{"id":282230,"date":"2026-02-01T12:53:10","date_gmt":"2026-02-01T12:53:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/?p=282230"},"modified":"2026-02-01T12:54:30","modified_gmt":"2026-02-01T12:54:30","slug":"why-hsk-does-not-implement-court-decisions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/why-hsk-does-not-implement-court-decisions\/","title":{"rendered":"Why the HSK does not enforce court decisions?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The CJP is a constitutional body established by Article 159 of the Constitution and tasked with securing the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. As such, the CJP is the first and foremost authority before anyone and any institution. Compliance with the Constitution and court decisions<\/strong> necessary. Because the rule of law is most meaningful when the institutions that hold power are bound by the law.<\/p>\n

However, my own experience is instructive in showing how this constitutional principle is eroded in practice.<\/p>\n

Standard Process at the CJP: Complaint - Re-examination - Appeal - \u201cFinal\u201d Decision<\/h3>\n

The complaint mechanism at the HSK is very clear on paper.
\nComplaint petition is filed; First Chamber of the CJP \u201cnon-processing\u201d<\/strong> decision and notify the applicant Within 10 days, a request for reconsideration can be filed<\/strong> is notified.
\nRe-examination is requested; again the response is \u201cnot processed\u201d and this time the HCJ Appeal to the General Assembly<\/strong> is shown. An objection is raised; this time \u201cdefinitive non-processing\u201d<\/strong> decision has been made.<\/p>\n

What is noteworthy in this three-step process is the following: The content of the notification letters regarding the Decision does not change, only the decision number and the name of the stage changes.<\/strong><\/p>\n

When Law 4982 comes into effect, the problem begins<\/h3>\n

At this point, as a citizen, I made a natural and legitimate demand: I made a request under Article 74 of the Constitution. \u201cRight to Information\u201d<\/strong>prepared in relation to Law No. 4982 on Right to Information<\/strong> Accordingly, I requested information and documents on the actions taken by the CJP in response to my complaint.<\/p>\n

The HSK's response was the same each time: The request was rejected; Article 19 of Law No. 4982 was cited as the reason; and I can file a lawsuit in the administrative court<\/strong> reported.
\nI filed and won, and not just one case.<\/p>\n

First, Second and Third Court Decisions<\/h3>\n

First, the Ankara 4th Administrative Court dated 21.02.2022, 2021\/1131 E., 2022\/364 K. <\/strong>Decision No.a<\/strong>; HSK's refusal to provide information and documents canceled.<\/strong><\/p>\n

This decision was issued by the 12th Administrative Case Chamber of the Ankara Regional Administrative Court upon the HSK's application for appeal. 09.06.2022<\/strong> dated, 2022\/729 E., 2022\/938 K.<\/strong> with decision no.<\/p>\n

In the second one,<\/strong> Despite the existing finalized decision, the HSK took the same action again in relation to another file. I filed a lawsuit again. This time Ankara 25th Administrative Court 28.02.2024 <\/strong>dated, 2023\/1559 E., 2024\/305 K.<\/strong> once again with its decision numbered to cancel the decision.<\/strong> The HSK went to appeal again. Ankara Regional Administrative Court 12th Administrative Court, dated 06.11.2024, 2024\/1042 E., 2024\/2185 K.<\/strong> with its decision numbered unanimously rejected.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In other words, the same administrative act had been definitively annulled by two separate court decisions and through an appeal review.<\/p>\n

In the third case, the HSK re-established the same procedure in relation to another file, despite two separate finalized decisions. I filed a lawsuit again. Ankara 16th Administrative Court 23.10.2025 - E:2025\/624, K:2025\/1441 <\/strong>With its annulment decision No. 6, the Court clearly determined that: Information and documents relating to completed examinations, except those relating to the internal functioning of the administration, must be made available to those concerned.<\/p>\n

The HSK action to the contrary was annulled. The HCJ has again applied for appeal and the file is awaiting review.<\/p>\n

Language Changes After Court Decisions<\/h3>\n

This is where the real problem starts.<\/p>\n

After the court decisions, the HSK's language changes. This time the following sentence is repeated in the answers:
\n\u201cYour complaint has not been processed; there is no other document in the file other than your complaint petition since no permission for investigation and investigation has been granted.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

These statements, after court rulings<\/strong> are the answers given.
\nHowever, the administrative courts have clearly stated that: Law No. 4982, completed reviews<\/strong> information and documents related to the subject matter.<\/p>\n

Article 32\/5 of the HSK Law does not abrogate the right to information.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, instead of implementing the court rulings, to send back my petitions for complaint, reconsideration and appeal<\/strong> has chosen to do so. The content of a transaction whose legal grounds have been annulled without ever changing<\/strong> has been restored.<\/p>\n

If an administration, If it can continue to establish a transaction that has been annulled three times, two of which have been finalized, on the same grounds, and continue not to fulfill the court decisions<\/strong>, there is no longer an isolated violation of rights, but an institutionalized the constitutional question<\/strong> There are.<\/p>\n

What does the CJP have to do upon a complaint?<\/h3>\n

The fundamental question at this point is this: The HSK really did not take any action \u201cnon-processing\u201d<\/strong> can he make the decision?
\nThe answer is clear: No.
\nThe legislation is very clear
\nArticle 97 of the Law No. 2802 on Judges and Prosecutors
\nLaw No. 6087 on the CJP Articles 9, 32, 33
\nRegulation on the Working Procedures and Principles of the CJP
\nHSK Circular dated 30.04.2014
\nAccording to these regulations;
\nThe High Council of Judges and Prosecutors
\nConducting research,
\nInformation and document collection,
\nIf there is an inspection, preparation of an inspection report \/ memorandum,
\nCreating minutes if discussions were held in the Chamber and the General Assembly,
\nIn the end, it must produce a reasoned decision.
\n\u201cNon-processing\u201d<\/strong> Even a decision is not a decision that can be taken without doing anything.<\/p>\n

In the middle
\nno research,
\nno review,
\nno minutes,
\nif there is no case file,
\nthen the question is inevitable:
\nWhat did the CJP consider and decide not to process?<\/p>\n

To date, this question has not been answered with a single concrete document.<\/p>\n

Criminal and Compensation Aspects of Non-Enforcement of Judicial Decisions<\/h3>\n

What happened was not limited to an administrative dispute. Upon the non-fulfillment of finalized and mandatory administrative court decisions, this time in terms of criminal liability<\/strong> legal action has also been taken.<\/p>\n

In this context, criminal complaints were filed with the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office against public officials who failed to implement judicial decisions. However, these complaints were sent to the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK) as a matter of procedure, and the result remained unchanged.<\/p>\n

The CJP showed the same reflex at this stage: Complaints are routinely \u201cnon-processing\u201d<\/strong> I have not been provided with a single document indicating that any research has been conducted, an evaluation process has been carried out or a concrete justification has been provided.<\/p>\n

Thus, the picture has become even clearer: Criminal applications against administrations that fail to implement court decisions are, again de facto inconclusive by the same administration.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Compensation Lawsuits and the Council of State<\/h3>\n

In the face of the non-fulfillment of the court decisions, this time full judicial (compensation) lawsuits were filed in Ankara Administrative Courts due to the administration's service defect. Pursuant to Article 125 of the Constitution and Article 28 of the \u0130YUK, the failure of the administration to implement judicial decisions leads to a clear violation of law and liability for compensation.
\nHowever, a striking picture emerged in these cases as well:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Administrative courts of first instance,<\/li>\n
  • Then the regional administrative courts,<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    The CJP's de facto non-implementation of judicial decisions, the CJP's failure to implement judicial decisions in accordance with Article 32 of Law No. 6087, before information and document requests are made within the context of Law No. 4982 and before the way to file a lawsuit at the administrative court is indicated the outcome of our complaint,<\/strong> the court judgment as having been fulfilled and rejected my claims for compensation.<\/p>\n

    The inaccuracy in this assessment is obvious. Article 74 of the Constitution \u201cright to petition\u201d<\/strong> with \u201cright to information\u201d<\/strong> Lawyers will know the distinction between Law No. 3071 on the Exercise of the Right to Petition and Law No. 4982 on the Right to Information.<\/p>\n

    Following these decisions, the process was inevitably taken to the Council of State. Council of State<\/strong>\u2019of the competent members of \u201cright to petition\u201d<\/strong> with \u201cright to information\u201d<\/strong> between the differences between the two.<\/p>\n

    I think they will demonstrate with the rigor of a surgeon whether a court order has been fulfilled or not.<\/p>\n

    The cases before the Council of State today involve not only an individual claim for compensation, but also the following fundamental question:
    \nIf an administration - and a constitutional institution at that - does not implement finalized judicial decisions,
    \nis this not legally consequential?
    \nIn these cases, the Council of State does not only review the decisions of the lower courts;
    \nthe limits of the rule of law, the binding nature of judicial decisions
    \nand the responsibility of constitutional institutions vis-\u00e0-vis the judiciary.<\/p>\n

    Instead of Conclusion: The Issue is Institutional, Not Personal<\/h3>\n

    The picture is now clear:<\/p>\n

      \n
    • The same transaction was canceled three times,<\/li>\n
    • The annulment decisions have not been implemented,<\/li>\n
    • Criminal complaints are closed at the HSK,<\/li>\n
    • The compensation cases were dismissed at first instance and on appeal,<\/li>\n
    • The process is before the Council of State today.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      At this point, the issue is not a single person's right to information or individual victimization.
      \nThe issue is whether judicial decisions are being implemented, the position of a constitutional institution vis-\u00e0-vis the judiciary and whether the rule of law is actually functioning.<\/p>\n

      The CJP is an institution regulated under Article 159 of the Constitution. However, this article does not give the CJP the freedom to disobey the Constitution. On the contrary, it obliges it to comply with the Constitution and judicial decisions before anyone else.<\/p>\n

      The Council of State's decision will be decisive not only for these cases, but also for the binding nature of judicial decisions in Turkey.<\/p>\n

      Therefore, this article is not an end, but an attempt to set the record straight. It will be continued.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      The CJP is an institution regulated under Article 159 of the Constitution. However, this article does not give the CJP the freedom to disobey the Constitution.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":21,"featured_media":282231,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[286],"tags":[289],"class_list":{"0":"post-282230","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-yazarlar","8":"tag-manset"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282230","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/21"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=282230"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282230\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":282232,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282230\/revisions\/282232"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/282231"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=282230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=282230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=282230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}