Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi / 2009 / Cilt: 58 - Sayı: 4

The immunity of the members of parliament and the dissolution of political parties

Milletvekillerinin yasama sorumsuzluğunun siyasal parti kapatma davalarına etkisi

Pages
711–735
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this essay, it shall be assessed whether a political party which has MPs in the Turkish National Assembly and subject to a closure case can be dissolved because of the words and deeds of the MPs belong to that political party.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In the political party closure cases, words and deeds of the members of the parliament (MPs) are taken into consideration when deciding whether a political party has become a center for the conduct of unconstitutional activities.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Whether they are expressed or performed in the workings of Turkish National Assembly or not is not important because the Constitutional Court holds that all words and deeds of the members of the parliament, within the parliament or outside of it, should be taken into consideration when considering a political party closure case.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this essay, it shall be assessed whether a political party which has MPs in the Turkish National Assembly and subject to a closure case can be dissolved because of the words and deeds of the MPs belong to that political party.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In the political party closure cases, words and deeds of the members of the parliament (MPs) are taken into consideration when deciding whether a political party has become a center for the conduct of unconstitutional activities. Whether they are expressed or performed in the workings of Turkish National Assembly or not is not important because the Constitutional Court holds that all words and deeds of the members of the parliament, within the parliament or outside of it, should be taken into consideration when considering a political party closure case. This means that parliamentary immunity cannot provide protection as far as the political party itself is concerned. In this essay, it shall be assessed whether a political party which has MPs in the Turkish National Assembly and subject to a closure case can be dissolved because of the words and deeds of the MPs belong to that political party.

Özet

Siyasal parti kapatma davalarında, partilerin Anayasa’ya aykırı fiillerin odağı olup olmadığı değerlendirilirken, milletvekillerinin söz ve eylemleri de dikkate alınmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, parti kapatmaya esas alınan söz ve eylemlerin, TBMM çalışmaları sırasında olup olmamasının bir önemi bulunmamaktadır. Çünkü, Anayasa Mahkemesi, siyasal partinin Anayasa’ya aykırı fiillerin odağı olmasını değerlendirirken, milletvekillerinin TBMM içindeki ve dışındaki söz ve eylemlerinin tümünün değerlendirilmesi gerektiği görüşündedir. Bu durum, milletvekili yasama sorumsuzluğunun, siyasal partilerin kapatılması söz konusu olduğunda, siyasal parti bakımından bir koruma getiremeyeceği sonucuna yol açmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, TBMM’de milletvekili bulunan ve hakkında kapatma davası açılan siyasal partilerden yola çıkılarak, milletvekili yasama sorumsuzluğu kapsamındaki söz ve fiillerden dolayı bir tüzel kişilik olan siyasal partinin kapatılıp kapatılamayacağı üzerinde durulmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYDIN, M. (2009). The immunity of the members of parliament and the dissolution of political parties. Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 58 - Sayı: 4, 711–735. https://ajindex.com/articles/355128

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. ARSLAN, Zühtü: Anayasa Teorisi, Seçkin Yayınları, Ankara 2005.
  2. ARSLAN, Zühtü: “Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi ve Türk Anayasa Yargısı: Uyum Sorunu ve Öneriler”, Anayasa Yargısı, 2000, C.17, s.274-293.
  3. BULUT, Nihat: “Siyasal Parti Yasakları ve Son Anayasa Değişiklikleri Çerçevesinde Odaklaşma Olgusunun Kriterleri”, Ergun Önen Armağanı, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayını, 2003, s.535-562. CASE OF UNITED COMMUNIST PARTY OF TURKEY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (30.01.1998), _____http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/ tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=tbk p&sessionid=17414041&skin=hudoc-en >, (22.12.2008). CASE OF SOCIALIST PARTY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (25.05.1998), _____http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=2 &portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=tbkp&sessionid=17414041 &skin=hudoc-en >, (22.12.2008). CASE OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY PARTY (ÖZDEP) v. TURKEY (08.12.1999), _____http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/ view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=ozdep&se ssionid=17414041&skin=hudoc-en >, (22.12.2008).
  4. CASE OF YAZAR, KARATAS, AKSOY AND THE PEOPLE'S LABOUR PARTY (HEP) v. TURKEY (09.04.2002)_____http://cmiskp. echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&h ighlight=CASE%20%7C%20OF%20%7C%20YAZAR%2C%20%7 C%20KARATAS%2C%20%7C%20AKSOY&sessionid=17414156 &skin=hudoc-en >, (22.12.2008). CASE OF DICLE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY (DEP) OF TURKEY v. TURKEY (10.12.2002), _____http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/ tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=C ASE%20%7C%20OF%20%7C%20DICLE%20%7C%20FOR%20 %7C%20THE%20%7C%20DEMOCRATIC%20%7C%20PARTY %20%7C%2025141/94&sessionid=17414232&skin=hudoc-en> (22.12.2008). CASE OF SOCIALIST PARTY OF TURKEY (STP) AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (12.11.2003), _____ http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view. asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=CASE%20%7C %20OF%20%7C%20SOCIALIST%20%7C%20PARTY%20%7C% 20TURKEY%20%7C%2026482/95&sessionid=17414284&skin=hu doc-en >, (22.12.2008). CASE OF REFAH PARTISI (THE WELFARE PARTY) AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (31.07.2001), _____ http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view. asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=refah%20%7C %20party&sessionid=17414354&skin=hudoc-en> (22.12.2008). CASE OF REFAH PARTISI (THE WELFARE PARTY) AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (GARND CHAMBER)(13.02.2003)_____http://cmiskp. echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=2&portal=hbkm&action=html&h ighlight=refah%20%7C%20party&sessionid=17414354&skin=hudo c-en>(22.12.2008). CASE OF FAZILET PARTISI AND KUTAN v. TURKEY (27.04.2