A panel of judges from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is set to examine Turkey’s requests to refer seven cases to the court’s Grand Chamber after the country was found to be at fault for human rights violations earlier this year, the Strasbourg court announced on Monday.
The panel’s review, scheduled for September 23, will determine whether these cases warrant further consideration by the highest judicial body of the ECtHR.
Turkey has appealed seven decisions made by the ECtHR in March and April. Among the seven cases are that of a former United Nations judge, journalists and high-ranking judicial officials, all of whom the court found had their rights violated by the Turkish government.
The ECtHR’s five-judge panel will assess whether the cases raise serious questions affecting the interpretation or application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). If the panel decides against the referrals, the original judgments will become final, obligating Turkey to comply with the court’s rulings. Conversely, if the referrals are accepted, the cases will be reheard by the Grand Chamber.
Among the cases Turkey seeks to refer is that of former UN judge Aydın Sefa Akay. In a judgment dated April 23, the ECtHR ruled unanimously that Turkey violated Akay’s rights under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 8 (respect for private and family life) of the ECHR.
Akay was arrested in September 2016 during Turkey’s post-coup crackdown for alleged links to the faith-based Gülen movement, which the Turkish government accuses of orchestrating a failed coup in July 2016. The movement denies any involvement in the coup or any terrorist activity.
Despite his diplomatic immunity as a UN judge, Akay was detained, his home was searched and he was later sentenced to seven-and-a-half years in prison for membership in a terrorist organization.
The ECtHR found that the domestic courts’ interpretation of Akay’s diplomatic immunity was neither foreseeable nor consistent with the principles of legal certainty. The court ordered Turkey to pay Akay €21,100 in non-pecuniary damages and €7,000 for legal costs. Turkey is now seeking a referral of this decision to the Grand Chamber.
Another significant case involves journalist Ayşenur Parıldak, a former reporter for the now-closed Zaman daily newspaper. On March 19 the ECtHR found that Turkey had violated her rights under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) due to her pretrial detention following the coup attempt.
Parıldak was arrested in August 2016 on charges of membership in a terrorist organization, primarily based on her alleged use of the ByLock messaging app and her social media interactions. The ECtHR concluded there were insufficient grounds for her detention and that her rights to liberty and freedom of expression were infringed upon.
The court awarded Parıldak €16,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €6,000 for legal costs. Turkey has requested that this case be referred to the Grand Chamber for further examination.
Turkey is also challenging ECtHR judgments involving former judicial officials dismissed from their positions. One such case is that of Adem Kartal, the former vice president of the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors’ (HSYK) inspection board. The ECtHR ruled on March 26 that Turkey violated Kartal’s right of access to a court under Article 6 §1 of the convention.
Kartal was removed from his position following legislative changes in 2014 and was not reappointed despite the Constitutional Court annulling the relevant provision. The ECtHR ordered Turkey to pay Kartal €7,800 in non-pecuniary damages and €1,767 for costs and expenses. Turkey has appealed this decision to the Grand Chamber.
Another case involves Bekir Sözen, a former member of the Council of State who was removed from his position before his term expired due to legislation passed in 2016. The ECtHR found Turkey at fault in Sözen’s case, and both Sözen and the Turkish government have requested a referral to the Grand Chamber.
In the case of Kural v. Türkiye, the ECtHR examined whether Turkish authorities violated Article 6 §1 by failing to comply with a domestic court’s stay-of-execution decision regarding the transfer of Deputy Chief of Police Suat Kural. On March 19 the court found that the authorities’ non-compliance deprived the judicial decision of any useful effect and undermined the rule of law.
The court awarded Kural €1,950 in non-pecuniary damages and €1,000 for costs. Turkey is seeking to refer this judgment to the Grand Chamber, hoping for a different outcome.
The case of Orhan Şahin v. Türkiye is also among the appeals. Şahin was convicted of terrorism-related offenses by a court that did not hear testimony from a key witness who had retracted parts of his earlier statements implicating him. The ECtHR ruled on March 12 that Turkey violated Şahin’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 §1 due to the failure to comply with the principle of immediacy, which requires evidence to be heard by the judges who ultimately decide the case.
The court did not award pecuniary damages but considered the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage, awarding €1,000 for costs and expenses. Turkey has requested that this case be referred to the Grand Chamber for reconsideration.
In addition to the aforementioned cases, Turkey is also seeking a Grand Chamber referral in the case of Kanatlı v. Türkiye, where the ECtHR ruled on March 12 that Turkey had violated Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) of the ECHR. The case centers on Murat Kanatlı, a conscientious objector who was criminally convicted for refusing to perform reserve military service due to his pacifist and anti-militarist beliefs. The court found that Turkey’s legislation provided no provisions for alternative civilian service, thereby failing to balance societal interests with the rights of conscientious objectors.
The ECtHR ordered Turkey to pay Kanatlı €9,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €2,363 for costs and expenses. Turkey’s request to refer this case to the Grand Chamber highlights its ongoing challenge to the court’s findings regarding compulsory military service and the rights of individuals to conscientious objection. Legal analysts suggest that the Grand Chamber’s decision on whether to accept the referral could have significant implications for human rights protections related to freedom of thought, conscience and religion in Turkey.
If the panel accepts the referrals, the Grand Chamber will reevaluate the cases, potentially setting new legal precedents. If the referrals are denied, the original judgments will stand, reinforcing the ECtHR’s findings of systemic issues in Turkey’s judicial and political systems.
Following the July 2016 coup attempt, the Turkish government declared a state of emergency and initiated a widespread purge of state institutions, targeting alleged members of the Gülen movement. More than 130,000 public servants, including over 4,000 judges and prosecutors, were summarily removed from their positions. The ECtHR has issued multiple judgments faulting Turkey for violations of the ECHR in the context of these purges.
According to Article 43 of the ECHR, any party may, in exceptional cases, request referral to the Grand Chamber within three months of a chamber judgment. A panel of five judges examines such requests to determine if they meet the criteria for referral, specifically whether they raise serious questions affecting the interpretation or application of the convention or significant issues of general importance.