State of emergency with no control

The main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) took the statutory decrees (KHK) that were issued during the state of emergency to court, but the Constitutional Court rejected the case. I was waiting for the justified decision to be printed to criticize the decision. 

The high court stated that the KHK decrees issued during the state of emergency can never be taken to the Constitutional Court to be annulled. Its justification is based on this clause in the constitution: "However, no action shall be brought before the Constitutional Court alleging unconstitutionality as to the form or substance of decrees having force of law issued during a state of emergency, martial law or in time of war," (Article 148).

As a matter of fact, in decisions a quarter of a century ago in 1991, the Constitutional Court ruled that under certain circumstances, annulment cases could be opened against these KHKs. There were three rulings on this front. 

The new decision of the high court is a retreat in terms of "constitutional judicial control." It has granted the executive the means to issue state of emergency decrees without any judicial restriction and control.  

In 1991, the high court ruled that in two situations, cases could be opened against state of emergency KHK decrees. In very simple terms, one was that permanent changes cannot be made in laws with state of emergency decrees because it would mean that state of emergency regulations would become permanent laws, such as the case of restricting the right of defense…

The other case is when regulations that have nothing to do with situations that necessitated the declaration of a state of emergency are implemented with KHK decrees.

For instance, university rector elections have...