Will the Istanbul court's decision affect the Congress case? CHP lawyer explains

The Istanbul 45th Civil Court of First Instance ruled to remove CHP Istanbul Provincial Chairman Özgür Çelik and his board of directors. Former CHP Istanbul Deputy Gürsel Tekin was appointed as a trustee. CHP attorney Çağlar Çağlayan commented on the court's injunction against the CHP Istanbul Provincial Congress.

Speaking to Nefes Newspaper, Çağlar Çağlayan answered the question of whether this decision from Istanbul will affect the decision to be made in the lawsuit filed regarding the cancellation of the CHP's 38th Ordinary Congress, which will be held on September 15.

Çağlar Çağlayan stated the following in his response:

“IF THERE IS ANY FRAGMENT OF LAW, SUCH A DECISION CANNOT BE MADE FROM THE CASE IN ANKARA”

"It doesn't directly affect the case legally. There's nothing preventing the case from being dismissed. It doesn't affect the legal logic either. There's no legal basis for saying, 'If such a decision has been issued here, then a precautionary measure must be issued in the other case as well.' When such a decision comes out of Istanbul, what the politicized judiciary decides is up to their legal knowledge and conscience, but if there's even a shred of law left in the country, such a decision can't be issued in the case in Ankara."

Çağlayan evaluated the court's injunction decision as follows:

“THE MEASURE WAS REJECTED IN 9 CASES, THIS IS THE 10TH CASE”

"The Code of Civil Procedure contains lengthy descriptions of the circumstances under which measures will be granted and why. There are hundreds of Supreme Court decisions that state, 'Measures cannot be granted on matters that will be resolved at the end of the case.'"

In these six and a half months, nine lawsuits seeking injunctions to cancel the congress and the Istanbul Provincial Congress were filed. In all nine cases, the injunctions were rejected. This is the 10th lawsuit. A measure rejected in nine cases has now been granted without justification.

The judge concluded that there was sufficient evidence after evaluating the evidence, but he didn't specify which evidence he considered sufficient. To reach a decision in this case, the plaintiff must be right. He provided no justification to demonstrate his rightness. The judge merely granted what was requested as a precaution. There's no point in continuing the case at this point.

“AN OPERATIONAL DECISION”

It's halting a political party's congressional process and political function. If the court doesn't put a stop to this, it could decide tomorrow or the next day that the opposition political party shouldn't speak out against the president. This has happened in this country as well. This decision has been made, paving the way for absurd decisions along these lines. They've made an operational decision without the legal requirements of what's called a precaution.

Çağlayan spoke as follows regarding the injunction in the case filed by plaintiff Özlem E.:

“THE PERSON WHO FILED THE PREVIOUS LAWSUIT IS THE LAWYER OF THE PERSON WHO FILED THIS LAWSUIT.”

"The people filing similar lawsuits are either the same person or similar individuals. The person who filed the previous lawsuit is the attorney for the person filing this one. Everyone filing lawsuits in Ankara is filing with the same attorney. The reason they keep filing lawsuits is this.

Each time, each case ends up in a different court. They understand the judge's perspective in the previous court. If they couldn't get a decision there, they get it from another court. They say, "I couldn't get a decision there, let me try here."

We filed a response with this court and informed the court that the injunction order in those nine cases had been rejected. Despite knowing this, the court granted the injunction."

Source: Nefes Newspaper