STRASBOURG, France – The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) will hold a crucial hearing on March 25, 2026, concerning the prolonged detention of Osman Kavala, a Turkish philanthropist and human rights defender. The case, brought before the court’s Grand Chamber, highlights concerns about the erosion of judicial independence in Türkiye and its impact on fundamental rights. Human rights organizations, including the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project (TLSP), Human Rights Watch, and the International Commission of Jurists, have submitted arguments supporting Kavala’s claim that his imprisonment is politically motivated and violates the European Convention on Human Rights.
Kavala, a prominent civil society figure, was initially arrested in October 2017 and subsequently convicted in April 2022 of attempting to overthrow the government, a charge he and his supporters vehemently deny. He received an aggravated life sentence for his alleged role in the 2013 Gezi Park protests, which began as a peaceful demonstration against urban development plans in Istanbul. Despite two previous rulings from the ECHR finding his detention arbitrary and in violation of the Convention, Kavala remains imprisoned, prompting the latest legal challenge.
The core of the case revolves around the Turkish government’s repeated defiance of ECHR judgments. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe initiated infringement proceedings – a highly unusual step – after Türkiye failed to implement the court’s 2019 ruling calling for Kavala’s release. This escalation underscores the severity of the situation and the Council of Europe’s concern over Türkiye’s commitment to upholding human rights standards. The organizations intervening in the case argue that the continued detention isn’t simply a failure to follow procedure, but a symptom of a deeper systemic problem: the weakening of the judiciary’s independence.
Undermining Judicial Independence in Türkiye
A central argument presented to the ECHR, detailed in a third-party intervention, focuses on the systematic capture of judicial authority by Türkiye’s ruling coalition – the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). Ayşe Bingöl Demir, director of TLSP, stated, “Osman Kavala’s unlawful and politically motivated detention has been allowed to persist for the best part of a decade in part because Türkiye’s judicial system lacks independence.” The intervention alleges that the government has actively taken steps to exert control over state institutions, particularly the judiciary.
This erosion of independence began, the organizations contend, with changes to the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK), the body responsible for the appointment and oversight of judges and prosecutors. Legal safeguards designed to protect the HSK’s independence were removed, allowing the ruling parties to fill positions with individuals perceived as loyal to the government. Temur Shakirov, director of the Europe and Central Asia program at the International Commission of Jurists, explained, “The council appears to have develop into an instrument to unduly influence the judiciary and its decision making, rather than serving as a safeguard for its independence.” These appointees, the intervention argues, have demonstrated a pattern of misusing anti-terrorism and national security laws and disregarding rulings from both the Constitutional Court and the ECHR.
The Aftermath of the 2016 Coup Attempt
The situation was further exacerbated following the failed coup attempt in 2016. The Turkish government responded with a widespread crackdown, arbitrarily dismissing thousands of judges and prosecutors and replacing them with individuals aligned with the ruling parties. This mass removal, critics argue, was not based on objective criteria or due process, but rather on political affiliation. The intervention details how this process created a climate of fear and submission within the judiciary, discouraging independent decision-making.
The impact extends beyond personnel changes. The organizations argue that continued political pressure and interference in cases involving dissidents or those perceived as opposing the government have further undermined the judiciary’s ability to function impartially. This instrumentalization of judicial authority, they claim, is a direct violation of Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to an effective remedy for human rights violations.
The Effectiveness of Domestic Remedies in Question
The intervention challenges the notion that Türkiye’s Constitutional Court provides an effective remedy for human rights violations. The organizations argue that the lack of independence of Constitutional Court members from the executive branch renders them unable to effectively uphold the rights of perceived dissidents. The court’s lack of a transparent case prioritization policy raises concerns about selectivity and potential interference in its decision-making process.
Aisling Reidy, senior legal adviser at Human Rights Watch, emphasized this point, stating, “Turkish judicial authorities have subverted criminal proceedings, including by unreasonable interpretations of provisions of criminal law and disregard for core procedural rights.” She added that this is “as well reflected in the persistent defiance of European Court of Human Rights judgments and the standards established in its case law.” The groups’ submission highlights a consistent pattern of Türkiye avoiding its obligations under the Convention, particularly in politically sensitive cases, and actively circumventing or undermining court rulings.
The ECHR’s Grand Chamber hearing on March 25th represents a critical juncture in the Kavala case and a significant test of Türkiye’s commitment to the rule of law. The court’s decision could have far-reaching implications for human rights defenders and the future of judicial independence in Türkiye. Following the hearing, the court is expected to deliberate and issue a final judgment in due course. Updates on the case and the court’s proceedings can be found on the ECHR’s official website: https://www.echr.coe.int/.
This case underscores the importance of an independent judiciary in safeguarding fundamental rights and holding governments accountable. The outcome will be closely watched by human rights organizations and international observers alike. We encourage readers to share this article and engage in constructive dialogue about the importance of judicial independence and the protection of human rights.
Related reading
