STRATEGIC LITIGATION 

Twelve legal and human rights organisations intervene in proceedings against the executive board ahead of trial* TLSP and 11 other legal and human rights organisations have submitted an amicus curiae (friends of the court) intervention to the Istanbul 26th Heavy Penal Court in the criminal proceedings against the Istanbul Bar Association board, ahead of the trial scheduled for 9-10 September 2025. In a joint statement, the organisations have warned that the civil and criminal proceedings against the Istanbul Bar Association board are a “direct assault” on the independence of the legal profession and are incompatible with Türkiye’s international human rights obligations.

I. Introduction 1. The Third-Party Interveners (‘the Interveners’) submit these comments by leave of the President of the Second Section of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’ or ‘the Court’) granted on 18 October 2024 under Rule 44(3) of the Rules of Court. 2. The present case concerns Ankara Governorate’s ban imposed on 18 May 2016 on a Pride March planned for 22 May 2016 (App. no. 27507/23) and the indefinite ban dated 17 November 2017 on all collective activities of pro-LGBTI+ rights civil society organisations (App. no. 5797/22), including the applicant association. 3. Drawing on expertise as organisations specialising in international human rights law and working extensively on human rights in Türkiye, the Interveners will address the following issues arising in this case, which are directly linked to the Court’s deliberations under Articles 10, 11, 13 and 14 of the Convention in the context of LGBTI+ rights: the systematic bans on assemblies and collective activities of the LGBTI+ community in Türkiye (Section II); the domestic mechanisms for challenging administrative bans on LGBTI+ assemblies and events, and their compatibility with Article 13 standards (Section III); other practices by Turkish authorities that have impeded LGBTI+ individuals from exercising their rights under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (Section IV); and the discriminatory nature of the Turkish authorities’ escalating bans and practices targeting LGBTI+ individuals and community (Section V).

NGOs Intervene in the Case of Wrongly Detained Rights Defender Awaiting New European Court Ruling Türkiye’s continued unlawful detention of the human rights defender Osman Kavala is a result of prosecutors and courts effectively operating under the political control of the government, three human rights organizations, including Turkey Litigation Support Project, said in a third-party intervention to the European Court of Human Rights regarding his case. The groups called for Kavala’s immediate release and for his conviction to be overturned, to give effect to the binding judgements of the European Court. Kavala, who as of November 1, 2024, has spent seven years behind bars, was convicted on baseless charges of attempting to overthrow the government following a manifestly unfair trial. He remains in prison despite two binding judgements from the European Court holding that his detention is arbitrary and serves political purposes. Kavala is serving a life sentence without parole and four others convicted with him are serving prison terms of 18 years for their alleged roles in the 2013 mass protests triggered by an urban transformation plan around Istanbul’s Gezi Park. In January, Kavala submitted a new application to the European Court, alleging that there had been multiple further violations of his rights since the court’s 2019 ruling, which found that he had been detained without reasonable suspicion and that his detention was politically motivated to silence him. In this recent application, Kavala’s lawyers focus on his continuing unlawful detention and contend that, taken together, multiple violations of Kavala’s right to a fair trial, and to freedom of expression, assembly and association, as well as violation of the principle of legality, demonstrate that the Turkish authorities have continued to pursue the political aim of silencing and punishing Kavala as a human rights defender. They also contend that the proceedings against him and life sentence without parole amount to a violation of the prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment and torture. The European Court is expected to issue a judgment in the coming months. The European Court has accepted the Turkey Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists as intervenors in the case. On September 16, the groups submitted a third-party intervention to provide further relevant information and context for the court to consider as it adjudicates Kavala’s application. The submission focuses on a well-documented pattern of conduct in Türkiye designed to circumvent the implementation of European Court judgments in politically sensitive cases, notably those involving perceived dissidents. The rights groups also point to the following features of the domestic system: the capture of the judiciary by the ruling political parties; the lack of independence of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors, which has become a mechanism for consolidating undue influence over the judiciary; serious concerns as regards the independence and effectiveness of the Turkish Constitutional Court; and persistent defiance toward European Court judgments and standards in its caselaw.

The Turkey Litigation Support Project (TLSP), along with 29 other lawyers’ and human rights organizations, has sent a letter (available here) to the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteurs regarding the killing of human rights lawyer and then-chair of the Diyarbakır Bar Association, Tahir Elçi on November 28, 2015, and the continuing lack of an effective investigation into his death. Ahead of the next hearing in on June 12, 2024, expected to be the last, in the criminal trial of those accused of killing lawyer Tahir Elçi, the oganisations urge the Special Rapporteurs once again to request the Turkish authorities to ensure a fair trial by an impartial and independent tribunal, respecting the procedural rights of Tahir Elçi’s family, as well as to ensure that all those responsible for Tahir Elçi’s death are held accountable and serve adequate sentences. The letter is addressed to the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions; Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism; and Special Rapporteur on minority issues. The mandate holders are invited to call on the Turkish authorities to ensure: i. The court hearing the case complies with its obligation, under the right to life, to ensure that all those responsible are brought to justice and serve appropriate sentences for the killing of Mr. Elçi, and considering, inter alia, the legal responsibility of superior officials for violations by their subordinates; ii. To this end, in light of the severe shortcomings in the investigation as well as serious allegations of torture and ill-treatment by prosecutors and security forces involved in the case, the court take into account the requests by Tahir Elçi’s family concerning important evidence and witnesses in the case capable of elucidating the killing; iii. Judicial authorities take all necessary steps to redress the improper bias and serious procedural breaches identified in this letter, which have undermined the victims’ rights in the case, including by giving the Elçi family’s lawyers reasonable opportunities to be heard and to make requests and refraining from an attitude appearing hostile to the Elçi family or its lawyers; iv. In light of Tahir Elçi’s professional activities, the court explores whether there was a possible political motive for his murder, whether the relevant authorities have taken adequate measures to safeguard Mr. Elçi and whether certain State officials could have been involved; v. The very serious complaints alleging prosecutors’ involvement in the torture and ill-treatment of witnesses in the case is examined by an independent and impartial judicial body and in case of a credible claim, a criminal proceeding to be instigated against them, the Council of Judges and Prosecutors to start a disciplinary proceeding against those involved and the related evidence is excluded from the file before the Diyarbakır 10th Assize Court; vi. Mr. Elçi’s family is provided with appropriate redress for the violations they and their loved one have suffered in accordance with the international obligations of Turkey, including under the ECHR, the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and the Minnesota Protocol. The letter was endorsed by the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, American Association of Jurists (Asociación Americana de Juristas, AAJ), Association of Democratic Lawyers (Vereinigung Demokratischer Juristinnen und Juristen, VDJ, Germany), Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC), Bruxelles Bar Association (Ordre des avocats du Barreau de Bruxelles), Bruxelles Bar Association - Human Rights Institute (Institut des droits de l’homme du barreau de Bruxelles), Defence Without Borders - Lawyers in Solidarity (Défense sans frontière avocats solidaires, DSF-AS, France), Democratic Lawyers (Giuristi Democratici, Italy), Democratic Lawyers Association of Bangladesh (DLAB), European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH), European Democratic Lawyers (AED), German Bar Association (Deutscher Anwaltverein, DAV), Indian Association of Lawyers, International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), International Association of People's Lawyers, International Association of People's Lawyers-Australian Branch, International Observatory for Lawyers in Danger (OIAD), Lawyers for Lawyers, Monitoring Committee on Attacks on Lawyers, Nantes Bar Association - France, National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL, the Philippines), Observatory Endangered Lawyers - Italian Union of Criminal Chambers (Osservatorio Avvocati Minacciati, UCPI), Rennes Bar Association (Ordre des Avocats du Barreau de Rennes, France), Rotterdam Bar Association - the Netherlands, Seine-Saint Denis Bar Association - France, the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), the European Bars Federation (FBE), the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), the Law Society of England and Wales (LSEW), and the Republican Lawyers Association (Republikanische Anwältinnen- und Anwälteverein, RAV, Germany). Joined by Human Rights in Practice, Legal Centre Lesvos, the Lyon Bar Association, the Observatory for Human Rights Defenders, and the Turin Bar Association, the organizations also released a joint public statement (see here) calling for for justice for Tahir Elçi.

On 4 April 2019, a complaint concerning the suspension of the Council of the Greater Municipality of Diyarbakır in south-eastern Turkey was lodged with the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC). The Turkey Litigation Support Project worked with Mr Cihan Aydin, representative of the 6 applicants. Under Emergency Decree Law No. 674, the applicants, who were at the time elected members of the Municipal Council, were prevented from holding meetings and participating in public affairs. Their functions were assumed by a ‘trustee’ appointed by the government under Emergency Decree Law No. 674, a situation that continues despite the lifting of the state of emergency. Before the UNHRC, the applicants contend that Turkey, a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), has failed to meet the requirements necessary for lawful derogation under Article 4 and that the suspension of the Council of the Greater Municipality of Diyarbakir constitutes violations of Articles 25, 26 and 2(3) of the ICCPR. The notice of derogation was insufficiently precise, the measures were still ongoing at the time the complaint was submitted, and the measures have neither been shown to be necessary or proportionate to the stated aims of the fight against terrorism. Moreover, restrictions adopted by Decree Law No. 674 cannot be said to be lawful and reasonable. The law lacked clarity and foreseeability, and was neither necessary or proportionate in its aim of addressing the perceived national security threat. Additionally, it lacked sufficient legal safeguards and has been applied arbitrarily. There has thus been a violation of the applicants’ and the electorate’s rights under Article 25 (a) and (b) of the ICCPR as they were prevented from exercising their right to take part in the conduct of public affairs through the election of representatives after the suspension of the Municipal Council. The applicants also complained that the law in this case was applied in a manner that targeted predominantly Kurdish politicians and those of a particular political opinion, thereby constituting a violation of the right of the applicants to non-discriminatory treatment under Article 26 of the ICCPR. Lastly, the complaint raises concerns surrounding the independence, impartiality and competence of the judiciary in Turkey. The influence of the executive over these bodies, as well as confusion and lack of access to adequate legal avenues for redress, has contributed to an ineffective basis for legal remedies for rights violations flowing from state of emergency measures. The Constitutional Court’s decision to reject the applicants’ case on the grounds that it is unable to constitutionally review legislative acts, has resulted in a clear lack of accessibility to even the very possibility of an effective domestic remedy for the rights violations suffered by the applicants. In the absence of any other available remedy, or adequate aggregate of remedies, this constitutes a violation of Article 2(3) when read with Articles 25 and 26 of the ICCPR.

Kamuran AKIN v. Turkey and 42 other applications emerge from a statement issued on 11 January 2016 by a group of academics from diverse Turkish universities, entitled “We will not be a party to this crime,” which critically questioned the Turkish Government’s role in the conflict in South-east Turkey and associated serious violations. The day after the “Academics for Peace Petition” was published, President Erdoğan described signatories as “so-called intellectuals” and “pseudo academics” and accused them of treason, which was followed by their public vilification as “terrorists,” and they were subject to disciplinary, administrative and criminal proceedings across the country. Following the July 2016 coup attempt, hundreds of academics, including the applicants, were then dismissed from their university positions through a series of emergency decrees. The brief on academic freedom was presented by Profs. Helen Duffy and Philip Leach (co-supervisors in the TLSP) on behalf of a group of leading academics, and addresses the nature of academic freedom, its significance for human rights and democracy, and its legal protection in international human rights law. The brief focuses first on the nature of ‘academic freedom,’ embracing individual and institutional autonomy from the state, and a public and social role (informing healthy democratic discourse including criticism of government), both of which preclude requiring academic ‘loyalty’ to the state as the Turkish state purports to do. The brief explains the significance of academic freedom for the array of human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and broader international human rights law - for the academics directly affected, for the full range of rights of many others, and for the fundamental values underpinning the ECHR and democratic systems. The intervention calls for the Court’s considered attention to the issue of academic freedom which remain relatively underexplored in ECHR jurisprudence, yet has significant implications for the interpretation and application of the Convention: informing states’ ‘positive obligations’ to create an ‘enabling environment’ for academic freedom, and requiring a strict approach to permissible restrictions on rights. The brief questions whether measures directed at curtailing the academic function can be justified as restrictions a) provided for in clear foreseeable law, b) as necessary and proportionate, and c) whether they are subject to meaningful remedies and review within Turkey. It questions whether the measures can be justified by reference to the ‘emergency’ following the attempted coup in July 2016. It urges the Court to consider whether they pursued an ‘ulterior purpose’ under Article 18, representing the latest in a line of societal actors to be targeted for their expression of opposition to the Turkish government. The brief calls on the Court to robustly apply the ECHR and international standards to safeguard academic autonomy and freedom of expression on matters of public concern. The issue is timely and pressing in the context of alarming growth in attacks on academic freedom in Turkey and around the globe, and its insidious implications for closing democratic space.

Kamuran AKIN v. Turkey and 42 other applications emerge from a statement issued on 11 January 2016 by a group of academics from diverse Turkish universities, entitled “We will not be a party to this crime,” which critically questioned the Turkish Government’s role in the conflict in South-east Turkey and associated serious violations. The day after the “Academics for Peace Petition” was published, President Erdoğan described signatories as “so-called intellectuals” and “pseudo academics” and accused them of treason, which was followed by their public vilification as “terrorists,” and they were subject to disciplinary, administrative and criminal proceedings across the country. Following the July 2016 coup attempt, hundreds of academics, including the applicants, were then dismissed from their university positions through a series of emergency decrees. The brief filed by the TLSP on 10 December 2021 addresses the issue of the availability and effectiveness of domestic remedies in the context of the application of the state of emergency measures concerning dismissals of public sector workers in Turkey. In doing so, the brief first focuses on the right to an effective remedy and the extent to which the Inquiry Commission on the State of Emergency Measures (Commission) ensures necessary guarantees. Then, it considers whether it is possible to remedy any shortcomings of the Commission in subsequent appeal proceedings before designated administrative courts or the Turkish Constitutional Court. The intervention points out the serious questions about the independence and impartiality of the Commission and the domestic courts. It shows that domestic authorities have not examined the complaints of dismissed public sector workers in a timely manner. Finally, it also explains how the procedure before the Commission and the administrative courts raise several serious shortcomings and that the remit of those domestic authorities’ decisions is overly restricted.

The case concerns the continued detention of the applicant Selahattin Demirtaş, a prominent Kurdish politician who was co-chair of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP, a left-wing pro-Kurdish political party) between 2014-2018, an elected member of the Turkish Grand National Assembly from 2007 until 2018 and a popular presidential candidate in the August 2014 and June 2018 elections. The applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on 4 November 2016. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ordered Turkey, on two occasions, to ensure that Mr. Demirtaş’s pre-trial detention “is ended at the earliest possible date” (see the Second Section, Application No. 14305/17, the judgment of 20 November 2018, para. 283) and to “take all necessary measures to secure the immediate release” of Mr. Demirtaş (see the Grand Chamber, Application No. 14305/17, the judgment of 22 December 2020, para. 442). The applicant, however, remained in detention. Drawing on their expertise as organisations specialising in international human rights law and working extensively on human rights and the judicial process in Turkey, the intervening NGOs -the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists- addressed in the intervention two core issues arising in the application: the nature and application of anti-terror criminal laws in Turkey and the implications for Articles 5(1), 10 and 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); and the effectiveness of the Constitutional Court, in particular in cases concerning the detention of government opponents.

The case concerns the arrest and detention of the applicant, a respected human rights lawyer and former Director of Amnesty International Turkey. It epitomises some of the most fundamental human rights challenges in Turkey today, involving widely documented restrictions on freedom of expression, association and assembly of human rights defenders (HRDs), a rapidly closing civil society space under the emergency regime, and the broadening reach of anti-terrorism legislation applied against HRDs with wide-reaching implications for public debate, participation in public affairs and the protection of human rights. Against this background, the intervention outlines the factual context of the situation facing HRDs in Turkey. It highlights international and comparative standards governing obligations towards them, including the limits prescribed by Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It further provides comments on key principles necessary for a rule of law approach to the application of the criminal law, against the legal and practical pattern of excessive resort to criminal law against HRDs in Turkey. Based on all these grounds, the intervention concludes that “the criminalisation of HRDs requires particularly rigorous oversight by the Court, given its impact on an array of rights, including in this case Articles 5, 10, 11 and 18, on the authority of criminal law and on the ability to defend human rights in Turkey.”

The case concerns the dismissal of a public institution employee pursuant to Emergency Decree no. 667 due to his alleged links to an organisation prescribed as terrorist by the State. Relevant to the situation of almost 130,000 persons dismissed from their jobs during the period of the State of Emergency, the case raises significant questions regarding procedural rights in employment proceedings leading to the dismissal of state employees on grounds related to national security, including under a State of Emergency as well as the application of the principles of legality, legal certainty and non-retroactivity in the field of counter-terrorism. The Interveners address the following matters in the intervention i) the applicability of the criminal limb of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (Convention) to dismissal proceedings in cases where the proceedings involve a determination of facts which constitute a “criminal offence” as understood under the autonomous meaning of the term in the Convention; ii) the lack of procedural guarantees in the dismissal process necessary to comply with Article 6, in particular the principle of presumption of innocence and iii) the application of the principles of legality, legal certainty and non-retroactivity to dismissal proceedings, where they determine membership of, participation in or association with, a terrorist group, including with regard to Article 7 of the Convention and the application of state of emergency decrees to events that occurred before the declaration of the State of Emergency.

The case of Telek & Others v Turkey, concerns the cancellation of passports of three academics who, together with more than two thousand others, supported a “Petition for Peace” and as a result were prosecuted, dismissed from academic institutions and banned from public service under state of emergency legislation in Turkey. Despite the state of emergency having come to an end in July 2018, the applicants, like others, are still deprived of a valid passport, unable to travel or to engage in academic work at home or abroad, and have had no opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of the measures taken against them. Their case forms part of what has been described as a severe blow to academic freedom and democratic institutions in Turkey in recent years. On behalf of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, Amnesty International, Article 19 and PEN International, a third party intervention was submitted to the Court urging the Court to apply the Convention in light of relevant international standards on academic freedom and on the fundamental nature of the right to remedy in situations of emergency. The brief also addresses the current lack of legal remedies for the widespread practice of passport cancellations in Turkish courts.

The case of Mehmet Osman Kavala v. Turkey, currently before the ECtHR, concerns the October 2017 arrest and pre-trial detention of a highly regarded civil society leader, publisher and human rights defender. Mehmet Osman Kavala has worked with and supported a variety of civil projects aimed at promoting open dialogue, peace, minority and human rights, and democratic values. While an official indictment has not been filed, charges against him include: attempting to abolish the constitutional order and overthrow the government by using force under Articles 309 and 321 of the Turkish Criminal Code, on account of his support of and involvement in the organisation and financing of Gezi protests and alleged involvement in corruption and the failed coup d’etat. The case against Kavala is emblematic of prevalent trends in Turkey, where arbitrary detention and prosecution of human rights defenders is widespread, with insidious implications for human rights and the rule of law. On behalf of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project and PEN International, a third party intervention was submitted to the Court, outlining international law standards, including on the protection of human rights defenders.

Ayşe Çelik was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to a custodial sentence for the broad-reaching and ill-defined crime of ‘disseminating propaganda’ in favour of a terrorist organisation (under Article 7/(2) of Law no. 3713 on the Fight Against Terrorism). Her purported offence consists of comments made during a telephone call to a television show stating that in South East Turkey “unborn children, mothers and people are being killed” and that the media must “not keep silent”. Helen Duffy and Philip Leach presented a joint expert opinion to the Turkish Constitutional Court in September 2018, examining international law standards on the criminalisation and prosecution of crimes of expression.