Key ECtHR Judgments Concerning Türkiye
These judgments are not merely findings of individual violations; they represent turning points capable of changing the course of thousands of similar cases. Türkiye’s implementation of these judgments is also regarded as a crucial test of its commitment to the rule of law, judicial independence, and compliance with its international obligations.
Important ECtHR Judgments
Why Are These Judgments Important?
On 26 September 2023, the European Court of Human Rights held, in the application of Yüksel Yalçınkaya, that Türkiye had violated Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial), Article 7 (no punishment without law), and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). The judgment clearly stated that the use of ByLock, transactions with Bank Asya, and membership of certain trade unions or associations could not, by themselves, be regarded as sufficient evidence of membership of a terrorist organisation.
In the historic Şaban Yasak judgment delivered by the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR on 5 May 2026, the Court further stated that, in accordance with one of the most fundamental principles of criminal law, namely “no punishment without culpability”, no one may be punished unless their personal responsibility and intention to participate in the offence are concretely proven; that the establishment of the mental element of the offence (criminal intent) is a necessary requirement; and that both the actus reus and mens rea of the offence must be individually and concretely proven in respect of each defendant. In light of this judgment, mere closeness, connection or affiliation with the Gülen movement, engagement in lawful activities, or employment in lawful institutions cannot be accepted as evidence of membership of a terrorist organisation.
These precedent judgments directly affect not only Yasak and Yalçınkaya, but also thousands of people facing similar charges. Türkiye must comply with international law and implement these judgments. However, despite the considerable time that has passed since the judgments, no concrete step has yet been taken.
ŞABAN YASAK v. TÜRKİYE
The Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Şaban Yasak v. Türkiye, delivered on 5 May 2026, constitutes a highly significant precedent concerning convictions for membership of an armed terrorist organisation imposed on persons alleged to be associated with the Gülen movement.
The Court found, by eleven votes to six, a violation of Article 7 of the Convention, namely the principle of “no punishment without law.” With regard to the conditions of detention, it found, by nine votes to eight, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, namely the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment.
The central issue in the case was Mr Şaban Yasak’s conviction under Article 314(2) of the Turkish Criminal Code for the offence of membership of an armed terrorist organisation. The domestic court convicted the applicant on the basis that he had undertaken certain activities within the organisation’s educational structure, had telephone contacts with certain individuals, had allegedly used a code name, had deposited money with Bank Asya, and had been registered for social security through a company considered to be affiliated with the organisation.
According to the ECtHR, the problem was not the existence of these items of evidence individually, but the domestic courts’ failure to establish sufficiently the subjective element of the offence, namely the applicant’s intent (mens rea), on the basis of that evidence. The Court emphasised that, in relation to a serious offence such as membership of an armed terrorist organisation, the mere fact that a person has connections with a particular structure is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated, through a concrete and individualised assessment, that the person knew of the organisation’s terrorist nature, knowingly joined that structure, and actively and continuously contributed to the organisation’s objectives.
From a legal perspective, the judgment is particularly important in relation to Article 7 of the Convention. The ECtHR did not confine itself merely to the issue of the right to a fair trial; rather, it focused on the more fundamental issues of the foreseeability of criminal offences and the prohibition of retroactive application of criminal law. According to the Court, activities that appeared lawful at the time they were carried out cannot subsequently and automatically be transformed into membership of a terrorist organisation merely because the organisation was later designated as a terrorist organisation. For such a conviction, the individual’s knowledge at the relevant time, intent, role, contribution, and connection with the organisation’s criminal objectives must be established in a concrete manner.
The second aspect of the judgment concerns the applicant’s conditions of detention. The applicant was detained for an extended period under conditions of severe overcrowding in Çorum L-Type Prison. The ECtHR found that the applicant remained in an overcrowded prison for approximately four years, that for around fourteen months he was not provided with an individual bed, that he was required to sleep on the floor in common areas, that he was exposed to artificial light and noise during the night, that hygiene and privacy conditions were inadequate, and that access to outdoor exercise remained limited. In light of the cumulative effect of these conditions, the Court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
In conclusion, together with the Yalçınkaya judgment, the Şaban Yasak judgment is one of the most important Grand Chamber judgments delivered by the ECtHR concerning convictions related to the Gülen movement in Türkiye. The judgment establishes that courts cannot base convictions on abstract descriptions of an organisation, general assumptions, or a logic of collective guilt; rather, in respect of every individual defendant, they must clearly demonstrate the existence of individual criminal intent, knowing participation, concrete contribution, and a connection with the organisation’s criminal objectives.
According to the Şaban Yasak judgment, past involvement in lawful—or apparently lawful—civil or educational activities is not, by itself, sufficient to establish membership of an armed terrorist organisation. For a conviction, it must be proven, in a concrete, individualised, and properly reasoned manner, that the person knew of the organisation’s terrorist nature, knowingly participated in those objectives, and made an active and continuous contribution.
YÜKSEL YALÇINKAYA v. TÜRKİYE
The European Court of Human Rights held that Mr Yüksel Yalçınkaya’s use of the ByLock application, maintaining an account with Bank Asya, and membership in certain associations or trade unions could not, in themselves, constitute sufficient evidence of membership of a terrorist organisation. In doing so, the Court established a landmark precedent.
The Court found that, in the course of these criminal proceedings, the Republic of Türkiye had violated:
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial),
Article 7 (no punishment without law), and
Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association).
Through this judgment, the Court established a landmark and structural precedent.
The judgment is of historic importance not only for the applicant, Mr Yalçınkaya, but also for thousands of individuals prosecuted on similar charges, as it confirmed both that the proceedings had not been conducted fairly and that convictions based on lawful and peaceful activities are incompatible with the Convention.
DEMİRHAN and OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
In its judgment of 22 July 2025 in Demirhan and Others v. Türkiye (Application No. 1595/20 and 238 other applications), the Second Section of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Türkiye had violated:
Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (no punishment without law), and
Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial)
in respect of 239 individuals convicted of membership of an armed terrorist organisation under Article 314(2) of the Turkish Criminal Code by assize courts in 61 provinces across Türkiye.
The Court found that the applicants’ convictions had essentially been based on their use of the ByLock application and other routine activities that were lawful at the relevant time, without any individualised assessment of the material and mental elements of the offence. It concluded that this formed part of a systematic judicial practice incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Through the Demirhan judgment, the ECtHR effectively opened the way for retrials and acquittals, paving the way for the removal of wrongful convictions and for victims to obtain redress through domestic legal remedies. The judgment is regarded as a historic milestone, recognising years of systematic violations, contributing to the restoration of justice, and strengthening victims’ access to effective remedies.
The judgment became final on 3 November 2025 and is now unquestionably binding. Accordingly, the Demirhan judgment has established a fundamental standard that should be applied in all similar cases.
KARSLI and OTHERS V. TÜRKİYE
In its judgment of 16 December 2025 in Karslı and Others v. Türkiye (Application No. 18693/20 and 1,435 other applications), delivered by a Committee of the Second Section, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) unanimously found violations of:
Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (no punishment without law), and
Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial)
in respect of a total of 1,436 applicants convicted of membership of an armed terrorist organisation under Article 314(2) of the Turkish Criminal Code in connection with the organisation designated by the Turkish authorities as the “FETÖ/PDY”.
The judgment notes that the convictions were based primarily on the applicants’ alleged use of the ByLock application. In addition, various other factors were relied upon as evidence in certain cases, including membership of trade unions, associations or foundations, transactions with Bank Asya, possession of certain publications, travel records, charitable donations, social media posts, residence in student dormitories or shared accommodation, HTS (telephone traffic) records, and other digital evidence. Nevertheless, the Court found that the domestic courts’ “uniform and global approach” to ByLock—namely, the assumption that any individual identified as a ByLock user could, solely on that basis, be convicted under Article 314(2)—undermined the guarantees of foreseeability and legality protected by Article 7 of the Convention, as well as the fundamental procedural safeguards guaranteed under Article 6 § 1. The Court expressly stated that it saw no reason to depart from the principles established in its judgments in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye and Demirhan and Others v. Türkiye.
The Court therefore considered that there was no need to examine the applicants’ remaining complaints. As regards non-pecuniary damage, it held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction. However, it noted that the applicants could request the reopening of their criminal proceedings under Article 311(1)(f) of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure and stated that, where such a request is made, the reopening of the proceedings in a manner consistent with the conclusions and spirit of the judgment would, in principle, constitute the most appropriate form of redress. This judgment became final on the date of its delivery.
SEYHAN and OTHERS V. TÜRKİYE
In its judgment of 16 December 2025 in Seyhan and Others v. Türkiye (Application No. 57837/19 and 851 other applications), delivered by a Committee of the Second Section, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) unanimously found a violation of:
Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial)
in respect of a total of 852 applicants convicted of membership of an armed terrorist organisation under Article 314(2) of the Turkish Criminal Code in connection with the organisation designated by the Turkish authorities as the “FETÖ/PDY”.
The judgment states that the convictions were based primarily on the alleged use of the encrypted messaging application ByLock. In certain cases, additional evidence included confessions or message contents, witness statements, membership of trade unions, associations or foundations, transactions with Bank Asya, possession of certain publications, travel records, charitable donations, allegations of participation in demonstrations or organisational activities, social media posts, residence in student dormitories or shared accommodation, the use of applications such as Kakao Talk and Eagle, HTS (telephone traffic) records and other digital evidence, as well as employment and membership relationships. Nevertheless, the Court found that, because of the domestic courts’ “uniform and global approach” to ByLock—namely, the assumption that any individual identified as a ByLock user could, solely on that basis, be convicted under Article 314(2)—the procedural framework of the criminal proceedings had effectively been shaped by that assumption, and that there was no reason to depart from the fundamental safeguards established in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye and Demirhan and Others v. Türkiye. In this context, the Court concluded that the failure to provide adequate safeguards regarding the collection and use of ByLock data, the opportunity to challenge that evidence effectively, the possibility of addressing the issues lying at the heart of the proceedings, and the obligation to provide sufficiently reasoned judgments rendered the proceedings, taken as a whole, unfair.
With regard to the applicants’ complaints under Article 7 of the Convention, the Court—while noting the Government’s preliminary objection concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies—considered that, in light of its finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 and the particular circumstances of the case, no separate examination under Article 7 was necessary. It likewise found that there was no need to examine the remaining complaints under Articles 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention. As regards Article 41 of the Convention, the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage. It further noted that the applicants could request the reopening of their criminal proceedings under Article 311(1)(f) of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure and stated that, where such a request is made, reopening the proceedings in a manner consistent with the conclusions and spirit of the judgment would, in principle, constitute the most appropriate form of redress. This judgment became final on the date of its delivery.
BOZYOKUŞ and OTHERS V. TÜRKİYE
In its judgment of 16 December 2025 in Bozyokuş and Others v. Türkiye (Application No. 39586/20 and 131 other applications), delivered by a Committee of the Second Section, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined the applicants’ complaints under Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (no punishment without law) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) in respect of a total of 132 applicants convicted of membership of an armed terrorist organisation under Article 314(2) of the Turkish Criminal Code in connection with the organisation designated by the Turkish authorities as the “FETÖ/PDY”.
The Court found that the convictions had been based primarily on the applicants’ use of the ByLock application and that the domestic courts had adopted a “uniform and global” approach, according to which ByLock was regarded as a communication tool used exclusively by members of the organisation and any individual identified as a ByLock user could, solely on that basis, be convicted under Article 314(2) of the Turkish Criminal Code. The Court further noted that, in certain cases, additional evidence had been relied upon, including confessions or message contents, witness statements, membership of trade unions, associations or foundations, transactions with Bank Asya, possession of certain publications, travel and border-crossing records, charitable donations, allegations of participation in demonstrations or organisational activities, social media posts, residence in student dormitories or shared accommodation, the use of applications such as Kakao Talk and Eagle, HTS (telephone traffic) records and other digital evidence, as well as employment and membership relationships.
The Court considered the Government’s argument that the findings in Yüksel Yalçınkaya could not be generalised and that each case should be assessed on its own merits. Nevertheless, for the reasons set out in detail in Demirhan and Others, it concluded that there was no reason to depart from the findings in Yüksel Yalçınkaya, particularly the conclusion that the assumption that the use of ByLock automatically satisfied all elements of the criminal offence was incompatible with the Convention. In this regard, the ECtHR held that the domestic courts’ approach of treating the use of ByLock as conclusive proof of every element of the offence effectively imposed objective liability on ByLock users and was incompatible with the principles of legality and foreseeability guaranteed by Article 7 of the Convention.
Accordingly, the Court found a violation of Article 7 of the Convention.
In light of its reasoning under Article 7 and the particular circumstances of the case, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine the admissibility or merits of the remaining complaints, including those under Article 6 § 1.
With regard to Article 41 of the Convention, the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage and made no separate award in respect of costs and expenses, given the nature of these “follow-up applications”. The Court further noted that the applicants could request the reopening of their criminal proceedings under Article 311(1)(f) of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure and stated that, where such a request is made, the reopening of the proceedings in a manner consistent with the conclusions and spirit of the judgment would, in principle, constitute the most appropriate form of redress. This judgment became final on the date of its delivery.
BUDAK and OTHERS V. TÜRKİYE
The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Budak and Others v. Türkiye (14 October 2025) concerns the complaints of 94 applicants who were taken into police custody and subsequently detained following the attempted coup of 15 July 2016. The applicants had been detained on suspicion of membership of the FETÖ/PDY and argued that their detention had not been based on a reasonable suspicion. The Turkish judicial authorities relied on evidence such as the use of the ByLock application, Bank Asya accounts, employment in institutions allegedly affiliated with the organisation, social media posts, and possession of a one-dollar banknote. The ECtHR found that these elements, whether considered individually or collectively, did not constitute concrete evidence capable of establishing a reasonable suspicion, and that the domestic courts had ordered the applicants’ detention on the basis of general reasoning without conducting an individualised assessment.
Referring to its previous case-law (including Baş, Akgün, and Taner Kılıç), the Court held that such evidence consisted of activities that were either lawful or ordinary in nature and could not justify deprivation of liberty unless supported by additional specific facts capable of substantiating a criminal suspicion. Accordingly, the Court found that Türkiye had violated Article 5 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to liberty and security). It awarded each applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and considered that there was no need to examine the remaining complaints separately.
ÇETİN and OTHERS V. TÜRKİYE
The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Çetin and Others v. Türkiye (14 October 2025) concerns allegations by 137 applicants that their right to liberty and security had been violated following their detention after the attempted coup of 15 July 2016. The applicants were taken into police custody and detained on suspicion of membership of the FETÖ/PDY. The Turkish courts based the detention orders on factors such as the alleged use of the ByLock application, witness statements, possession of publications linked to the organisation, Bank Asya accounts, participation in so-called “sohbet” meetings, or employment in institutions allegedly affiliated with the organisation. The ECtHR found that these reasons had been repeated in stereotyped terms without being substantiated and that no individualised assessment had been carried out. It also found that the decisions extending the applicants’ detention had relied in abstract terms on risks such as absconding or tampering with evidence.
The Court held that such automatic detention practices were contrary to Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights because the Turkish judicial authorities had failed to provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons for ordering and maintaining the applicants’ detention. The ECtHR did not consider it necessary to examine separately whether there had been a reasonable suspicion, as it found that the principal violation lay in the unjustified and prolonged detention. It further emphasised that the derogation notified by Türkiye following the declaration of the state of emergency after 15 July could not legitimise this violation. Accordingly, the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of all applicants and awarded each of them EUR 3,000 in non-pecuniary damages.
TÜZEMEN and OTHERS V. TÜRKİYE
The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Tüzemen and Others v. Türkiye (8 July 2025) concerns the complaints of 117 applicants detained following the attempted coup of 15 July 2016. The applicants were detained on suspicion of membership of the “FETÖ/PDY” and deprived of their liberty on the basis of factors such as the alleged use of the ByLock application, maintaining an account with Bank Asya, membership of certain associations or trade unions, social media posts, dismissal from public service, and sending their children to schools allegedly affiliated with the organisation. The Court found that these elements, whether considered individually or collectively, did not establish a “reasonable suspicion” that a criminal offence had been committed. It further held that the Turkish courts had failed to conduct an individualised assessment and had instead justified their decisions by merely repeating the abstract wording of Article 100 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure.
Referring to its earlier judgments in Baş, Taner Kılıç, and Akgün, the ECtHR reiterated that lawful activities such as the use of the ByLock application or maintaining an account with Bank Asya could not, in themselves, constitute a basis for suspecting membership of a terrorist organisation. While the Court took into account the contextual circumstances arising from the declaration of the state of emergency following the attempted coup, it held that this did not amount to a “strictly required” measure capable of justifying deprivation of liberty under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Accordingly, the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the majority of the applicants EUR 5,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
ALTUN and OTHERS V. TÜRKİYE
The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Altun and Others v. Türkiye (10 June 2025) concerns the applications of 23 judges and prosecutors detained following the attempted coup of 15 July 2016. The applicants were taken into police custody, dismissed from office, and held in pre-trial detention for extended periods on suspicion of membership of the “FETÖ/PDY”. The Turkish courts based the detention orders on evidence such as the alleged use of the ByLock application, the applicants’ dismissal by the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK), witness statements, and ByLock communications involving other suspects. The ECtHR found that these elements, whether considered individually or collectively, did not constitute a “reasonable suspicion” and that the domestic courts had merely repeated the general wording of Article 100 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure without conducting an individualised assessment.
Referring to its previous case-law (including Baş, Akgün, Taner Kılıç, and Turan and Others), the Court held that factors such as the alleged use of ByLock or dismissal from judicial office could not, in themselves, constitute concrete evidence that a criminal offence had been committed. The Court further emphasised that the declaration of a state of emergency following the attempted coup did not automatically mean that the applicants’ detention constituted a measure “strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.” Accordingly, the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It awarded EUR 5,000 in non-pecuniary damages to the majority of the applicants and found that there was no need to examine separately the remaining complaints, in particular those raised under Articles 5 § 3, 5 § 4, and 8 of the Convention.
Presentation of UN Special Rapporteur Professor Ben Saul in Yasak v. Türkiye
United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism – Amicus Curiae Submission before the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) in Yasak v. Türkiye (Application No. 17389/20)
Related Links
