RESEARCH

Executive summary This report by the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP) sets out the systematic capture of Türkiye’s judiciary by President Erdoğan and allied power networks. It is part of a planned series documenting and analysing the erosion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Türkiye during President Erdoğan's time in power. Under international and regional human rights law, Türkiye has an obligation to respect and ensure judicial independence, which is an indispensable precondition for the protection of fundamental rights, the separation of powers, and the accountability of those exercising public authority. Key aspects of judicial independence include standards on judicial councils, judicial administration, guarantees against outside pressure, the appearance of independence of the judiciary, and prosecutorial independence. Each of these has been strategically circumvented, in law and in practice, to allow the AKP and its allies to gain access to the power both to administer the courts and to administer justice. Constitutional and legislative changes have increased executive control over the body responsible for judicial governance, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP), placing appointments, promotions, case assignments, transfers, dismissals and disciplinary powers effectively in the hands of the executive. Judicial administration by the CJP has been used to facilitate the placement of loyalist judges and prosecutors in strategic positions while penalising those who apply the law impartially, creating a climate of fear and submission. Safeguards against outside pressure have been systematically defied or circumvented. Following the 2016 coup attempt, over 4,000 judges and prosecutors were dismissed without individual reasoning, adequate due process, or effective judicial review — in clear breach of the guarantees of security of tenure and the right to a fair trial. Exceptions to procedural immunities protecting members of the judiciary from arbitrary investigation and arrest were reinterpreted in manifestly unreasonable terms, enabling widespread arrests and detention. The rights to freedom of expression and association within the judiciary have been suppressed through misuse of criminal law, judicial administration measures, and emergency decree powers. During Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s presidency, Türkiye’s judiciary has appeared increasingly partial, damaging the confidence that courts in a democratic society must inspire in the public. Proceedings against individuals perceived as threats to the interests of President Erdoğan and his allies have included indictments and judgments echoing presidential rhetoric and retroactive criminalisation of lawful conduct, reliance on anonymous testimony instead of concrete evidence, and politically motivated detention. Finally, the independence and effectiveness of the Constitutional Court, the supreme domestic avenue for redress for human rights violations, has been undermined through politicised appointments, a selective approach to cases favouring the interests of President Erdoğan and his allies over human rights protection, and repeated non-implementation of rights-compliant judgments. The dismantling of judicial independence, and therefore the separation of powers, has been central to widespread violations of human rights in Türkiye. Achieving judicial independence, and ending long-standing impunity for those in power, requires profound reform to address the structural conditions this report documents.

Following the attempted coup on 15 July 2016, the Turkish government declared a state of emergency that lasted two years, during which 131,922 measures were adopted through 37 emergency decrees. Of these, 125,678 involved the dismissal of public servants, who were accused of links to “terrorist organisations.” Dismissed individuals, including judges, academics, teachers, and police officers, were left without meaningful recourse. Legislative Decree No. 685 established the Inquiry Commission on the State of Emergency Measures, tasked with assessing applications related to dismissals and other measures. While the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) initially recognised the Commission as an accessible domestic remedy in its Köksal v. Turkey decision, it also cautioned that the Commission’s effectiveness and subsequent judicial review would require further scrutiny to ensure compliance with Convention standards. The Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP) has been closely monitoring these developments. Its first report, published in October 2019, identified systemic shortcomings in the Inquiry Commission’s processes, concluding that it failed to provide a fair or effective remedy. This latest report builds on those findings by examining the judicial review process of the Commission’s decisions, focusing on the Ankara Administrative Courts, the Ankara Regional Administrative Court, and the Council of State. By analysing the functioning and decisions of these courts, the report assesses whether dismissed public servants are afforded an effective domestic remedy under international human rights law. You can read the full report here.

Securing access to justice in Turkey remains a big challenge, especially for those whose rights were violated during the State of Emergency declared in July 2016. During the State of Emergency, the Government adopted a number of “atypical” emergency measures under more than 30 executive decrees seriously limiting and, in some cases, totally waiving numerous fundamental rights and freedoms by relying on exceptional powers under the Constitution. One hundred thousand public sector workers were dismissed and legal entities including newspapers, television companies, associations and foundations were closed down without individualized reasoning or evidence to support these actions. For a long time, the lack of a clear avenue for appeal of these decisions left those affected in obscurity. Following the adoption of the Decree Law No. 685, establishing the State of Emergency Inquiry Commission (“the Commission”), tens of thousands of people who were dismissed and the entities closed under the emergency decree laws have been forced to apply to the Commission before having recourse to a judicial remedy. A year after the operation of the Commission, the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP), started to carry out a research study to assess whether the Commission offered an effective remedy to challenge measures adopted during the state of emergency or whether it stood as yet another obstacle for victims to overcome in order to access justice in Turkey. During the study our researcher and the TLSP team reviewed the decisions and reasoning adopted by the Commission in 193 applications as well as national legislation, reports and statistics. The project collected qualitative and quantitative data supported by interviews with lawyers, applicants and experts and prepared an evaluation report by analysing this data. In this report, the Commission’s structure and functioning is evaluated by taking into account the main human rights issues with regards access to justice. Moreover, the decisions of the Commission are examined to determine whether it constitutes an effective legal remedy, in theory and in practice, in the light of the standards of the right to an effective remedy under international law. A Turkish translation of the report will be published soon, until then an executive summary in Turkish is available here.

This collection provides a list of available written resources regarding the human rights situation in Turkey following the attempted coup in 2016. Each source is briefly summarised to indicate the major themes dealt with by the author, and a full reference is provided so that they can be easily accessed. The first section presents a timeline of events and key legislation. The second provides a link to the notices of derogation lodged by Turkey at the Council of Europe and the United Nations. The third contains information regarding cases lodged before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The fourth, deals with reports filed by international monitoring bodies, namely the UN Human Rights Council (and associated monitoring bodies), the Council of Europe and The European Union. The fifth is a collection of reports and briefings authored by major NGOs. Lastly, journal articles and academic commentary are collected from a variety of sources such as scholarly journals and blogs.