News

Constitutional Court adjudicated on ‘precautionary money’ objection, President Arslan said ‘it is unconstitutional’

The Constitutional Court (AYM), unanimously rejected the request for annulment of the law that was added to the Central Bank (CB) Law and stipulates the transfer of reserve funds to the Treasury. Opposing the decision, Constitutional Court President Zühtü Arslan emphasized that the regulation is a limitation on the property rights of both the MB and legal persons and noted that it is unconstitutional.

With the amendment made on July 17, 2019, the Law on the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey was regulated as “precautionary funds will be given to the Treasury without seeking the resolution of the general assembly”. CHP brought the said regulation to the Constitutional Court on the grounds that “there is no public interest in giving all of the accumulated reserve funds to the Treasury”. The Constitutional Court, which discussed the application, rejected the request for annulment unanimously. In the decision, it was pointed out that supporting the government’s growth and employment policies is one of the main duties and powers of the MB, and it was noted that the transfer of reserve funds to the Treasury was consistent with this duty, and it was stated that “It is understood that the rule has a legitimate aim based on the public interest”. In the decision, it was argued that the regulation was one-off, so the restriction on the right to property did not impose an excessive burden on individuals.

“THE WILL EXCLUDED”

Five names, including AYM President Arslan, were annotated to the decision. In his dissenting vote, Arslan emphasized that there are real and legal persons of private law, besides the Treasury and public banks, among the shareholders of the Central Bank, and that these real and legal persons have a say over the use of the reserve fund, and said, It is a limitation on the property rights of real and legal persons. It is difficult to say that the rule stipulating that the accumulated reserve funds of the bank be given directly to the Treasury without seeking the resolution of the general assembly envisages a proportional limitation. First of all, not seeking the resolution of the General Assembly completely excludes the will of private law real and legal persons who have the right to speak in the assembly. I do not agree with the majority decision to reject the rule, as I think that the rule is contrary to Article 35 of the Constitution.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button