The basis of electoral law in Turkey is Article 79 of the Constitution. According to this article, the Supreme Electoral Council (YSK) is responsible for the general administration and supervision of elections and its decisions are final.<\/p>\n
However, \u201ccertainty\u201d is the certainty of decisions in accordance with the law. The unjustified elimination of allegations of non-existence or complete illegality and hiding behind the concept of finality renders the rule of law questionable.<\/p>\n
I have filed objections and applications for complete illegality against both the 21st and 22nd Extraordinary Assemblies of the CHP. I have also filed a lawsuit for the annulment of the 22nd Extraordinary Assembly before the 14th Administrative Court of Ankara due to the fact that the documents on which the rejection of my objection for the annulment of the 22nd Extraordinary Assembly was based were not provided within the scope of the Right to Information Law No. 4982. When the entire process is evaluated together, the picture that emerges raises serious questions in terms of constitutional law.<\/p>\n
I. 21ST EXTRAORDINARY CONGRESS (06.04.2025)<\/strong><\/p>\n 1 - The Authority to Summon and the Authority to Place-Day-Schedule are Not the Same<\/p>\n The 21st Extraordinary Assembly, held on 06.04.2025 at Ankara Yenimahalle Naz\u0131m Hikmet Cultural Center, was initiated on the grounds of \u201crumors that a trustee would be appointed\u201d. 2 - My Application and the Decision of \u00c7ankaya 4th District Election Board<\/em><\/p>\n I filed my objection to the 21st Extraordinary Assembly via KEP within the legal period. \u00c7ankaya 4th District Election Board rejected my objection with its decision dated 09.04.2025 and numbered 2025\/29. 3 - Actual Obstacles on the Day of the Assembly<\/em><\/p>\n The day of the assembly: 4 - Single Candidate Election and Ballot Question<\/em><\/p>\n Article 17\/2 of the Assembly Regulation stipulates that there is no sign requirement in the election of a single-candidate chairman. II. 22ND EXTRAORDINARY CONGRESS (21.09.2025)<\/strong><\/p>\n Unlike the 21st Extraordinary Assembly, this congress was conducted through a \u201ccall for delegates\u201d. 1 - \u00c7ankaya 4th District Election Board Decision<\/em><\/p>\n My appeal was rejected with the decision dated 23.09.2025 and numbered 2025\/71. 2 - CHP Statute Article 48 and 15 Days + 7 Days Mechanism<\/em><\/p>\n According to Article 48 of the Statute: 3 - Simple Majority Calculation<\/em><\/p>\n Decision; Article 48\/5 of the Regulation: Without clarifying the concept of \u201cthe total number of members\u201d here, the calculation does not produce legal certainty.<\/p>\n This title was rejected on the grounds of \u201cno complete illegality\u201d without going into the merits.<\/p>\n \u00c7ankaya 4th District Electoral Board's rejection decision;<\/p>\n - The CHP's delegate suspension list, which shows those who will vote, was suspended on September 14-15-16, 2025 as 1309 delegates; In the meantime; while it was publicly announced by the Party officials that more than 1000 delegates gave notarized signatures, it was understood that the Election Board was informed that 662 Assembly delegates had notarized signatures.<\/p>\n 4 - Court Practice and Vote of No Confidence<\/em><\/p>\n 22nd Extraordinary Assembly: III. SCOTUS DECISIONS (15.04.2025-2025\/145 and 30.09.2025 - 2025\/348)<\/strong><\/p>\n The SBE rejected the applications for complete illegality. Here, the main focus is on the rejection decision dated 30.09.2025 and numbered 2025\/348. IV. APPLICATION FOR ACCESS TO INFORMATION NUMBERED 4982<\/strong><\/p>\n My request for information-documentation from \u00c7ankaya 4th District Election Board dated 24.09.2025, which was the basis for the rejection of my objection, was rejected with the letter dated 25.09.2025 and numbered E-62694966-805.02.05-393375. V. ISTANBUL PROVINCE CONGRESS, COURT ORDER and YSK DECISIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n There is an injunction against the CHP Istanbul Provincial Administration issued by the Istanbul 45th Civil Court of First Instance dated 02.09.2025 and numbered 2025\/254 E. In the court letters, it was stated that unless the injunction is lifted or modified by the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals, holding the congress elections would be in violation of the court order and the work should be stopped. The issue at stake here is not a \u201cpolitical preference\u201d but the intersection of two constitutional jurisdictions: Article 79 of the Constitution gives the SBE the duty to ensure the integrity of elections. However, according to Article 138 of the same Constitution, the legislative and executive bodies and the administration are obliged to obey court decisions. The legal debate in this case is as follows: CONCLUSION<\/strong><\/p>\n Ben; The decisions of \u00c7ankaya 4th District Electoral Board (09.04.2025 - 2025\/29 and 23.09.2025 - 2025\/71) and the decisions of YSK numbered 15.04.2025 - 2025\/145 and 30.09.2025 - 2025\/348 did not evaluate my allegations of complete illegality by going into the merits and providing justifications for each title.<\/p>\n The SBE's decisions regarding the Istanbul Provincial Congresses, on the other hand, did not clearly and in detail reveal the constitutional relationship between the injunctions issued by the court and in force, and the savings regarding the continuation of the electoral process; this situation has led to a serious debate on how to interpret the hierarchical and functional relationship between the norms. The problem that arises at the intersection of these two norms is not a question of \u201cwhich institution is superior\u201d, but how to interpret the constitutional limits of authority together. If there is an allegation of complete illegality, the answer should be \u201cno reason\u201d.<\/strong> The rule of law survives not by suppressing questions, but by answering them with reason. If an allegation of complete illegality is raised, it should be answered \u201cno reason why not\u201d. If the court measure does not affect the electoral process, the constitutional basis for this should be clearly demonstrated.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":21,"featured_media":282806,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[286],"tags":[15,289],"class_list":{"0":"post-282805","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-yazarlar","8":"tag-chp","9":"tag-manset"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282805","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=282805"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282805\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":282807,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282805\/revisions\/282807"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/282806"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=282805"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=282805"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/halkweb.com.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=282805"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nHowever; the systematic of the CHP Bylaws makes a clear distinction:
\nThe General President may call for an extraordinary congress.
\nThe Party Assembly is authorized to determine the place, day, time and agenda of the congress.
\nThis distinction was ignored; the place-day-agenda was set without a Party Assembly decision.
\nAn extraordinary congress is an \u201cearly congress\u201d, not a \u201ccongress suspending the rules\u201d.
\nThis is the first basis for my claim of complete illegality.<\/p>\n
\nInstead of discussing my substantive legal claims, the grounds for rejection were based on a formal evaluation.
\nHowever, my application was not only an \u201cobjection\u201d but also an application for complete illegality.<\/p>\n
\nFor hours, they were not even allowed into the garden of the Naz\u0131m Hikmet Cultural Center, where the 21st Extraordinary Assembly was held,
\nDe facto denial of access to delegates,
\nDistribution of \u201cattendant cards\u201d to some people, so that those without these cards cannot access the Assembly hall,
\nCompressing nomination applications to a tight deadline,
\n30-minute nomination signature period,
\nNo opportunity to speak except for the Chairman,
\npractices such as this have been experienced.
\nArticle 16\/5 of the CHP Assembly Regulation requires the nomination period to be set in hours and to be reasonable. 30 minutes cannot be considered reasonable under de facto access restrictions.
\nThis situation:
\nArticle 67 of the Constitution (right to be elected),
\nArticle 10 of the Constitution (equality),
\nPrinciple of internal party democracy
\nIt is gravely disabling.<\/p>\n
\nThe fact that the delegates were not aware of this technical provision, that all unmarked and marked votes were considered as support votes, and that the perception of a high voting rate was created, made the healthy reflection of the delegates' will questionable.<\/p>\n
\nI am also about this convention:
\nI appealed to the \u00c7ankaya 4th District Election Board.
\nI filed an application for complete illegality with the SBE.<\/p>\n
\nThere are two noteworthy points in the decision:
\n(A) Wrong Norm Basis
\nThe decision referred to Article 43 of the CHP Statute. However, the concrete case is not an extraordinary congress, but an extraordinary assembly, and the provision to be applied is Article 48 of the Bylaws.
\nThe misapplication of a norm is not a simple mistake; it is a jurisdictional and procedural infirmity.
\n(B) Same Judge Issue
\nThe judge overseeing the congress election process is the same person as the President of \u00c7ankaya 4th District Election Board and the judge who examined the objection.
\nThis undermines the principle of objective impartiality. Visible impartiality is essential in electoral law.<\/p>\n
\n1\/5 signatures must be collected within 15 days,
\nWithin 7 days after the end of the 15th day, it must be delivered to the General Presidency.
\nConsidering the dates of the collection of signatures and the application (04.09-05.09.2025), it is a matter of serious debate whether this deadline mechanism has actually been met.
\nThis issue cannot be passed over without going into the merits.<\/p>\n
\nSuspense list 1309,
\nThe number of finalized delegates is 1127,
\nNumber of notarized signatures 662
\nis stated to be.
\nHowever, the Party's total number of delegates at the 38th Congress was 1368.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cIf the number of the members of the congress requesting an extraordinary convention constitutes the absolute majority of the total number of members, a vote of confidence and an election item may be added to the agenda.\u201d <\/em>is in the form of.<\/p>\n
\n- The number of delegates to vote in the 22nd Extraordinary Congress was finalized as 1127 delegates by the \u00c7ankaya 4th District Election Board Presidency after the objections to the delegate suspension list showing those who will vote were resolved;
\n- It was stated that the CHP Central Executive Board convened on September 05, 2025 under the chairmanship of Chairman \u00d6zg\u00fcr \u00d6zel and evaluated the notarized 22nd Extraordinary Congress application of 662 congress delegates with a single and common agenda and it was seen that the necessary permission was granted by the Central Executive Board in accordance with the relevant provisions of the CHP Statute; and it was stated that it was necessary to decide to reject my request regarding my claims.<\/p>\n
\nThere was no separate vote of confidence\/no confidence,
\nThe process continued despite the result of mistrust,
\nRe-nomination without discharging the organs,
\nI have raised these allegations as grounds for complete illegality.
\nThere is no detailed justification for these headings in the SBE decision.<\/p>\n
\nIn the decision in question:
\nThe finality of the decision of the district election board was emphasized,
\nNo single justification has been established for the four main headings of my allegations of complete illegality.
\nThe allegation of complete illegality is glossed over with the sentence \u201cthe objection is closed\u201d and \u201cthe grounds for objection do not include complete illegality\u201d.
\nArticle 79 of the Constitution imposes a duty of supervision, and supervision requires the establishment of a justification.<\/p>\n
\nReason: The decision of the SBE dated 03.07.2020 and numbered 2020\/320 was cited. However, this decision did not impose an absolute ban; it limited unauthorized sharing.
\nIn my \u201ccomplete illegality\u201d application to the SBE, this issue was mentioned and it was requested that the \u00c7ankaya District 4th Election Board did not provide the information and documents based on the rejection process, citing the SBE's decision dated 03.07.2020 and numbered 2020\/320; that I need to access these documents in order to apply for \u201ccomplete illegality\u201d, and that the examination will be carried out after I submit an additional petition after these documents are given to me.
\nIf access to information is blocked in a \u201crule of law\u201d:
\nThe right to effective remedy is paralyzed,
\nThe claim of complete illegality cannot be substantiated,
\nThe right to defense is weakened.
\nThis is a serious problem in the context of Article 36 and Article 40 of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the SBE rejected my application without any consideration of this point in my application.
\nAn annulment lawsuit was filed at Ankara 14th Administrative Court for the cancellation of the \u00c7ankaya 4th District Election Board's rejection of my request for information-documents within the context of Law No. 4982, which was notified with the letter dated 24.09.2025 and numbered E-62694966-805.02.05-393375.<\/p>\n
\nThe court, after this injunction;
\nOn 24.09.2025, prior to the CHP Istanbul Extraordinary Provincial Congress, he wrote to the Istanbul Governorship and Sar\u0131yer District Election Board,
\nOn 19.10.2025, before the CHP Istanbul Extraordinary Provincial Congress held on 19.10.2025, again to the relevant authorities,
\nThe court explicitly declared that the Extraordinary Congress of the CHP Istanbul Provincial Presidency and the Ordinary Provincial Congress held on 19.10.2025 should be suspended on the grounds that they were in violation of the court decision.<\/p>\n
\nOn the other hand, in its decisions dated 24.09.2025 and 18.10.2025, the SBE ruled that a congress process that had already started could not be stopped by the district election boards in accordance with Article 79 of the Constitution and the legislation on election law; the election process should continue.<\/p>\n
\nOn the one hand, there is an injunction issued by the court and in force; on the other, there is the evaluation of the electoral process by the SBE, which has the overall management and supervision of the elections.<\/p>\n
\nHow should the decision to continue the election process be interpreted in terms of the limits of constitutional authority when there is an injunction issued by the court that has not been lifted?<\/p>\n
\n- I filed an objection to the 21st Extraordinary Assembly and an application for complete illegality.
\n- I filed an objection to the 22nd Extraordinary Assembly and an application for complete illegality.
\n- Under Law No. 4982 on the Right to Information, I made a request for information and filed a lawsuit for annulment upon its rejection.<\/p>\n
\nArticle 79 of the Constitution gives the SBE the duty to ensure and supervise the integrity of elections.
\nHowever, within the same constitutional system, there is an obligation to comply with court decisions under Article 138.<\/p>\n
\nFinality is not a substitute for reasoning. Finality is a characteristic of decisions with legally compliant and reviewable reasoning.<\/p>\n
\nIf the court measure does not affect the electoral process, the constitutional basis for this should be clearly demonstrated.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nThis process, which emerged in the context of the CHP's 21st and 22nd Extraordinary Congresses and the Istanbul Provincial Ordinary and Extraordinary Congresses, is not just an internal political party debate; it is a legal issue that requires a rethinking of the constitutional limits of electoral law and the scope of judicial review.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"