The Constitutional Court appointed rapporteur for the HDP closure case

The President of the Constitutional Court (AYM) Zühtü Arslan appointed a rapporteur in the case which was reopened by the Attorney General of the Supreme Court of Appeal Bekir Şahin for the closure of the People’s Democratic Party (HDP).

The indictment calling for the shutdown of HDP, which was returned by the Constitutional Court with the request to fill the loopholes, was re-prepared by the Office of the Attorney General of the Supreme Court and sent to the Constitutional Court yesterday .

According to the information received, the process of examining the indictment has been initiated in the closing case and a rapporteur has been appointed in this context. We learn that the rapporteur who examined the first indictment rendered has been reassigned.

The rapporteur should complete his report on the first review and submit it to the AYM delegation. After that, the delegation will conduct its first examination of the case and decide whether the indictment is accepted. According to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), this period may not exceed 15 days from the sending of the indictment.


The Delegation of the Constitutional Court will be able to deal with the request of the general prosecutor’s office to “block the party’s bank account for possible cash aid” during the first examination, or to take a decision subsequently.


If accepted, the indictment will be forwarded to the HDP for a preliminary defense. HDP must present its preliminary defense within the time limit set by the Supreme Court. However, the party may request an extension of this time limit. The request for additional time will be decided by the Constitutional Court.

After the party’s preliminary defense, the Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Bekir Şahin, will present his opinion on the merits.

This notice will also be sent to HDP. On dates to be determined later, Supreme Court Attorney General Bekir Şahin will make an oral statement and HDP officials will make an oral defense.

After all this process, the rapporteur, who will collect the information and documents relating to the case, will prepare his report on the merits. While these proceedings are ongoing, the prosecution of the Supreme Court of Appeal and the defendant HDP may present additional evidence or an additional written defense.

Once the report is distributed to members of the Constitutional Court, President Zühtü Arslan will set a date for the meeting and members will meet on the appointed day and begin discussing the closure request.


The AYM committee composed of 15 people will decide on the closing case against the HDP. It can be decided by a two-thirds majority of the members present at the assembly, that is to say by the votes of 10 of the 15 members, that the party be dissolved because of the situations listed in article 69 of the Constitution or whether the party is partially or totally deprived of State aid depending on the seriousness of the acts in question.

The decision rendered following the action to close the political party will be notified to the political party concerned by the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation and will be published in the Official Journal.

In the event that the Constitutional Court determines that the members of the party, whose political ban is requested, caused the closure of the party, these persons will not be the founder, member, manager and supervisor of another party for 5 years. , from the publication of the final decision in the Official Journal.


In the first indictment, which was decided to be extradited by the General Assembly of the Constitutional Court on March 31, it was determined that “there are loopholes in determining the actions of those who are suspected of having committed acts contrary to the indivisible integrity of the State with its country and its nation. “The General Assembly of the Constitutional Court declared:” The reference to the investigations and prosecutions under way against the persons against which a political ban is claimed, which would fall within the scope of Article 69 of the Constitution, without being explicitly included in the indictment, makes it impossible for the Constitutional Court to assess the said facts. Evaluation.

Filling in the loopholes in the Supreme Court’s unanimous extradition decision, the Attorney General’s Office had previously requested a political ban on more than 600 HDP members. In the new indictment, that number rose to 500.

Download the NTV application, be informed of developments

Add a Comment