This page features national and international statements, academic analyses, expert opinions and related commentaries issued after the Yüksel Yalçınkaya judgment. These materials, which assess the legal, social and political impact of the judgment, have been drafted by human‑rights organisations, lawyers, academics and civil‑society representatives.
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
The Committee of Ministers held a discussion on the implementation of the Yalçınkaya judgment.
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which is responsible for overseeing the implementation of ECtHR judgments, examined whether Türkiye had fulfilled its obligations regarding the Yüksel Yalçınkaya judgment of the European Court of Human Rights during its 1531st meeting. In the decision published today following the meeting held from 10–12 June 2025, the Committee reiterated its calls for both individual and general measures to be implemented. As regards individual measures, The Committee called on the authorities to ensure that the reopened proceedings are completed in accordance with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights, and requested continued updates to the Committee. As regards general measures, For pending cases before national courts, the Committee welcomed examples—particularly from the Court of Cassation—showing Convention-compliant practice in establishing the material and mental elements of the offence of membership in an armed terrorist organisation. It also requested additional examples from first-instance courts demonstrating compliance with Convention standards in similar cases. For cases that have been finalized at the domestic level, the Committee noted that national legislation provides, in principle, for an effective remedy—especially individual applications to the Constitutional Court—and that applicants have the right to apply to the European Court of Human Rights if they believe the consequences of the violation were not remedied domestically. Considering the large number of repetitive applications pending before the Court, the Committee invited the authorities to consider adopting specific measures to prevent further findings of similar violations in the future and encouraged involving the Secretariat in this reflection process. The authorities were invited to submit information on the above issues by the end of June 2026. The European Court of Human Rights had ruled in September 2023 that Yüksel Yalçınkaya’s rights had been violated under the principles of fair trial, no punishment without law, and freedom of association and assembly. The judgment is considered a leading precedent for tens of thousands of similar cases. The ECtHR also stated that it had more than 8,000 similar applications related to the Yalçınkaya case, 5,000 of which had already been communicated to Türkiye and the applicants.
Turkey
Second notification from Turkey concerning the Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey case
This document is the updated action plan submitted by Turkey in the context of the Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey case.
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
The Committee of Ministers will examine the execution of the Yalçınkaya judgment in June
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has included the Grand Chamber’s 26 September 2023 Yüksel Yalçınkaya ruling on the agenda for its June 2025 meeting. As the body responsible for monitoring the implementation of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments, the Committee of Ministers will, in its June meeting, thoroughly examine how the Yalçınkaya ruling has or has not been implemented — both in terms of the individual applicant and the broader judicial landscape. The committee will decide what information and documentation Turkey must provide regarding this matter and will set a specific deadline. If Turkey fails to submit the required materials within this period, the committee will revisit the process at its next session or issue an interim decision. The Yalçınkaya case addresses significant violations found in trials, particularly those related to ByLock allegations, and highlights a major ECtHR ruling that the Turkish judiciary has not implemented. In its decision, the ECtHR declared that actions such as using ByLock, belonging to associations or unions, subscribing to certain newspapers, or holding an account at Bank Asya are not sufficient grounds for conviction on charges of membership in a terrorist organization.
Constitutional Court (statement by Kadir Öztürk)
Important development regarding retrial requests submitted to the Constitutional Court following the Yalçınkaya judgment
The court has decided, in its ruling dated 06/12/2024, to consolidate the individual applications filed across the country regarding “retrial” requests based on the Yalçınkaya ruling and address them under a single application (excluding very recent applications). In a recent interview, I stated that the Constitutional Court (AYM) has essentially not issued even a single ruling concerning convictions based solely on ByLock use following the Yalçınkaya decision (except for applications declared inadmissible due to reasons like time-bar), and that this should be interpreted as indicating that the Yalçınkaya ruling has led to a positive and legal shift in the AYM’s stance on ByLock. By deciding to handle the individual applications related to “retrial” requests stemming from the Yalçınkaya ruling under one consolidated file, the Constitutional Court has once again demonstrated the importance it attaches to the Yalçınkaya decision. As I have consistently pointed out for two years, the ECtHR’s Yalçınkaya ruling, under Turkish criminal procedure (CMK), is not, by itself, a reason for retrial for individuals other than Yalçınkaya himself. The reason other individuals invoke the legal principles applied by the ECtHR in the Yalçınkaya ruling and demand they be applied to themselves is based on: ➜ the expectation that legal practices in civilized countries should clearly not be arbitrary, ➜ the obligation of the Turkish government to take general measures in good faith and in a manner consistent with the “spirit and outcomes” of the Yalçınkaya ruling, and ➜ the Constitutional Court’s own acknowledgment in its İbrahim Er and Others decision that, under the objective function of high court rulings, the ECtHR’s assessments in the Yalçınkaya ruling should have an impact on others in similar situations. Lastly, among those whose retrial complaints were consolidated by the Constitutional Court are individuals who were not convicted based on ByLock allegations but rather on accusations of depositing money into Bank Asya. The Constitutional Court’s forthcoming decision on this matter represents not only the protection of an individual right but also a historic opportunity to end longstanding injustices in the name of justice and the principles of the rule of law. I believe the court will deliver a fair and comprehensive ruling grounded in the principles of the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights.
Dr. Gökhan Güneş
The ECtHR Yalçınkaya Judgment and the Kayseri Court: The ByLock Deadlock of Justice
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in the Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey application, issued a highly significant violation ruling not only under the principle of legality of crimes and punishments but also within the scope of the right to a fair trial regarding ByLock-related convictions. This decision has effectively confirmed what has long been asserted — that ByLock constitutes unlawfully obtained evidence. However, during the retrial process that followed this violation ruling, the Kayseri 2nd High Criminal Court interpreted the ECtHR decision very differently and acted as if no such Grand Chamber ruling had been issued, ultimately imposing the same sentence on Yalçınkaya. This text explains why the Kayseri court failed to fulfill the requirements stemming from the ECtHR’s violation ruling under the right to a fair trial and outlines the key points that courts must address when considering the admissibility of ByLock as evidence. First, the text covers the reasons the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR cited for its finding of a violation under the right to a fair trial. Then, it explains why the Kayseri court’s renewed conviction decision failed to comply with the requirements of that violation ruling. The specific grounds on which the ECtHR justified its violation finding under the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights) include the following points:
2nd High Criminal Court of Kayseri
Local court in Kayseri ignored the ECtHR judgment
A new example of the non-implementation of the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the ECtHR by local courts came from Kayseri. Kayseri 2. Ignoring the ECtHR's decision on violation of rights, the High Criminal Court re-convicted Yüksel Yalçınkaya, who was tried on FETÖ allegations.
2nd High Criminal Court of Kayseri
Kayseri 2nd High Criminal Court has published the reasoning of its decision in the Yüksel Yalçınkaya case
Kayseri 2. Reasoned Decision of the High Criminal Court
Turkey
Notification from Turkey regarding the Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey case
This document is Turkey's first official action plan against the violation decision of the European Court of Human Rights dated 26 September 2023 in the context of the Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey case.
Justice Square Foundation (Netherlands) with FIDU (Italy), SSI Lawyers Initiative (Belgium) and Solidarity with OTHERS (Belgium)
Application to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers on ‘Yüksel Yalçınkaya’!
Six international human rights organizations operating in Europe, including Justice Square, have launched an important initiative that could affect ongoing legal proceedings. In a joint statement, the human rights organizations called on the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to initiate the implementation process for the Yüksel Yalçınkaya ruling, in which Turkey was found to be in violation. The ECtHR’s “Yüksel Yalçınkaya” decision, which has effectively invalidated ongoing prosecutions in Turkey, continues to be a central topic. Most recently, the European Court of Human Rights notified the Turkish government of a third set of 1,000 applications related to convictions based on alleged ByLock use. Following the Yalçınkaya ruling, the ECtHR had already sent two earlier batches totaling 2,000 applications to the Turkish government for defense submissions. With the latest notifications, the total has now reached 3,000. In a brief statement on the matter, Justice Square said, “Together with five other international human rights organizations active in Europe, we have submitted a notification to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, requesting that the Yalçınkaya ruling be placed on the September 2024 agenda and that the implementation process be initiated. We will continue to take the necessary steps to ensure the enforcement of the Yalçınkaya decision, which directly concerns tens of thousands of people.”
Human Rights School / Dr. Kerem Altıparmak and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ali Rıza Çoban
Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey: The Largest Iceberg in ECtHR History
Since 27 September 1989, when the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) recognized its compulsory jurisdiction, the Strasbourg Court has been one of the most important legal and political problems resolution authorities in Turkey. The problem is not only the large number of applications from Turkey to the ECtHR. At the same time, Turkey's structural and national problems that cannot be solved are brought before the ECtHR. With the Constitutional amendment made in 2010, it became possible to make an individual application to the Constitutional Court (Constitutional Court) as of 23 September 2012, after the way of individual application to the Constitutional Court (Constitutional Court) was opened.
Dr. Chloë Gilgan, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Lincoln, United Kingdom
European jurists on Yalçınkaya: Terror charges cannot be brought by disregarding human rights
Senior Lecturer Dr. Sanna Elfving from the University of Lincoln School of Law in the United Kingdom and Senior Lecturer in Law Dr. Chloë Gilgan, also from the University of Lincoln, evaluated the ECtHR’s Yalçınkaya ruling. These legal experts emphasized that terrorism charges cannot be made by disregarding human rights. SYSTEMATIC NATURE OF THE VIOLATIONS In their assessment published on the website of the Human Rights Centre at Ghent University, they examined the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) 26 September 2023 ruling in the Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey case. They highlighted that the ECtHR underlined the systematic nature of Turkey’s violations of the right to a fair trial, the principle of no punishment without law, and the freedom of association. It was also noted that the punishments imposed by Turkey based on ByLock use are expected to affect approximately 2 million people.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Suzanne Egan, University of Dublin School of Law
Call for sanctions on Turkey for failing to implement the ECtHR’s Yalçınkaya judgment
Associate Professor Dr. Suzanne Egan from the University of Dublin School of Law has written about the importance of the Yalçınkaya ruling and Turkey’s stance on it. Dr. Egan emphasized that ignoring the decision would endanger the rule of law and international norms, calling on the Council of Europe to take action. In an article published by the Human Rights Centre at Ghent University, the focus was placed on the potential serious consequences if national courts disregard the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), particularly in light of the Grand Chamber’s ruling in Yalçınkaya v. Turkey. The article explored the possible outcomes for states that fail to implement international human rights law and stressed the urgent actions needed to ensure compliance.
Statewatch (London) / Dr. Emre Turkut and Attorney Ali Yıldız
‘Yalçınkaya’ report from London‑based Statewatch
A new report released on Wednesday by the London-based human rights organization Statewatch reveals systematic human rights violations by Turkish authorities in their investigations into members of the Gulen movement for using ByLock.
Dr. Efe Can Karabulat
Review of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey
Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. The Turkey decision is one of the most important decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in recent years in terms of its social and political consequences. In its decision, the ECtHR ruled that Articles 6, 7 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated. This decision, which is similar to the current jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court in terms of the elements it contains, also sets some new standards.
Prof. Dr. Mustafa Ruhan Erdem, Yaşar University Faculty of Law
Legal opinion by Prof. Dr. Mustafa Ruhan Erdem on the Yalçınkaya/FETÖ case
Prof. Dr. Mustafa Ruhan Erdem (Yaşar University Faculty of Law) has written a legal opinion (expert assessment) regarding the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) Yüksel Yalçınkaya/Türkiye judgment. This opinion analyzes the legal evaluation of the use of the ByLock application as evidence in FETÖ/PDY membership accusations in Türkiye and examines the impacts of the ECtHR ruling on the Turkish legal system. Main Points of the Opinion Evaluation of ByLock Usage as Evidence: The ECtHR stated that merely using or downloading ByLock cannot be considered sufficient and conclusive evidence of FETÖ/PDY membership. Prof. Dr. Erdem’s opinion also emphasizes that the mental element (intent) of the crime and a concrete demonstration of the organic link with the organization are necessary. Right to a Fair Trial (Article 6) and the Principle of No Punishment Without Law (Article 7): In the Yalçınkaya judgment, the ECtHR ruled that Türkiye violated the right to a fair trial and the principle of no punishment without law. Prof. Dr. Erdem’s view also argues that there were serious deficiencies regarding access to ByLock data and the right to defense, making the trials unfair. Criteria for Membership in the Organization: The opinion states that for organizational membership, the individual must be part of the organization’s hierarchical structure and engage in acts showing continuity, diversity, and intensity; merely using ByLock or opening an account at Bank Asya alone is insufficient. Impacts of the Judgment: After the Yalçınkaya decision, individuals convicted similarly based on ByLock or similar digital evidence have gained the right to retrial. Prof. Dr. Erdem points out that this ruling requires significant change in Turkish judiciary, emphasizing that digital evidence should be examined by independent experts and full access should be provided to the defense. Conclusion Prof. Dr. Mustafa Ruhan Erdem’s legal opinion reveals that the ECtHR’s Yalçınkaya judgment compels a reconsideration of the standards of evidence and fair trial principles used in FETÖ/PDY membership cases within Turkish criminal justice. It particularly underlines that digital evidence like ByLock alone is insufficient for conviction and that concrete and multifaceted evidence is required for establishing organizational membership.
Stichting Justice Square
Second notification to the Committee of Ministers concerning the ECtHR judgment in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey
As Stichting Justice Square, we are closely following the latest developments in the implementation process of the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling in the Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey case (Application No. 15669/20). Following our initial submission on 1 November 2023, we have presented a new submission to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which includes new findings and recommendations we have gathered to ensure the effective execution of this ruling. As Stichting Justice Square, we will continue to take determined steps toward ensuring justice and protecting human rights. We invite all relevant individuals and institutions to support this process and follow our informational efforts.
24 Members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
Important statement from PACE deputies: Arbitrary detentions in Turkey may constitute crimes against humanity
On 31 January 2024, 24 MEPs from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in Strasbourg issued a written statement titled 'Systematic arbitrary deprivation of liberty in Turkey may constitute a crime against humanity'.
Attorney Dr. Serkan Cengiz, Executive Board Member, Human Rights Center, Union of Turkish Bar Associations
‘ECtHR–Yalçınkaya’ report from the Union of Turkish Bar Associations
The Union of Turkish Bar Associations has prepared an evaluation report on the 'Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey Decision' in which the European Court of Human Rights condemned Turkey. In the report written by lawyer Dr. Serkan Cengiz, very important findings and evaluations are made. According to the UTBA's assessment, with the Yalçınkaya decision, the legal basis of the accusation of 'leadership and membership of a terrorist organization' has disappeared. In the report, "Likewise, with the aforementioned decision, the ECtHR has ruled that the retrospective interpretation made by the national courts that there is evidence of a criminal accusation in terms of a number of legal activities in the past is contrary to the provisions of Article 11 of the ECHR and especially Article 7 of the ECHR, and has eliminated the legal basis of the claims and convictions, especially within the scope of Articles 314/1 and 314/2 of the TCK." It was said.
Síofra O’Leary, President and Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights
ECtHR President: We are monitoring the Yalçınkaya case; 96 % of applications concern post‑coup violations
At a press conference held yesterday in Strasbourg, the President and the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) appeared before journalists to share the 2023 statistics and answer questions. President Siofra O’Leary made important statements regarding the Yalçınkaya case. The President and the Registrar also responded to questions from TR724 reporter Ensar Nur. Speaking at the press conference, Siofra O’Leary — the first female President of the ECtHR and an Irish national — emphasized that Turkey, with 23,400 cases, is the most complained-about state before the ECtHR. Another statistic shared by O’Leary served as proof of the legal chaos that has unfolded since 2016. The Court’s President stated that 96% of the 23,400 cases are related to situations that emerged after the 2016 coup attempt. O’Leary also stressed that the Court is giving absolute priority to cases concerning sanctions against judges, as well as cases related to the criminal convictions of civil servants, professors, and judges.
Sylvain Mérenne, President of the European Association of Administrative Judges (AEAJ) and President of MEDEL
Call from four European legal NGOs to the EP and EU member states: impose sanctions and bring Turkey back to the rule of law
4 civil society organizations, of which judges and prosecutors in Europe are members, called on the European Parliament and EU member states to impose sanctions on Turkey for not implementing the decisions of Osman Kavala, Şerafettin Can Atalay and Yüksel Yalçınkaya. In the statement, it was stated that the Kavala and Can Atalay decisions represented the tip of the iceberg, and the Yüksel Yalçınkaya decision was a turning point that invalidated the investigation and conviction decisions of the ECtHR in accordance with the principle of 'Nullum crimen sine lege'. "Call for the immediate release of not only human rights defenders Osman Kavala and Can Atalay, but all those currently unjustly detained or convicted. Impose sanctions against the officials responsible," the statement said.
Human Rights Defenders
Call from Human Rights Defenders to victims abroad: There is no statute of limitations – file your applications
The Germany-based Human Rights Defenders association called on people living abroad who are victims of the operations against the Gülen movement in Turkey. After the ECtHR's decision, the association stated that there is no statute of limitations for judges and prosecutors who cause unlawfulness, and made suggestions to victims on how they can apply for this.
Attorney / Legal Adviser Coşkun Yorulmaz
Beyond the Judgment: The Yalçınkaya v. Turkey case and the quest for justice under the shadow of terrorism charges
In his article on the Human Rights in Context blog, Coşkun Yorulmaz explains the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) landmark ruling in Yalçınkaya v. Turkey, which found that Turkey’s broad and vague anti-terrorism laws violated the fundamental rights of Yüksel Yalçınkaya and millions of others, including the right to a fair trial, freedom of association, and the principle of no punishment without law; while the ruling calls on Turkey to reform its legal system, the government’s political backlash raises serious concerns about its willingness to implement meaningful change.
Sami Selçuk, former First President of the Court of Cassation
Former Chief Justice Sami Selçuk writes expert opinion: Lawful acts cannot be treated as ‘terror offences’
Former First President of the Court of Cassation Prof. Dr. Sami Selçuk, who is shown as one of the doyens of law in Turkey, made important evaluations about the 'Yüksel Yalçınkaya' decision of the ECtHR, which was ruled a 'violation'. According to the 'Scientific Opinion' written by Prof. Dr. Selçuk on the subject, 'all cases in which a will and action involving force and violence are not shown with concrete evidence should result in acquittal'.
Dr. Kerem Gülay, Lecturer, Koç University
Dr. Kerem Gülay discusses the ECtHR Yalçınkaya judgment on ÖFG TV
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in the Yüksel Yalçınkaya case that several articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) were violated! On September 26, 2023, the ECtHR delivered an important judgment in the Yüksel Yalçınkaya case. This decision includes various assessments, particularly regarding the trials in Turkey after July 15, 2016. The ECtHR found violations of several ECHR provisions, including the right to a fair trial (Article 6), the principle of “no punishment without law” (Article 7), and the right to freedom of assembly and association (Article 11). The judgment criticized the recent practices, decisions, and procedures of the Turkish judiciary, stating that these were systematically unlawful. The decision thoroughly examined the unlawful practices in organizational trials in Turkey and the resulting human rights violations. After the ruling, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan raised an objection during the parliamentary opening on October 1, signaling a refusal to implement the decision.
Josep Borrell, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
EU Foreign Affairs chief Borrell: We will monitor the implementation of the Yalçınkaya judgment
In response to a letter sent by the Brussels-based human rights association Solidarity with Others regarding the Yalçınkaya ruling, Borrell stated that the EU shares the association’s concerns and is closely monitoring developments in Turkey. The reply letter was written on behalf of Borrell by Bernard Brunet, Head of the Turkey Desk at the European Commission. In the response letter obtained by TR724, Brunet emphasizes that they have conveyed their concerns about the backsliding in the rule of law and the judiciary in Turkey to Turkish authorities at every level. He highlights that the European Commission raised serious concerns in its Turkey report published in the autumn regarding the destruction of fundamental rights, freedoms, and judicial independence. Brunet states, “As the Commission, we have underlined that the Anti-Terror Law (TMK) is not aligned with ECtHR jurisprudence and that its selective and arbitrary application negatively affects fundamental rights.” The head of the Turkey Desk adds that they have called for an end to the use of the TMK to detain journalists, writers, lawyers, politicians, academics, human rights defenders, and critical voices.
Dr. Kerem Gülay, Lecturer, Koç University
Expert’s stern warning: Judges who convicted based on ByLock may face trouble
It is becoming clearer with each passing day that the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) “Yalçınkaya ruling” marks a turning point. The ECtHR has accelerated its decisions concerning the systematic unlawfulness applied in Turkey against the Gülen Movement. After the Yalçınkaya decision, the Court issued wholesale rulings on a thousand ByLock-related cases, even determining that it did not need to seek a defense from Turkey on these matters. JUDGES’ ARBITRARY RULINGS CONFIRMED Commenting on the ECtHR’s rulings on Yalçınkaya and ByLock, Dr. Kerem Gülay from Koç University stated that the judges who issued these decisions in Turkey could be held accountable for crimes against humanity if they travel abroad. Speaking on Nevşin Mengü’s YouTube channel, Dr. Gülay evaluated the ECtHR rulings. He agreed with Mengü’s summary that “The ECtHR is essentially saying: you ruled arbitrarily, you set your own standards however you wanted, and at that time, you declared: ‘If there’s ByLock, I’ll convict anyone.’ That’s the plain meaning of this decision!” NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THESE CRIMES Responding to Mengü’s remark that investigations could be launched against those who handed down these decisions if the political winds change, Gülay said, “It’s much more than that! There’s no need for the political tide to turn. If these judges go abroad, they can be held responsible for committing crimes against humanity — and there is no statute of limitations on that.” Gülay added that, in the field of international law, Turkey now stands in the same lane as China, North Korea, and Israel.
Opinio Juris – Hakan Kaplankaya
Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey: A founding member of the Council of Europe’s systematic breach of the nullum crimen principle
On 26 September 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a historic ruling in the Yalçınkaya v. Turkey case. This case addresses the conviction of an ordinary teacher for the crime of “membership in a terrorist organization” due to his alleged connection with the Gülen Group. This precedent-setting decision marks the 60th time in ECtHR history that a violation of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the principle of no punishment without law) has been found, and it carries extremely significant implications for hundreds of thousands of victims in Turkey.
Attorney Deniz Özbilgin, Chair of the Lawyer Rights Center, Union of Turkish Bar Associations
Lawyer Deniz Özbilgin: The ECtHR’s Yalçınkaya judgment identifies flawed evidence and should be submitted wherever possible
Deniz Özbilgin, one of the lawyers of the Istanbul Bar Association and the President of the Lawyers' Rights Center of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations, made important evaluations about what should be done about the implementation of the ECtHR's Yüksel Yalçınkaya decision in Turkey. Özbilgin, who was the guest of the 'Human Rights in Turkey' program broadcast on the 'Kampana News' channel of Dr. Günal Kurşun, a criminal lawyer who was subject to a state of emergency decree, reminded that the Constitutional Court and the ECtHR had to make decisions by going beyond the 'standards' due to the violation of the law in Turkey. Deniz Özbilgin said, "The Yüksel Yalçınkaya decision is not a ByLock decision. It is the decision of the discussion of the evidence that the evaluation of the evidence is erroneous. It is a document that 'it cannot be decided whether a file will be evidence or not in line with the needs of the political power'. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss this for the conversation, the syndicate and the Bank Asya evaluations. This decision should be submitted wherever possible," he said.
Samsun Decree‑Dismissed Workers Platform
Samsun Dismissed Public Servants Platform: ‘The ECtHR’s Yüksel Yalçınkaya judgment is of pilot‑judgment nature’
Members of the Samsun Emergency Decree Victims Platform reacted to the non-implementation of the ECtHR's decision on Yüksel Yalçınkaya. Making a statement on behalf of the platform in front of the Samsun Courthouse, Emel Çakır said, "We would like to state that the Yüksel Yalçınkaya decision is a pilot decision as it was taken in the pioneer chamber. This case is a unit of measurement and a pattern that will be applied not only to the applicant, but also to tens of thousands of people who were subjected to the same format trial and conviction after July 15."
Yusuf Metin
Implementation of ECtHR Judgments, Their Objective Effect and the Precedential Nature of the Yalçınkaya Decision
Decisions by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) or the Turkish Constitutional Court (AYM) concerning individual rights violations have what is called subjective effect when they are binding on the parties involved — namely, the applicant and the state (i.e., the public authority responsible for the violation). When the same decision is applied to others who are in the same or similar situation as the applicant, this is called objective effect. In its İbrahim Er ruling, the Constitutional Court emphasized this point, stating that the objective effect takes precedence over the subjective effect, meaning such decisions have a generally binding character (see İbrahim Er, App. No: 33281, 26.1.2023, paras. 45–46). The ECtHR is not a court of appeal; it cannot directly change or annul national court rulings. Instead, through its judgments, it determines whether the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) have been violated. Under Article 46 of the ECHR, violation decisions are binding, and their execution is supervised by the Committee of Ministers. However, this article does not prescribe how the judgments should be implemented. The state party itself determines how to comply with the binding ruling. Under Article 1 of the ECHR, the state party is obliged to secure the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention to everyone within its jurisdiction. This means that when a binding ECtHR ruling establishes a rights violation, the state must remedy the violation, restore the situation to what it was before the violation (as much as possible), and eliminate the consequences of the violation. Under international law, the state has three core obligations: 1. To cease the wrongful act that caused the violation, 2. To provide compensation for the harm caused, 3. To prevent similar violations in the future (general measures/objective effect). Let’s briefly examine each of these obligations.
Lawyers for Lawyers
Statement on the ECtHR judgment in the Yalçınkaya case
On 26 September 2023, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a landmark ruling in the Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey case. The ECtHR found that Turkey had violated the right to a fair trial, the principle of no punishment without law, and the freedom of association (respectively, Articles 6 § 1, 7, and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights). Although the decision does not directly concern lawyers, the organization Lawyers for Lawyers welcomes the ECtHR’s rejection of arbitrary judicial decisions.
Stichting Justice Square
‘Implement the Yalçınkaya judgment’ notice reaches the Council of Europe: Turkey must reply within 10 days
The notification sent by the Netherlands-based Justice Square Foundation to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe regarding the implementation of the ECtHR's judgment on Yüksel Yalçınkaya has been received by the Committee. The notification was also forwarded to the Turkish government, which must respond within at least 10 days.
Stichting Justice Square
Notification to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers regarding the ECtHR judgment in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey
As the Foundation, we have notified the Committee of Ministers regarding the implementation of the ECtHR's decision in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey. In addition, explaining the uncertainties regarding the execution of the judgment in Turkey and the urgency of preventing grievances; We called for an urgent and strengthened procedural review of the execution of the decision.
Prof. Dr. Adem Sözüer, architect of the Turkish Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code
Prof. Dr. Adem Sözüer: ECtHR judgments must be executed and the grievances remedied
Prof. Dr. Adem Sözüer, a criminal law expert and one of the architects behind the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), stated that under the Constitution and Turkish laws, the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are binding and must be implemented. In its 26 September decision on the case of Yüksel Yalçınkaya, a teacher dismissed by decree-law (KHK), the ECtHR declared that Turkey’s trials involved “fabricated crimes,” that people were convicted based on assumptions, and that evidence such as using ByLock, depositing money in Bank Asya, or belonging to a union could not justify accusations of “membership in a terrorist organization.” According to legal experts, the ECtHR ruling serves as a precedent for everyone convicted on similar grounds. Trials need to be reopened, and all those affected should be acquitted. Adem Sözüer also shared an article published in Birgün newspaper by city planner Tayfun Karaman, who was sentenced to 18 years in prison in the Gezi trial and is currently imprisoned in Silivri Prison. While sharing the piece, Sözüer wrote, “There are children entering the centennial of our Republic without their fathers. We are joyful and proud on the 100th anniversary. But the bombing of even children in Gaza causes deep sorrow. And in our own country, what about those convicted without a fair trial and their children? Let’s not forget them. The Republic is justice.”
Prof. Dr. Doğan Soyaslan, Faculty of Law, Ankara University
Prof. Dr. Soyaslan: The Yalçınkaya judgment is binding and precedent‑setting; trials must be reopened and defendants acquitted
Ankara University and Çankaya University faculty member Prof. Dr. Doğan Soyaslan, providing an opinion on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruling against Turkey in the “Yüksel Yalçınkaya” case, stated that the decision is binding for Turkey and should be applied to all similar cases. Prof. Dr. Doğan Soyaslan emphasized that in files with the same types of evidence as the Yalçınkaya case, the material and moral elements of the crime are not present and therefore the defendants should be acquitted. In his opinion on the Yalçınkaya ruling, he underscored that the decision is binding and must be applied across all related cases.
Jurist İzzet Özgenç
Jurist Özgenç: The Yalçınkaya judgment covers others in the same situation
Prof. Dr. İzzet Özgenç, a faculty member at Hacı Bayram Veli University Faculty of Law and one of the academics involved in drafting the current Turkish Penal Code (TCK), has written an assessment piece on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruling in the Yüksel Yalçınkaya case. Prof. Dr. Özgenç stated that the Yalçınkaya decision is not only relevant for the applicant but must also be taken into account for the many suspects, defendants, and even convicts in similar situations. Highlighting the necessity of a legal amendment, Özgenç remarked, “Indeed, in its ruling, the ECtHR pointed specifically to the existence of a systemic and structural problem in Turkey on this matter.”
Emre Turkut, Strasbourg Observers
‘Article 7’ Earthquake, ByLock and Beyond: Interpreting the Grand Chamber’s Yalçınkaya judgment
On 26 September 2023, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) announced its long-awaited ruling in the Yalçınkaya v. Turkey case. This case is based on an application submitted on 17 March 2020 by a teacher who was dismissed from public service under Decree Law No. 672, issued during the state of emergency declared after the 2016 coup attempt. The applicant challenged his conviction for the crime of “membership in a terrorist organization” under Article 314/2 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK). The organization in question, identified by Turkish authorities as having orchestrated the 2016 coup attempt, was FETÖ/PDY (Fetullahist Terrorist Organization/Parallel State Structure), also known as the “Gülen Movement.” The key piece of evidence leading to the applicant’s conviction was his use of ByLock, a messaging application with end-to-end encryption, similar to Signal and Telegram. Turkish local courts claimed that although ByLock was globally available, it had been developed exclusively for FETÖ/PDY.
International human‑rights organisations and prominent jurists
International call for implementation of the ECtHR judgment reaches the Constitutional Court
In a remarkable development, international human rights organizations and leading lawyers sent a letter to the President of the Constitutional Court, Zühtü Arslan, demanding the implementation of the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) recent decision in the Yüksel Yalçınkaya case.
Former prosecutor and judge Oktay Bahadır
Dr. Oktay Bahadır explains step by step: Why the ECtHR’s Yalçınkaya judgment matters and what should be done
Former member of the judiciary (prosecutor and judge) Dr. Oktay Bahadır has written a comprehensive article on the ECtHR's 'Yüksel Yalçınkaya' decision condemning Turkey. Summarizing the case process by taking it from the local court, Bahadır explained how important the decision was. According to Bahadir, the decision is very important and will set a precedent in tens of thousands of cases. Bahadır said, "In summary, the decision is of great importance in terms of quality and quantity. With the decision, extremely serious human rights violations were identified. On the other hand, a decision has been made that could set a precedent for tens of thousands of similar cases. Moreover, it is a decision that should have legal consequences not only for those who have applied but for everyone in a similar situation."
OSCE Human Dimension Summit / Attorney Coşkun Yorulmaz
At the OSCE Summit, the ECtHR’s ‘Yalçınkaya’ judgment was discussed: The Turkish government should view it as an ‘opportunity’
Coşkun Yorulmaz, one of the legal experts from the Brussels-based Solidarity With Others Association, has called on Turkey to implement the ECtHR’s Yalçınkaya ruling. Speaking at the OSCE Human Rights Summit held in Warsaw, Poland, lawyer Coşkun Yorulmaz described the ECtHR’s Yüksel Yalçınkaya decision, which condemned Turkey with “strong criticism,” as a significant turning point. Representing the association at the OSCE summit, Yorulmaz emphasized that if implemented, the ECtHR ruling would also be beneficial for the Turkish government. Yorulmaz stated, “We call on the Turkish government to see this ruling as an opportunity to return to the rule of law and to amend the counter-terrorism laws that are unlawfully broad and vague. We also call on the OSCE and its member states — especially those that are also members of the Council of Europe and have stronger diplomatic and trade ties with Turkey, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the Netherlands — to kindly remind Turkey of its commitments to uphold the rule of law.”
Turkey Tribunal
Despite claims of political unwillingness, Turkey has inescapable obligations to execute the Grand Chamber’s judgment in Yalçınkaya
This detailed examination of the Yalçınkaya v. Turkey case includes commentary from Yalçınkaya’s legal counsels, Prof. Johan Vande Lanotte and Johan Heymans, as well as reactions from Turkish officials, academics, and legal experts. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Grand Chamber ruled that Turkey violated Articles 6, 7, and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by convicting Yüksel Yalçınkaya solely for using ByLock, holding a Bank Asya account, and joining unions/associations, making it obligatory for Turkey to reform its legal system, ensure judicial independence, and offer retrials; however, political responses by President Erdoğan, Justice Minister Yılmaz Tunç, and Constitutional Court President Zühtü Arslan highlight Turkey’s reluctance to fulfill its international obligations.
Selami Er, former rapporteur of the Constitutional Court
YALÇINKAYA JUDGMENT | Selami Er: Complying with the ECtHR’s decision would be in the AKP government’s interest
Selami Er, former rapporteur of the Constitutional Court, wrote an important article about the ECtHR's 'Yüksel Yalçınkaya' decision. Evaluating the options facing the AKP regime and explaining that it would be in favor of the government to act in accordance with the ECtHR's decision, Selami Er said, "There are many alternatives to a political solution. With the amendment of the law, the definition of terrorism crimes may be changed and pending cases may result in acquittal and the release of detainees/convicts. Secondly, with an amnesty regulation, the charges can be removed and the cases can be dropped," he said.
Prof. Dr. Ali D. Ulusoy, Head of Administrative Law Department, Ankara University Faculty of Law
Prof. Dr. Ali D. Ulusoy: A court that rejects ECtHR judgments blows up the justice system
Prof. Dr. Ali D. Ulusoy, Head of the Department of Administrative Law at Ankara University Faculty of Law and a faculty member, made important evaluations about the binding nature of the ECtHR's decisions. In his article published in t24 under the title 'The problem of binding ECtHR and Constitutional Court decisions', Ulusoy said, "What I am saying is that a court that does not accept the precedent effect of the ECtHR and Constitutional Court decisions, that is, their binding effect as an example, even if it is a high court, dynamites the foundation of the judicial system; as well as violating the Constitution itself," he said.
Jurist Nimet Demir
Jurist Nimet Demir: The ECtHR judgment sets a precedent for tens of thousands of cases and orders remedy of constitutional violations
Commenting on the repercussions of the European Court of Human Rights' decision on Yüksel Yalçınkaya's violation in Turkey, lawyer Nimet Demir said, "The conviction decision subject to the violation is of a nature that will set a precedent for tens of thousands of similar cases." Demir emphasized that "Article 90 of our Constitution and Article 311 of the CMK order to remedy the violations specified in the ECtHR decision."
Mustafa Erdoğan, principal member of the Turkish Academy of Sciences; Freedom Research Association
On the European Court of Human Rights’ Yalçınkaya Judgment
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on September 26 issued an important decision that could affect the fate of tens of thousands of people who have been tried, sentenced, or are still on trial for being members or sympathizers of the Gülen Movement. Specifically, the ECtHR ruled on the individual application of Yüksel Yalçınkaya, who was sentenced to 6 years and 3 months in prison for using the ByLock application, deemed evidence of membership in a terrorist organization, and found that Turkey violated several fundamental rights guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In 2016, Yüksel Yalçınkaya was arrested on suspicion of being a member of “FETÖ” and was later sentenced in 2017 by the Kayseri Heavy Penal Court to six years and three months in prison for membership in the “Fethullahist Terrorist Organization.” The court based its decision on his use of the ByLock application, considered an internal communication tool for the Gülen Movement, his account at Bank Asya, and his membership in the Aktif Eğitim-Sen union and the Kayseri Volunteer Educators Association, both of which were shut down under Decree Law No. 667 for their ties to “FETÖ.” The court also accepted an anonymous tip-off claiming Yalçınkaya was a “FETÖ member” as evidence. After exhausting legal appeals, the verdict was finalized by the Court of Cassation on October 30, 2018. His individual application to the Constitutional Court was dismissed without review on November 26, 2019, as “groundless.” Subsequently, in 2020, Yüksel Yalçınkaya applied to the ECtHR, requesting a ruling that his conviction violated four provisions of the ECHR (Articles 6, 7, 8, and 11) and seeking redress. The ECtHR’s relevant Chamber referred the case to the Grand Chamber in 2022, and after examination, on September 26, the Grand Chamber ruled that Turkey violated three provisions: Article 7 (no punishment without law), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). Let’s summarize the key points of this detailed, lengthy, and precedent-setting decision. No Punishment Without Law (Article 7) First, the Court reminds that the principle of “no punishment without law” means that both the offense and the penalty must be defined by law; furthermore, criminal provisions cannot be broadly interpreted or extended by analogy to the detriment of the accused. The offense must be defined clearly enough so that a person can know from the wording which acts or omissions may incur criminal liability. The ECtHR notes that even well-defined legal rules may require interpretation. While interpretation of national law is primarily the responsibility of national authorities, the ECtHR’s role is to assess whether the interpretation’s results are compatible with the ECHR (paragraphs 238-240). Importantly, the ECtHR’s task under Article 7 is not to determine whether the applicant actually committed the acts or their individual criminal responsibility but to examine whether the conviction complies with the principles of legality and foreseeability (paragraph 243). In this case, although it is undisputed that many people used ByLock as an “organizational communication” tool, in the absence of concrete communication content or other relevant information linked to a particular defendant, drawing definitive conclusions solely from user profiles and communications is unforeseeable and contradicts the principles of legality and individual responsibility (paragraph 265). Given the organization’s widespread presence in Turkish society, it is essential to establish the elements of the offense at an individual level. However, Yalçınkaya was convicted of membership in an armed terrorist organization without proof that all elements of the offense were satisfied in his specific case. Moreover, even though using ByLock is not technically part of the material elements of the offense, the domestic courts’ interpretation effectively equated ByLock use with knowingly and willingly being a member of an armed terrorist organization (paragraphs 266-267). According to national court decisions and the government’s submissions, the factual finding of ByLock use alone was assumed to constitute the offense, and the impact of other attributed actions was minimal. This unforeseeable and expansive interpretation of the Criminal Code and the Anti-Terror Law created an almost automatic presumption of guilt based solely on ByLock use, making it nearly impossible for the applicant to defend himself (paragraph 268). In short, under Turkish law, membership in an armed terrorist organization is an offense requiring special intent, meaning certain subjective elements must be present. Yet, the national courts’ broad and unforeseeable interpretation of the legal provisions attached objective liability to ByLock use without verifying the knowledge and intent required by the offense’s legal definition. This interpretation disregarded the offense’s constitutive — especially mental — elements, effectively treating it as a strict liability crime. Therefore, the scope of the offense was unforeseeably and detrimentally expanded, violating the principle of “no punishment without law” under Article 7. Right to a Fair Trial (Article 6/1) The ECtHR then examined the issue of fair trial violations. The Court starts by emphasizing that its task is not to review alleged legal or factual errors by national courts unless they violate rights protected by the Convention. The key question regarding fair trial is whether the judicial process, taken as a whole — including how evidence was obtained and whether the defendant had an opportunity to defend themselves — was fair. The Court recalls that fair trial under adversarial proceedings requires equality of arms (paragraph 303). Moreover, the ECtHR’s role is not to act as a “fourth-instance” court reviewing how domestic courts assessed evidence unless their findings are arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (paragraph 304). In this case, the factual basis for the applicant’s conviction for terrorist organization membership was the finding, based on intelligence service data, that he used the ByLock app. Other evidence merely supported this finding and consisted of lawful activities such as holding a Bank Asya account, union membership, and association membership, which benefit from the presumption of legality. Therefore, the national courts needed to clarify how these actions strengthened the finding of membership in an armed terrorist organization (paragraphs 311 and 343), but they failed to do so. Additionally, the applicant did not have a genuine opportunity during the trial to challenge the evidence against him and present an effective defense on an equal footing with the prosecution (paragraph 341). Furthermore, limiting the applicant’s fair trial rights cannot be justified by states of emergency or the need to combat terrorism. Fair trial is a fundamental requirement under the rule of law, which continues to apply even during emergencies (paragraphs 354 and 355). Freedom of Assembly and Association (Article 11) Third, the ECtHR examined Yalçınkaya’s application under the right to freedom of assembly and association protected by Article 11. The ECtHR found that the union and association to which the applicant belonged were established and operated legally before being shut down under Decree Law No. 667. Unless these organizations promoted violence or otherwise acted against the foundations of a democratic society, they should benefit from the presumption of legality. Therefore, it was necessary to examine whether the domestic authorities fulfilled their duty to assess this (paragraph 390). However, the trial court’s decision contained no such assessment, merely referring to the organizations’ closure under the decree, and the government argued in its defense that the union and association operated in line with “FETÖ’s” goals. Yet, during the judicial process, there was no mention of any action by the applicant linked to these organizations that could be interpreted as promoting violence or rejecting the foundations of democratic society (paragraphs 391 and 392). In conclusion, the way the Criminal Code’s relevant provisions were interpreted in relation to the applicant’s membership in these organizations unforeseeably expanded the scope of the law, meaning that this interpretation could not be considered “prescribed by law” under Article 11(2) of the Convention; in short, it lacked a legal basis. Therefore, the applicant’s right to freedom of association under Article 11 was violated. Consequences of the Decision According to the Court, besides any general measures that may be needed to prevent or remedy similar violations, the most appropriate way to address the violations identified in Yalçınkaya’s case is to reopen the judicial proceedings. Moreover, more than 8,000 similar complaints related to ByLock use under Articles 6 and 7 are pending before the ECtHR. Considering that official authorities have identified around 100,000 ByLock users, it is likely that many more applications will be filed with the ECtHR in the future. Therefore, Turkish authorities need to address the deficiencies and flaws identified in this ruling on a broader scale to avoid facing a large number of similar cases. The ECtHR also calls on Turkish courts to take into account the standards it has interpreted and applied in this judgment and reminds that, under Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution, ECtHR rulings are binding and must be implemented, and that under Article 46 of the Convention, these rulings hold the force of constitutional rules in Turkey. In short, the ECtHR tells the Republic of Turkey: if you claim to be civilized and want to remain part of the civilized world, you cannot decide that your citizens are terrorists or members of terrorist organizations solely because they used ByLock, held an account at Bank Asya, or were members of certain associations, and you cannot deprive them of their fundamental rights for these reasons. Turkish authorities, especially the courts, must take this message seriously and act to redress the thousands of injustices that have already occurred or may occur in the future.
Attorney Nurullah Albayrak
ECtHR Yalçınkaya Judgment | A Human Rights Crisis Is Unfolding in Turkey
COMMENT | Atty. Nurullah Albayrak 1. Introduction: Human Rights Crisis in Turkey As a member of the Council of Europe, Turkey is at a crossroads where its commitment to protecting human rights and international law is under scrutiny. The country is currently mired in a human rights crisis of enormous proportions, and after the decision of the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR, everyone who is sensitive to human rights is waiting for the steps to be taken by the government to solve this problem or to exacerbate it. This report provides a comprehensive review of the human rights crisis and sheds light on the Turkish government's systematic disregard for fundamental human rights and the principles of international law. At the heart of the current crisis is the decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) dated 26 September 2023, which is an important milestone in terms of ongoing human rights violations. While this decision should have ushered in a new era of accountability and respect for human rights, it has instead faced a challenge from the Turkish government. This report examines the multifaceted dimensions of this crisis, shedding light on the urgency of the situation and the need for decisive international support.
Jurist Gökhan Güneş
Essence of the Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey judgment
Lawyer Gökhan Güneş wrote about the legal aspects of the ECtHR’s Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey case (Grand Chamber – Application No. 15669/20; 26 September 2023) Applicant and Conviction: The applicant, Yüksel Yalçınkaya, a teacher at a public school in Kayseri, was sentenced on 21 March 2017 by the Kayseri Heavy Penal Court to six years and three months in prison for membership in an armed terrorist organization, defined by Turkish authorities as “FETÖ/PDY” (§ 63). Grounds for Conviction: The conviction was based on the applicant’s use of the encrypted messaging application “ByLock,” holding an account at Bank Asya, and membership in a union (Aktif Eğitimciler Sendikası) and an association (Kayseri Volunteer Educators Association) (§ 1, § 24, § 27). Reasons for Application: The applicant submitted an application to the ECtHR on 17 March 2020, claiming that his trial and conviction violated Articles 6, 7, 8, and 11 of the Convention (§ 1, 2). Leading Case Status: The application was referred to the Court’s Second Section, which designated it on 2 March 2021 as a “leading case” (serving as a key example for similar cases). On 3 May 2022, the Second Section decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favor of the Grand Chamber (§ 6). Examination Process: The Grand Chamber held a public hearing on the application on 18 January 2023 (§ 9). After closed deliberations on 18 January and 28 June 2023, the ECtHR delivered its decision on 26 September 2023. Suspension of Convention Obligations: On 21 July 2016, Turkish authorities notified the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of their intention to derogate from obligations under the Convention under Article 15 (due to the state of emergency) (§ 15, § 205). The ECtHR rejected Turkey’s request to benefit from Article 15, stating it would examine whether the special measures taken against the applicant were strictly required by the exigencies of the situation and consistent with other international obligations (§ 211-213, 347-355, 398-401). Only Courts Can Determine the Existence of a Terrorist Organization: The ECtHR established, based on reference rulings, that under Turkish law, officially designating an entity as a “terrorist organization” depends on a court decision (§ 251). This undermined the assumption that individuals should have known the Hizmet Movement was a criminal organization based on post-17/25 December events and National Security Council opinions. ECtHR’S FINDINGS ON ARTICLE 7 AND REASONS FOR VIOLATION Article 7(1) of the Convention states: “No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.” According to the ECtHR, the guarantee under Article 7, a fundamental element of the rule of law, occupies an essential place in the Convention’s protection system, as highlighted by the fact that no derogation from this guarantee is allowed even in time of war or other public emergencies under Article 15. The Convention must be interpreted and applied in a manner that provides effective safeguards against arbitrary prosecution, conviction, and punishment (§ 237). Article 7 does not only prohibit retroactive application of criminal law to the detriment of the accused but also includes the general principle that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege), and that criminal law should not be extensively interpreted, for example by analogy, to the detriment of the accused. This means an offense must be clearly defined in law, and this requirement is met where an individual can know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if necessary, with the assistance of interpretation by the courts, which acts and omissions will make them criminally liable. Article 7 implies qualitative requirements, notably in terms of accessibility and foreseeability (§ 238). The ECtHR noted the previous acquittal of Fetullah Gülen on the charge of establishing a terrorist organization and the absence of a finalized court ruling before 2017. For a conviction on membership in such an organization, the Court highlighted the importance of specifically examining the mental element of “knowledge and intent” (§ 253). The ECtHR found that the relevant national court decisions did not meaningfully explain how ByLock use directly demonstrated the applicant’s awareness of FETÖ/PDY’s violent terrorist aims, did not establish specific intent, and did not show how the applicant’s participation as part of its hierarchy or any other concrete material or mental contribution strengthened the organization or its existence as required by national law (§ 263). The ECtHR determined that domestic courts and the Government regarded the mere detection of ByLock use as sufficient for conviction (§ 257). The ECtHR stated that this did not align with the need to prove an organic connection based on continuity, diversity, and intensity, or the mental element required for membership in an armed terrorist organization. Without establishing that all necessary elements (including intent) were satisfied, imposing criminal liability on a ByLock user violated Article 7 of the Convention, contradicting the right not to be punished without personal responsibility (§ 264). According to the ECtHR, drawing definitive conclusions about all ByLock users without concrete content or other relevant information related to a specific defendant is not only unforeseeable but also contrary to the principles of legality and individual criminal responsibility (§ 265). The ECtHR expressed difficulty in understanding how all individuals alleged to be ByLock users, such as the applicant, could so definitively and automatically be deemed “members of an armed terrorist organization” under domestic law as previously interpreted and applied by domestic courts (§ 266). The ECtHR emphasized that although ByLock use was technically not part of the material elements of the offense, the domestic courts’ interpretation effectively equated mere ByLock use with knowingly and willingly being a member of an armed terrorist organization (§ 267). The ECtHR concluded that turning ByLock use almost into a crime element (under Article 314/2 of the Turkish Penal Code) and convicting without proper individualization violated the requirements of domestic law and the principles of legality and foreseeability inherent in Article 7 (§ 267). The ECtHR found that considering the factual finding of ByLock use alone as constituting all elements of the offense of membership in an armed terrorist organization amounted to a violation (§ 268). The ECtHR further noted that other acts attributed to the applicant (such as holding a Bank Asya account, association membership) had minimal impact on the outcome, with the main reason for the conviction being ByLock use (§ 268). The ECtHR found that the unforeseeable and broad interpretation of Article 314/2 of the Penal Code and the provisions of the Anti-Terror Law created an almost automatic presumption of guilt based solely on ByLock use, making it nearly impossible for the applicant to exonerate himself (§ 242, § 268). The ECtHR stressed that Article 7 aims to ensure no one is subjected to arbitrary prosecution, conviction, or punishment and that regardless of the factual basis of the offense, material safeguards regarding legal certainty must be met in line with the purpose and objective of this article (§ 268). The ECtHR emphasized that the fundamental guarantees under Article 7, which are part of the rule of law and non-derogable, must still be strictly applied in the prosecution and punishment of terrorist offenses, even if they are alleged to have been committed under conditions threatening the life of the nation (§ 270). According to the ECtHR, the Convention requires adherence to Article 7 safeguards even under the most difficult circumstances (§ 270). The ECtHR determined that domestic courts broadly interpreted the relevant provisions of the Penal Code and Anti-Terror Law, treated ByLock use as evidence of membership in an armed terrorist organization, failed to establish the necessary knowledge and intent under the offense’s legal definition in the applicant’s specific case, and effectively imposed objective liability solely based on ByLock use. The Court found that such a broad and unforeseeable interpretation by domestic courts bypassed the constitutive — particularly mental — elements of the offense, effectively treating it as a strict liability offense, and thus deviating from the explicit requirements of domestic law. Therefore, the scope of the offense was expanded in an unforeseeable and detrimental way, contrary to the purpose and objective of Article 7 (§ 271). In light of the above, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention (§ 272).
German Bar Association (DAV)
German Bar Association urges Turkey’s Supreme Court to heed ECtHR judgments
While the opposition and the legal community in Turkey have remained largely silent on the recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerning a teacher, the German Bar Association (DAV) has called on the Turkish Constitutional Court to take note of the ECHR rulings.
Mustafa Yeneroğlu, Istanbul MP for the DEVA Party
Press statement on the ECtHR Yalçınkaya judgment
The European Court of Human Rights, in its decision announced yesterday in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey, ruled that the applicant's right to a fair trial, the principle of no punishment without law, and his freedom of assembly and association were violated when he was convicted of membership in an armed terrorist organization. As a requirement of the rule of law, it is an indisputable fact that the decision will/should affect other criminal proceedings related to membership in an armed terrorist organization. In this case; Ongoing proceedings should be decided within the framework of these principles, and the way for retrial should be opened urgently in the concluded cases.
Union of Decree‑Dismissed Workers’ Platforms
Call from dismissed public servants to the government: Comply with the ECtHR’s Yalçınkaya judgment, end the persecution of decree‑law victims
The Union of Decree-Law Platforms (KHK Platformları Birliği) issued a press statement regarding the violation rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerning decree-law (KHK) victims and the banning of the film *Kanun Hükmü* at the Antalya Golden Orange Film Festival. In the statement, KHK Platforms Spokesperson Münir Korkmaz called on the government, saying: “Immediately implement the ECtHR ruling and put an end to the KHK persecution.” The statement continued as follows: “KHK victims have endured rights violations, injustices, and social annihilation for seven years. Yet with each passing day, they have faced new forms of rights deprivation and extrajudicial punishment, sometimes experiencing severe examples of these. The documentary *Kanun Hükmü*, which presents snapshots from the lives of KHK victims dismissed from their jobs by midnight decrees, depicts their struggle for dignity and justice and had earned the right to compete in the documentary film category at the 60th Antalya Golden Orange Film Festival. Directed by Nejla Demirci and presented to art lovers, the film offers glimpses into the traumatic processes experienced by millions of KHK families and also cinematically portrays their rightful struggle for honor. While the documentary was warmly received by audiences and excitement grew around the Antalya Film Festival, the festival management’s submission to political pressures and contribution to a climate of fear is simply indefensible by reason or conscience. As the Union of Decree-Law Platforms, we strongly condemn the removal of the documentary from the Antalya Golden Orange Film Festival. We firmly state once again that we will never accept an approach that places art and censorship side by side. And today… It has been clearly established that the unfair and unlawful trials against KHK victims constitute blatant rights violations. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled on the case of KHK-affiliated teacher Yüksel Yalçınkaya, which it selected as a pilot case among thousands of applications it has received. After three years, the ECtHR decided that the case would be heard by the Grand Chamber and closed off the possibility of further objections. According to this decision, the Court found violations of: • Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing the right to a fair trial, • Article 7, establishing the principle of no punishment without law, • Article 11, protecting freedom of assembly and association. In addition, the Court ruled that the applicant should be awarded €15,000 in compensation. With this decision, it has been clearly shown that the relevant judicial processes conducted in Turkey are fundamentally contrary to the core principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. As the Union of Decree-Law Platforms, we demand that ECtHR rulings — which are recognized in our legal system as binding and as the final authority — be implemented by the courts in Turkey without causing further victimization.”
Johan Vande Lanotte, founder of the Turkey Tribunal
Turkey Tribunal founder Lanotte: Turkey has obligations following the ECtHR judgment
Belgian politician and lawyer Johan Vande Lanotte, one of the founders of the Geneva-based Turkish Tribunal (Turkey Tribunal), described the ECtHR's decision yesterday on Yüksel Yalçınkaya as a "groundbreaking decision". "Turkey has clear obligations to address the defects identified in the judgment in order to prevent or compensate for other similar violations in the future," Lanotte said.
Levent Mazılıgüney
The ECtHR Yalçınkaya judgment is an opportunity for our country
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) announced its highly anticipated Yalçınkaya decision on September 26. The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR ruled in its decision, which was final at the time of its announcement, that Articles 6 (fair trial), 7 (no unlawful punishment) and 11 (freedom of assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) had been violated. The most important aspect of the ECtHR's violation decision was that it stated that the problems that led to the findings of violation were systemic and decided that our country should take general measures.
Kadir Öztürk
Yalçınkaya Judgment: Key Details and Summary Translation
The European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) ruling against Turkey in the case brought by teacher Yüksel Yalçınkaya — who was convicted on the grounds of using ByLock, holding an account at Bank Asya, and being a member of unions and associations — is of great interest to many others who were convicted in local courts on similar charges, due to its potential to serve as a precedent. According to the ECtHR’s statement, nearly 8,500 applications have been submitted related to ByLock. Given that Turkish authorities have announced the number of ByLock users to be around 100,000, the number of applications to the ECtHR is expected to rise further. In my previous writings, I emphasized that “the Yalçınkaya ruling will set a precedent for other applicants and that, based on this ruling, affected individuals can apply to their own courts requesting ‘retrial.’” This is because the impact of this decision goes far beyond Yalçınkaya himself, directly concerning tens of thousands of people who have been unlawfully punished for allegedly using ByLock or for their membership in associations or unions. The most important part is that the ECtHR itself wants this outcome. In its ruling, the ECtHR views the punishment of individuals solely based on ByLock allegations as a systemic problem affecting the entire country. It calls on the Turkish government to address this general issue by changing the stance of local courts toward ByLock. Even more importantly, the ECtHR expects Turkish courts to resolve the cases before them by taking the Yalçınkaya ruling into account.
Euronews; Attorney Doğan Erkan; DEVA Party founding member and MP Mustafa Yeneroğlu
Analysis: What consequences could Turkey’s conviction in the ECtHR 'Yalçınkaya case' have?
Lawyers speaking to Euronews consider the ECtHR’s ruling important because it has the potential to serve as a precedent for other cases. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled against Turkey in the case brought by teacher Yüksel Yalçınkaya, who was convicted by local courts for using ByLock, holding an account at Bank Asya, and based on the testimony of a secret witness. This decision closely concerns others who were convicted in local courts on similar charges, as it raises the possibility of setting a precedent. According to the ECtHR’s statement, nearly 8,500 applications have been filed with the Strasbourg Court on this issue. Given that Turkish authorities have announced the number of ByLock users to be around 100,000, the number of applications to the ECtHR is expected to increase further. Lawyers interviewed by Euronews emphasize that today’s ruling is important precisely because it may set a precedent for other cases.
FIDU – Italian Federation for Human Rights
Italian Human Rights Association: We welcome the Yalçınkaya judgment; Turkey is now obliged to comply
FIDU, the human rights association operating in Italy, made a statement regarding the decision of the European Court of Human Rights against Yüksel Yalçınkaya today. Stating that they are pleased with the decision, the association stated that the 7. He stressed that the finding of a violation of the Article is particularly important and worrying. "Turkey is now obliged to comply with the decision of the General Chamber and, in particular, to take steps to prevent similar violations," the association added.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tolga Şirin, Marmara University Faculty of Law
Assoc. Prof. Tolga Şirin: The Constitution should be applied and retrials held in line with the Yalçınkaya judgment
Marmara University Faculty of Law Faculty Member Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tolga Şirin, who prepared an expert opinion on the ECtHR's Yüksel Yalçınkaya decision, stated that the courts had to implement the Yacıkaya decision and conduct a retrial. "It should be noted that in this new trial, a conviction cannot be reached based on the available evidence," Şirin said. Şirin noted that the reasons in the ECtHR's Yalçınakaya decision are valid for 100 thousand cases that are likely to come before the court.
Stichting Justice Square
The ECtHR Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey judgment and its impact on ongoing prosecutions
As is well known, in its 26 September 2023 judgment in the Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Turkey case, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) made very important findings and assessments regarding the trials conducted in Turkey, particularly against alleged members of the Gülen Movement after 15 July 2016. Ultimately, the Court ruled that Turkey had violated Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) concerning the right to a fair trial, Article 7 concerning the principle that there can be no punishment without law, and Article 11 concerning the right to freedom of assembly and association. The full decision was translated into Turkish on the same day by volunteer lawyers from Justice Square and made available to the public. Shortly afterward, on 12 October 2023, the translation by our foundation was published on the official ECtHR website. The decision, which exposes the systematic unlawfulness of the Turkish judiciary’s recent procedures, decisions, and practices, has become a turning point for the Turkish judiciary and its recent trials. In the 182-page ruling, the ECtHR detailed the unlawful practices in Turkey’s recent organizational trials and the resulting human rights violations, addressing them point by point and ruling on a wide range of rights violations. This decision, which reveals the incompatibility of terrorism-related trials in Turkey with the fundamental principles outlined in Article 7 of the ECHR, constitutes a severe indictment against a legal system riddled with uncertainties and arbitrariness. With its ruling, the ECtHR established that the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the Convention was violated, demonstrating that the trials leading to convictions for serious crimes carrying heavy penalties were fundamentally and essentially unfair under Article 6 of the ECHR. The decision also highlighted the existence of an unprecedented attack on the freedom of association protected under Article 11 of the Convention and consequently ruled that there was a rights violation. In scope and in its broad findings covering all similar trials, this decision has produced highly significant consequences. This report presents, within the framework of the decision summary, the main points of violation identified in the Yalçınkaya v. Turkey judgment, the outcomes of this violation ruling, and its impact on current cases.