Publication: REFERANDUM VE SERBEST SEÇİM HAKKI: YÜKSEK SEÇİM KURULU'NUN 16 NİSAN 2017 TARİH VE 560 SAYILI KARARI HAKKINDA BİR DEĞERLENDİRME
Abstract
Bu makalede Yüksek Seçim Kurulu'nun 16 Nisan referandumundan sonra verdiği karar analiz edilmiş ve bu karara karşı gidilebilecek hukuk yolları sorgulanmıştır. Makalede, hukuk yolları yönünden beş temel tez ileri sürülmüştür. Birincisi, Anayasa'daki "Yüksek Seçim Kurulunun kararları aleyhine başka bir mercie başvurulamaz" ifadesinin sistematik yorum gereğince, Anayasa Mahkemesi'ne bireysel başvuru yolunu kapatmadığı savunulmuştur. İkincisi, Yüksek Seçim Kurulu'nun kararının "fonksiyon gaspı" olarak görülebileceği ve bu bakımdan her mahkemenin "yokluk" tespiti yapabileceği savunulmuştur. Üçüncüsü, İnsan Hakları Avrupa Mahkemesi'nin "yasayıcı" ifadesini, Sözleşme'nin başlangıçtaki "demokrasi" ilkesiyle birlikte kavraması gerektiği savunulmuştur. Dördüncüsü, halkın temsilcilerinin seçimi için geçerli haklarının, doğrudan karar aldığı referandumlarda a fortriori geçerli olduğu savunulmuştur. Beşincisi, Yüksek Seçim Kurulu kararının gelecekte yapılacak yasama organı seçimleri için "potansiyel mağdurluk" yarattığı savunulmuştur.
In this article, the decision of the Supreme Election Board after the April 16 referendum was analyzed and the legal remedies against this dispute were questioned. In the article, five main arguments have been put forward in terms of legal remedies Firstly, it was argued that the Article 79 of the Constitution regulating "no appeal shall be made to any authority against the decisions of the Supreme Election Board" should be interpreted be interpreted in a systematic and harmonic way, in connection with other articles of the Constitution. In this way, the decision will be subject to a constitutional complaint. Secondly, it was argued that the decision of the Supreme Election Board may be regarded as "function extortion" and that every court can determinate "voidness" of the decision Thirdly, it was argued that the European Court of Human Rights should interpret the term of "legislature" in the light of the principle of "democracy" in the preamble of the Convention. Fourthly, it was argued that the right of people to choose their representatives is a fortriori involves the referendums, in which they have decided directly. Fifthly, it was argued that the decision of the Supreme Election Board created a "potential victimness" for the future legislature elections.
In this article, the decision of the Supreme Election Board after the April 16 referendum was analyzed and the legal remedies against this dispute were questioned. In the article, five main arguments have been put forward in terms of legal remedies Firstly, it was argued that the Article 79 of the Constitution regulating "no appeal shall be made to any authority against the decisions of the Supreme Election Board" should be interpreted be interpreted in a systematic and harmonic way, in connection with other articles of the Constitution. In this way, the decision will be subject to a constitutional complaint. Secondly, it was argued that the decision of the Supreme Election Board may be regarded as "function extortion" and that every court can determinate "voidness" of the decision Thirdly, it was argued that the European Court of Human Rights should interpret the term of "legislature" in the light of the principle of "democracy" in the preamble of the Convention. Fourthly, it was argued that the right of people to choose their representatives is a fortriori involves the referendums, in which they have decided directly. Fifthly, it was argued that the decision of the Supreme Election Board created a "potential victimness" for the future legislature elections.