Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Constitution:&nbsp;The Unpredictable Interpretation and Application of Anti-Terror Legislation,</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Individual Freedom: A Blockade on Civil Society and Journalists: The "Foreign Agent" Regulation,</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: Private Hospitals and "Profit Motive".</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

We monitor the ongoings of Turkiye in the fields of the rule of law, economics, civil society, and politics.

The Freedom Observer

The Unpredictable Interpretation and Application of Anti-Terror Legislation, Private Hospitals and "Profit Motive", A Blockade on Civil Society and Journalists: The "Foreign Agent" Regulation. 

"Foreign Agent" Law Blocks Civil Society

Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Constitution:&nbsp;Açık Radio Shut Down,</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Individual Freedom: Geopolitical Risks as an Excuse, Tax Burden as the Reality,</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: What Does the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics Tell Us?</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

Geopolitical Risks as an Excuse, Tax Burden as the Reality, What Does the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics Tell Us?, Açık Radio Shut Down.

Açık Radio Shut Down

Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Constitution:&nbsp;Does Turkish Society Demand the Rule of Law?</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Sinan Ateş Case: Verdict Announced in Sinan Ateş Case,</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: Mehmet Şimşek's Intervention in Cash Preferences.</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

Verdict Announced in Sinan Ateş Case, Mehmet Şimşek's Intervention in Cash Preferences, Does Turkish Society Demand the Rule of Law?

Does Turkish Society Demand the Rule of Law?

Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Constitution:&nbsp;The Constitutional Court's Latest Can Atalay Decision</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Legislative: Normalization of Violence in the Parliament</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: Debate on Exchange Rate Intervention&nbsp;</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

The Constitutional Court's Latest Can Atalay Decision, Debate on Exchange Rate Intervention, Normalization of Violence in the Parliament.

Normalization of Violence in the Parliament

Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Individual Freedoms:&nbsp;Instagram Ban</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Local Administrations: Foreclosures Against Opposition Municipalities</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: Black Monday and the Problem of Market Bailouts</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

Foreclosures Against Opposition Municipalities, Black Monday and the Problem of Market Bailouts, Instagram Ban.

Instagram Ban

Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Constitution:&nbsp;What is the Purpose of the Amendment to the Animal Protection Law?</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Local Administrations: Erdoğan Opens a New Front Against CHP Municipalities: SGK Debts</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: Public Intervention in Currency and Its Results</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

Erdoğan Opens a New Front Against CHP Municipalities: SGK Debts, Public Intervention in Currency and Its Results, Purpose of the Animal Protection Law Amendment. 

Purpose of the Animal Protection Law Amendment

Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Constitution:&nbsp;What Does the 9th Judicial Package Bring?</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Law: The Sinan Ateş Trial Has Started</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: The TURKSTAT Problem is Growing</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

The Sinan Ateş Trial Has Started, The TURKSTAT Problem is Growing, What Does the 9th Judicial Package Bring?

What Does the 9th Judicial Package Bring?

Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Constitution:&nbsp;Constitutional Court's Annulments on the Change of the Government System</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Civil Liberties: Plans to Raise Exit Fees Abroad</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: What Does ISO 500 Tell Us?</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

Constitutional Court's Annulments on the Change of the Government System, Plans to Raise Exit Fees Abroad, What Does ISO 500 Tell Us?

Plans to Raise Exit Fees Abroad

Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Constitution:&nbsp;Post-July 15 Trials</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Football in Turkey: The Political Face of Football in Turkey</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Economy: High Inflation is Fueling the Debate on Exorbitant Prices</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

Post-July 15 Trials, High Inflation is Fueling the Debate on Exorbitant Prices, The Political Face of Football in Turkey.

The Political Face of Football in Turkey

Greetings from the latest issue of The Freedom Observer,Here's what we've monitored for you this week:<ul fr-original-style="" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Local Governments:&nbsp;Government Rehearses Trustee in Van</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Constitution: Constitutional Court Annuls Some Provisions of the Law Targeting Civil Society</li><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Trade with Israel: Trade with Israel and Freedom of the Press.</li></ul>We wish you a pleasant reading,

Government Rehearses Trustee in Van, Constitutional Court Annuls Some Provisions of the Law Targeting Civil Society, Trade with Israel and Freedom of the Press.

Trade with Israel and Freedom of the Press

Politika hakkında yayımlanan makaleler ve yayınlar

Politika

Sosyal farkındalık hakkında yayımlanan makaleler ve yayınlar

Sosyal Farkındalık

Ekonomi hakkında yayımlanmış makalaler ve yayınlar

Ekonomi

The unpredictable and arbitrary broad interpretation of anti-terror legislation in Turkey has become a structural issue. This situation, which also points to problems related to judicial independence, reveals a deficiency in the rule of law. As a result, anyone who expresses views displeasing to those in power—including opposition politicians, civil society workers, journalists, academics, and human rights defenders—can be subjected to investigation, prosecution, arrest, and conviction based on vague terrorism charges. This leads to the unlawful restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms, particularly freedom of expression and association.Over the past decade, numerous independent observers have written countless reports on the unpredictable interpretation of anti-terror legislation, and international organizations have repeatedly warned Turkish authorities on this matter. However, it is difficult to say that any positive developments have occurred. In 2016, the Venice Commission produced a report on certain articles of the Turkish Penal Code, finding that these articles were applied in an overly broad and unpredictable manner, violating the rights safeguarded by the European Convention on Human Rights. The Commission issued warnings that these provisions should be amended and applied in a manner consistent with the principles of the Convention.[1] Over the past decade, the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioners have also published numerous country reports and memoranda on Turkey, highlighting arbitrary applications of anti-terror legislation and offering warnings and recommendations to Turkish authorities.[2]The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has also issued rulings on several articles of the Turkish Penal Code, including Article 125/3[3] on insulting a public official due to their duties, Article 220/6[4] on committing a crime on behalf of an organization without being a member, Article 220/7[5] on aiding an organization, Article 299[6] on insulting the President, Article 301[7] on insulting the Turkish nation and state institutions, and Article 314[8] On membership in a terrorist organization. These rulings determined that these provisions were interpreted in an unpredictable manner, and actions intended to exercise rights protected by the Convention were criminalized. The Committee of Ministers, which oversees the implementation of ECHR judgments, periodically monitors whether the general measures required by these rulings have been adopted by Turkish authorities. To date, no general measures have been deemed implemented for any of these judgments, nor have they been removed from the monitoring process.On October 22, 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Article 314 of the Turkish Penal Code had been applied in an unpredictable manner, leading to the arrest of a politician on charges of membership in a terrorist organization due to their political speeches. The Court found that this application violated both Article 10 of the Convention, which guarantees freedom of expression, and Article 5, which guarantees the right to liberty and security of person.[9]The applicant, who is the co-chair of the Democratic Regions Party, was investigated on charges of membership in a terrorist organization due to speeches made at various political meetings and statements given to the press. The applicant was detained on May 12, 2016, subsequently arrested, and later convicted at the end of the trial. The application in question pertains to an appeal based on the detention. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) noted that all charges against the applicant were related to political speeches, which included severe criticism of the government and law enforcement but did not praise or incite violence, nor did they contain hate speech. The Court considered that these criticisms fell within the limits of freedom of expression. It also pointed out that there was no concrete evidence in the case file to suggest that the applicant acted in line with the instructions of a terrorist organization and that the detention orders were not based on such evidence. The ECHR concluded that the legislation was interpreted in an arbitrary and unpredictable manner.In this ruling, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) specifically references findings by both the Venice Commission and the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, highlighting that Turkish judiciary systematically applies anti-terror legislation without considering the principles of the Convention. The ECHR’s determination that this issue is structural and systemic is likely to have significant future implications. Recent developments further confirm the validity of this assessment. A return to the rule of law in Turkey is achievable only if the judiciary aligns with universal standards and ceases to be instrumentalized.

A return to the rule of law in Turkey is achievable only if the judiciary aligns with universal standards and ceases to be instrumentalized.

Unpredictable Use of Anti-Terror Laws

The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has introduced a proposal to amend the Turkish Penal Code by incorporating the concept of “foreign agent activity.” This proposal has passed through the Parliamentary Justice Committee. Presented as part of an omnibus bill, the amendment stipulates that individuals committing offenses “against state security or internal or external political interests, in line with the strategic objectives or directives of a foreign state or organization,” would face imprisonment ranging from 3 to 7 years. If such acts are committed during wartime or in situations that could jeopardize military operations, the sentence increases to between 8 and 12 years. While the bill is expected to be discussed in the General Assembly of the Turkish Grand National Assembly in the coming days, it has not garnered the attention it warrants amid the current busy agenda.Before assessing the threats this bill poses to rights and freedoms, it is necessary to discuss the public relations method employed by the ruling AK Party in implementing its illiberal policies. The government and pro-government media[10] Are attempting to legitimize this legal provision by claiming that similar examples exist in the West. In reality, the government has previously employed this “Western-referenced legitimization” strategy—created in a highly selective and manipulative manner—in various areas, such as animal rights laws, alcohol sales restrictions, and similar issues.However, this approach overlooks some key differences between Western practices and Turkey’s proposal. In liberal democratic countries, laws are typically enacted to promote transparency, democratic accountability, and public access to information. In contrast, Turkey’s “foreign agent” bill is primarily aimed at silencing voices critical of the government. For example, the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) requires certain organizations, under specific circumstances, to disclose funds and activities received from foreign countries, thereby enabling the public to be informed about lobbying activities.It is also worth noting an important detail highlighted by the Venice Commission: under FARA, merely receiving funds from foreign sources does not require an organization to register under the law. Registration is only mandatory if an individual or organization operates directly under the instruction and control of a foreign principal—that is, if they act on behalf of or at the direction of a foreign entity. Therefore, the law is not specifically aimed at targeting civil society organizations or media representatives; it applies to any commercial or nonprofit entity or individual acting as a lawful agent on behalf of a foreign principal. In other words, this regulation in the U.S. requires a very high level of control between the foreign principal and the agent.[11] Similar directives within the European Union also focus on transparency, aiming to ensure that these activities are conducted transparently within the democratic system through publicly accessible databases.In other words, this regulation in the U.S. requires a very high level of control between the foreign principal and the agent. Similar directives within the European Union also focus specifically on transparency, aiming to ensure that these activities are conducted transparently within the democratic system through publicly accessible databases.In Turkey, this regulation does not introduce a registration system. Civil society organizations in Turkey already have their funding recorded within the legal system. What this regulation effectively does is create a new offense and allow for its broad interpretation. Therefore, comparing this regulation with Western examples is misleading in terms of both content and purpose. In this respect, it would be more accurate to compare this regulation not with those in Western countries but rather with laws such as Russia’s “foreign agent law,” which are enacted to suppress individuals and activities that displease the government.In May 2024, despite widespread protests, Georgia enacted the “Foreign Influence Law,” which closely resembles the proposed legislation in Turkey. Critics dubbed this law the “Russian Law” because it mandates that organizations receiving more than 20% of their funding from abroad register as “foreign influence agents.” The Venice Commission also highlighted that the law’s broad and ambiguous language poses significant risks of human rights violations.[12]The most critical issue in Turkish regulation is the use of extremely vague terms like “the strategic interests of a foreign state or organization.” The accusation of acting in line with the strategic interests of a foreign state or organization is inherently difficult to prove but easy to allege. Moreover, in a country like Turkey, where definitions of national security and internal and external political interests constantly shift according to the government’s daily calculations, ambiguity and arbitrariness are inevitable. Given that we have witnessed many laws enacted in recent years being applied to suppress the opposition in line with the government’s political calculations, it is clear that this regulation also aims to impose a blockade on the opposition.The rationale for the proposal states that it aims to penalize activities that could harm the state’s interests in various areas, including “economic, financial, military, national defense, public health, public security, public order, technological, cultural, transportation, communication, cyber domain, critical infrastructure, and energy.” This broad scope could allow any form of critical journalism in Turkey to be potentially treated as a crime because it is against Turkey’s foreign interests and serves the interests of a foreign country. Furthermore, the rationale includes broad definitions such as “organizations not under judicial authority,” thereby potentially targeting independent media outlets, NGOs with international partners, and even academic circles.This regulation will have a wide-reaching impact on society; particularly, media organizations, civil society groups, and academics will be forced to practice self-censorship. Those with courageous voices will also face severe penalties. As a society, it is essential to closely monitor this issue, defend freedom of expression, and uphold the rule of law to protect democratic values.

This regulation will have a wide-reaching impact on society; particularly, media organizations, civil society groups, and academics will be forced to practice self-censorship. Those with courageous voices will also face severe penalties. As a society, it is essential to closely monitor this issue, defend freedom of expression, and uphold the rule of law to protect democratic values.

The recent “Newborn Gang” incident, which has shaken the Turkish public, has brought the issues of closing private hospitals and criticism of healthcare privatization to the forefront. Opponents of privatization argue that such a crucial and sensitive area as healthcare should not be left to market conditions, claiming that the profit motive leads private hospitals to endanger people’s health. Using the Newborn Gang as an example, they are calling for the nationalization of private hospitals. However, the severity of the incident complicates conducting a healthy debate, and seeking solutions in the direction of closing private hospitals reflects a highly problematic approach.Shortly before the discussion about closing private hospitals, access to the social media application Discord was blocked. The restriction on Discord was justified as a measure against malicious users, yet many who benefit from the application were adversely affected. In Turkey, issues are often “resolved” by focusing on negatives and imposing punishments on everyone involved. The call for the closure or nationalization of private hospitals is yet another example of this approach. Thanks to private hospitals, many people are able to spend less time dealing with health issues and can access services more promptly when needed. Treatments in these hospitals are often more personalized, service quality is higher, and patients have the option to choose their doctors. With the use of the latest technologies, more accurate and faster solutions are provided for many illnesses. All these factors lead people to prefer private hospitals, even if it means paying higher fees. While private hospitals are in such high demand, the fact that public hospitals are not preferred sends strong signals about the challenges in public healthcare services.One of the main factors underlying the advantages of private hospitals listed above is the profit motive (to a large extent). Just as pharmaceutical companies develop drugs for many treatments driven by profit rather than prioritizing societal benefit, here, too, the profit motive contributes to public benefit. However, when the pursuit of profit turns into “profit greed,” as in the case of the Newborn Gang, it can lead to highly risky situations, while the profit motive makes private hospitals beneficial; once this desire reaches the level of greed, it can endanger lives. This clearly shows that profit-driven motives must be regulated and controlLed. I believe the most challenging part of solving this problem lies in the issue of regulation.Private healthcare institutions are not unregulated. However, it is evident that these inspections are largely superficial. Since the regulatory bodies do not conduct inspections with an approach aimed at preventing the worst manifestations of profit greed, expecting meaningful outcomes from these inspections becomes pointless. Thus, a systemic issue is apparent here. The regulator and the regulated act are in alignment with mutual interests. Solving this problem is challenging without addressing the issue within the system itself. The problem cannot be entirely resolved, as there will always be a certain level of issues stemming from asymmetric information and the discretion of doctors. A comprehensive systemic solution cannot be achieved without ending the partnership between the government and private healthcare institutions. Once this partnership is dissolved, the problems created by private hospitals could be mitigated.One of these partial solutions is strengthening public and private oversight. With the rapidly increasing but properly modeled use of artificial intelligence in the healthcare sector, it becomes quite easy to detect many abnormal situations. For instance, an unusual rise in the number of infants in intensive care could be identified easily with artificial intelligence—or even without it. In addition, making hospitals more transparent and reporting on treatment quality would help those experiencing health issues make more informed choices when selecting private hospitals and doctors.To counter the trend of hospitals forming chains and moving away from competition, steps that support and encourage competition could help distribute risk, achieve fair pricing, and improve service quality. However, all these measures could only contribute to resolving the issue in an environment where there is no mutual interest collaboration between the government and private hospitals. The current situation is one where private hospitals appear to be regulated but, in reality, are not, with resources being channeled into them as much as possible. This appearance of regulation significantly hinders people from making informed choices and confronts us with the worst form of privatization. The outcome suggests that even liberals should view privatization with a more critical eye. * Dr. Caner Gerek<hr fr-original-style="" style="height: 0px; overflow: visible; border-bottom: none; clear: both; user-select: none; break-after: page; box-sizing: border-box;"> 1 Venedik Komisyonu, “Türk Ceza Kanununun 216, 299, 301 ve 314 Maddelerine İlişkin Görüş” 11-12 Mart 2016, İngilizce metne şuradan erişilebilir: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2016)002-e#2İfade ve Basın Özgürlüğü, İnsan Hakları Savunucuları ve Sivil Topluma ilişkin son Memorandum için bkz: https://rm.coe.int/memorandum-on-freedom-of-expression-and-of-the-media-human-rights-defe/1680aebf3d3Ömür Çağdaş Ersoy/Türkiye, no. 19165/19, 15.06.20214 Işıkırık/Türkiye, no. 41226/09, 14.11.20175 İmret/Türkiye (No. 2), no. 57316/10, 10.07.20186 Vedat Şorli/Türkiye, no. 42048/19, 19.10.2021&nbsp;7 Altuğ Taner Akçam/Türkiye, no. 27520/07, 25.10.20118 Selahattin Demirtaş/Türkiye (No. 2), [BD], no. 14305/17, 22.12.20209 Yüksek/Türkiye, no. 4/18, 22.10.2024, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-23743010https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/dunya/bati-basta-olmak-uzere-cok-sayida-ulkede-etki-ajanligiyla-mucadele-yasal-zemine-sahip/323499111 https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-PI(2024)013-e12https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-PI(2024)013-e

The current situation is one where private hospitals appear to be regulated but, in reality, are not, with resources being channeled into them as much as possible. This appearance of regulation significantly hinders people from making informed choices and confronts us with the worst form of privatization. The outcome suggests that even liberals should view privatization with a more critical eye.

Private Hospitals and "Profit Motive"

Founded by journalist and lawyer Ömer Madra, Açık Radio has been broadcasting since 1994 with the slogan, "Open to all the sounds, colors, and vibrations of the universe!" However, as of October 11, 2024, the station ceased broadcasting due to the cancellation of its terrestrial broadcast license by the Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTÜK).1The process leading to the revocation of the broadcast license stems from the April 24, 2024 broadcast of the “Açık Gazete” program, specifically during the “Nereye Doğru: Cengiz Aktar’la Geleceğe Bakışlar” segment. The claims are based on the use of the term “Armenian Genocide” in the context of the ban on activities commemorating the events of 1915. During the broadcast, journalist Cengiz Aktar (C.A.) engaged in the following dialogue:“… yes, the Armenian, that is, the deportation and massacres that occurred on Ottoman lands, massacres that are referred to as genocide, mark their 109th anniversary, the sene-i devriyesi. The commemoration has been banned again this year, as you know.”Ömer Madra: “We tried to touch on this a little earlier. In the opening, we mentioned some of the first bans.”C.A.: “Yes, it used to take place in Sultanahmet, Haydarpaşa, Taksim, and Kadıköy. Every year, it was held in different places. Initially, it was commemorated in Taksim, back in 2010.”Özdeş Özbay: “Yes, a commemoration.”C.A.: “Yes, but it’s no longer possible to hold it there. The Armenian Genocide commemoration... and yet the government still issues a condolence message, as you know, they did so again this year. It’s unclear what exactly they are doing, yes…”As a result of these statements, RTÜK launched an investigation into the program.The investigation was launched based on the allegation that the principles in Article 8, paragraph 1(b) of Law No. 6112 on the Establishment and Broadcasting Services of Radio and Television were violated. This provision states that “Broadcasting services cannot incite society to hatred and enmity or create feelings of hatred by discriminating on the basis of race, language, religion, gender, class, region, or sect.” On May 22, 2024, RTÜK ruled that this principle had been violated and imposed an administrative fine and a broadcast suspension on Açık Radyo. The ruling included a fine of approximately 190,000 TL and a five-day broadcast suspension, and it was electronically delivered to Açık Radyo.&nbsp;However, the section of the notification containing the broadcast suspension penalty could not be opened due to a technical issue, and by the time the document was accessed, the days on which the suspension was supposed to be implemented had already passed. Açık Radyo submitted a request to RTÜK regarding this issue, but on July 3, 2024, RTÜK decided to revoke the station’s broadcast license, citing non-compliance with the suspension decision under Article 32 of Law No. 6112. Nevertheless, because the administrative court had issued a stay of execution in the case against the penalty decision, this revocation decision was not officially communicated to Açık Radyo.On September 27, 2024, after receiving the response from the administration, the administrative court lifted the stay of execution and rejected the request for a suspension of enforcement. Following this decision, RTÜK officially notified Açık Radyo of the broadcast license revocation.&nbsp;It is important to note that, despite the high likelihood that the penalty would be annulled—given that the speech in question clearly falls under freedom of expression as established by ECtHR precedents—RTÜK’s decision to revoke the broadcast license without waiting for the court's final ruling can hardly be considered a good-faith action. Additionally, despite Açık Radyo stating that the failure to comply with the broadcast suspension was unintentional and due to a technical oversight, RTÜK revoked the terrestrial broadcast license the very next day after Açık Radyo made this notification, which also does not seem to align with a good-faith approach.Regarding criminal prosecutions related to the use of the term "Armenian Genocide," several appeals have been made to the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), both of which ruled that the use of this term should not be the subject of criminal charges. In the *Deniz Yücel* case, the Constitutional Court stated, "The applicant’s use of the phrase ‘genocide against Armenians’ relates to a topic that triggers heated debates not only in Turkey but also internationally.2 &nbsp;The mere use of such a phrase should not be subject to criminal charges." Similarly, in the *Taner Akçam* case, the ECtHR found that the investigations launched against the applicant for his writings and speeches on the "Armenian Genocide" constituted a violation of freedom of expression.3Despite these rulings, the revocation of Açık Radyo’s broadcasting license—a station that has been broadcasting for 30 years—solely because the term "Armenian Genocide" was mentioned in a radio program, clearly constitutes a violation of freedom of expression and amounts to censorship.

Despite these rulings, the revocation of Açık Radyo’s broadcasting license—a station that has been broadcasting for 30 years—solely because the term "Armenian Genocide" was mentioned in a radio program, clearly constitutes a violation of freedom of expression and amounts to censorship.

The AK Party has introduced a new bill that will impose additional financial burdens on citizens. According to the proposed 12-article bill, credit cardholders with a limit exceeding 100,000 TL will be required to pay an annual 750 TL defense industry contribution fee. Additionally, a registration fee of 3,000 TL for newly registered vehicles and 1,500 TL for second-hand vehicles is proposed. In real estate transactions, both the buyer and the seller will be charged a 750 TL contribution fee, while other cadastral and title deed transactions will incur a 375 TL fee. Moreover, additional taxes are planned for various products, including luxury items like wristwatches valued above 5,000 TL and non-military drones.The government is justifying this proposed bill by citing regional instability and Israel’s occupations. AK Party MP Hüseyin Altınsoy, who introduced the bill, stated, "As our country’s geopolitical position enhances its significance both regionally and globally, it also brings risks and threats. In this context, the development and strengthening of our defense industry have become not just a need but a necessity." 4&nbsp;He emphasized that supporting this fund is essential for national security. Treasury and Finance Minister Mehmet Şimşek added, "A steel dome will be built. An air defense system to protect the country will be established. These are expensive systems. The defense industry needs resources," indicating that, in effect, the public would need to contribute financially to build a stronger air defense system than Israel’s Iron Dome. In recent days, pro-government media outlets have also begun spreading unsubstantiated claims that Israel has entered Syria.5The proposed bill has sparked significant reactions from both politicians and the public. Many citizens took to social media, sharing that they had lowered their credit card limits to 99,000 TL to avoid the new fee. In response to the criticism, BBP leader Mustafa Destici attempted to justify the bill with a nationalistic tone, saying, "Give it, brother! If you don’t, your fate will be like Syria, Iraq, or Palestine. Our soldiers give their lives, our police shed their blood, security officers sacrifice their families; is 750 lira too much for you?" 6&nbsp; He used this rhetoric to defend the proposal and appeal to a sense of patriotism.This proposed law exposes the incompetence and desperation of the AK Party in many ways. Firstly, taxing debt—or more precisely, taxing an unused credit limit—is contrary to laws, logic, and reason. As economist Mahfi Eğilmez pointed out: "You cannot tax a credit card limit or even the credit used. Credit is debt. Taxes are collected from the creditor who provides the credit, not from the debtor. As we move away from science, we are entering a disastrous conceptual confusion." 7 &nbsp;Secondly, poor economic policies implemented in recent years have driven households into debt and toward credit card usage, and the government sees this public trend as an opportunity. In short, citizens are being squeezed by both poor economic management and these unreasonable policies. Ultimately, this proposal, which is claimed not to affect low-income groups, will impact tens of millions of people. According to data from the Risk Center of the Banks Association of Turkey, 49.2% of credit cards in Turkey have a limit exceeding 100,000 liras. 8 This data alone shows that a credit card limit of 100,000 liras is not an indicator of wealth but has become a tool that middle-income families use to finance their daily expenses and, often, to defer them.In other words, contrary to what is assumed, this measure will not only impact higher-income groups but also a broad segment of the population.It’s also important to note that while the government demonstrates "creativity" in generating additional resources, it is not taking meaningful steps to reduce public expenditures. Without implementing comprehensive reforms to improve public finances, asking the public to bear new taxes and fees—essentially focusing on increasing revenue without reducing expenses—is not a reasonable approach to resolving the economic crisis. Every economic actor is expected, and even pressured, to do their part in combating the crisis, yet the government turns a blind eye to its own responsibilities. If the government cannot rein in its own wasteful spending, expecting sacrifices from the public does not seem fair.Lastly, regarding the regional geopolitical risks, the threat from Israel, and the defense industry, which have been cited as justifications for these new financial obligations: There is no doubt that the importance of the defense industry cannot be overlooked, especially for a country like Turkey, surrounded by conflict. But we have to ask: Has the need for the "steel dome" that Şimşek claims is so expensive suddenly arisen today? How did our famously strategic state intelligence fail to foresee these regional risks? Why did we spend billions of dollars on S-400s, which we left unopened in storage, and in the process, exit the F-35 project?Indeed, Turkey needs an air defense system; it is one of the missing elements of our national security. However, it is unacceptable for a government that has wasted taxes collected from the public on reckless foreign policy moves and unnecessary defense projects to shift the financial burden onto the people again. If the defense industry truly requires such urgent and critical resources, the government must first control wasteful spending and manage public expenditures more efficiently. Before dipping into the already debt-ridden pockets of citizens, there should be a transparent and accountable fiscal policy in place that shows how public funds are being spent.*As this article was being written, it was announced that the proposed bill would be discussed after the New Year. The provision to collect contribution fees from credit cards, which dominated the discussion and sparked significant public backlash, overshadowed other aspects of the bill and forced the government to step back. Our expectation is that this proposal will likely resurface after the New Year, with the credit card provision—impacting tens of millions of people—removed and replaced by a few less controversial additions.

It’s also important to note that while the government demonstrates "creativity" in generating additional resources, it is not taking meaningful steps to reduce public expenditures. Without implementing comprehensive reforms to improve public finances, asking the public to bear new taxes and fees—essentially focusing on increasing revenue without reducing expenses—is not a reasonable approach to resolving the economic crisis.

Geopolitical Risks as an Excuse, Tax Burden as the Reality

The 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics (officially the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel) was awarded last Monday to Daron Acemoğlu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson. The fact that one of the recipients, Daron Acemoğlu, was born and raised in Turkey and completed his education up until university in the country, has drawn attention to his work and economic contributions in Turkey. Acemoğlu and his colleagues’ research offers valuable insights into the current situation in Turkey as well.Daron Acemoğlu and the two other laureates were awarded the prize for their work explaining the vast differences in prosperity between nations. Their research argues that these disparities are not primarily due to factors like geography, culture, or access to technology, but rather stem from differences in institutional structures. Acemoğlu and his colleagues aimed to explain the wealth disparities of today's world by exploring the past and examining the historical dynamics of societies. They focused on the impact of institutions, and the striking conclusion, as summarized by the Nobel Committee, is this: inclusive institutions were often implemented in countries that were poor when colonized, and over time, these institutions generally resulted in a prosperous population. This helps explain why formerly wealthy colonies are now impoverished, and vice versa.9The emphasis on the inclusiveness of institutions, as highlighted by the Nobel Committee, is crucial here. Acemoğlu and Robinson found that inclusive institutions promote economic growth, whereas extractive institutions, which hinder long-term prosperity, negatively impact overall well-being. Inclusive institutions refer to political and economic structures that promote broad societal participation, equality, and the rule of law. These institutions create opportunities for individuals to engage in economic activities, innovate, and accumulate wealth, ensuring that the majority of citizens have access to resources and political influence.&nbsp;In contrast, extractive institutions concentrate power and wealth among elites, stifling competition and limiting a country’s economic potential. Acemoğlu, Robinson, and Johnson compare inclusive institutions with extractive ones, which hinder innovation and growth by concentrating wealth and political power among elites. Their research demonstrates that inclusive institutions are critical for sustainable economic development, as they foster investment, technological advancement, and social mobility over time.When discussing the findings of Acemoğlu, Johnson, and Robinson, it’s important to highlight their 2001 paper published in the *American Economic Review* titled *The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation*. This paper laid the foundation for their influential books like *Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy*, *Why Nations Fail*, and *The Narrow Corridor*. This impressive paper, which has garnered 18,620 citations as of the time of writing, analyzes the impact of colonial institutions on modern economic development.&nbsp;The paper demonstrates that regions where European colonizers established extractive institutions experienced lower long-term economic growth. In contrast, regions where colonizers developed inclusive institutions, such as legal protections for private property, achieved higher levels of growth, even after decolonization. Their research argues that economic development is not merely about access to resources or geographical advantages but about how societies organize their institutions.In addition to establishing the causal relationship between institutions and societal prosperity, the laureates also initiated a new era in economics with their empirical approach. Their contribution was not just in uncovering a causal relationship but also in advancing methodology. The mathematical modeling and econometric methods they used to demonstrate this relationship were groundbreaking, and the Nobel Committee emphasized the innovative nature of their methodology in explaining why the award was given. Through their methodological contributions, these three scholars have paved the way for future researchers.However, it’s also worth noting that the award has received its share of criticism. In particular, critics argue that the prosperity seen in countries like China and South Korea, where inclusive institutions are absent, has been overlooked. These critiques suggest that the research prioritizes Western institutional frameworks, while ignoring the different development paths pursued by non-Western countries. Thus, the works have been found problematic for seemingly neglecting the diversity of development strategies outside the Western context.* Dr. Caner Gerek &nbsp;<hr fr-original-style="" style="height: 0px; overflow: visible; border-bottom: none; clear: both; user-select: none; break-after: page; box-sizing: border-box;"> 1 &nbsp;https://x.com/acikradyo/status/18448031239544833972&nbsp;&nbsp;İlker Deniz Yücel, B. No. 2017/16589, 28.05.2019, § 85.3&nbsp;Altuğ Taner Akçam/Türkiye, no. 27520/07,25.10.2011; ayrıca AİHM’in şu kararlarına da bakılabilir:&nbsp;Güçlü/Türkiye, no. 27690/03, 10.2.2009;&nbsp;Dink/Türkiye, no.&nbsp;2668/07 6102/08 30079/08... , 14.09.2010;&nbsp;Cox/Türkiye, no. &nbsp;2933/03, 20.05.2010;&nbsp;İlker Deniz Yücel/Türkiye,&nbsp;no.&nbsp;27684/17, 25.01.2022.&nbsp;4 https://bigpara.hurriyet.com.tr/haberler/genel-haberler/kredi-kartlarindan-savunma-sanayii-payi-gorusmesi-ertelendi-ak-partili-guler-acikladi-yasa-teklifi-2025-yilina-birakildi_ID1602021/&nbsp;5 https://gazeteoksijen.com/ekonomi/simsekten-savunma-sanayi-payi-aciklamasi-celik-kubbe-insa-edilecek-2254586 https://finans.mynet.com/haber/detay/ekonomi/kredi-karti-limitine-vergiyi-savunurken-konuyu-dem-parti-ye-yunanistan-a-ve-ermenistan-a-baglayan-destici-onun-vermedigi-750-lirayi-biz-veririz/490735/&nbsp;7 https://x.com/mahfiegilmez/status/1845033303499214920&nbsp;8https://www.riskmerkezi.org/Content/Upload/istatistikiraporlar/ekler/4469/RM_Aylik_Bulten_-_Agustos_2024.pdf9 https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2024/popular-information/

In addition to establishing the causal relationship between institutions and societal prosperity, the laureates also initiated a new era in economics with their empirical approach. Their contribution was not just in uncovering a causal relationship but also in advancing methodology.

What Does the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics Tell Us?

The Liberal Values Survey conducted by the Freedom Research Association once again revealed that the public in Turkey does not show a strong demand for freedom and equal justice for all.[1] The survey, which included 16 questions designed to measure the extent to which participants accept the ideas of limited government and the rule of law, was conducted face-to-face (F2F) with 2,011 people across 28 cities, representing the general population of Turkey between May 20 and June 10, 2024. Among the respondents, 50.1% were women and 49.9% were men, with an average age of 36.4 years.In terms of education, the participants' distribution was as follows:&nbsp;- Illiterate: 0.2%&nbsp;- Literate but no formal schooling: 0.9%&nbsp;- Primary school: 9.9%&nbsp;- Middle school: 11.7%&nbsp;- High school: 38.0%&nbsp;- Vocational school: 9.1%&nbsp;- University: 28.7%&nbsp;- Master’s degree: 1.0%&nbsp;- PhD: 0.6%&nbsp;When asked whether they agree with the statement, "No limitations should be imposed on the powers of the state," 16.61% of respondents said they "strongly disagree," 37.39% said they "disagree." In comparison, 10.94% were "undecided," 25.16% "agree," 6.96% "strongly agree," and 2.93% had "no opinion." As the results show, just over 50% of participants opposed the idea of an unlimited state, whereas 32% supported it.Looking at the breakdown by political views, it is unsurprising that among those who identify as "nationalists," 9.35% said they "strongly disagree" with the statement, 30.94% "disagree," 39.57% "agree," and 9.35% "strongly agree." Among those who do not identify as nationalist, the figures were 14.26% "strongly disagree," 34.57% "disagree," 33.18% "agree," and 6.51% "strongly agree." As we can see, more than 50% of those who identify as nationalists believe that the state should not be limited in any way.What is even more interesting is that the idea that the state should not be limited is far more widely accepted among those who identify as traditional conservatives, devout conservatives, political Islamists, and radical Islamists. Among those who identify as conventional conservatives, 51.32% agreed or strongly agreed that the state's powers should not be limited. This percentage rises to 72.69% among devout conservatives, 68% among political Islamists, and 58.06% among radical Islamists, showing significant support for the idea of an unrestricted state.A similar pattern is observed regarding individual rights when in conflict with the state's interests. When asked about their views on the statement "The state's interests and survival come before individual rights," 13.72% of respondents said they "strongly disagree," 34.21% "disagree," 11.49% were "undecided." In comparison, 30.78% "agree," 7.16% "strongly agree," and 2.64% had "no opinion." As we can see, approximately 40% of the public supports the notion that the state's interests and survival take precedence over individual rights.The idea of adhering to the law is not very widespread. A notable 32.47% of the population supports the notion that public officials may, when necessary, exceed their legal authority. There is also insufficient sensitivity regarding judicial independence. 40.82% of respondents believe that the President should be able to meet with members of the high judiciary to discuss cases they may eventually rule on.Moreover, certain segments of society support limiting the rights of groups they perceive as "other." For example, nearly 60% of nationalists and conservatives support excluding LGBTI individuals from the right to freedom of assembly.These figures reveal that a strong demand for the rule of law is lacking among large portions of the population. They also indicate that a significant portion of society does not agree on common values, with cultural and political divisions being widespread. Under these conditions, it is clear that expecting a parliament dominated by parties from the People's Alliance to produce a liberal, inclusive constitution based on the rule of law and limited government is not realistic.

These figures reveal that a strong demand for the rule of law is lacking among large portions of the population. They also indicate that a significant portion of society does not agree on common values, with cultural and political divisions being widespread. Under these conditions, it is clear that expecting a parliament dominated by parties from the People's Alliance to produce a liberal, inclusive constitution based on the rule of law and limited government is not realistic.

The Ankara 32nd High Criminal Court has announced its verdict in the case concerning the 2022 murder of former Ülkü Ocakları president Sinan Ateş. The shooter, Eray Özyağcı, along with the instigators Doğukan Çep and Tolgahan Demirbaş, as well as Vedat Balkaya, who helped Özyağcı escape on a motorcycle, were sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment for "premeditated murder." Additionally, Özyağcı and Balkaya were sentenced to 13 years in prison for "attempted murder" of complainant Selman Bozkurt. Suat Kurt, who was in custody for conducting surveillance outside the office, received a similar sentence of aggravated life imprisonment, along with an additional 13 years in prison for the same charges.Other defendants, Mustafa Uzunlar and Aşkın Mert Gelenbey were sentenced to 15 years each for "premeditated murder," while Murat Can Çolak and Emre Yüksel received 18 years each for the same crime.[2] During the hearing, an unusual incident occurred. A relative of one of the defendants attacked. Sinan Ateş's sister and their mother, Saniye Ateş, were rushed to the hospital after feeling unwell. The attacker was detained by police, while Sinan Ateş's sister, Selma Ateş Kazanç, declared, "If anything happens to me, MHP is responsible." Sinan Ateş's wife, Ayşe Ateş, had made a similar statement in the past.This case has become emblematic of the erosion of the rule of law and the judicial system in Turkey in many ways. Numerous politically connected facts were either ignored or covered up. For instance, despite the presence of concrete evidence, many key details were omitted from the accepted indictment. These include the insufficient evaluation of expert reports, the failure to explain the motives of Demirbaş and Çep for inciting the murder, the lack of clarity on the reasons behind the murder, and the incomplete examination of evidence. Additionally, Tolgahan Demirbaş's arrest at the home of former MHP deputy Olcay Kılavuz was left out of the indictment, and his potential political connections were not investigated. Furthermore, the testimony of Sinan Ateş's wife, Ayşe Ateş, was not included in the indictment.[3]From the outset, the MHP has maintained an aggressive stance, asserting that neither the party nor its members bear any responsibility for the murder, and MHP lawyers even requested to join the trial as injured parties. Throughout the trial, MHP leader Bahçeli targeted journalists who questioned the party’s connection to the case, stating, "We won't let owls hoot at our door, nor will we tolerate the vultures flapping their wings. I’m warning Halk TV and the Republican People's Party: watch your step. You cannot question the MHP with four clown reporters, and we will not allow it."The manner in which this case has been handled, from the repeated replacement of judges and prosecutors to the omissions in the indictment and the final verdict, shows that the assassination of Sinan Ateş has been treated as an ordinary criminal case. Many pieces of evidence that have been openly discussed in the public sphere were overlooked to protect individuals and groups who are considered untouchable. Despite not being an unsolved case, the failure to uncover the motives behind the assassination has deeply wounded the public conscience and will be remembered for years as a symbol of injustice. As Ayşe Ateş stated after the verdict, "In this trial, only the foot soldiers were judged. The masterminds of the murder are still walking free." This situation not only undermines trust in the justice system but also highlights the erosion of the rule of law and the failure to meet society's demand for justice.<a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" target="_blank" title="" fr-original-style="" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;"></a><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" target="_blank" title="" fr-original-style="" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;"></a>

As Ayşe Ateş stated after the verdict, "In this trial, only the foot soldiers were judged. The masterminds of the murder are still walking free." This situation not only undermines trust in the justice system but also highlights the erosion of the rule of law and the failure to meet society's demand for justice.

Verdict Announced in Sinan Ateş Case

We are living in a time when cash usage is steadily declining, and payments are increasingly being made through electronic platforms. Credit cards and other electronic payment methods are becoming more widespread across countries. Despite this growing trend, cash still endures to some extent. One of the main reasons for this is that non-cash payments are not always considered an ideal payment method. At least for some users, cashless payments are not yet a sufficiently reliable technology and, in fact, bring with them various problems.First and foremost, cash remains a widely accepted form of payment across many sectors. It is also a convenient, portable, and fast payment tool that frees individuals from dependency on technology. Moreover, in certain circumstances, cash can be both safer and more anonymous than electronic payment methods. However, it would be wrong to idealize the use of cash based on these benefits alone—it may not be ideal for some individuals or for the public at large.Electronic payment methods like credit cards are one of the main reasons why people avoid using cash for large transactions. When individuals need to make large payments, they often prefer not to carry large sums of cash, which can attract unwanted attention and pose security risks. For many, carrying cash presents significant safety concerns. Furthermore, cash payments do not leave a trace, making it difficult to track transactions and, in some cases, impossible to provide proof of payment when needed. Additionally, cash cannot be used for online shopping. From a governmental perspective, cash usage supports the informal economy and poses a challenge in monitoring citizens and understanding their behaviors.As we can see, both cash and electronic payment methods offer different advantages and disadvantages. These differences can influence the preferences of both consumers and businesses. However, recent regulations and practices have increasingly pushed consumers and businesses toward credit card transactions. On the consumer side, the lack of new, high-value banknotes being issued encourages spending via credit cards. On the business side, it was announced last week that firms refusing to accept credit cards will face fines. Mehmet Şimşek’s statement on the issue is as follows:"From now on, all retail merchants and businesses providing goods and services are required to use new-generation cash registers and must offer the option of paying by bank or credit card. During audits conducted by the Revenue Administration, special irregularity fines are being imposed on those who do not have these new payment devices or do not offer card payment options. We have seen that some businesses, citing high bank commission rates, demand higher amounts for card payments compared to cash. It is important that our taxpayers do not pass these commission fees onto citizens under this pretext."The government's policy is highly problematic from a market-oriented perspective for three key reasons. First, it imposes restrictions on economic freedoms. By forcing firms to adopt a specific technology, businesses are no longer able to make the most suitable decisions for their own operating models, with the government instead dictating these choices. This limits the autonomy of businesses. Second, this policy violates property rights by making POS machines mandatory, as the government is essentially deciding how companies can use their privately owned resources. Such interventions, where the market does not naturally determine the adoption of payment systems, distort the market. Third, the costs associated with acquiring POS machines and paying bank commissions on each transaction increase the expenses for firms. Many businesses have pointed out that the commissions charged per transaction are quite high, significantly raising their operational costs. For example, fuel companies have been reducing the use of POS devices due to the high commission fees charged by certain banks. Additionally, businesses often pass some of these increased costs onto consumers, resulting in harm to both producers and consumers.In light of these violations and rising costs, penalizing the choice of cash represents a troubling contradiction to the principles of the free market. These types of interventions also provide further evidence that Mehmet Şimşek is operating with a pragmatic mindset rather than a truly market-oriented one.* Dr. Caner Gerek<hr fr-original-style="" style="height: 0px; overflow: visible; border-bottom: none; clear: both; user-select: none; break-after: page; box-sizing: border-box;"> 1 https://oad.org.tr/yayinlar/arastirma-turkiyede-liberal-degerler-2024/2 https://tr.euronews.com/2024/10/02/sinan-ates-davasinda-karar-aciklandi-11-saniga-hapis-cezasi-verildi3 https://www.bbc.com/turkce/articles/cly474xlw0wo

In light of these violations and rising costs, penalizing the choice of cash represents a troubling contradiction to the principles of the free market. These types of interventions also provide further evidence that Mehmet Şimşek is operating with a pragmatic mindset rather than a truly market-oriented one.

Mehmet Şimşek's Intervention in Cash Preferences

As is well known, Can Atalay, who was on trial while detained for the Gezi case, was elected as a Member of Parliament for Hatay from the Workers' Party of Turkey in the 2023 general elections. Following his election, Atalay petitioned the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which had his case pending on appeal, requesting a halt to the proceedings and his release on the grounds of his parliamentary immunity. However, the Chamber, disregarding the Constitutional Court's previous violation rulings in similar cases, rejected Atalay's requests, arguing that under Articles 83 and 14 of the Constitution, he could not benefit from parliamentary immunity. Subsequently, in an individual application to the Constitutional Court, the Court ruled that Atalay's rights to liberty and security, as well as his electoral rights, had been violated. <a fr-original-style="" href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank" title="">[1]</a>&nbsp;Refusing to comply with this ruling, the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation argued that the Constitutional Court had overstepped its authority and filed a criminal complaint against the Court's members. Additionally, it upheld some of the convictions in the Gezi case, including those involving Atalay.As a result of the second application to the Constitutional Court, the Court once again determined that there had been violations of the right to the individual application, the right to vote and be elected, and the right to liberty and security due to non-compliance with its previous decision.[2] The Court ordered that a copy of its ruling be sent to the Istanbul 13th High Criminal Court to address these violations. The actions required included commencing a retrial for the applicant, suspending the enforcement of the conviction, releasing the applicant from the penal institution, and issuing a suspension decision in the new trial. However, instead of complying with the Constitutional Court's decision, the first-instance court sent the file back to the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation. The Chamber once again refused to comply with the Constitutional Court's ruling and unanimously decided to forward a copy of its decision to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) to initiate proceedings for the revocation of the plaintiff's parliamentary status due to a finalized conviction.During the 54th session of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) on January 30, 2024, presided over by AKP Deputy Speaker Bekir Bozdağ, the letter from the 3rd Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation was read, and it was announced to the TBMM General Assembly that Atalay's parliamentary status had been revoked. Arguing that this decision constituted a de facto amendment to the parliamentary bylaws and was legally invalid, 125 deputies from the Republican People's Party (CHP) submitted an application to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court published its detailed decision regarding this application in the Official Gazette on August 1, 2024.[3]Referring to its previous individual application rulings regarding Atalay, the Constitutional Court emphasized that its decisions are binding for all public authorities, including judicial bodies, and declared that the conviction decision against Can Atalay was null and void. According to the Constitutional Court, "It is legally impossible to speak of a finalized judgment regarding Hatay Deputy Şerafettin Can ATALAY after the Court's ruling of rights violation on 25.10.2023. Following the Constitutional Court's violation decision, the annulment of the decision that caused the violation, as stated in the judgment section of the decision, is a constitutional obligation. No public authority, including courts, can base their actions on a judicial decision that has been determined by the Constitutional Court to violate the Constitution, and a decision that has been found to be unconstitutional cannot be legally recognized as valid." The Court reiterated the binding nature of its decisions, stressing that other courts and public authorities do not have discretion regarding compliance with these rulings.The Court emphasized that its violation decision is also binding on the legislative body, stating that the decision by the Court of Cassation not to comply with the Constitutional Court's ruling is null and void and that the de facto situation created based on this decision has no legal consequence. However, while the Constitutional Court stressed that the decision of the Court of Cassation was "null and void," it did not declare the "TBMM action" based on this null and void decision to be null and void itself. Instead, the Court ruled that there was no need to make a decision regarding this action, which it described as a de facto situation.In our opinion, if the Constitutional Court intended to make a meaningful decision, it should have also declared the “TBMM action” null and void. As a result, the decision has had no effect, and the Parliament, which was called for an extraordinary session by the opposition parties on August 16, 2024, to discuss the implications of the Constitutional Court's ruling, ended the session without addressing the ruling due to incidents of violence that erupted during the meeting.In essence, the Speaker of the Assembly should have read out the Constitutional Court’s decision of December 21, 2023, concerning Şerafettin Can Atalay (3) in the General Assembly and confirmed that Can Atalay’s parliamentary status continues, allowing him to enjoy his privileges. The legislative body should not be complicit in violating the Constitution. Parliamentary immunity is granted not for the personal interests of the deputies but to ensure that the national will is fully represented. The Speaker of the Assembly has a duty to uphold the national will.

The legislative body should not be complicit in violating the Constitution. Parliamentary immunity is granted not for the personal interests of the deputies but to ensure that the national will is fully represented. The Speaker of the Assembly has a duty to uphold the national will.