The appeal overturned the ‘rejection of the case’ decision regarding the CHP congress on procedural grounds

Source

Ankara Regional Court of Justice 4th Civil Chamber overturned the local court’s ‘rejection’ decision on procedural grounds in the case filed with the request for the cancellation of CHP’s 38th Ordinary Congress and Istanbul Provincial Congress.

The decision of the Ankara Regional Court of Justice 4th Civil Chamber was given by the Ankara 3rd Civil Court of First Instance in the case filed regarding the cancellation of the CHP 38th Ordinary Congress and the Istanbul Provincial Congress. "dismissal of the case" reviewed the objection regarding its decision. Chamber, Ankara 3rd Civil Court of First Instance "absence of passive hostility" The decision to reject the case on the grounds that the judgment was made in the absence of the excused plaintiff party. "contrary to the legal right to be heard" found it.

CHP Deputy Chairman and Party Spokesperson Zeynel Emre said:

"A break from procedure. It’s not about the merits, it’s about pointing out a lack of procedure. In the courts, if you are requesting an excuse for the first time on health grounds and if you attach a medical report to it, and if this is the first time, the general practice is that it will be accepted. Precedents are generally like this. There is no reference to the substance in terms of content. If you pay attention, it is also pointed out that the grounds of the other appeal claims are rejected."

Evaluating the decision, party lawyer Çağlar Çağlayan said:

"The decision says: ‘First of all, the plaintiff’s attorney gave an excuse and attached a medical report. In such cases, when there is a medical report and this is the first time such an excuse has been made, we see this excuse as a valid excuse. ‘I could have accepted it and skipped a hearing just once.’ As his second reason, he said something like this: ‘You gave the parties two weeks to make a statement. But the trial took place in less than two weeks. If you gave the parties time, you should have waited that time. For these reasons alone, I’m sending the file back. Fill this gap. ‘Make up your mind again.’

Now the file will come back to the court. The court will give us a new hearing date. Because the previous processes are now completed. We will go to trial again. Two things can happen at the hearing. The court had already evaluated the evidence and rejected the case. Since the court of appeal did not make a statement regarding the evaluation of the evidence, there is no situation in which it would evaluate the evidence differently. In other words, he will either reject the case again, or he can do the following: After this decision, we held the Istanbul Ordinary Provincial Congress. He may say, ‘Since CHP completed its ordinary congress during this process, the case remained irrelevant.’ We do not see such a danger here: We will take the case again, look at the evidence and say ‘This time I gave up my decision. He will not say ‘I accept it now’. Because the Regional Court of Justice did not say, ‘Your decision is fundamentally wrong, re-evaluate the evidence.’"

Stating that the plaintiffs do not have a procedural objection similar to the one here in terms of the congress case, Lawyer Çağlar Çağlayan concluded his words as follows:

"Now we will wait for the Ankara 3rd Civil Court of First Instance to establish the memorandum of action. It will probably install in a few days. We were informed about this decision from UYAP, but the decision has not been notified yet. We will hold another hearing in not too long. There is no evidence to collect again. Our only concern at this point is the spread of dirty information. If he does not decide at his first hearing, he may also request the results of the congress from the election board. Normally there is no need to wait for that either. If it sags, that’s why it sags, otherwise it doesn’t sag. The decision is made at the first hearing."