The Consultative Council of European judges (CCJE) has said that the suspension and arrest of judges in Turkey over their decision-making might endanger the impartiality and the independence of the judiciary, in a June 12 commentary on the arrests of judges Metin Özçelik and Mustafa Başer because of their ruling for the release of Samanyolu Media Group CEO Hidayet Karaca and 63 police officers. The CCJE, an advisory body of the Council of Europe on issues related to the independence, impartiality and competence of judges, released a commentary in response to letters of complaint sent to the Council of Europe by various international, European and national associations of judges about the cases of Başer and Özçelik. The Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) decided on the suspension of Başer and Özçelik on April 27, 2015 over their ruling for the release of detained journalist Hidayet Karaca and 63 police officers. Subsequently, the two judges were arrested on April 30 and May 1, respectively, for the offenses of “attempting to destroy the Republic of Turkey and to partly or fully prevent it from performing its duties; being a member of an armed terrorist organization; misconduct and violation of secrecy.” The CCJE has argued that the fundamental principles of the separation of powers, of the independence of the judiciary and of the personal independence of judges are necessary prerequisites for a democratic society that is governed by the rule of law. The CCJE underlined that it is in no position to examine or investigate the factual basis of the events which are alleged to have taken place in the letters of complaint they received. Nevertheless, they expressed their concerns as to whether the proceedings regarding the judges and their results were consistent with European standards and with the requirements of fair process in a democratic society. The CCJE noted that the official performance of judges may give rise to criticism or even to disciplinary or criminal investigations but that these types of proceedings must follow the procedure set down by relevant acts of parliament. The commentary further warned that it would be unacceptable if the proceedings aim to sanction individual judges because of judgments they have rendered, or in order to induce them to render specific judgments in the future. According to the commentary, the first aspect that raises doubts is the allegation that Judge Başer was prevented from putting his draft decision into writing. It argues that a judge's decision-making process must not be obstructed at all and that once handed down, his/her decisions must be subject only to review on appeal. The second cause for concern is the execution of a decision to be prevented by persons not authorized to do so. Despite an April ruling by the İstanbul 32nd Court of First Instance for Karaca and the 63 police officers' release pending trial, the HSYK interfered and prevented the court's decision from being enforced. The third and last concern stated in the commentary is that the proceedings about the judges have been conducted rapidly. The inspectorate started its investigations after news coverage of the pending release of decisions which could not have taken place earlier than the period of April 25-27 and provided a provisional report as early as April 27. The decision of the Second Chamber of the HSYK was rendered on the very same day. “It is not apparent why such speed in the proceedings was necessary, nor have sufficient grounds for such a headlong rush been given,” said the CCJE. Özçelik, the former head of the İstanbul 29th Court of First Instance, accepted a request by the lawyers of the 64 suspects -- Samanyolu Broadcasting Group CEO Hidayet Karaca and 63 police officers -- for a replacement of the judges hearing their clients' cases at a penal court of peace. The İstanbul 29th court of First Instance then assigned the İstanbul 32nd Court of First Instance on April 20 to examine the lawyers' request. The İstanbul 32nd Court of First Instance, headed by Başer, ruled on April 25 for the release of the suspects who had been held under pre-trial detention despite a lack of evidence of their involvement in crime.

• published: 17 Jun 2015
• views: 0