Turkish Court Reopens Legal Challenge to CHP Istanbul Congress on Procedural Grounds

A Turkish appellate court has ordered the reopening of a lawsuit seeking the annulment of the Republican People’s Party’s (CHP) Istanbul Provincial Congress, citing a procedural violation in the earlier ruling rather than any assessment of the case’s substance. The decision has refocused attention on judicial process, legal safeguards, and internal party governance in Turkey’s largest opposition party.

The Ankara Regional Court of Justice 4th Civil Chamber ruled that the handling of the case by the lower court failed to comply with procedural requirements. Specifically, the appellate judges concluded that the first-instance court reached a decision without properly considering the excuse submitted by the plaintiff’s legal representative, a step viewed as incompatible with procedural law.

Appellate Court Overturns Rejection on Procedural Grounds

The lawsuit in question concerns the Republican People’s Party Istanbul Provincial Congress, held on 8 October 2023. Plaintiffs had sought the annulment of the congress, arguing procedural and organizational irregularities. That request was initially rejected by the Ankara 3rd Civil Court of First Instance, which ruled against canceling the congress.

However, upon appeal, the Ankara Regional Court of Justice found fault not with the substance of the lower court’s reasoning, but with how the trial was conducted. The appellate chamber determined that issuing a ruling without evaluating the plaintiff lawyer’s excuse amounted to a breach of procedural rights. On that basis, it overturned the earlier rejection and sent the case back to the same first-instance court for reconsideration.

Crucially, the appellate ruling does not assess whether the congress itself was lawful or unlawful. Instead, it focuses narrowly on due process, underscoring the principle that courts must fully evaluate procedural submissions before reaching a decision.

Case Sent Back for Rehearing

With the appellate court’s ruling, the case will now be reheard by the Ankara 3rd Civil Court of First Instance. The lower court is expected to resume proceedings, this time taking into account the procedural issue highlighted by the appellate judges.

Legal observers note that such decisions are relatively common in Turkish civil procedure, where appellate courts frequently intervene to correct procedural shortcomings without offering an opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute. As a result, the annulment request remains unresolved, and no final judicial conclusion has yet been reached regarding the Istanbul Provincial Congress.

CHP Responds: “No Ruling on the Merits”

Following the appellate court’s decision, the CHP issued its first official response through Deputy Chair Gül Çiftçi, who emphasized the limited scope of the ruling.

In a statement shared on social media, Çiftçi underlined that the appellate court had not overturned the earlier decision on substantive grounds. “The case concerning our Istanbul Provincial Congress held on 8 October 2023 was not reversed on the merits,” she said, noting that the file was returned to the court of first instance solely due to procedural considerations.

According to Çiftçi, the appellate decision explicitly stated that there was no need to examine the grounds raised in the appeal application itself, given the procedural nature of the violation identified.

Emphasis on Legality and Transparency

Çiftçi also addressed broader concerns regarding the integrity of the party’s internal processes. She argued that the judicial record shows evidence was properly collected and allegations were fully examined during the earlier proceedings, reinforcing the legitimacy of the congress.

In her words, this evaluation demonstrates that the CHP’s internal congress processes are conducted “on the basis of legality, transparency, and the will of the organization.” She described the Istanbul Provincial Congress as a concrete example of this approach, stating that it was held under legal safeguards and reflected the democratic will of party members.

This framing positions the appellate ruling as a technical correction rather than a setback, allowing the CHP to reaffirm its commitment to the rule of law while awaiting further judicial review.

Legal Process to Resume

The case’s return to the first-instance court means that the judicial process will effectively restart, at least from a procedural standpoint. The Ankara 3rd Civil Court of First Instance will now reassess the file, taking into account the plaintiff’s procedural submissions before issuing a new ruling.

Çiftçi expressed confidence that the proceedings would continue in line with legal standards. “Our belief in the conduct of the trial in accordance with the law is complete,” she said, adding that the CHP would continue its political path with faith in the supremacy of law.

Broader Implications

While the ruling does not alter the status of the Istanbul Provincial Congress for now, it highlights the importance Turkish courts place on procedural rights in civil litigation. Even in politically sensitive cases, appellate oversight can hinge on technical legal safeguards rather than political considerations.

For the CHP, the decision offers both reassurance and uncertainty: reassurance that no adverse judgment has been issued on the congress itself, and uncertainty as the legal challenge remains unresolved. For the judiciary, the case serves as a reminder that procedural rigor remains central to the legitimacy of court decisions.

As the file returns to the lower court, attention will now shift to how the renewed proceedings unfold—and whether the dispute will ultimately be resolved on procedural grounds or through a substantive ruling on the congress’s legality.