EIN Civil Society Briefing January 2025

/

On January 29th, 2025, EIN held its latest civil society briefing for permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, the first of a series of two briefings ahead of the 1521st Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting which will be held between 4th – 6th March 2025. The briefing focused on the following cases: 

 

Kavala v. Türkiye group of cases 

The Kavala v. Türkiye case concerns Osman Kavala, a businessperson and human rights defender, arrested in 2017 for allegedly attempting to overthrow the government during the 2013 Gezi Park protests and the constitutional order after the 2016 coup attempt. In 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled his detention unlawful, finding no reasonable suspicion for the charges and determining that it aimed to silence him, violating Articles 5 and 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court ordered his immediate release, emphasising that continued detention would further violate his rights. 

Despite this ruling, Türkiye did not release Mr. Kavala. Instead, he was convicted in 2022 and sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment based on the same accusations. The Committee of Ministers referred the case to the ECtHR, which, in its Grand Chamber judgment, found Türkiye in breach of its obligations under Article 46§1. The Court concluded that Türkiye acted in bad faith, undermining Mr. Kavala’s rights and violating the Convention’s principles, raising serious concerns about human rights and judicial independence. 

Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) provided insightful updates concerning the status of implementation of the Kavala v. Türkiye group of cases, highlighting that Kavala’s conviction and aggravated life sentence were upheld by Turkish courts in September 2023, cementing his continued detention in violation of the Convention. Since 2019, Turkish authorities have used various tactics to avoid compliance with the Kavala judgment, illustrating a deliberate effort to prolong his detention for political purposes, undermining the rule of law and intimidating other human rights defenders. These systemic delays and resistance from the authorities continue to obstruct progress, despite the Committee of Ministers repeatedly condemning these violations. 

As highlighted by civil society, the Kavala case now symbolises broader structural failings within Türkiye’s judiciary. The Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP), tasked with ensuring judicial independence, remains dominated by political appointees loyal to the ruling coalition. This control compromises the impartiality of judicial processes and facilitates politically charged decisions. Judicial interference extends beyond the Kavala case, impacting the broader protection of human rights and democratic standards in Türkiye. Government officials have systematically stifled political debate and dissent, weaponising criminal proceedings against human rights defenders and critics. Legitimate human rights advocacy is increasingly criminalised, reinforcing a climate of fear and repression. 

Recommendations for the implementation of the Kavala v. Türkiye group of cases 

Concerning general measures, the NGOs  jointly request the CM to: 

  • Urge the authorities to ensure judicial independence by:

    • Reforming the CJP in line with the Venice Commission’s recommendations and international standards;

    • Requiring all decisions concerning judicial careers to adhere to objective, transparent, and lawful criteria, subject to review by an independent judicial body;

    • Ensuring that recruitment of judges and prosecutors is independent from the executive, following a merit-based, transparent, and fair process;

    • Reducing the President’s role in appointments to the Constitutional Court;

  • Call on the authorities to secure an enabling environment for political debate and pluralism through comprehensive measures to address systemic failures in safeguarding Convention rights, by refraining from political interference in judicial proceedings, and by amending problematic national security legislation.

Concerning individual measures, Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists request the Committee of Ministers (CM) to: 

  • Call for the immediate release of Osman Kavala and exhaust all actions that can be taken within the remit of the Committee's and individual member States' competences to ensure his immediate release;

  • Stress that the ECtHR’s two judgments clearly apply to Mr. Kavala’s conviction and aggravated life sentence;

  • Strongly condemn Türkiye’s ongoing failure to implement these judgments, stressing that Mr. Kavala’s prolonged detention, conviction and life sentence are fundamentally incompatible with the values of the Convention;

  • Call for the quashing of Osman Kavala’s conviction and sentence in line with the ECtHR’s judgments;

  • Intensify efforts to ensure that CoE institutions and member and observer states continue to engage with this case. 

 

Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2) v. Türkiye group of cases and Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and Others v. Türkiye case 

The Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2) v. Türkiye group of cases concerns the politically motivated prosecution and prolonged pre-trial detention of opposition politicians from the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) following the 2016 constitutional amendment that lifted parliamentary immunity. 

Demirtaş, an HDP leader and member of the National Assembly, was arrested in 2016 on terrorism-related charges based on his political statements, particularly regarding the 2014 Kobani protests. Similarly, Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and 12 other HDP MPs faced detention and prosecution for their political actions. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found multiple violations, ruling that their detention lacked reasonable suspicion, aimed to stifle political pluralism, and resulted from an unforeseeable removal of parliamentary immunity.  

The latest developments in these cases show continued non-compliance by Turkish authorities with ECtHR judgments. Despite the Court’s findings that the detention of the applicants violated their rights and was politically motivated, both remain incarcerated—Demirtaş facing a 42-year sentence and Şenoğlu over 30 years. The Turkish government has resisted full implementation of the ruling, using shifting legal justifications and judicial tactics to delay proceedings, such as sham release orders followed by re-detention and initiating multiple overlapping criminal cases. Cooperation with the CoE has been procedural rather than substantive, with submissions failing to address the core violations. The Committee of Ministers has repeatedly called for their release, and the case remains under enhanced supervision. Concerns persist over judicial independence, parliamentary immunity, and broader repression of opposition politicians. 

Recommendation for the implementation of the Selahattin Demirtaş (No. 2) v. Türkiye group of cases and Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu and Others v. Türkiye case 

The NGOs also request the Committee of Ministers (CM) to urge the Turkish authorities to implement the following general measures: 

  • Ensure the annulment of criminal proceedings based on the arbitrary lifting of MPs’ parliamentary immunity by the constitutional amendment of May 2016 or by judicial authorities;

  • End the widespread judicial practice of issuing requests to Parliament to lift parliamentarians’ inviolability based on their exercise of Convention rights;

  • Ensure that judicial authorities genuinely and effectively apply constitutional and Convention safeguards protecting opposition politicians’ freedom of expression, including by implementing the Committee’s and Venice Commission’s recommendations on anti-terrorism laws and other laws used to stifle freedom of expression of politicians;

  • Provide adequate remedies and safeguards, including through access to the investigation file to challenge pre-trial detention, respect for fair trial rights, and implementation of Constitutional Court case-law on parliamentary immunity;

  • Address obstacles to opposition politicians’ exercise of their elected mandates in a free and safe environment, such as the “trustee” system of local governance, abusive proceedings against the HDP, administrative parliamentary sanctions for legitimate expression, and attacks on politicians representing the opposition and Kurdish and other minority rights.

Concerning individual measures, Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists and the International Federation for Human Rights request the Committee of Ministers (CM) to:  

  • Call once more for the immediate release of Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu;

  • Condemn Türkiye’s ongoing attempts to avoid executing the judgments;

  • Highlight that sustained failure to implement the Court’s judgments, the arbitrary detention of Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu for over eight years, and their convictions and sentences are contrary to the values of pluralism and freedom of political debate underpinning the Convention;

  • Use all available tools to ensure their immediate release, including the initiation of infringement proceedings against Türkiye under Article 46(4) of the Convention; 

  • Call for the speedy examination of their appeal of their convictions and sentences, as well as their applications to the Constitutional Court;

  • Call for a Convention-compliant decision concerning their appeal and their immediate acquittal in line with the ECtHR’s judgments;

  • Emphasise that restitutio in integrum requires the ceasing of the judicial harassment of the applicants based on the same or a similar context as examined by the Court;

 

 Taner Kılıç (Nº 2) v. Türkiye case

The Taner Kılıç (Nº 2) v. Türkiye case is a repetitive case under Nedim Sener v. Türkiye group of cases which concerns unjustified and disproportionate interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression on account of criminal proceedings for having expressed opinions that did not incite hatred or violence, and the consequent chilling effect on society as a whole. Taner Kılıç, a human rights lawyer and former Chair of Amnesty International Türkiye, was arrested in June 2017 on unfounded charges of “membership in a terrorist organisation.” He remained in pre-trial detention until August 2018. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in October 2022 that his detention was unlawful, violating Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention. The Court found that the charges were based solely on Kılıç’s peaceful human rights work, with no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. His detention was deemed an arbitrary interference with his right to liberty and freedom of expression, underscoring the risks faced by human rights defenders in Türkiye and the broader issue of judicial manipulation. 

The Turkish Government requested the closure of the Committee of Ministers' supervision, citing the payment of compensation as fulfillment of its obligations. However, civil society the case argue that compliance with the ECtHR's findings cannot be limited to compensation, and that Türkiye must take concrete actions to restore Kılıç's situation to what it was before his unlawful detention.  

Recommendation for the implementation of the Taner Kılıç (Nº 2) v. Türkiye case

Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists and Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project kindly ask the Committee of Ministers to:  

  • Examine the Taner Kılıç (Nº 2) v. Turkey judgment under enhanced supervision and as a leading case pursuant to the Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)11;

  • Reject the government request for the closure of the supervision of individual measures and request that the Turkish authorities take concrete measures to ensure the conclusion of domestic proceedings against Taner Kılıç in a manner consistent with the spirit and findings of the Court’s judgment;

  • Strengthen the protection and promotion of the space for civil society in line with the Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec (2018)11; 

  • Provide information to the Committee on measures taken to address the chilling effect identified by the Court;

  • Prevent violations of the rights of human rights defenders;

  • Ensure the independent and effective investigation of threats and attacks against human rights defenders and civil society organisations;

  • Drop abusive criminal prosecutions and release human rights defenders who have been imprisoned simply for exercising their rights. 

 

Pişkin v. Türkiye case

The Pişkin v. Türkiye case concerns inadequate judicial review of the dismissal of Mr. Pişkin, a public employee under Türkiye's emergency legislative decree, citing alleged links to a terrorist organisation. The ECtHR found that Legislative Decree No. 667 allowed dismissals without adversarial proceedings or procedural safeguards, requiring only vague claims of affiliation with ‘illegal structures.’ The Court held that domestic courts failed to thoroughly examine the appeal, disregard evidence, and provide valid reasons for dismissing the applicant's arguments. This lack of proper judicial review violated Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 8 (right to respect for private life), as the applicant was not protected against arbitrary action and the dismissal did not meet the strict standards required during a state of emergency. 

Following the Pişkin judgment, significant developments have highlighted ongoing challenges in addressing the mass dismissals under the state of emergency. Türkiye has continuously failed to provide effective reparation to dismissed workers, and the applicant has not been reinstated. The Inquiry Commission’s systemic issues, such as its lack of independence, vague standards, and weak evidence, remain unaddressed. Additionally, domestic courts continue to reject most dismissal challenges, with thousands of cases still unresolved, reflecting inefficiency in providing redress. The Constitutional Court has not yet reviewed any dismissal cases, despite the considerable time passed. NGOs emphasise the urgent need for judicial reforms to ensure timely, fair, and effective remedies, including clear procedures, consistent interpretations of the law, and guarantees of non-repetition. Furthermore, they urge the government to provide comprehensive data on dismissed workers and address the long-standing delays in the judicial process. 

Recommendation for the implementation of the Pişkin v. Türkiye case

  • Urge Türkiye to ensure administrative and labour courts adopt consistent interpretations aligned with the principles of legality, foreseeability and non-arbitrariness in dismissal cases, as required by the ECtHR’s judgment;   

  • Request Türkiye to revise its Action Report and clearly define steps to ensure independence and impartiality of labour courts, administrative courts and other domestic administrative and judicial avenues, ensuring an effective judicial review of dismissal cases; 

  • Outline how the domestic avenues, including the Constitutional Court, provide for effective remedies for the breaches of the rights of those dismissed under the state of emergency; 

  • Invite Türkiye to incorporate in its revised action plan the issues raised by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights in her February 2020 report and by the NGOs in this submission and their previous two submissions; 

  • Urge Türkiye to adopt a clear and binding time-limit within which the domestic authorities must conclude fair and effective determinations of challenges to the dismissal decisions, taking into account the lapse of some eight years since the first dismissals took place; and  

  • Ensure that Mr. Pişkin and the other dismissed public sector workers who obtained decisions recognising violations or reinstatement are provided with full reparation, including restitution and appropriate compensation, and guarantees of non-repetition. 

Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project and Amnesty International ask the Committee of Ministers to call on the Turkish authorities to implement the following individual and general measures: 

Regarding individual measures, the NGOs urge the Committee of Ministers to: 

  • Request Türkiye to confirm whether the applicant has been reinstated to their former position, addressing the lack of clarity despite the references to the labour court’s decision in the Government’s submissions;

  • Call for transparency regarding the implementation of the Labour Court's decision, including specific information about the actual reinstatement or compensation provided, ensuring that reparation is meaningful and effective;

  • Urge Türkiye to address the discretion employers have under Article 21 of the Turkish Labour Code, which allows them to refuse reinstatement despite a labour court ruling the dismissal invalid, ensuring that this discretion does not undermine restitution (restitutio in integrum);

  • Demand that Türkiye take steps to ensure that the labour court’s decision leads to genuine restitution (restitutio in integrum), providing either reinstatement or appropriate compensation in line with the principles of reparation. 

Regarding general measures to address and implement the ECtHR’s findings (Articles 6 and 8), the NGOs urge the Committee of Ministers to: 

  • Emphasise the need for robust legislative and judicial reforms to align domestic law with the Convention, preventing further violations of fair trial rights and the right to respect for private life of public sector workers dismissed under the state of emergency; 

  • Request Türkiye to provide comprehensive factual information, including: 

    • The exact number of public sector workers dismissed under the state of emergency; 

    • Procedures and criteria used for dismissals; 

    • Institutions from which public sector workers were dismissed;  

    • The number of cases successfully challenged before labour courts, the Inquiry Commission, administrative courts, or other domestic tribunals; 

    • Actions taken following decisions in favour of the applicants, including reinstatement or other remedies; 

    • The number of public sector workers reinstated, reassigned, or whose challenges were rejected; 

    • The number of those who were placed in different positions or workplaces;  

    • The number of public sector workers whose appeals are still pending before the domestic courts;