European Court Rules Against Turkey Again: Kavala Must Be Released Immediately

Rastinews — The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled for a second time that Turkey violated the rights of civil society and human rights activist Osman Kavala, who has spent 3,220 days in prison: "He must be released as soon as possible."

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Grand Chamber said civil society and human rights activist Osman Kavala "must be released as soon as possible."

Kavala, sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment on charges of "attempting to overthrow the government" in the Gezi trial, has been held for 3,220 days.

The Grand Chamber convened today (August 25) to consider Kavala's application. ECtHR President Matthias Guyomar said, "Kavala must be released as soon as possible."

Under the ruling, Kavala is to be paid 70,000 euros (about 3.9 million lira) in non-pecuniary damages and 43,342.57 euros (about 2,434,000 lira) in pecuniary damages.

The ECtHR had already ordered Kavala's immediate release once before, on December 10, 2019.

The ECtHR Rulings Monitoring Initiative issued the following statement on the new ruling:

* A second violation ruling has been issued regarding Osman Kavala. The court's president announced that Articles 5 and 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) were violated. (Diken's note: Article 5 concerns the right to liberty and security; Article 18 concerns limits on the restriction of rights.)

* The court stressed that the Gezi protests were peaceful, and found that the case had violated freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

* It criticized the delay in the Constitutional Court's review of Kavala's pending application.

* As in its previous Kavala ruling, the court found a violation of Article 18, stressing that the authorities had acted in bad faith in restricting his rights. Violations of Article 18 are rare in ECtHR rulings.

* This second violation ruling reinforces the reasoning of the first ruling and the finding that it, too, went unheeded. The ECtHR underlined that its rulings are binding under both the ECHR and the Turkish Constitution.

What happened?

President Tayyip Erdoğan branded Kavala "Turkey's Soros" over the Gezi protests. Kavala was detained in Gaziantep on October 18, 2017, and taken to Istanbul.

The grounds for his detention were not disclosed at first. Officials said the investigation was being conducted confidentially.

On November 1, Kavala was arrested and sent to Silivri Prison. Two grounds were cited for his arrest: "attempting to overthrow the government" in connection with the Gezi protests, and "attempting to overthrow the constitutional order" in connection with the July 15 coup attempt.

The case file was later split in two during the indictment process.

The Gezi indictment was completed on February 19, 2019.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled on December 10, 2019, that Kavala should be released immediately.

Acquittal, release, re-arrest

Kavala was still in detention when the sixth hearing in the "attempting to overthrow the government" case was held on February 18, 2020. The court acquitted and ordered the release of Kavala and eight co-defendants.

Shortly afterward, the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office announced a new detention order against Kavala over the coup-attempt case, on charges of "attempting to overthrow the constitutional order." The businessman, who had been expected to walk free, was instead detained again. A release order had in fact already been issued for Kavala in that same investigation back in October 2019. Despite this, Kavala was re-arrested on February 19, 2020. On March 9, 2020, he was arrested once more under the same case, this time on charges of "political or military espionage."

Application to the Constitutional Court

Kavala applied to the Constitutional Court (AYM) on May 4, 2020, arguing that his rights had been violated. The 15-member court rejected the application on December 29, 2020, by a vote of eight to seven.

On January 25, 2021, the Council of Europe, to which the ECtHR belongs, reminded Turkey that "Kavala's release is not a request but a requirement of binding law."

On February 5, Istanbul's 36th Heavy Penal Court held the second hearing in the case charging Kavala with "attempting to overthrow the constitutional order" and "political and military espionage." Kavala argued that keeping him in detention would cause an even graver violation of his rights. The court ordered his continued detention.

The court president dissented

On March 23, the Constitutional Court published its reasoned decision. Among the seven members who dissented was the court's president, Zühtü Arslan.

On May 21, at the third hearing of the Gezi Park trial, the court voted by majority to keep Kavala in detention. Its president again noted his dissent.

On October 8, Kavala and 16 other rights defenders appeared before a judge together for the first time with 35 members of Beşiktaş's Çarşı fan group. The court again voted by majority to keep Kavala in detention.

Infringement procedure

On December 3, the Council of Europe reminded Turkey of its infringement-procedure decision against it for failing to release Kavala despite the ECtHR ruling, and gave Ankara until January 19, 2022, to respond.

Kavala was again not released at a hearing on January 17, 2022.

Turkey responded to the ECtHR as follows: "Kavala's trial is proceeding under a different case from the one in which the ECtHR ruling was issued."

The Council of Europe's political body, the Committee of Ministers, then put the matter to a vote at its February 2 meeting, moving to the second stage of the infringement procedure it had launched against Turkey in early December over Kavala's continued detention despite the ECtHR ruling. The session adopted, by majority vote, an interim decision to refer the case to the ECtHR.

Erdoğan: It doesn't concern us much

President Tayyip Erdoğan criticized the decision on February 3, 2022: "What the ECtHR said, what the Council of Europe said on this matter — it doesn't concern us much. We expect respect for our own courts. Those who do not show that respect should not expect ours in return."

The fifth hearing of the Gezi/Çarşı case, in which Kavala had by then spent 1,574 days in detention, was held on February 21. The court ordered his continued detention and separated the case files.

On February 23, the ECtHR gave the parties until April 19 to submit their views on the infringement process against Turkey.

Kavala appeared before the court again on March 21. The court ordered his continued detention.

A verdict was expected at the April 22 hearing but was not delivered.

Aggravated life sentence

At the verdict hearing on April 25, Istanbul's 13th Heavy Penal Court sentenced Kavala to aggravated life imprisonment for "attempting to overthrow the government." One member of the panel dissented.

At the same hearing, Mücella Yapıcı, Çiğdem Mater, Hakan Altınay, Mine Özerden, Can Atalay, Tayfun Kahraman and Yiğit Ali Ekmekçi were each sentenced to 18 years in prison and ordered detained.

On December 28, 2022, an Istanbul regional court of appeal, reviewing the case, found the sentences given to Kavala and the other defendants "lawful."

On September 28, 2023, the Court of Cassation upheld Osman Kavala's aggravated life sentence and the 18-year sentences given to Can Atalay, Tayfun Kahraman, Mine Özerden and Çiğdem Mater Utku. It overturned the 18-year sentences given to Ali Hakan Altınay, Yiğit Ali Ekmekçi and Ayşe Mücella Yapıcı.

On April 30, 2024, Kavala requested a retrial.

On May 14, the panel of the 13th Heavy Penal Court hearing the case was changed "as required by law."

On May 15, the court unanimously rejected the retrial request.

In his second application to the ECtHR, filed in March 2026, Kavala argued that his right to a fair trial had been violated, that the court had not acted independently and impartially, that his defense rights had been restricted, that the proceedings had not concluded within a reasonable time, that the presumption of innocence had been violated, and that his sentence ran counter to the principles of legality and foreseeability.

Source: Diken