not legal does form evaluation today, it at weSo, look when performance the . Ithink this performance assessment. The process considers the the considers process The assessment. performance to comes it when data of type one only are Numbers collectively. considered be must factors these All well. as consideration into taken be to needs That second. last the at opinion up the drew prosecutor the maybe but deliberation, prosecutor’s the evaluating We also are that. on astudy conducting System) Informatics we are (National Judiciary At UYAP that. at look we also convictions, were many how acquittals, were many How outcomes. only, their decisions consider of number we also the at looking We not are numbers?” the considering by only performance you assess “Do asked, It was Assembly. National Grand the to forwarded been yet not has 2802 concerning amendment The is in effect. 2802 No. Law by provided ground legal the in fact but ground, legal no has assessment performance said Yiğit Uğur that. all changed We measurement. to applicable not were that factors were really there conduct, of certificates former In criteria. measurable uses assessment Performance conduct. personal about anything include not does form evaluation performance The is not. it Actually issued”. is still conduct of certificate “the said, Yiğit Uğur criteria, performance about talking was he When O.:İ. in place. put be could system independent an such Ithink is discontinued, Appeals of Court Supreme the at system scoring the independently. Once decisions makes that committee performance a be to needs words, there In other part. take to able be should associations bar from Representatives judiciary. of world the from people of composed be must body That Ministry. the from bureaucrats of full be not should Committee Evaluation Performance The decisions. of appropriateness the about care to seems one No quality. over preference given is really quantity performance, of issue the About T.: K. L. attention. serious very given be must issue performance they?This can longer”.any How
27 28 grades is 3,000 TL. is 3,000 grades two the between difference The stress. of source another yet are Promotions complete. to Ineed files are there days. Because for two late work to agreed I I’m because only that’s here, instance, For workload. of problem serious is the there now. then And impact an of have more much tendencies worldview, Aperson’s tells. driver courthouse the what of basis the on ajudge of is completed conduct of certificate The heard. rumors on based are Decisions instance. for situation, family about It talks criteria. evaluation subjective many so are There case. in any promoted Iwas average, but was score my in which conduct of a certificate Ihad Once past. in the seriously that evaluations the take to use didnot council The does. it now But your promotion. hinder not would that past, ‘average’ in the an score you received if even In fact, there. still are conduct of certificates the form, but evaluation performance the It is called T.: K. L. evaluation. in the that consider we will then time, of period reasonable the judge the if exceeded for instance But that. to judge, pay we attention won’t the to attributable not are that reasons are If there Rights. Human of Court European the of decisions the We consider promoted”. will be youcannot so years, in two Appeals of Court Supreme the with appealed “You havedecisions judge, didnot tell, 40 to we used judge. that To by made ruling the with that content was everyone because appealed one no Perhaps appealed. not was punishing file ajudge whose we were if as It was point. that of we got rid reason the was Well, that appealed?” not was decision given a fact the consider youalso don’t “Why asked, It was year. in one hear ajudge can cases of number maximum the them”.of actually that’s And thousand two or one complete youcan if suffice “It’ll him, We tell appropriately”. done all are sure they make and those all him, tell “Complete we don’t files, 17,000 If ajudge has thisalso: add me let But that. of all himcomplete to hear, to expect we don’t cases 100 Ifjudge the had well. as appropriateness, of notion in connection with HSYK? with in connection they are coming your office, to are who people These A for now. troubles the Ihave sayabout is to all This scary. really that Ifind part, my For files. criminal reading judges are criminal as haven’t served who People files. criminal read They service. professional of years five have completed judges who not are There having is now trainees. Appeals of Court Supreme The way. in adifferent re-established, be could mechanism control The again. Appeals of Court Supreme the of system grading the consider we could Perhaps scores. good them giving by them support is, we cannot That them. appreciating way of we longer have but any justifications, written neatly offer judges who still burner. are back There the on put are number. asmall is not Seriously, justificationss year, in one Iread that but files thousand the of basis the on Isaythat that. on Yes. statistics is no There T.: K. L. now. rise the on are justification So, you’re without saying decisions A with something else. replaced have should been it too, but scoring, against Iwas in decisions. for justifications looking bother don’t Appeals, of Court Supreme the at files read I reasons. longer no include Decisions discontinued. is system grading The affected. adversely are made are that decisions of quality the case, the that’s When files. complete to urgency continued a into intranslates your career. point That certain to youcome once 3000TL up to reaches gap words, the In other difference. gross the about talking I am T.: K. L. misleading. be that’ll say 3000, If we TL. 1000 is about not could who and grade first go the to could who someone between difference The TL. 3000 is not grades two between difference The O.:İ. . B.: . B.: . B.: a Situation in the Judiciary”. It discusses the problems problems the It discusses Judiciary”. in the Situation “Analyzing titled the report conference HSYK the Ianalyzed judges. training of problem the faces HSYK İ.: A. again. İnsel Ahmet with We start will prosecutors. judges and training of topic the on move us now Let A Tra 1.4. Yes, exactly. T.: K. L. You’re compromising quality. by on so do saying they A like slaves. judges work investigating All T.: K. L. that? toward attempt any there Is reduced. be will files of backlog mentions that Minister the repeatedly Justice of The A working under dramatic conditions. really we are Look, workload. the with down weighed already are they but files, chunky the given are judges who It senior is the files. slim given indeed are They files. criminal given are newcomers the highest, the number cases criminal because but Correct, T.: K. L. Appeals. of Court Supreme the at documents only the not are files criminal The backlog. the reduce to done we’ve is something This practice. years two actual for an we look aterm, impose not does law the though alaw, way of by even but lifted was rule five-year The O.:İ. casefiles. criminal reading are they because rule, five-year the discontinue to terrifying very It is really Yes. assignment. coming upon are They T.: K. L. Ac . B.: . B.: . B.: . B.: Prnd a demy osecuto ining Pr r J ospective s a J the nd udges ustice comes at the end is also a very undemanding one. As far far As one. undemanding avery is also end the at comes that test ajudge. of The having status of the aspects practical the about information offer They profession. judging the to relating matters practical and law of articles of memorization the on based is also training That gap. the fill can that kind the is not Academy Justice the at offered training the appears it see, can I as far As training. additional with for that compensate to effort is an there then And format. question-answer a through istested being knowledge Memorized is based. make they decisions the which on justification the down write to skill the and analysis an conduct to capacity have intellectual who the individuals selects that aprocess It through is not exams. placement for university board the by administered kind the of test choice amultiple judges is through of selection The them. see Ididn’t there, are If they work. preparatory and concern such any across come Ididn’t reports, annual HSYK’s at looking After knowledge. of alack from stems we think judges, it then is mid-level it if but charge, in are judges who level is senior it when so purposefully We is it think that requests. sentencing the and evidence the between disproportionality the of case the in we notice as disasters, recently, legal seen are there we’ve indictments in prosecutors’ decisions, judges’ now. In is available process such no and grading, and including process additional educational an coursework be should There practicing. begin to training internship undergoing than more do to need will education onlyundergraduate received who graduate school alaw consideration, thisinto we take drop. When will go up, numbers quality average the the As world. the in anywhere works it how That’s schools. of number the in increase the from stems which quality indrop average recently, there’s of launched issue the schools law the in we factor When schools. in law situation the of aware We are data. on based that’s election an out carry to wanted and impartially acted authority political saythe Let’s problem. is asecond there But elections. of problem is the there indicated, Okur İbrahim As problem. HSYK’s training regarding projects serious any have to seem don’t they is feeling that My one. by one
29 30 prosecutors are perceived as justice workers, and that’s that’s and workers, justice as perceived are prosecutors Judges and work. line is assembly it if as almost jurisdiction of exercise the approach judiciary the of in charge currently those training, to comes it When Y.: U. his of promotion. terms in for “not his reversing decision”, important for that’s Appeals of Court Supreme the at judge isThat looking his powers. manipulate will authority of source superior a then authority, of type that with equip aperson If you defense. the and prosecutor, the over clerk, the have authority They figures. authority as themselves judges perceive The thisproblem: there’sbut also judges, of training the on put Yes, be to needs emphasis S.: Y. members. faculty dedicated own have must its Academy Justice the possible, be to for that in order Also, schools. law at provided law, of philosophy not as such courses or approach, and knowledge the cover offeredmust training the think that up, If Imay I training. wrap the on emphasis an putting you’re that Igather So it. complete to able be you will that guarantee is no training the involved, attending seriousness the of in terms means that Then so? that Is A year. last graduate to able not was person one Only examination. adegree and requirement thesis is agraduate There test. make-up the take to need will trainees the of Half academy. the at semester the of end the at is atest There O.:İ. test? asecond there Is S.: Y. option. that implement we didnot but option, for that provide does law The rule. one-year the apply words, we didnot In other months. in 23 did was we draw earliest the that, stipulates law the Although O.:İ. year, one to well. as reduced been has internship of I’m length as the aware, . B.: . B.: basically offer repeat versions of the courses taught in taught courses the of versions repeat offer basically They for four semesters. there Academy. Itaught Justice as known system the into pushed then are thiscommittee through successful are who Candidates test. the pass to wish don’t they whom those to like that questions ask they that saying goes the but situation, the of caricature a making are people whether We know don’t Atatürk. of prayer funeral the led who mufti the of name the asked question one apparently is arumor; There grade. which earn questions what to answers what uncertain It on. is grades their base they criteria what known not It is preponderant. are Ministry the from bureaucrats where acommittee by is graded test oral The conduct. and experience, etiquette, on test there’s oral an Afterward, knowledge. one’s technical It tests board. placement university the by administered There’s atest profession. the into admission about talk like to I would T.: K. L. localized. be also can prosecutors and judges of recruitment the courts, of localization the with in parallel is that opinion personal a prerequisite.My as introduced be should law of practice system, new the change in of kind some be will If there space. breathing it give and opinions differing with judiciary the enrich will is what This ideas. diverse of source the be will that and universities, different to dispersed be to need they education, level have to graduate are prosecutors If academy. of judges and thisnotion discard to we need all of decide”. way to thisis the First and talk, dine, way way to sit,to waythisis thisis to the the the is like “This things telling by judge.of them We shape type astandard into there students the them, we mold of out Turkey diversity today.promoting of Instead in schools law 60 are There force. police the or army the of members for training is good method academy The training. ideological receive they where academies justice are coups, there military had and colonized were that law. In countries practice they after appointed are prosecutors coups, judges and military and colonization experience didnot that In countries work. a create They like tailors. are They craftsmen. actually are prosecutors Judges and educated. are they how division of labor. of division the out carries office prosecutor’s public chief that and prosecutor, chief the of name in the act prosecutors and whole, integral is an prosecution that stipulate 2802 No. Law of those and however, 5235 No. Law of provisions Iagree, Indeed, ajunior officer”. and officer supervising a between one like the is not prosecutor and prosecutor achief between relationship “The said, It was purpose. for the fit is exactly Academy think the don’t I but debated, be could Academy Justice the of outside accomplished be could teaching that Whether conduct. ajudge’s them with along and law, methodology, legal in concepts essential the teach to We need critique. that with Iagree enough. not that’s But extent. acertain to thischanged academy an into transformed was it After curriculum. the repeat to center,training didwas it all a of role the had Academy Justice the When schools. in law have roots their education with troubles Our O.:İ. training. vocational to comes it when ignored being always are prosecutors judges and of type Acertain training. for vocational abroad sent being are individuals of kinds onlycertain And training. vocational of haveonlyin terms must arole Academy Justice the Ithink that monitored. be really could that test a taking after profession the into recruited be to need They organizations. professional other and associations bar from representatives including membership by independent composed of an a broad committee selected be judges must Prospective system. education in the made being are mistakes serious I think very molds. certain through is offered and template aspecific on relies Academy, education Justice At the during breaks. only about talk youcould things are These one. suitable a is not curriculum the but information, practical offered I sometimes about, going were decisions make they to people the know get to to need they that students tell to Iused breaks, class During etiquette. drinking and dining protocol, of rules as such topics covers teaching The decisions. specific with dealing courses no are There cases. sample on debates no are There schools. law Appeals are not offered these trainings. The reasons reasons The trainings. these offered not are Appeals of Court Supreme judgesthe at investigating The T.: K. L. it. request specifically didnot they if even training the into them incorporated So, we training. judge request the did not but cases, expropriation 400-500 some judge has The cases. their at We looked training. that request didnot them of Some judges. 85 to training We offered expropriation. in Turkey isjurisdictions intense there where for judges in training we conducted expropriation, of process the to in relation is that example obvious most The for it. judge apply the if didnot even training the we provide Sometimes before. for training apply not did who candidates to priority We give established. are criteria The score. acertain is above proficiency language judges whose the We send people. of group certain onlya so,send we do study. not we do When graduate for leaves We for grant training. judges abroad send to able budget,we our are to multidimensionally. Thanks and think broadly to able be to Judges need law. in the relationship prosecutor-prosecutor chief the We going are clarify to workshop. the attend will prosecutors and prosecutors chief acting prosecutors, Chief there. this problem We address will relationship. prosecutor-prosecutor chief the regulating and thisproblem resolving on workshop a holding be soon we will fact, of amatter As of”. name the “in phrase the use not Let’s then. that fix Let’s O.:İ. representation. of there’s arelationship implies prosecutor. That chief the of signing behalf on be should in law, prosecutor the of” name the say “in you When prosecutor”. chief the of name It’s the “in not thistopic. on article an Mr. authored Ieven President, Y.: U. labor. of division the undertake may office prosecutor’s chief that stipulates law The O.:İ. prosecutor. chief the of name in the act not do Mr. prosecutors President, Y.: U.
31 32 on. The chief judges have some extensive powers. powers. judges haveextensive chief some The on. so and courts commercial courts, have, is labor which we have division not do the another. yet to They cases another, to family and cases judge, one to commercial cases labor assigns judge. office This chief the of office the as known is isEurope this: abody In Europe, there we have with difference The conferences. professional designing while Europe from examples the We studied format. conference the We created thispurpose. toward funds ayear. We twice allocated held be to are meetings Turkey These We divided regions. 16 into courts. family from arriving files the review judges who Appeals of Court Supreme by joined be to like them would law. family of We area in the practices and decisions the themselves among discuss and get together judges to court family like the we would example, For State. of Council the and Appeals of Court Supreme the from support We requested for that. infrastructure the We creating are conferences. consultation professional of banner the under meetings regional hold to plan also we And Appeals. of Court Supreme the to in regards idea we didso.We and have same initiative, the own our on training the initiate we will We said then declined. State of Council the But well. as doing that We started O.:İ. facilitated? thisbe could How members. its of workload the of because that allow not does Appeals of Court Supreme the is that for that given without prior experience as such must be changed. changed. be must such as experience prior without and bat the off judges right recruiting of practice the Ithink that period. for acertain aprosecutor as worked or law have practiced either must person The Yiğit. Uğur with Iagree that. assess to judge? able be to We need a as serve also person same the could but knowledge, may legal have requisite the Aperson profile. psychological candidate’s the measure can that test aserious we need Instead, judges. as serve can with nation’s the judiciary we entrust individuals the not or on a couple to of decide minutes-longwhether interview we rely But employees. prospective to tests administer companies private hiring In practices, their out. laid be must orientation person’s behavioral Agiven included. be definitely also must psychologist Sociologists, committees. testing in prosecutors and judges have only to is amistake it Ithink that tests, to in relation Also, avoided. be will Appeals of Court Supreme the from and to trips unnecessary and in practice, ensure aunity will This region. that to specific cases the discuss and get together will southeast country’s in the Judges serving conferences. regional holding be we will To differences, those reduce avoided. be should mistakes grave but interpretation, in legal may differences be there course, Of case. a on decisions different awarding10 be might courts different 10 office, have an not we do such Because deals with the appointment and promotion of of promotion and appointment the with deals that entity administrative an is it or process, judicial the about decisions take HSYK Can that. to speak us Let judiciary? the on impact is its What mandate? HSYK’s what’s all, of So, first failed. it where and didcorrectly discussing HSYK by what Now, start let’s O.:İ. allegations. these Mr. sayabout to what wondering has Okur Iam disbanded. be to were courts authorized specially if courts go those would to files critical in case Courts Criminal High focusing have the on they been that claims are There Courts. Authorized Specially the at position critical ahighly hold they that it has Word there. out newspaper, situation the at is abad it me visited who prosecutors judges and of agroup by told Iwas what on If rely that? to we were say about to youhave Do anything regard? in that observations your are What people. 78 these among dominant are community, Gülen the of members people, of group particular one that It judges. is said 38 prosecutors, authorized specially 40 about are There İstanbul. in tried being are cases critical the of All İstanbul. to relating I’d And aquestion prosecutors? ask like to of level the at regard in that take can HSYK that steps there Aren’t indictments. prosecutor’s up becoming end directly reports police that We notice relationship. inside-out is an prosecutor the and police the between relationship the that we see cases, political in Again, Courts? Authorized Specially of operations and structure the on is HSYK influential How cases? political major of case in the process the influence or impact can HSYK which to extent is the What A 2.1. T 2. . B.: . B.: O he Ongoing Cases Cases Ongoing HSYK’s Operations and Impact on pe ra tion o N f the e w HSYK in any case. The debate is about HSYK’s intervention HSYK’s intervention is about debate The case. in any authority of may have kind not that councils high The S.: M. Appeals. of Court Supreme the concerns that aprocess That’s thisway?” thisdecision you make did “why ask, to have right the We specifically don’t for abenefit. in return decision aparticular judge took the or prosecutor the whether Weway?” monitor this thisdecision didyoumake “Why ask, to right have we don’t the honestly. But and properly job their do prosecutors whether monitor to We authorized are O.:İ. monitoring? conduct to youhave means the Don’t A judiciary. in the trust of issue the consider us now time?”Let present the at cases in some didyou intervene “why, HSYK, question, as your address later later, Iwill Imean question your to turn Iwill Mr. process. Bayramoğlu, judicial in the intervene to authorized is not HSYK emerged. problems why That’s trial. on in cases intervene to sought So,they intervene”. will we course Of Istanbul. in case in the intervening wenot were why me say, to used asks “even HSYK the of doorman chair my acting the era, previous In the arose. that problems many of cause the that’s And judiciary. the with issues the all fix would it that notion got the HSYK former the in 2008-2009, Starting all. of first that underscore to We need task. administrative an assigned been however, internally. has HSYK, operations judicial monitor to means the judiciary the give to is meant created was that system The HSYK. to assigned been has task body. judicial No administrative an as HSYK we have defines system The judiciary? the of members . B.: . B.:
33 34 intervene in that.”intervene is in at fault my opinion. You have done could something to judge who made The that left. and decisionthe documents went in there, all took nevertheless prosecutors clients. The in relationthat lawyer’s to beconducted can search but no such the lawyer committed, offense an relation to in may besearched alawyer’s course, Of office searched. were offices lawyers’ case, Communities) Kurdistan of –Union Ciwaken Kürdistan the“In KCK(Koma recently in the case of Ayşe İnce Ayşe of case in the recently Most influence. any under was decision-maker the not or whether on based inspector We an way?” dispatch in this thisdecision didyoumake “why ask, don’t We here’s but context: in we that do what Correct, O.:İ. your website. on obvious You that make inspectors. dispatch to capacity youhave the violations, rights of event in the But T.: K. L. first. that establish Let’s adecision?” such youmake thisdecision?”,you make can come “how did “why ask, to authorized is not HSYK Otherwise, regulations. and orders law,the executive bylaws, with in accordance duties their perform prosecutors judges and not or whether check HSYK’s is to job O.:İ. duty. of place the changing and appointments through process decision-making in the a 1 accessed : 03 September 2012 September :03 accessed last www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/20456975.asp, allow an inquiry with respect to the prosecutors. http:// to resolved HSYK decision. release the of aftermath the in taken were measures what and İnce Mehmet release to decision the and threat, death the against steps necessary restraining order timely, judicial authorities took the the entered judge the not or whether on session F times. 17 her stabbing by İnce Ayşe murdered İnce Mehmet release, his Upon İnce. Mehmet husband, the released office prosecutor’s the but him, against acomplaint filed İnce Ayşe fter being assaulted and threatened by his husband, husband, his by threatened and assaulted being fter (Yücel Sayman) (Yücel ollowing the incident, HSYK held a held HSYK incident, the ollowing 1 , you know, the case , youknow, case the a But the lawyers had all of their documents seized. seized. documents their of all had lawyers the But Y. S.: having offended. of grounds on arrested and detained were lawyers those because regard, in that act cannot HSYK offenses. having of committed charges on arrested later were KCK the case to in relation searched were offices whose I’m lawyers as the aware, far As O.:İ. it. about haveI’m not heard youmight saying thisas punished. was unlawfulness going after prosecutor So, a for that. penalized was he have and should done HSYK youas words, didwhat he In other search. unlawful an conducting of charges on police the about investigation an for having launched reprimand a given was Özden Abbas Prosecutor this. I’ll add T.: K. L. in that. intervene to have something done You in opinion. my isfault at decision that could made judge who The left. and documents the all took there, in went nevertheless prosecutors The clients. lawyer’s that to in relation conducted be can search such no but committed, lawyer the offense an to in relation maysearched be office alawyer’s course, Of searched. Communities) Kurdistan of –Union Kürdistan Ciwaken KCKIn the (Koma S.: Y. pr in the negligence was there whether assess to inspector an assigned we that, of aware we became as soon as released, being after amurder committed husband the where from political authority? What is your take on that? on is your take What authority? political from itself distanced HSYK current the your opinion, has In authority. political the on dependent more far was Mr. that said Okur HSYK, former the to In reference A T 2.2. . B.: . B.: nd C Pra he ont rove ctices o osecutor’s decision to release. to decision osecutor’s r case, lawyers’ offices were were offices lawyers’ case, si a l N f the Ca ses e w HSYK w HSYK through the judiciary?” judiciary?” the through place take the divergence Does that council. aslightly in has heavier presence community that that claims are judiciary. There the through is manifested community the government the Gülen and between “Several that the contention noted others other? each up against came community that and government the where words, in cases in other matches, soccer rigged involves that one the as such cases controversial highly to respect with steps any youtake Did S.: M. judiciary? the through place take divergence the Does council. in that presence heavier slightly a has community that that claims are There judiciary. the through is manifested community Gülen the and government the between contention the that noted others Several time. to time from it about wrote I also A well. as thistime, there’s at We acollision believe Correct. Y.: U. right? that Is itself. distances it sometimes and authority political the with in parallel moves sometimes HSYK correctly, you’re that new saying the If Iunderstood A secret. kept longer be no can it where astage reached tension The testify. to issued Intelligence National tothe Chief Organization call the with peaked case Feneri Deniz the and Courts tension that emerged due to Specially Authorized The matches. soccer involvingrigged case the with adivergence came there But for awhile. government the with in parallel proceeded HSYK new The U. Y.: . B.: . B.: . B.: (Ali Bayramoğlu) YARSAV. We are after all a professional association YARSAV. association aprofessional all We after are of thisfear of sense make Icannot but Perhaps, T.: K. L. observation. an as only I’m that offering you built? alliances the to reacted they that likely it Is O.:İ. YARSAV’s ideas. YARSAV oppose both and are who members colleagues So, we have in that. have arole must had discourse our to opposition their course, Of courthouses. smaller at work who organization our of members from we get didn’t votes us that show election the of results the Also, prosecutors. judges and other encourage to members became members HSYK and bodies judiciary supreme of Members majority. the formed bodies judiciary supreme the from colleagues where YARSAV Therefore, State. acomposition of had Council the and Appeals of Court Supreme like the bodies in main together were who judiciary the of members to compared as orgnaize to for them difficult more was it places, different several from came courts local from colleagues the Because join us. courts local from have to colleagues We strived majority. inwere the State of Council the and Appeals of Court Supreme the from colleagues Our granted. was association to right Wednesday judges”. the when We excited were “the ourselves Wednesdays, on we called convene to we used because rights, our claim to got together we 2000s, or 1999 people…In 1,500-1,600 some With YARSAV. no was there spread. we’ve fear that at Look if transform not would judiciary the means that I guess judiciary. the is YARSAV it Apparently transformed that Ministry. the from pressure under held were elections that criticisms my to Mr. responded Okur T.: K. L. we’re while doing that. topics other any skip us not let but cases, political major or community Gülen the about talk course We of will get intertwined. to begun way, By the have Mr. that respond. topics can the Okur Tarhan After Ms. to over also. floor the turn me Let A . B.: . B.:
35 36 emerges from there, you see the practices of the 1 the of practices the yousee there, from emerges what Considering road. the of side building the by huge is that outsider, an HSYK as it at youlook When same. the remains mechanism The passed. a half we saw, and as year But One changed. nothing future. the with themselves concerned they other. said They the way or one established, was entity Anew Alright. T.: K. L. look? all it does how perspective, outsider’s From an for awhile. that on remarks hear Let’s entity? new the of operations, is,ongoing that the mechanism, the explain you is, do here how issue Tarhan,Ms. important the A yousurvive… longer will much how authority, political the with odds at youare if system, in the be youmight powerful how matter no In fact, YARSAV. on aburden heavy so put to want They one. former the about in talking point no is actually There T.: K. L. one. new the about We’re talking entity. former the about is talking one No council. former the ahalf, and weabout forgot year past In the Y.: U. government. any by supported YARSAV was you this: time At no ever tell me Let judiciary. the of independence for the argues that That’s my opinion of HSYK. of opinion my That’s situation. the be to that believe Idon’t there, out citizens like the just but role, have acontributory can judiciary, it the of independence the and law of rule the defends really If HSYK powers. of separation the ensures that judiciary It independent judiciary. is an is the in democracy powers of separation establishes that power The powers. of haveyou don’t aseparation inwhere doing so point is no there but constitution, body. new You’re the with anew legislating have trouble They strain. under are in HSYK positions for candidates Our slashed. being are members YARSAV are who prosecutors Judges and Circuit. . B.: .
st but beyond that, we could not act as if we were we were if as act not we could that, beyond but behind, them of some them,leave reconsider course of You traditions. can and habits old the of simply get rid You force. into it we put and can’t teachers, were spouses whose those It concerned council. former the from over we took adecree we received office, took day the we on contrary, the On operations”. previous us, the “get tell all didnot of rid branch legislative The You that. valid. recognize to remain need HSYK former the of operations The all. at possible not That’s Constitution. the under granted is not that right a exercise We limit. age cannot 65-year the beyond were they as not, could them of Some profession. the to go to back want didnot rest The profession. the to back went three or seven, two those Of reinstated. were them of Seven files. such 51 We received credentials. professional their of stripped were who those of files the of reconsideration the contemplated regulation new The onwards. here HSYK new a It contemplated only before. on went what ignore did amendmentconstitutional not that place took The that. do can parliament the Only authority. have Idon’t that that, do to behind”. unable Iam HSYK former the of Yargı practices all says, “leave Demokrat In addition, youmentioned. grievances the redress so, do to for to it there’s chance no is obligated HSYK in fact and operates, HSYK in which framework Constitutional If the that’s reconsideration. were broughtto the council back credentials for professional their of stripped were who individuals of files the 3, Article temporary the With structure. its altered only it amendment, constitutional the way of by altogether council the ignore didnot referendum September 12 the And that. accomplish to able was one no or it, replace to necessary foundit one no intact, remained has it Since 1982, hand. at framework Now, there. from there’s aConstitutional start Let’s individuals. three except anybody of grievances the redress we didnot that noted was it all, of First O.:İ. topics. other to on move We’ll then first. Mr. go ahead Okur. thisdiscussion finish Please Let’s A . B.: . B.: one’s professional credentials, the bar association had had association bar the credentials, one’s professional stripping to in regards said Justice of Minister the Whatever often. we didthat association, bar the As S.: Y. affairs? state’s in the continuity of principle the going youthen implement to body. are How current the and body previous the both to applies That is completed”. process appeal the after final become decisions “HSYK’s states, law The decisions. past many so are There stop? that does where but Alright, O.:İ. term. previous in the issued decisions the reconsider body. You actually can decisions”. you’re administrative But an past about done be “there’s can said, that nothing Okur İbrahim Yargı. Demokrat of proposals the thing about last I’d Feneri, Deniz to on we move Before sayone like to Y.: U. IntelligenceNational Organization?” involvingthe crisis in the youintervene didn’t “Why hand, you’re saying, other the on then But in country. people the of rest us,like the from just explanation an You’re case? Dink for in the waiting did youintervene Why case? Feneri Deniz in the didyouintervene Why examples: yougave trial”. on some And cases the with interfere not should judiciary, it in the intervene not hand, we say, one should the On “HSYK mandate?” HSYK’s be should “What of topic to on move me Let feature. essential is astate’s Continuity YSK. former the disregard completely to It is impossible offer. we would that for asolution waiting were They excused. were judges who were There interruptions. without forward move to needed system The appointments. their awaiting were who prosecutors were There assignments. their judges awaiting either. were possible, be There wouldn’t That action.” taking start we’ll then And for months. a few wait We’ll office. to come just “We’ve saythiseither: not We them. could re-wrote and letters circular 34 out so.We do we didnot took in fact such, and as proceed us and to granted not were that powers with equipped question, their partnership interests incompanies incompanies interests partnership their question, in people the by owned vehicles transportation aerial and maritime land, of seizure the demanded They Peace. of Court Penal the from signatures their with own requested documentsprosecutors the are There requests. certain advanced office prosecutor’s chief The case. in that intervene we didnot HSYK, As outset. the from investigation Feneri Deniz the regarding explanations provided We beginning. sincethe ever that on remarks offered We’ve not? didit or in cases, intervene HSYK Did İ. O.:İ. wrongly.made being are decisions that aperception has public the differently. So, made are decisions case in adifferent family, Dink the of while claims the against made were decisions case, Dink in the instance, For issue. the That’s against. for or are decisions those whom and involved parties the to regard without controversial, is legality whose decisions to granted is being Approval ask: to we want is what This itself. question the on light more shed to We be. need must mandate HSYK’s what on question the to us go back Let S.: M. lawful. completely was resolution words, the In other profession. the into back having person the on resolution anew We revoked. made not No, was it S.: Y. I’m as aware. law, far the to as amendment an after revoked was Justice of Minister the of power yougave, particular that example in the But O.:İ. work. of amount aserious requires it course Of path. that You try We can acquitted. were ourclaim. granted judge The resolutions.” previous the cancel not We did profession. the into have back to them resolved we directors, of board the “as we said, In response, us. sued Justice of Minister The dismissed. were who those We reinstated null. them declared or decisions comply. to those annuled obligation Wean either
37 38 “no, I don’t need to do that”. As for the other cases… other for the “no, As that”. do to need Idon’t said, HSYK But place”. another to them assign and away thisplace, from prosecutors these “Move said, inspector the by was request injunction The request. injunction the denied HSYK injunction. for an request a was There thisinvestigation. from prosecutors these withdrew office prosecutor’s chief matter. The another that”,that’s then with interfere not should “HSYK If we’re like that. is saying, not here allegation the But her. sayabout to had decision the what know wouldn’t they that so like that, is forwarded decision the and Tarhan Ms. out concerns is crossed which decision that of section the and table, the of side right the on sitting us, of participants three the about is made decision a instance, For practice”. same in the engages “HSYK is said, it And nevertheless. allegation the that’s in but adecision, result will trial did. The HSYK and in question, prosecutors the about investigation an allow to asked was HSYK fraud. document of a claim there’s Now, result, now as letter”. that we issued why seized, that’s companies the of assets have is to aim all say, they our where fact “in aletter sign prosecutors three that, decision”. the After amend Please in thisdecision. Prosecutor, missing are elements there prosecutor, the “Mr. tell then lawyers The there. end not does it And everything”. “Yes, seize youwill says, prosecutor The we going all?” it Are seize to step. awrong take not “Let’s asks: registry the response, In partners. are individuals these where companies of assets the seizureof the requests He deeds. of registry the to aletter serves and request, the denied court the that paragraph second the out crosses this: He does then prosecutor The normal. all it’s thispoint, to up So unlawful. was request latter the foundthat court The seized. have companies to the request the denied seized, but interests have to partnership request the granted court the decision, In its companies. the of seizure the about also and individuals, the about requests made they question…So, in people the by partnered or owned companies of assets the of also and partners; are they where Before we come to that, there’s a question here. here. there’s that, to we come aquestion Before A . B.: . B.: might be a similarity in names; the registry will then then will registry the in names; asimilarity be might There them. youserve letter what matter no fit sees it as proceed will registry seized, the Egebank was when for instance, banks, major involving In cases records. registry deed title of adjustment the regarding files several Iread Iread. files the on based examples I’d case, give Feneri like Deniz to the to respect With T.: K. L. discussion. the to add to TarhanMs. wants A fraud. document of allegation an was there because allowed was investigation an Feneri, Deniz to respect With already. event in that investigation We allow O.:İ. case? in that allowed investigation is an there, There’s unlawfulness again. and again decisions make they then and periods relevant the exceed they wiretapping, to respect With P.: L. problem. the That’s decision. court the to company.the contrary And of assets all seize they seizing of shares, my Instead company. in that share sayIhave let’s 10% example, “no, So, that”. said, do for youcan’t Court the which about matter the crossing out by sought they result the obtained they is that claim The difference. other. the crossing the out by That’s seek they result the obtain and decision the of paragraph one show they in thiscase, But alright. Tarhan. perfectly That’s to, say, pertains Ms. that decision the of section that out cross to alright it’s file, same in the individual one than more about is made adecision When Definitely. O.:İ. case. Feneri Deniz the of prosecutors of case in the practice out thisblacking regarding opinion public the in raised course of were Questions one. common very is a ensure confidentiality, to decision the of sections out blacking of practice the practice, particular This (TESEV) Pişkin Levent . B.: . B.: was broken. Is there a gap in the law in that regard? in that law in the agap there Is broken. was tie the until vote, each between week one with times, three vote to put was matter the tie, three-to-three a was votes”. it So, of when majority asimple with “permission or will considered denied be to granted stipulates, law The vote. each between week one with times, three is voted allowed be would prosecutors on investigation the not or Whether ask: to want Here’s I out. what crossed was decision the of part one that much matter In sum, doesn’t Ithink it about. is all injunction what That’s share. my represents which part the just seized, not be will property entire is seized, the property immovable company’s company. in the the When shares the Not property. immovable of seizure the concerns issue the Here T.: K. L. remaining 95%? the to happens what Turkcell. of 5% seized, sayIown are Let’s If shares my İ.: A. asset. that of maydispose not company is seized, the share my if but vary, all percentages The T.: K. L. 5%? 95%? it is it Or Is represent? shares seized the do company the of I’mWhat is,percent what wondering İ.: A. remaining shares. the of dispose cannot company the shares, their youseize when In fact, T.: K. L. percentage? is their what shares, the about youtalk When İ.: A. properly. that read to Wethat”. need on decision additional an take to there’s need no so assets, their of seizure the mean will partners “seizingthe of reads, it decision, for shares the the justification the company. youread entire the When seizes registry the seized, and be bank the of partners the of You shares the only injunction. that an issue ask no direct representative in the circuit that makes this makes that circuit in the representative direct no has government The circuit. is in the undersecretary the nor minister the Neither there. government the represents who there’scircuit, but there one no disciplinary in the worked saythis: Inever me Let O.:İ. independently? taken be really decisions is, can That authority? political the from pressure direct, not if indirect, an you feel do acase, in such taken is being a decision I’m What when is that, wondering authority. political 7, the to Kanal to therefore and connects Feneri Deniz polarized. became that country a in We live dimension. political I’m its at dimensionaside. looking legal the leaving cases…I’m other the to on we move Before A law. the contradicts that something not That’s atie. of event the in followed be to procedure is the it that stipulating aprovision include regulations council’sThe internal regulations. the from stems that something That’s is broken. tie the then meeting, following the attends member that When tie. athree-to-three was there leave, on was member one Because meeting. next the of agenda the on item first the becomes automatically issue isthe atie, If there tie: three-to-three the of because denied being investigation of issue the to On investigation that.after an initiate us to from permission request to normal It is only happened. what that’s but wrong, or right was seized”. that I’m saying whether immovables not have to saying “ourall decision the by was aim stand and lawyers the to areply issue prosecutors three lawyers, the of request At the criterion. the as taken be cannot That deeds. of registry the at mistakes been have might There practice. law,in the unlawful an place no has that So, there’s for that. practice provide not does law the as in entirety seized be cannot assets the that states decision the of two article Feneri, Deniz to respect ago, awhile with Inoted As O.:İ. . B.: . B.:
39 40 “Supreme Court of Appeals for the 9 “Supreme of Appeals Court distinct character.” a has and precedents from that differs judiciary liberal and this approach develop and fight ademocratic to we need one, bealiberal is to If the new judiciary simpler offenses. much to inrelation organization of definition the applies Authorized Courts proceed as they see fit, one one fit, see they as proceed Courts Authorized Specially view. that of There’s anotion points diverse to subscribe who colleagues are There afront. implies, “aye” name the the ago, Itwhile is, formed front. as a Isaid us, as with elected were who Colleagues, YARSAV the follow who standpoint. others are There is aYARSAV Appeals, member. of Court Supreme the from came who Özcan, Ziya instance, For viewpoint. particular one to judges subscribing includes completely untrue that council membership only It is increased. has council in the membership off, First community… Gülen of issue the to youcome When O.:İ. community. Gülen of issue the to abit turn now we can Alright, A report. in the included is not prosecutors Feneri Deniz on discussion the if better be It’ll trial. the have we is will published, influenced discussion our of transcript the before made be won’t decision a Because ongoing an investigation. about We talked T.: L.K. here? concern the causes What A record. the off be rather should section This here. prosecutors the sentenced of we sort fact, of amatter As T.: L.K. themselves. among that discussed colleagues the how know not Ido decision. . B.: . B.: .B.: (İbrahim Okur) (İbrahim th Criminal Circuit Circuit Criminal respect to definition of an organization, there are are there organization, an of definition to respect with is that, critical more is even What off. things kick they process, the initiate forces So, security the either.those, of advantage take to have means don’t the they and have don’t capabilities, those Prosecutors areas. those in strong really are police The not. do prosecutors the have capabilities police the crime, organized terror, drugs, as such In fields force. police the and prosecutors between relationships in the problems the from but community theGülen of influence the from not stemmed thissituation is that opinion My exception. no are Courts Authorized Specially community. Gülen The to close people also are today, there are they There too. past, in the judiciary in were the there orientations Whatever referendum. simply change won’t in a People’sthat. perspectives retain still they referendum, September 12 the before to subscribed they perspective Whatever prosecutors. judges and 12000 among opinions of adiversity find us”. of You scared be will will everyone powerful, that we are if great, that we are “If thinking, probably are They that. enjoying be must they have.don’t Iguess they apower community Gülen the to We attribute this. of in all power aspecific about talk to It is impossible practice. established same the in keeping with authorized also were courts new the judges of presiding The established. were courts New courts. these to added Later, were council. members previous the of time the at practice the also was This judges. presiding their as courts those judges of senior most the appointed We stead. in their judges externally presiding other We appoint didnot credentials. professional their of judgesstripped were presiding two These two. other the granted and them of We one denied judges. presiding three to in regards requested were injunctions office, we took Once transferred. were judges presiding three İstanbul, of Courts Authorized Specially In the İstanbul. of Courts Authorized Specially regarding talk the is especially This Courts. Authorized Specially the dominates group particular of Appeals for the 9 for the Appeals of Court Supreme we told: were is what This prosecutors. judges 250 and by attended discussions week-long we had In thishotel, organization. an of definition in the included been has Alot Hizbullah. and PKK involvingthe cases in the thisterm of definition broad avery had Appeals of Court Supreme the past, In the change. to needs that approach is an This precedents. old these follow Courts Authorized Specially now, Right state. the safeguard to areflex on based so We did broad. too scope is, the we kept organization an what defining When state. the safeguard to areflex upon established precedents even decisions, of Appeals precedents that these 12000 are guided by. guided are 12000 these that precedents Appeals of Court Supreme the create to we need existent12000, the replace to prosecutors judges and 12000 another find we can’t that Given character. adistinct has and precedents from differs that judiciary liberal and ademocratic develop and thisapproach fight to need one,we aliberal be is to judiciary Ifnew the offenses. of organizationdefinition in to much relation simpler th Criminal Circuit applies the the applies Circuit Criminal judiciary, and even of his own person. person. his of own even judiciary, and the state, the of independently act judgeto needs The O.:İ. change. to needs system the Agreed, T.: K. L. change. to needs system The S.: Y. … extent acertain to amendments, legal with And İ.: A. foremost. and first education with achieve we can something that’s Ibelieve approach. that discard We need organization. have you an there arms, youhave where and youhave action, an where people, you have where three organization, an of definition current the to According suit. follow will Courts Authorized Specially the at approach the Appeals, of Court Supreme the at changes If perspective the
41 42 the situation stands now? My view is that this is that view now? My stands situation the as that, to limit no we put shall title, or person’s job that to regard without person any investigate is to If prosecutor the upcoming process. in the often face we will is aproblem This investigation. an of subject the prosecutor, be achief could he was he if even that was thisperspective on based interpretation the case, Cihaner In the restricted. and revised be definitely must authority This title. or person’s job that to regard without person, any on investigation an launch to authority the prosecutors the grant articles These broad. very are Procedure Criminal of Code the of 252 and 250, 251 Articles under Courts Authorized Specially the to granted powers The O.:İ. Okur. Mr. go ahead Please one,too. that about talk let’s Alright, A critical. is also case Cihaner İlhan I think the T.: K. L. examples? as serve can that cases other there Are this issue. I’d Organization, youthink about what know like to Intelligence National the involves that case the as such example an of basis the On reformed? be should youthink they Do abolished? be to them you want Do Courts? Authorized Specially the about them you tell do what these, on your opinion requests Ministry the or government the is, when That Courts? Authorized Mr. Okur, Specially the is of your opinion what A 3.1. S 3. . B.: . B.: . B.: peci Prosecutors Prosecutors the High Council of Judges and Judiciary’s Problems Beyond a lly Autho r i z ed C ou rts specialized courts. They were established when the the when established were They courts. specialized are Courts Authorized Specially foresees law The O.:İ. Courts? Authorized Specially the about opinion is your What You revised. be to needs law think the A authority. him that didgrant law the call, the issue to authority legal the had he whether youask duty. if of But limits the of a transgression is in opinion my questions these asking without testify to undersecretary the him? Calling authorized Who authority? what on go Oslo, to and undersecretary didthe Why his of position? limits the determine we to are How his position. of limits the transgressed prosecutor the that claims also are There evidence. of amount adequate an collecting without him testify to called he is that opinion personal My No. appropriately? authority that exercise prosecutor didthe Then, offense. an committed prosecutor saythe prosecutor, the of youcan’t perspective the from it at youlook When authority. that prosecutor the grants law 250/3,the Article at look In view, my you prosecutor? the when to authority that grant law the Does testify. to Organization of the National Intelligence the Undersecretary called prosecutor the that, to in relation conducted inquiry any or collected was evidence any Before search. during the there’sseized But adocument offense. an committed he whether We know don’t description. his to job related is directly that a situation in his duty performing by offense an committed Fidan Hakan that was claim the Organization, Intelligence National the of Undersecretary involving the issue the to respect With curtailed. be must authority . B.: . B.: public stem from this. from stem public the among judiciary the about arguments and doubts the Actually impartially. act will judiciary the that expect to naïve be will it case, the is actually described we just Ifsituation the independence. precedes greatly judiciary, impartiality in the In fact, question. in that’s judiciary is the it if problem serious a more is to. This adhere they belief what matter no problem there’s then a institutions, through results political obtain to seeking and decisions specific taking end, acertain to and systematically, are worldview or belief acertain to adhering people of group a if But policing. intellectual any be shouldn’t There belief. of kind what follows HSYK or judiciary the at who business nobody’s be should it opinion, is and it In my because: discussion important is an That community. Gülen the about discussion the on also but that, on just not I’d remarks some make like to S.: M. you. with start let’s Mithat, Courts. Authorized Specially the of opinion their everyone ask me let Then A reconsidered. be must courts these of powers the and discussed be to need issues These security. state solely against offenses to limited be and revised be to needs try courts these that offenses of list the But courts. for these is aneed there Ithink So decisions. different and collection evidence of methods diverging be will there aresult, as And those. hearing be will region in the provinces other or Bingöl of Şırnak or province in the Court Criminal High the then court, that If youabolish them. hears that Diyarbakır of Court Authorized Specially the now is it cases, PKK the KCK previously the or Considering today. for them normally. is aneed Ithink there court is aspecialized courts these of each it, at youlook When provinces. in 7, 10 even sometimes 8or cases hear to created were They broad. is also scope geographic Their powers. broad very with vested are they and HSYK, by appointed were whom of judges all of composed are courts These removed. was member military The wereabolished. Courts Security State . B.: . B.: critical.” critical.” sometimes and and serious, even moreequally serious is at even least and onauthority the political the society of segments on certain pressure exerting and the judiciary or organizing within the judiciary influencing powerhouse or group uponthe judiciary.pressure Aparticular exerting authority of political amatter is not just judiciary the of politicization the or impartiality of question “The sections that concern individuals’ private lives and and lives private individuals’ concern that sections crossing out is, after councilas indiscussions the important all of minutes publish to possible not is it instance, For transparency. about question the Iasked why That’s impenetrable. more and more is becoming problem judiciary the means That version. previous the from much differ not will amendment Constitutional the of aresult as being into came that entity the If correct, that’s goals. their accomplished have largely calculations political own their for judiciary the instrumentalize to seek that groups the that show now up until events change.But to situation the want and disturbing thisperception find also who HSYK at people are there Perhaps structure? that dismantle to willingness the importantly most and power have tools, the HSYK this way: Does question the pose let’s that, on Based HSYK. at case thisis the that perception is astrong there We said critical. and serious more even sometimes and serious, equally isleast at authority political the on even and society the of segments certain on pressure exerting and judiciary the organizing within or judiciary the influencing powerhouse or group Aparticular judiciary. the upon pressure exerting authority political of amatter just is not judiciary orquestion the of impartiality politicization of the The ahistory. with issue is an This issue. serious very is a elimination and interest political of for purposes utilized being are means judicial that perception The judiciary. the of politicization the of example typical a sets This Courts. Authorized Specially way of by eliminating it considers others toopposing be groups is group aspecific is that public’s perception The (Mithat Sancar)
43 44 the general secretary drafted and delivered the the delivered and drafted secretary general the of office The opinion. dissenting the on and vote what cast who on disclosure no was there but text, in the included be to came majority by or unanimously made you”. was decision about Later, the decision whether is the “this onlysaid, delivered was that letter The votes. of amajority on based or unanimously made was decision the whether on information include didnot adecision HSYK, year. former Withthe past the over in effect remained actually HSYK former in over the established became that habit particular one that We realized serious. more something about you to talk me Let HSYK. at ourselves among discuss we must is something This transparency. of name in the minutes of publication the before barrier legal There’s no is important. proposal Sancar’s Mithat them. correct to strive you’ll then are, they what for them If yourecognize going direction. wrong in the are that things are there judiciary; in the problems are There problem. aperception has judiciary the that We’re it. solve to saying astep take then and problem the of existence the recognize it”. You first must with deal to steps any take youwon’t then problem, If youthink there’s perception problem. such no the is exactly “This him in response, matter. Itold the about Ithought what me that?”, asked up with and didyoucome earth on Where judiciary. the at problem perception such no him, “There’s told courthouse Ankara the at prosecutors judges and some and members HSYK some both that Turkeyreported visited recently that committee advisory the of amember Makridis, Kristos Also, like that. think who We have problem. colleagues a perception have not such Turkishdoes think that bench, judiciary the at as well as HSYK at Colleagues a perception. is such there whether of point the at tangled gets It all O.:İ. judiciary. the over domination exercise to proper authority political community, the for any or group easy be won’t Ithink done, it be If could that process. during amendment the Constitutional transparency of issue the Iemphasized else? somewhere or website the on publishing them about What names? their Authorized Courts as Demokrat Yar Demokrat as Courts Authorized Specially the on is your perspective what Alright, A like that. in structures often happens This ends. political toward used being are things Some ascandal. is actually This place. other some to case the forwarded in İstanbul court the And aside. left was unfair or fair was case Cihaner the Whether intent. the was This case. the of end the be will that and Appeals of Court Military the to it forward will Appeals of Court Supreme the And Appeals. of Court Supreme go the to later will thiscase cases, the merges in İstanbul Ergenekon case the hears that court the If Istanbul. to forwarded was case That Appeals. of Court Supreme the at tried be must Cihaner Prosecutor Chief purpose. adifferent towards it exploit to efforts were there but rate, any at one apolitical was case Cihaner İlhan The Courts. Criminal High to powers their granting way of by not course of But abolished. be must Courts Authorized think Specially I also Y. S.: Y. taken. be to steps further are there course Of addressees. their reach now justificationss with a ruling in opinions dissenting Yes, the Therefore, you’re right. O.:İ. obligation. aConstitutional That’s provided. be must decision for any justification The position. a central youknow, inAs Turkish occupies law, justification the S.: M. in thiscontext. consider we could is something Sancar Mithat by raised issue transparency The like these. mistakes practical some We decision. have the to objects he when opinion dissenting my on rely will he Perhaps that. about know to addressee the in Iwant adecision, opinion over. is now This If Ihave adissenting practice. have a didnot such they said They colleagues. with it Ichecked delivered. not were I submitted opinions dissenting the in decisions, afew that I heard out. sent was that text the see we didnot so decisions, . B.: . B.: gı? other examples, as well. That’s why the Specially Specially the why That’s well. as examples, other give could One acolleague. involves that a trial about ajudge myself, As I’m talking dangerous activities. highly conduct and powers their transgress Courts Authorized Specially The judiciary. the intimidate to was purpose prosecutor. The authorized specially a by his of room out dragged was prosecutor chief a how we saw case, Cihaner In the intimidated. being are lawyers The room. in the advanced he defense the disclosed he because He’s tried being trial. afair with tampering of charges on Turgutof Kazan trial the at Look defense. the cripple they In addition, want. they evidence the find only favor, They well. as accused’s in the evidence collect to obligation an has Aprosecutor police. the by collected evidence such use or accused the is against that evidence only collect prosecutors authorized Specially is alarming. highly hearing final away the from Keepinglawyers hearing. last the sayuntil to have will something defense the in Indeed, atrial, courtroom. in the lawyers or accused the of presence the without made be could decisions stated packages judiciary recent most the of One hearings. attending from prevented are accused The hearings. the to admitted not are Lawyers decisions. classified make and defense of right the restrict courts These objectives. respective their toward instrumentalize powerhouses or certain authorities political courts are We these think that abolished. must be definitely Specially Authorized Courts T.: K. L. completely. abolished be must Courts Authorized your enemy. Specially the is that opinion Our be to youperceive which party opposing the eliminate to established courts are like those Courts intent. law, criminal political of of but in terms not explanation law. the an to You reference offer with decisions can their explain youcan’t historically, courts similar at youlook When those. of out come to justice expect can There’s way you no Courts. Authorized Specially the now and Courts Security State Courts, Independence The assumed. preceedings legal extraordinary form latest the Courts Authorized Specially We the consider Y.: U. police. police. the of in terms and office prosecutor’s the of terms in Yes, both There’s aproblem there. there’s aproblem O.:İ. seriously. Germany from notice information the takes prosecutor the that problem is the there all of Now, first surface. to begin offenses and connections other tap, the Through wiretapping. starts and seriously claim the takes Security of Directorate General the of division intelligence organization”. dubious The such and such to is connected says, “Ali notice information Bayramoğlu Germany. from The arrives information some Mr. example, For Okur, example: youan give me let A that. of basis the on decision surveillance technical judge the awards the And is connected. request that which with crime the indicate They request. awiretapping on details offer they instance, For request. for its a justification offers it means, own its through acharge on evidence brings law-enforcement When ourproblem. It is also O.:İ. police? the of that but your problem, is thisnot Or in youdiscuss your trainings? something this Is well? judiciary, as the within aproblem that is Or police? the of thissimply aproblem Is criminal. a as is treated is tapped who anyone and evidence, of apiece of basis upthe on is set system A wiretapping problems. ethical some forth bring technologies New A Administ J 3.2. can undertake the work that these courts d courts these that work the undertake can who prosecutors judges and qualified sum, are there In judiciary. apoliticized represent Courts Authorized Specially The judiciary. astrong of asign are Courts Authorized Specially that argue will here one no guess I impartial. and is independent that is one judiciary Astrong abolished. be must Courts Authorized . B.: . B.: . B.: udici ra a l Law-E tive Law-E n f o r n cement vs f o rcement o. .
45 46 evidence.” evidence.” having up collect to ends work, the court preparatory out adequate carry cannot prosecutors Because tools. investigations. don’t launch to They havemeans necessary sufficient havethe not do prosecutors law-enforcement, is there no judicial main problem is that because “The (İbrahim Okur) (İbrahim opposite. Prosecutors’ offices do not have adequate have not do adequate offices Prosecutors’ opposite. the is sometimes ourpractice But enforcement. law- from actions request then and investigation the launch to go way prosecutor to is for the right The judiciary. the of problems the have we won’t solved we change thissystem, Unless there’sjudge position, defense. have no equal an the and prosecutor The atrial. of dialectics the with in accord is not contrary the to Anything evidence. compilation of interim of decisions collection and the as such stages intermediary of finalizations the with complete becomes it judge the after before come will file The merits. the on decision the make judge only the will in which asystem toward working we are noted Yücel Sayman is this: goal As main The studied. were in Europe models The assistant. judge’s or service judicial expert as known system a on working been has Ministry the Since 2008, trials. drawn-out about complain people why That’s years. five or for three on drags acase why that’s fact, In directs. he questions the way of by evidence gather to judge the strives And evidence. up having collect to ends court the work, preparatory adequate out carry cannot prosecutors Because tools. have necessary don’t They investigations. launch to means sufficient have not do the prosecutors law-enforcement, judicial is no there because is that problem main The O.:İ. preparation. infrastructural serious youneed for that But exist. would problems enforcement. With judicial law-enforcement, no such law- judicial is no there is that problem The T.: K. L. judiciary’s design must be altered. Defense has no no has Defense altered. be must design judiciary’s At aminimum, solved. be the won’t judiciary the with problems the determined, is scientifically operation its and is established law-enforcement judicial Unless S.: Y. orally. or letters Yes, informative way of by Either are. they O.:İ. Justice? of Ministry the to your recommendations among these Are A courts. these by evaluated be also must Courts Authorized Specially of decisions injunction the In fact, decisions. injunction render will that courts separate be must there centers, major decide”. will In court relevant the risk, the take not me “Let thinks, He Instance. First of Court Criminal in the cases 40-50 some this”.handle heard He objection the judge tries the who says, “let He them. arrest to chooses them,he releasing by arisk taking of Instead them. arrest or release either will He choices: two judge has The interrogated. being to sent are evening. in the They workload, aheavy judge, has who the to have expired periods detention whose people inquiry, 10 of bring they courts the to comes it When hand. at situation the that’s that’s Unfortunately, time. same the at things other many with deal to has and in apost-mortem, participates investigation, the conducts prosecutor The office. an or support have not technical does prosecutor The investigation. the launches prosecutor the then And prosecutor. the to search their of result the delivers law-enforcement judicial officers, law-enforcement there’s no Because officers. law-enforcement judicial have we don’t that fact is the else all than important More in İstanbul. there’s clerk one prosecutors, two youknow. every For as in İstanbul, are things how That’s office. same the sharing be might prosecutors Afew clerk. or assistant no has prosecutor The in this. arole plays which staff, of number . B.: . B.: mechanism against the prosecution. Rather than the the than Rather prosecution. the against mechanism defense words, there’sother institutional no In aright. as only It exists institution. an as presence no has defense the cases in criminal Particularly Constitution. the or act attorneys’ in the defense the includes that There’s board no defense. for the have not room does judiciary the of organization The S.: Y. S 3.3. care. doesn’t follow, prosecutor the but should thisprocess then and investigation the launch first we’re should why here”.“that’s Aprosecutor says and expert the to points then he protection?”, under works we’re that stealing know to able you are “how yourespond, When protection”. under are that works you’re stealing office, prosecutor’s the from instructions says, “we’re with here and arrives expert, an by accompanied officer, police A rights. in intellectual also but cases only in criminal not thing happens same The police. the to it forwards prosecutor prosecutor. the The goes complaint One assistant. their as police the and prosecutor the use today. offices law Some system current in the do they as police, the to have yield will to prosecutors establishingWithout judicial law-enforcement, the system. the of part become eventually will it well, function to appears HSYK if even matter won’t it system, youchange the Unless decision. that cancel wouldn’t I and judge Iwere if in thissystem, for arrest decision the make would like KCKsaying things for instance…I them, notifies government the now right threats, the listed Document Policy Security National the Previously government. is the it now that, said that Council Security National the was it Before threat. that against state the safeguard to judiciary the assigning youare state, the there’s against athreat yousay as soon As judge in thissystem. appointed is who matter no same the be will result The design. youchange that unless judiciary the democratize You judiciary. the of design in can’t the place t r engthening the D efense
to beright.”to hisownjudge voices interpretation what and he considers of the judiciary,prosecution. the than dialectics Rather the against mechanism defense no institutional aright. Itinstitution. only exists as In other words,there’s an as no presence has the defense cases criminal in Particularly Constitution. the or act attorneys’ the There’sthe in defense. the defense that no board includes not does have organization room for of the judiciary “The the decision must be made at another court. In other In other court. another at made be must decision the asettlement, reach Ican’t if and there, argue to able be Imust defense, the As defense. the from input with this process out carries and evidence the together puts that qualified, is accordingly that institution law-enforcement ajudicial be to needs there trial, the before place take to procedures these for all In order institutionalization. judge,the thisrequires but reaches issue the before established be to something is This that. on decide judge can’t The not? or heard be awitness will example: Another process. the duly to administer able judge be the won’t Otherwise, that. on judge decide the to to left be won’t it then judge, the to and comes file the before established be should that evidence as qualify not does evidence of piece words, agiven judge. if the In other before appears file the before bodies other by handled been have must file that to in relation discussed be to need that issues judiciary, all the of dialectics the about If already. we’re form to talking begun has opinion his him. So before appears file the when inclination an has already he does, he as judge.the And by is decided everything imposed; be will injunction heard, be will witnesses Whether case. that regarding decisions the ajudge all make is isto filed, acase Once judiciary. the democratize to able internally, be youwon’t thissystem youreform how matter No flawed. is inherently judiciary of a system Such right. be to considers he what and interpretation his judge own judiciary, the voices the of dialectics (Yücel Sayman) (Yücel
47 48 into an article utilized by the Supreme Court of of Court Supreme the by utilized article an into turned been unbelievably quite has it but accused, the protect to meant article an actually That’s trial. afair influence to attempt the concerns that article review. We public have to an open be must judiciary the importantly, most And judiciary. the of problems for the for solutions look and body consultative get together, all could a form They Association. have Bar the We also Prosecutors. Judges and of Council we Indeed, have High the mentioned. I have institutionalization to So, the judiciary. we need youhave independent how an not That’s powers. greater even has that authority an by dictated be power, will hisa major power exercise waywill he the power. is he amajor if And judge become will his. The be only will make will he decision the And parameters. his own setting one is he the then does, he If matters. discussing be auxiliary not should merits employ. Accordingly, the on decide judge is to the who will decision the make will who individuals the that parameters the determining of art It is the influencing. of It art is the art. is an law Procedural hearing. judge’s in each discussion there’s thinkingif adifferent the constitute that parameters the to authoritatively speak for youto impossible be will it years, five lasts that In us. acase with work things how not that’s But judge. the before arrive will that file in the parameters the argue to able be Imust defense, the as And issues. auxiliary the with have deal not to should merits the on In decide sum, judge will there. it the do who let’s suits, other initiate to If we are there. over it bring let’s file, the of part as we claim Whatever there. problems their solve can defendant the and lawyer, plaintiff the the that so autonomous be also should office, clerk’s the we call what or secretariat, The else. anywhere You solved. go to be will need don’t problems autonomously, is organized many law-enforcement Ifjudicial the structure. institutional acommon of law-enforcement, forensic medicine could be elements Judicial process. trial in the included be could medicine Forensic one. that before court another by but merits, judge will the that court the by not upon decided be must is admissible evidence the not or words, whether What does the judge consider to be the right answer? answer? right the be judge to the consider does What have Ido parameters. my because questions, ask can defense the in his mind. Ias answers right his own has he that means so judge the does that fact The witness. the judge the questions In our system, his decision. base will he which on judge parameters the the show you your questions, With influence. of exercise is an Cross-examination accused. the to directly questions ask can lawyer the It’s that just examination. like cross- all at is not on goes what actually but introduced, been has that onlypractice is the Cross-examination trial. the on have impact not do an together. lawyers considered The be should medicine change. Judicial and forensic law-enforcement to needs This youfor that. sue is actually this!” they decision of kind “what youreact, When public. the by checks to open be definitely should decisions but else, something up with come or system ajury establish youwill scrutiny. Whether public to open be must judiciary scrutiny. The independent we call is what mustprocess be subject to Whichindependent checks. decision-making the rulings, the by convinced be to for people In lost.” order are Treasury the against filed cases All we lost. us why to explain can one No it. Treasury, the we lost against but case a land-related say, They issue. had same “We the about complained East, the from other the and region Aegean the from one people; two Constitution, new the about meetings the During judiciary? the than important more be could what system, ademocratic create to If youwant stuff. for other have do money the they then is, But have money”. “we don’t the response the yousaythat, when But system. the of transformation is acomplete accomplished be to needs what that we realize awhole, as that all we consider When natural. There’s opinion. more nothing an form and me to judge listen will The it. about talk course of will I is made, indictment an Once accused. an about guy” say, to him, able he’s know be won’t “I army agood the of So, officer acommanding here. matters what is ajudge’s decide to freedom affect might that factors Eliminating the accused. the with starting case, the about talk will who anyone silence to Appeals “Analyzing the Situation in the Judiciary”. We invited We invited “Analyzing Judiciary”. in the Situation the banner the under meetings year, regional 16 we held Last future. in the reconsider and out, are they once discussion the of transcripts evaluatethe to decided We being. time for the aside We that put hearing. I’m that afile brings perhaps and around comes alawyer there, cases their about judges talk when But O.:İ. aproblem? be that would why it, be So T.: K. L. there… them discuss and meetings these to cases specific their bring If had: lawyers we’ve concern here’s thisbut the hear they when abit offended be might law of practice in the are who colleagues My O.:İ. tension. the mitigate help could like that Meetings away done with. together. It’s thiswas time high place same the at come can’t they if as is almost it other, the on lawyers and side one on prosecutors and judges between There’s well? contention as lawyers the with meetings have to professional you plan Do (TESEV): Özdil Koray controversy. of subject the be always will takes HSYK decisions the entirely. Otherwise, system change the and view up, it have to aholistic we need wrap to So, people. of lot awhole of cases the trashing be will number, the reduce to you then fast excessively move you if files, of number the reducing about There’s talk created. not were Courts Appellate reason the as money of Turkey, lack offered always they that Iknow in years for 40 practicing been has who someone As thisperspective. through things see to need We happen. doesn’t That offense? involving acapital in acase accused an judge questions any who across Have States”. come youever United the from system say, They “we got this questions. judge the asks as while questions direct to Ihave is that aright means that All there’s in cross-examining. point Then no in his mind. set been have already parameters means that accused, an or awitness If ajudge is questioning a 2 Courts? Appellate about Yargı have proposals any Demokrat Mr. that. youas do to on move Yiğit, let’s so Courts, Appellate of topic the raised just has Yücel Sayman A Appell 3.4. discussing institutions and problems together. problems and discussing institutions other. in So,think there’s Idon’t problem any the way or one him, it do have exchange with he’ll an judge the and with get in touch to wished If lawyer the T.: K. L. meetings. those to attend to lawyers invited we judgesalso if of attendance have we would alow that we thought why That’s İ.O them. of advantage take otherwise could lawyers since lawyers, the and themselves between distance a keep to need they that taught always Judges are S.: M. that. think about We’ll in principle. considered Yes, be could it course of O.:İ. in principle. considered be could it But T.: K. L. meetings. consultation professional about that do to plan we don’t now right But exchanges. productive very were there and attended They meetings. these to associations bar from colleagues . B.: . B.: accessed on: 03 September 2012 http://www.mevzuat.adalet.gov.tr/html/1412.html, R the and Jurisdiction Original of Courts the of Powers and Duties Establishment, the Concerning Law necessary. if heard be will witnesses and collected be will evidence given, be will hearing anew court, asuperior by time more one reviewed be will courts the by rendered decisions the words, other In legality. and facts material both of terms in reviewed remedy, alegal through are, instance first of courts by ppellate is the process in which final decisions rendered rendered decisions final which in process the is ppellate a C te ou rts egional Courts of Justice, Justice, of Courts egional 2
49 50 matters. For Appellate Courts, too, there are qualified qualified are too, there Courts, Appellate For matters. administrative these handle can and fields other in qualified are who individuals of number sufficient is There administration,. camp or duties for protocol You judges presiding wasted”. need are don’t talents whose prosecutors and “judges duties administrative assigned are who prosecutors judges and Icall established. be must Courts Appellate The T.: K. L. proposal. our That’s judges. those with Courts Appellate establishing problem no be should There aresult. as prosecutors judges and thousand three or two some about we’re talking means That Courts. Appellate to dispatched be should staff, administrative of members are judges who the as well as judges there, investigating the and Appeals of Court Supreme the of members current and State, of Council the and Appeals of Court Supreme the replace to created be should appeal of court a30-person Constitution, So, new in judiciary. the the localize to need we and fields, in all trend global is the Localization world. in the anywhere courts supreme many You well. have judges as don’t this employs council The areas. other in several employed judges are and things, other among lodging of judges in charge are There in Turkey staff. prosecutors administrative are judges and the of 20% away done with. be to needs This world. the around country in any practice There’s such no themt. to conveyed was what of basis the on only and all at file the at looking actually without decide panel the of members the panel, the before file that to in relation tells he Whatever experience. of years two ajudge has of who hands the at it youleave and arrives, file The happens. what not that’s But that. of basis the on decide and file his analyze and read judges will supreme four five or some that assumes State of Council the and Appeals of Court Supreme the with appeal an files who citizen the adecision, make instance first of courts After Courts: Yes, Appellate regarding we have aproposal Y.: U. of investigating judges at the Supreme Court of of Court Supreme the judges at investigating of number the we increased reason the was That Courts. Appellate the to colleagues interested appoint year, next of summer we incan the is issued decree the until reduced have will been workload the Because now. right employees 2000 some has Appeals of Court Supreme The Appeals. of Court Supreme judges the at investigating judges and many forthere’s that need no Indeed, Appeals”. of Court Supreme judges the at many so you need would “why acomment, was There decree. summer 2013 the with Courts Appellate the create is to now right goal Our perfect. be all course It of won’t extent. acertain to Courts Appellate of needs staff the meet to able be we will closed, are courthouses smaller Once significantly. reduced been has Appeals of Court Supreme the at workload the taken, were that measures the of some to Thanks Courts. Appellate to in relation appointments have to we plan decree, summer 2013 the With O.:İ. away done with. be to Appeals of Court Supreme the by exercised tutelage the want don’t they change; asystemic want don’t they It appears years. seven past for the created haven’t been courts the but in 2005, passed was Courts Appellate concerning law The all. at practice ademocratic not that’s And exercising tutelage. be would who individuals of set in adifferent have only would brought you replacement, With Appeals. of Court Supreme the at individuals the replacing by tutelage away with You do can’t service. into Courts Appellate put to need To so, do you simply by replacingindividuals. tutelage You that judges. of the over get rid tutelage can’t exercises Appeals of Court Supreme The relationship. youhave atutelary where That’s Courts? Appellate have not ajudiciary would Why judiciary. the to comes it when issue amajor are Courts Appellate S.: Y. judiciary. astrong create to willingness the is is needed that All courts. those establish to budget in its resources the has state the and individuals, the HSYK General Assembly, we discussed it and and it Assembly, we discussed General HSYK the up in brought was Courts Appellate of topic the When too. that, with Iagree rate. high a is also awhole thinknumber. is ahigh as 20% also I judges, which 300 over are there Ministry, though, In the HSYK. as such abody to comes it when normal that’s and HSYK, at employed are those of 160 many. too not that’s there, employed are 12000 of out people If 500 Ministry. the and HSYK at employed are those of 500 Only Appeals. of Court Supreme the at working are who those youinclude if rate get that will You staff. administrative of members as employed are prosecutors judges and of 20% that It correct is not Appellate Courts. to mayassigned judges, be they investigating as experience gain colleagues these Once Appeals. away. right instated be not could Courts Appellate why reasons the are These infrastructure. building and of issues of care take to we’re trying so now constructed, are buildings their unless created be not they that requested and locations in 15 Courts Appellate open to We decided prosecutors. two judges and two of capacity the you’re wasting places, In those handle. to files 40-50 some has courthouse judge in asmaller a with, deal to files 17000 has ajudgewhile in İstanbul ago, awhile Isaid As courthouses. smaller down close to and Appeals of Court Supreme the at workload the reduce to all of first Itburden. is necessary the to add would they contrary, the judiciary, on the at problem the fix won’t Courts Appellate change, conditions existing unless that resolved
51 52 3 Recommendations and Points Common
4- The Justice3- Academy, it stands as In2- the recruitment of judges, a 1- common at raised points the roundtable. key on based Program Democratization TESEV the of Pişkin Levent and Özdil Koray and Balancar, Ferda editor Bayramoğlu, Ali consultant report’s the by compiled The recommendations listed in this were section must bechanged. The method of The election system in at HSYK effect Academy must bereformed. for professional training. The now, short of meeting falls the need This needs to change. of Justice plays a determining role. Ministry the by dominated committee councils. separate Judges and prosecutors need to have 3 3
Court budgets Court 9- and courtrooms must Appellate must8- Courts be 7- Judicial law-enforcement force must Judges6- need and to decide act 5- become autonomous. become established. be established possible. soon as as state. the of independent crimes. terrorist and crimes especially in regards to organized interpretations are necessary existing precedents reinforce it. Novel powerfulvery at the judiciary, and The reflex to safeguard the stateis broad-based discussion. after upon decided be must election judicial steps meant a cleansing act against the the against act acleansing meant steps judicial (Cage) Poyrazköy, on Kafes prosecutions and investigations the by followed be would This started. investigation Ergenekon the as known year, process judicial the that of In January controversies. and developments political of in terms year acritical was 2008 other. the represented regime tutelary the of elimination the and actors old the targeting steps cleansing legal and coin, political the while of side one represented all army the from JDP,ban outbursts informal and formal to lawsuit the and elections crisis, July 2007 367 the memorandum, April 27 army’s the campaign, election Presidential the Republic, the of in support held demonstrations another. one The eliminate to striving groups elite with in 2010, referendum Constitutional the until swing in full continued process This 2005. since particularly country in the “strife” internal aserious to leading one, old the against governing new elite the pitted military the with association any from free break and state inside the reorganize to efforts The practice. into amendments legal to putting when it came intensified tensions The reforms. these enveloped that relations power to tied tensions and crises entailed also it criteria, Copenhagen the of frame the in structure legal in the reforms on based acourse on forward went transformation the While 1990s. the of characteristic tutelage military the from and lifestyles of issue the around centered atmosphere polarized power, away the from moved Turkey gradually has coming to Party Development and Justice the With Bayramoğlu Ali New HSYK and Roundtable Discussion Conclusion: Analysis of the , and Balyoz (Sledgehammer) Balyoz , and . And all these these all . And other hand, through the extraordinary powers granted granted powers extraordinary the hand, through other the On framework. and scope its exceeds in awaythat problemsarbiter of political a politically-characterized become has judiciary hand, one the the On function. or situation adual to refer can judiciary, one the of terms relationship”. In “transformation-judiciary-politics in the page anew turning of the witnessing Turkey that conditions be It these iswill under character. apolitical had that acts cleansing judicial the of part as through transformation the freighting of role the play to had equation”, also but “continuity-contention the upon rests that model” “transformation in a resistance of center apowerful provided only not judiciary the because is the That context. in this separately discussed be to needs judiciary the that doubt is no There subjects”. and objects “both were that actors leading the among were judiciary the and bureaucracy military Universities, state. the within tension ideological and polarization politicization, of instances in serious resulted This sought. was mutation whose mentality and structure figures, the with with in proceeded interaction itself transformation the and process, transformation in the subjects and objects both were actors administrative and political Several power”. “constitutive anew of emergence the of contention” no with “political rupture” without and a“continued state through proceeded transformation Turkey’s that demonstrates it is that development this of implication important Yet and another struggle. power asignificant of part as regime tutelary the of figures civilian and military
53 54 amendment to the referendum. The Constitutional Constitutional The referendum. the to amendment amendment thentheConstitutional and took the with proceeded ambition, that around concieved in aframework drafted atext of basis the on government, JDP judiciary, the supreme the over tutelage” the eliminate “to and transformation the before challenge judiciary the overcome to ambition an With there. formed that resistance the break to and judiciary supreme the and HSYK of structure the alter to meant were in 2010 amendments Constitutional the government, for the In fact, 2010. to prior in period authority political the and thisbody between strains nation-wide and serious caused assignments and appointments to in regards issued it decrees the and actors, and processes judicial toward HSYK of initiatives Several transformation. of process the before obstacle formidable most the as elites, political former up of made HSYK, and judiciary supreme the composition defined of the authority political the 2010, up to ran that period first in the Especially matters. contentious become havelaw all the under limits their exceeded they not or whether offices, prosecutors’ and Courts Authorized Specially of operations” the of nature “the prosecutors, judges and of “identity” the In thiscontext, such. as twisted that relationship the and turned public perception astrong been has there least, very At the legislation. and law the of pushing limits the transformation, other timeshindered and the facilitated sometimes that apace at moved relationship judiciary-politics the time, and court place, specific the on Depending is obvious: apowerhouse becoming of meaning The thispowerhouse. of formation the off fed and reinforced both above underscored politicization and polarization of condition The themselves. in apowerhouse became actors its and judiciary the forward, move could in question lawsuits the that so prosecutors authorized specially and Courts Authorized Specially of regulation the way of by problems through face-to-face conversation; to to conversation; face-to-face through problems the identify effectively is to thisstudy of goal A thisissue. about criticisms emerging and existent views, their compared and expressed parties’ where organized To was end, aroundtable beaddressed. that could they how and has it shortcomings or problems the HSYK, of evolution determine to aimed study This concerns. these around astudy conduct to meaningful and important it thought TESEV places. swapped debate in the participants the that just was it intact, remained politicization around debate words, the In other controversy. the deepened only issued it decree appointment any dimension, and apolitical with processes judicial regarding HSYK of initiative any elections, the Following HSYK. mainly including bodies judiciary supreme the of charge taking community Gülen Fethullah the particularly and elections the influencing by seizing HSYK government the as it Yargı, interpreted Demokrat and YARSAV primarily including groups, other transition, and normalization ordinary of example an and one ademocratic result the considered circles some While prevailed. that one the was Justice of Ministry the by created roll the eventually and groups, those by together put candidates of rolls the among was competition YARSAV,as The government. Yargı the and Demokrat foreknown the to groups three brought prosecutors judges and of vote the through directly composition HSYK’s of determination The network. informal or an either throughorganized associations politically judiciary the within tendencies diverse in which atmosphere in an experienced were elections council and referendum country, the in the polarizations and powers of balance the with In parallel courts. high in other case the was as voters, the be would prosecutors judges and in which election an way of by determined be would membership HSYK that provided which adopted was rule new a and HSYK, of make-up in the changes significant amendment the and ensuing harmonization laws of having a judiciary that operates on an impartial and and impartial an on operates that havingof ajudiciary pursuit afundamental was there that and inclinations, independent of political to effected need be judge the of role the and judiciary the of functions shared opinion concerning that regulations the is a there that demonstrated also roundtable The system. law-enforcement ajudicial of creation the and prosecutors; for judges and provided training the of scope broadening system; the into defense the of incorporation the investigations; and ongoing reviews regarding powers minister’s the and ministry’s the of some of abolishing or restriction Assembly; National Turkish the by council the to Grand members of appointment the councils; respective prosecutors’ and judges’ of separation the as such concerns common have to such said be Turkish could the judiciary and representingtendencies end. actors Associations, this towards regulations for new need the to point also advanced were that recommendations new The authority. independencecouncil from the its political to maintain the allow will that structure financial and bureaucratic a of availability the and prosecutors, judges and judges by of election the composition, HSYK’s new of features main the to attention drew also Participants State. of Council the and Appeals of Court Supreme the from originated essentially members ministry, and the of prerogative the were supervision and budget secretariat, the role, aleading had undersecretary the and minister the in which HSYK of structure former the of critiques offering by started Participants areas. problem similar to referred and HSYK, of deficiencies structural and composition ideal functions, the to respect with points common raised mainly parties the started, roundtable the after shortly that noteworthy and It is telling O reform. current the improving and broadening create aof recommendations cluster toward to and ideas; divergent and points common determine bse r v a tions on the Roundt a ble by way of the judiciary, it is not going to be easy to to going easy is judiciary, not it be the to way of by restructuring and cleansing of is apolicy there which in aframework through moves process transformation the and prevails, judiciary the on burden political the as long as is that asign This character. informal even and political asituational, present divergences their and views, common overwhelminging have stakeholders the affairs, of state present In the in thisregard: emphasis deserve issues Consequently, following oppositions. those into feeds it time same the at but oppositions, political from stems extent an to thisopinion that doubt is no There issue. that to respect with conviction strong is a there that clear quite became it representative, HSYK up the put defense and objection powerful the Despite criticism. received cases Dink Hrant Ergenekon or Feneri, Deniz in the prosecutors and judges of replacement in the role and HSYK’s stance elections. in the and HSYK at situation resultant the to in relation community Gülen the of presence and explicitly, impact the sometimes and implicitly sometimes emphasized, associations dissenting two The politicization. and government favor the that practices recruitment exclusive from suffers structure new the that said issues, same the underscoring YARSAV situation. the of representative, critical more even now was association their and continuity that of asign was Organization, Intelligence National involvingthe crisis the toward took it stance the for instance HSYK, of practices certain that added He elections. in the Justice of Ministry the of dominance the of because intact remained mentality former the and structure apluralist given be not could council the that noted Yargı Association Demokrat the from representative The process. that concerning regulations the and process, election the composition, its than rather operations its on HSYK, new the of practices the on focused mainly criticisms and questions problems, The influences political thatindependent is background legal free from any
55 56 in line with common points raised in the previous previous in the raised points common with in line in place put be to need Additionally, regulations new judiciary. the to regards non qua is sine that consensus fore “a functional the to bring and politicization of degree the reduce ” in the election system and process. and system election the regards as especially attitudes, political and divisions political of impact the limit to needed are regulations pluralist new Furthermore, mechanism. participatory a through taken be must regulations these toward steps preliminary the and possible, as soon as section Movement 1995-2000) (2001),Movement Çağ 1995-2000 Sosyolojisi aCoup) Hareketin of (2001), İslami Diary February: 28 Şubat of author daily. Yeni the at Şafak is the isHe he acolumnist and Kültür at University continues currently life academic Yeniyüzyıl at columnist a was He University. Marmara at Administartion Public of Department in the member faculty a as served he 1981-1999 Between University. İstanbul Turkey in Forces ( Rolü Siyasi Kuvvetler’in Silahlı “Türkiye’de titled adissertation With Grenoble. de d’études politiques Institut at education his undergraduate completed Bayramoğlu Ali A Redefined) Left (The Tanımlamak Yeniden Hegemony) of Language New The (Neoliberalism: Ideology) Economic the of (A Critique Eleştirisi İdeolojisinin İktisat Development), and Order With Struggle Society) Turkish of Crisis (The Bunalımı Toplumunun Türkiye Birikim of board editorial the of amember Yayınları and İletişim of board editorial the of coordinator is the He University. Galatasaray at Economics of Department the of Chair as Mr. serves currently institution. İnsel this at President Vice as and Economics of School the of dean as served later He 1Panthéon-Sorbonne. Paris Université the at Economics of Department in the education his undergraduate completed İnsel Ahmet Ah Authors the About l İ B İn met periodical. He is the author of such books as as books such of author is the He periodical. ay , Düzen ve Kalkınma Kıskacında Türkiye (Turkey’s (Turkey’s Türkiye Kıskacında Kalkınma ve Düzen Neoliberalizm: Hegemonyanın Yeni Dili Yeni Dili Hegemonyanın , Neoliberalizm: r ğ amo sel ), he earned a doctoral degree at at degree adoctoral ), earned he Bir Müdahalenin Güncesi (28 Güncesi Müdahalenin , Bir lu (The Sociology of the Islamic Islamic the of Sociology (The , Star The Political Role of the Armed Armed the of Role Political The , Sabah daşlık Hurafe Hurafe daşlık dailies. His dailies. . Solu , Solu reports for the Agos daily. for the reports and covers he and Foundation, Dink Hrant the at coordinator Taraf project Star. the and is currently He including in dailies and Nokta, and Aktüel including in magazines editor chief and editor an as worked TESEV. Mr. and Balancar TÜSİAD at researcher and expert an as served He University. Marmara at language) in French (with instruction Administration in Public degree undergraduate an earned and School High Galatasaray the at school high completed He in İstanbul. in 1967 born was Balancar Ferda F of the Council. the of circuit first the of chairperson as serves currently Okur Mr. Courts. in Ordinary prosecutors judges and the by Prosecutors Judges and of Council High the of member a as elected was he In 2010, Justice. of Ministry the at undersecretary deputy as and Directorate, generaland directorat the Personnel General director general assistant head, judge, department investigating as Haymana; and Sarıkamış Almus, in prosecutor public as served He in 1990. Courts judge in Ordinary acandidate as career professional his began He in 1988. University Eylül Dokuz at Law of School the at degree alaw earned He schools. high and middle primary, completed also he where Konya in Karapınar, in 1966 born was Okur İbrahim İ Ahmet İnsel, 2004). İnsel, Ahmet Turkey) in (coedited Army The with AParty: Clique, Ordu Türkiye’de Parti: Bir Superstition) Zümre Bir and Kaldırmaz b E r R a D hİ A B (Modernity Has No Room for for Room No Has (2005) (Modernity m O AL ANC ku r AR (A (A
57 58 Law at Ankara University. He began his academic his academic began He University. Ankara at Law of School the at degree his undergraduate completed he in Diyarbakır, school high completing he After in Nusaybin, Mardin. in 1963 born was Sancar Mithat Mİ general. secretary as YARSAV of founding member serves shenow where She is a in Ankara. capacity same in the serving sheis currently and in Karaman, a judge in 1988 as Tarhan career her began Köksal Leyla Bankruptcy. of Law and Procedure in Civil studies doctoral continues now law, and public of shebegan field in the degree amaster’s completing After in 1985. University İstanbul at Law of School the at degree alaw earned She in Erdemli. in 1962 Tarhan born was Köksal Leyla L area. working Democracy and Media and Reform Judicial Litigation, Rights Human for the assistant aproject as working is he and 2012 April since program Democratization TESEV the of is part He Istanbul. of Association Bar at practitoner is legal He in 2011. Faculty Law University Ankara from degree his BSc received Pişkin Levent N LEVE Program. Democratization the of working Structures areas Perceptions Mentality and and Reform Sector Security for the Officer Project the as working been has Koray 2008, September Since citizenship rights. and organizations migrant migration, trans-national include interest of His areas in 2008. Program Anthropology Social and Sociology University European Central and in 2007 Program Europe Analyzing University Maastricht from degrees MA and in 2006 Program Studies Cultural University Sabancı from his degree BA ÖzdilKoray gained KO eyl t R h AY ÖZDİL a K at S T PİŞKİ T öks a nc al N a Tar r h an Common Agricultural Policy) Agricultural Common Union (European TarımTopluluğu Politikası Ortak Freedom) Restricting Penalties and Offenses Tax Other and Offenses Evasion (Tax veSuç Cezaları Vergi Bağlayıcı Hürriyeti ve Diğer Suçları Kaçakçılığı Decisions) Court Constitutional in Ability Financial to According Göre Vergilendirme İlkesi Güce Mali Çerçevesinde Kararları Mahkemesi Anayasa include His books 2010. and 2005 between Justice of Ministry the of Department Development Strategy Judge the at Investigating as aterm had he a while, for prosecutor apublic as serving After 2005. year the judge for candidate as position his initial had he 1994, and 1991 Law. Between Fiscal of field in the University Marmara from degree adoctoral Law. holds He Community in European specializing institution, same the at degree amaster’s complete to went and 1989, in University Ankara at Law of School the at degree alaw earned He in 1965. in Ankara born was Yiğit Uğur Uğ member at Medipol University since 2011. since2011. University Medipol at member afaculty been has He Association. Bar İstanbul the of president Mr. 2002, was and Sayman 1996 Between (2005-2011). University Ticaret İstanbul at faculty the of amember also was He (1963-2002). member faculty a as served later he where University İstanbul at Law of School the at degree his undergraduate completed He in Konya. in 1939 born was Yücel Sayman Yü Near Eastern University. Eastern Near at Law of School the at teaches and University Ankara at Law of School the at aprofessor as serves currently Taraf at acolumn has he currently Birgün at acolumnist was He cinema. and literature of fields in the interest aclose maintained has he In addition, time. to time from Germany in universities various at served and in 1985 career cel u r Yİğİ ym Sa (Banking Crimes) (Banking Suçları , Bankacılık t a n (The Principle of Taxation Taxation of Principle (The . . Mr. Sancar . Mr. Sancar daily, and , Avrupa , Avrupa , Vergi Notes
59 60