¹ Özbudun, Ergun, Turkey's Judiciary and the Drift Toward Competitive Authoritarianism, 50 The International Spectator 42(2015); Esen, Berk & Gumuscu, Sebnem, Rising competitive authoritarianism in Turkey, 37 Third World Quarterly 1581(2016).Google Scholar

² The Economist, Turkey's purges are crippling its justice system (May 20, 2017) https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21722200-president-erdogans-drive-power-includes-putting-judges-under-his-thumb-turkeys-purges-are; the Gülen movement emerged in the 1970s under the leadership of Fetullah Gülen, had once seen as a liberal Islamist movement supporting the idea of inter-religious dialogue and modernism, and had been distinguished from other fundamental Islamist groups. See Öktem, Niyazi, Religion in Turkey, 2002 Brigham Young University Law Review 371 (2002).; Aras, Bülent and Çapa, Ömer, Fethullah Gülen and His Liberal ‘Turkish Islam’ Movement, in Revolutionaries and Reformers: Contemporary Islamist Movements in the Middle East (Rubin Barry ed., 2003).; İştar B. Gözaydın, The Fethullah Gülen movement and politics in Turkey: a chance for democratization or a Trojan horse?, 16 Democratization 1214 (2009). Beginning from the 1990s, the movement gained supporters and sympathisers in the social, political, and economic life in Turkey and abroad. Educational institutions set up by the movement in Turkey and abroad were central to its popularity. The linkage between the movement and the Justice and Development Party (AKP) became apparent when the supporters of the movement were able to hold important positions in the bureaucracy, judiciary, and security forces under the long rule of the AKP from 2002. This partnership ended in December 2013. When the alliance was broken, the AKP first argued that the movement had formed a “parallel state”, and later the movement was recognized as a terrorist organization. See the history of the movement and its relations with the AKP government in Filiz Başkan-Canyaş & F. Orkunt Canyaş, The interplay between formal and informal institutions in Turkey: the case of the Fethullah Gülen community, 52 Middle Eastern Studies 280 (2015); Taş, Hakkı, A history of Turkey's AKP-Gülen conflict, Mediterranean Politics (2017).Google Scholar

³ There are judges who serve administrative tasks at the Ministry of Justice. The Minister of Justice is entitled to appoint judges, with their consent, to carry out temporary or permanent tasks in “the central, affiliated, or relevant institutions of the Ministry of Justice. According to Article 159/12 Constitution, “Those judges and public prosecutors working in administrative posts of judicial services shall be subject to the same provisions as other judges and public prosecutors. Their categories and grades shall be determined according to the principles applying to judges and public prosecutors, and they shall enjoy all the rights accorded to judges and public prosecutors.’ Although judges working in administrative posts enjoy the same rights as other judges with judicial functions, this does not suffice to regard the Ministry of Justice as a JSG body since Article 140/7 of the Constitution also stipulates that they are “attached to the Ministry of Justice” with regard to their administrative duties. In addition to their attachment to the Ministry, it is also difficult to trace the impact of their role. As of March 2017, 394 judges work at the central institution of the Ministry at different posts. See http://www.hsk.gov.tr/Eklentiler/Dosyalar/962736e7-d42b-4930-bd91-ec352fea7891.pdf.Google Scholar

⁴ Interim Opinion on the Draft Law on the High Council for Judges and Prosecutors of Turkey, European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), CDL-AD(2010)042, (Dec. 20, 2010), par. 18.Google Scholar

⁵ Article 8 of the 1924 Constitution; The English version of the full text can be found in Edward Mead Earle, The New Constitution of Turkey, 40 Political Science Quarterly (1925) http://genckaya.bilkent.edu.tr/1924constitution.pdf.Google Scholar

⁶ Article 54 of the 1924 Constitution.Google Scholar

⁷ Article 55 of the 1924 Constitution.Google Scholar

⁸ Article 56 of the 1924 Constitution.Google Scholar

⁹ Law no. 2556, enacted on 4/7/1934.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ergun Özbudun, 1924 Anayasası 57 (2012); Gözler, Kemal, 1924 Teşkılatı Esasiye Kanunu http://www.anayasa.gen.tr/tek-1924.htm.Google Scholar

¹¹ Belge, Ceren, Friends of the Court: Republican Alliance and Selective Activism of the Constitutional Court of Turkey, 40 L. and Soc'y Rev.653 (2006).Google Scholar

¹² Zürcher, Eric, Turkey: A Modern History 241 (2004).Google Scholar

¹³ Ünal, Şeref, Anayasa Hukuku Açısından Mahkemelerin Bagımsızlıgı ve Hâkimlik Teminatı: Türk Yargı Sistemi Üzerinde Karşılastırmalı Hukuk Açısından bir İnceleme 72 (1994).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁵ Belge, Ceren, supra note 11, at 663.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁷ Hirschl, Ran, The Political Origins of Judicial Empowerment through Constitutionalism: Lessons from Four Constitutional Revolutions, 25 Law & Soc. Inquiry 91 (2000).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Tezcür, Güneş Murat, Judicial Activism in Perilous Times: the Turkish Case, 43 Law & Soc'y Rev. 305, 309 (2009); Belge, Ceren, supra note 11, at 664; Özbudun, Ergun, Political Origins of the Turkish Constitutional Court and the Problem of Democratic Legitimacy, 12 Eur. Pub. L. 213 (2006); Shambayati, Hootan and Kirdiş, Esen, In Pursuit of Contemporary Civilization: Judicial Empowerment in Turkey, 62 Political Research Quarterly 767, 769 (2009).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Article 144/1 of the 1961 Constitution.Google Scholar

²⁰ Article 143/1 of the 1961 Constitution.Google Scholar

²¹ Article 143/2 of the 1961 Constitution.Google Scholar

²² Article 143/6 of the 1961 Constitution.Google Scholar

²³ Article 159/2 of the 1982 Constitution (the first version).Google Scholar

²⁴ Id. Google Scholar

²⁵ Article 159/3 of the 1982 Constitution (the first version).Google Scholar

²⁶ Article 15 of the Law on the Ministry of Justice (Law no. 2992, 29/3/1984).Google Scholar

²⁷ Emphasis added. See Article 159/3 of the 1982 Constitution as amended on September 12, 2010.Google Scholar

²⁸ Article 159/9 of the 1982 Constitution as amended on September 12, 2010.Google Scholar

²⁹ Article 159/2 of the 1982 Constitution as amended on September 12, 2010. The competences of each chamber have been regulated in article 9 of the Law on the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (Law no. 6087, 11/12/2010).Google Scholar

³⁰ Article 159/7 of the 1982 Constitution as amended on September 12, 2010.Google Scholar

³¹ Article 159/11 of the 1982 Constitution as amended on September 12, 2010.Google Scholar

³² Article 5 of the Law on High Council of Judges and Prosecutors presents the organization of the HSYK and Article 44 of the same law states that “The Council is governed with its own general budget.”Google Scholar

³³ For a review of the whole constitutional amendment package see Örücü, Esin, The Turkish Constitution Revamped Yet Again, 17 Eur. Pub. L. 11(2011).Google Scholar

³⁴ Bâli, Aslı, The Perils of Judicial Independence: Constitutional Transition and the Turkish Example, 52 Virginia J. Intl. L. 235 (2012); Bâli, Aslı, Unpacking Turkey's ‘Court-Packing’ Referendum, Middle East Research and Information Project (Nov. 5, 2010) http://www.merip.org/mero/mero110510.Google Scholar

³⁵ Coşkun, Ceren, Don't sweeten the bitter pill of an illiberal democracy, OpenDemocracy (Sep. 10, 2010) https://www.opendemocracy.net/ceren-coskun/don%E2%80%99t-sweeten-bitter-pill-of-illiberal-democracy.Google Scholar

³⁶ Yeginsu, Can, Turkey Packs the Court, The New York Review of Books (Sep. 22, 2010) http://www.nybooks.com/contributors/can-yeginsu/.Google Scholar

³⁷ At that time Prime Minister Erdogan strongly opposed this action of the HSYK. See Hurriyet Daily News, I would judge the Supreme Council of Judges and Prosecutors if I had the authority (Dec. 27, 2013) http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/i-would-judge-the-supreme-council-of-judges-and-prosecutors-if-i-had-authority-turkish-pm.aspx?pageID=238&nID=60233&NewsCatID=338.Google Scholar

³⁸ See the effects of the corruption crisis on the Council in Ergun Özbudun, Pending Challenges in Turkey's Judiciary, Global Turkey in Europe (2015).Google Scholar

³⁹ Article 25 of the Law no 6524, enacted on February 15, 2014.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Article 39 of the Law no 6524.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Constitutional Court, E. 2014/57, K. 2014/81 (14 April 2014). According to article 153 of the Constitution, the judgments of the Constitutional Court are not retroactive. This means, the Court cannot abrogate the decisions taken before the date of the judgment.Google Scholar

⁴² Law no 5678, enacted on October 21, 2007 amending article 101 of the 1982 Constitution.Google Scholar

⁴³ Oder, Bertil Emrah, Turkey's ultimate shift to a presidential system, Constitutionnet (Jan. 31, 2017) http://www.constitutionnet.org/news/turkeys-ultimate-shift-presidential-system-most-recent-constitutional-amendments-details; Felix Petersen & Zeynep Yanaşmayan, The Final Trick? Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, and the Recomposition of the Turkish State, Verfassungsblog (Jan. 28, 2017) http://verfassungsblog.de/the-final-trick-separation-of-powers-checks-and-balances-and-the-recomposition-of-the-turkish-state/; Varol, Ozan, Presidentialism in Turkey: Is It Already Here?, Constitutionnet (Nov. 24, 2015) http://www.constitutionnet.org/news/presidentialism-turkey-it-already-here Google Scholar

⁴⁴ The majority of the amendments will enter into force either after the start of the proceedings for the next general and presidential elections, or when the next National Assembly and President of the Republic begin to work. The amendments concerning the Council for Judges and Prosecutors entered into force right after the results of the referendum had been published at the official gazette. See Article 18 of the Law No. 6771.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Law on the Justice Academy of Turkey (Law no. 4954, 23/7/2003).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Law no. 3221, enacted on June 15, 1985.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Article 4 of Law on the Justice Academy of Turkey.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Article 9 of Law on the Justice Academy of Turkey.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Article 12 of the Law on the Justice Academy of Turkey.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Article 28/7 and 8 of the Law on the Justice Academy of Turkey (the first version).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Article 28 of the Law on the Justice Academy of Turkey.Google Scholar

⁵² Article 28/13 of the Law on the Justice Academy of Turkey.Google Scholar

⁵³ Article 28/14 of the Law on the Justice Academy of Turkey.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Article 28/10 of the Law on the Justice Academy of Turkey as amended on July 1, 2016.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Article 113/a of the Law on Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Article 113/b of the Law on Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Article 11 of the Law on Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Article 54 of the Law on Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Article 56 of the Law on Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Article 62 of the Law on Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Article 28 of the Law on judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

⁶² Sancar, Mithat & Atılgan, Eylem Ümit, “Adalet Biraz Es Geçiliyor…”: Demokratikleşme Sürecinde Hakimler ve Savcılar, TESEV 120-151, http://tesev.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Adalet_Biraz_Es_Geciliyor_Demokratiklesme_Surecinde_Hakimler_Ve_Savcilar.pdf.; Mithat Sancar, Yarginin Bagimsizligi ve Tarafsizligi: “Devlet Akli” Kiskacinda Hukuk Devleti (İletişim Yayınları. 2008); Coşkun, Vahap, Turkey's Illiberal Judiciary: Cases and Decisions, 12 Insight Turkey 43(2010).Google Scholar

⁶³ Law no 5170 enacted on May 7, 2004 repealing article 143 of the 1982 Constitution.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Law no 6526 enacted on March 6, 2014. See Özhabeş, Hande, Assessment on Changes Regarding the Specially Empowered Judicial System in Turkey, TESEV Publications (2014) http://tesev.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Assessment_On_Changes_Regarding_The_Specially_Empowered_Judicial_System_In_Turkey.pdf.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Turkey: Opinion on the Duties, Competences and Functioning of the Criminal Peace Judgeships, Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 110th Plenary Session (Venice, 10-11 March 2017), European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), (Mar. 13, 2017) http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2017)004-e.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ As the statistics of the Council dated July 26, 2016 shows, 15.304 judges and prosecutors were serving in the country. http://www.hsk.gov.tr/Eklentiler/Dosyalar/39c8a8cb-7600-4159-933b-48881447f0d4.pdf.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Saglam, Fazıl, AKP'nin Anayasa Degişikligi Paketi Üzerine Düşünceler, 24 Mülkiye Dergisi 267 (2010); Özen, Muharrem, Yargı Bagımsızlıgını Zedeleyen Düzenleme, Uygulamalar ve Bagımsızlıgı Saglamaya Yönelik Çözüm Önerileri, 68 Ankara Barosu Dergisi 31 (2010); Çelik, Burak, Yargı Reformu: Hedefler, Sorunlar, Öneriler, Güncel Hukuk (2014); Çelik, Burak, Hakimler ve Savcilar Yüksek Kurulu: Yapisal Açidan Karşilaştirmali Bir İnceleme (2012) [hereinafter Burak Çelik, Hakimler ve Savcilar Yüksek Kurulu].Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Baltacı, Cemal, Demokrasi ve Yargı Bagımsızlıgı Baglamında Türkiye'de Hakimler ve Savcılar Yüksek Kurulu, 14 Cumhuriyet üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari bllimler dergisi (2013).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Id. Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Report by Thomas Hammerberg Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Administrative of Justice and Protection of Human Rights in Turkey, CommDH(2012)2, (Jan. 10, 2012), par. 104 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/d-tr/dv/0131_04/0131_04en.pdf; Knaul, Gabriela, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers: Mission to Turkey, U.N. Doc.A/HRC/20/19/Add.3, (May 4, 2012), par. 32 http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session20/A-HRC-20-19-Add3_en.pdf; Bjönberg, Kjell & Richmond, Paul, The Functioning of the Judicial System in the Republic of Turkey: Report of an Advisory Visit (28 September- 10 October 2003) http://www.abgm.adalet.gov.tr/avrupabirligi/turkyargisi/istisariziyaret/en/%C4%B0stisariZiyaretRaporu-2003-en.pdf; Bjönberg, Kjell & Richmond, Paul, The Functioning of the Judicial System in the Republic of Turkey: Report of an Advisory Visit (11-19 July 2004) https://ingel.home.xs4all.nl/ankara/advisory%20report%2011.pdf.Google Scholar

⁷¹ For a detailed examination of these crises see Çelik, Burak, Hakimler ve Savcilar YÜksek Kurulu, supra note 67, at 193-197.Google Scholar

⁷² This was due to Article 10/1 and 2 of the previous Law on the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (Law no. 2461). All the members of the Council could be replaced by the substitute members during the meetings, except for the Undersecretary. Since he/she could not be replaced, and the whole Council constituted a quorum, the Council was not able to meet in the absence of the Undersecretary. See Çelik, Burak, Hakimler ve Savcilar YÜksek Kurulu, supra note 67, at 233.Google Scholar

⁷³ Çelik, Burak, Hakimler ve Savcilar YÜksek Kurulu, supra note 67, at 197.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Ozbudun, Ergun, Turk Anayasa Hukuku 394 (2016).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Venice Commission, supra note 4, par. 27.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Article 159/11 of the 1982 Constitution.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Article 159/9 of the 1982 Constitution. Such powers have raised concerns regarding judicial independence in the reports of Thomas Giegerich after his peer review missions to Turkey. See Giegerich, Thomas, Peer Review Mission to Turkey: Report on Independence, Impartiality and Administration of the Judiciary (Aug. 1, 2011) http://avrupa.info.tr/fileadmin/Content/Downloads/PDF/2011_Peer_Review_Report_on_the_lndependence__Impartiality_and_Administration_of_the_Judiciary.pdf; Giegerich, Thomas, Peer Review Mission to Turkey: Report on the Turkish High Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors: Assessment of Its Initial Track Record of Operation, (Feb. 4, 2013) http://typo3.p147163.mittwaldserver.info/fileadmin/Content/Files/DelegationDocuments/en/Report04022013.pdf Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Article 9 (A)/6 of the Law on Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See the discussions above under the title of “The Justice Academy of Turkey”.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Law no 5678, enacted on October 21, 2007 amending article 101 of the 1982 Constitution.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Turkey: Opinion on the amendments to the constitution adopted by the Grand National Assembly on 21 January 2017 and to be submitted to a national referendum on 16 April 2017, Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 110th Plenary Session (Venice, 9-11 March 2017), European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) (Mar. 13, 2017), par. 119.Google Scholar

⁸² Article 18 of the Law on Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

⁸³ Article 21 of the Law on Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ See Birinci Sınıfa Ayrılan ve Birinci Sınıf Olan Hâkim ve Savcıların Çalışmalarının Degerlendirilmesi Esaslarına İlişkin İlke Kararı (2017); Hakim ve Savcıların Derece Yükselmesi Esaslarina İlişkin İlke Kararı (2017).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Transfer of judges as discussed here should not be confused with the change of location which is a formal disciplinary measure. The reasons for imposition of this measure are listed in Article 68 of the Law on Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ See Article 35/2 of the Law on Judges and Prosecutors; Article 2 of the Regulation on the Appointment and Transfer of Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Article 3 of the Regulation on the Appointment and Transfer of Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Article 7 of the Regulation on the Appointment and Transfer of Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Article 68 of the Law on Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Article 8 of the Regulation on the Appointment and Transfer of Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Article 62 of the Law on Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

⁹² Articles 62-69 of the Law on Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

⁹³ European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), (Mar. 29, 2011), par. 59 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/d-tr/dv/1128_17_/1128_17_en.pdf.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Özpınar v. Turkey, App. No. 20999/04 (Oct. 19, 2010), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-101220.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Article 3/1 of the State of Emergency Decree No. 667, enacted on July 23, 2016.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ High Council of Judges and Prosecutors General Assembly Decision No. 2016/426, 24/8/2016; Decision No. 2016/428, 31/8/2016; Decision No. 2016/430, 4/10/2016; Decision No. 2016/440, 15/11/2016; Decision No. 2016/434, 29/11/2016; Decision No. 2017/35, 13/02/2017; Decision No. 2017/113, 17/03/2017; Decision no. 2017/665, 3/4/2017; Decision No. 2017/682, 05/05/2017.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Article 71 of the Law on Judges and Prosecutors sets out that no disciplinary action can be taken against judges in the absence of their defense. The judges shall be given at least three days for their defense.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ The English translation of the General Assembly decision can be found here: http://www.judiciaryofturkey.gov.tr/pdfler/hsyk_karar440.PDF.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Hurriyet Daily News, More Than 154,000 faced legal probe over Gulen links since coup attempt (May 29, 2017) http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/more-than-154000-faced-legal-probe-over-gulen-links-since-coup-attempt–113663 Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ See the High Council for Judges and Prosecutors General Assembly Decisions, supra note 96.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Article 3/2 of the State of Emergency Decree no 667 (adopted on 23/7/2016).Google Scholar

¹⁰² Article 6 of the State of Emergency Decree no 680 (adopted on 6/1/2017) amending article 9/A of the Law on Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Article 59 of the Law on Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Article 32 (4) (b) of the Law on the Council for Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Saglam, Fazıl, supra note 67; Gönenç, Levent, Dünyada ve Türkiyede Yüksek Yargi Kurullari (2011).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Çelenk, Ayşe Aslıhan, The myth of ‘independent judiciary': the evolution of judiciary-executive relations in Turkish politics, 22 Contemporary Politics 232, 243 (2016).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Article 159/1 of the 1982 Constitution; Article 1 of the Law on the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Article 159/8 of the 1982 Constitution.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Article 7/2(ı) of the Law on the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors as amended by the Law no. 6524.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Prior to 2010, the only remedy to challenge the decisions of the Council was an internal commission within the Council. However, the commission was not considered as an effective remedy by the European Court of Human Rights. See Kayasu v. Turkey, App. No. 64119/00 and 76292/01, (Nov. 13, 2008), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-89606; Özpınar v. Turkey, supra note 94.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Article 159/10 of the 1982 Constitution.Google Scholar

¹¹² Çelik, Burak, Hakimler ve Savcılar Yüksek Kurulu, supra note 67, at 353; Interim Opinion on the Draft Law on Judges and Prosecutors of Turkey, CDL-AD(2011)004, Venice Commission, supra note 93, par. 76; See also Venice Commission (2010), supra note 4, par. 55.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Yazıcı, Serap, Turkey's Constitutional Amendments: Between the Status Quo and Limited Democratic Reforms, 12 Insight Turkey (2010) http://file.insightturkey.com/Files/Pdf/insight_turkey_vol_12_no_2_2010_yazici.pdf.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Baltacı, Cemal, supra note 68.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Bâli, Aslı, supra note 34.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Yazıcı, Serap, Yüksek Yargı Konseylerinin Oluşturulmasında Demokratik Temsil İlkesi, in Yargının Bagı msı zlıgı, Tarafsızlıgı ve Etkiuligi (Ahmet Taşkın ed. 2009); Hakyemez, Yusuf Şevki, Hakimler ve Savcılar Yüksek Kurulu, in Stratejik Düşünce Enstitüsü Yargı Raporu: Demokratikleşme Sürecinde Yargı Kurumları (2010).Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Çelik, Burak, Hakimler ve Savcilar Yüksek Kurulu, supra note 67, at 129.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Opinion no.10 (2007) of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) to the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the Council for the Judiciary at the service of society (Nov. 23, 2007), par. 32.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Article 159/3 of the 1982 Constitution as amended on April 16, 2017.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Opinion no. 10 (2007) of the CCEJ, supra note 116, par. 27.Google Scholar

¹²¹ These concerns have been raised even before the 2017 amendments in Fazıl Saglam, supra note 67; Muharrem Özen, supra note 67.Google Scholar