Litigation |

We use litigation as a tool for strategic intervention to strengthen human rights protection in Turkey and to improve access to justice. We seek to influence the advancement of human rights standards by supporting lawyers, human rights defenders and NGOs to bring successful cases before national authorities, as well as international bodies, including the European Court of Human Rights and UN monitoring mechanisms.

Our litigation work mainly focuses on the infringement of rights occurring in relation to state of emergency policies and practices. We also assist with cases that highlight important shortcomings in the system of human rights protection and the rule of law in Turkey, striving to set precedence and trigger change in legislation or administrative practices. We directly support applicants or their representatives to access and use available remedies, and submit third party interventions and expert opinions on key legal issues.

Currently, we dedicate a substantial amount of our work to the following areas:

  • Restriction and suspension of rights under the state of emergency

  • The impact of the fight against terrorism and the derogation regime on the rights of suspects in criminal proceedings, particularly the right to liberty and security

  • Civil and political rights, including freedom of expression and freedom of assembly

  • Protection against arbitrary interference with personal autonomy, private and family life, the right to respect for freedom of thought and conscience, and the right to property

  • Prohibition of discrimination

Our Litigation Work |

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.