Justice Ministry accuses HSYK of overstepping authority in harsh statement

The statement came in response to a recent claim by some HSYK members that the ministry leaked information to the press about the course of deliberations over the appointment list.

“Some HSYK members violated the principle of confidentiality of an ongoing judicial case in İstanbul and enabled the board to reverse a decision regarding this case for the sake of law. However, the authority to reverse a decision for the sake of law belongs to the Justice Ministry in accordance with Article 309 of the Code on Criminal Procedure [CMK]. The HSYK has no constitutional authority or duty to reverse a decision,” noted the statement.

The Justice Ministry stated that the HSYK overstepped its authority with this move.

The Justice Ministry and the HSYK were in a stalemate for the past few weeks due to the latter's desire to replace high-profile judges and prosecutors. Justice Minister Sadullah Ergin was strongly opposed to such a move, charging that it would deal a serious blow to investigations into illegal groups in the country.

The idea of replacing senior judges and prosecutors came from HSYK member Ali Suat Ertosun, who has suspected links to some of the suspects standing trial in the case of Ergenekon, a terrorist network accused of plotting to overthrow the government.

In its statement, the Justice Ministry said it had not intervened in the formation of the HSYK appointment list.

“It is the Justice Ministry which is responsible for the preparation of a draft appointment list. The duty to examine the draft, however, falls on the shoulders of the board. … The HSYK examined the ministry's draft list and made its final decision by making necessary changes to it. The Justice Ministry did not pressure the board to approve the list with no changes,” stressed the ministry. 

The ministry underlined that the HSYK is an administrative body which has no judicial responsibilities. “It is judicial bodies which are responsible for monitoring the activities of judges, prosecutors and courts. Therefore, neither the HSYK nor the Justice Ministry has any opportunity to intervene in the judiciary,” read the statement.

The Justice Ministry also made clear the source of the deadlock in its deliberations with the HSYK over the new positions of senior judges and prosecutors. According to the ministry, the judges and prosecutors which the board proposed to replace neither underwent an investigation with regard to the probes they conducted nor were they subjected to disciplinary punishment. The judges and prosecutors did not complete their seven years in office and had no demand for replacement.

“As such replacement would mean interference in the judiciary, the Justice Ministry was opposed to deliberation on those proposals. This is the reason why the deliberations lasted longer than usual. Other than this, the ministry had no demand that could result in a delay in the release of the appointment list,” the ministry underlined.

The ministry also reiterated its determination to stand up against any act that could stain the impartiality of the judiciary or cast a shadow on the independence of judges and prosecutors.

“All claims forwarded to our ministry are meticulously investigated and necessary steps are taken as a result of them. … Article 138 of our Constitution stipulates that judges shall be independent in the discharge of their duties; no organ, authority, body or individual may give orders to courts or judges relating to the exercise of judicial power, send them circulars or make recommendations or suggestions. This article applies to the HSYK as well as our ministry. A proposal to replace judges and prosecutors, who are supposed to be fulfilling their duties independently, due to decisions they have made during the investigations they conduct is an open violation of the guarantee for judges and prosecutors and the principle of independence of courts,” read the statement. 

Investigation begins into rulings by Sincan judge

Inspectors started to examine a number of past rulings by Osman Kaçmaz, a judge at Sincan's 1st High Criminal Court, on Wednesday.

Kaçmaz is best known for his controversial ruling against President Abdullah Gül. He ruled in May that Gül should stand trial in a decade-old fraud case. His ruling came in open violation of the Constitution, which stipulates that presidents cannot be put on trial except for treason.

In a statement by the Justice Ministry, it was stressed that the ministry had decided to inspect the rulings by Kaçmaz long before his decision on the president.

“The decision for an investigation into Kaçmaz was made before the judge's decision on President Gül. Contrary to common belief, the investigation has nothing to do with current developments,” read the statement.

Speaking to reporters, Kaçmaz said he did not know much about the investigation. “The investigation is still under way. It is not a regular investigation. I am on leave now. Thus, I am not aware of the full scope of it. There are three inspectors assigned with the duty at the moment,” he noted.