The European Court of Human Rights has delivered a forceful new criticism of Turkey’s judiciary, saying the imprisonment of philanthropist Osman Kavala highlights a “systemic problem” within the country’s legal system. The ruling, issued on Tuesday, places Kavala’s nearly nine-year detention at the center of a wider confrontation over judicial independence, executive influence and Turkey’s obligations under European human-rights law.
Importance of the decision lies in the fact that it goes much further than just criticizing a particular conviction or a particular judge. As the European court noted, systemic flaws in the Turkish judicial system might allow the executive to exercise its influence either directly or indirectly, especially when it comes to political opponents, human rights defenders, journalists, and people from civil society. This case became one of the major test cases of the Turkish adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights. Turkey is still a member of the Council of Europe and thus bound by the court’s decisions.
However, continued detention of Kavala despite several rulings of the European Court of Human Rights demanding his release led to one of the major institutional conflicts between Turkey and Europe in recent times. Court stated that Kavala must be released and that his conviction must be considered “null and void.” Such phrasing shows that court believed that the process was not just flawed but seriously compromised due to violations of law.
Osman Kavala’s long legal battle
One such notable civil society activist is Osman Kavala, who was arrested in October 2017. According to the accusations against him, Kavala was allegedly involved in financing and organizing the protests held at Gezi Park in 2013. These events took place in Istanbul, initiated by the government’s redevelopment plan for the park but escalated into national protests against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government. It is known that the supporters of Osman Kavala have always been claiming that the philanthropy and civil-society work of Kavala were used as a base for proving some conspiracy of political nature. At the same time, prosecutors presented his collaboration with activists, NGOs and international personalities as an attempt to undermine the government while, according to rights groups, no substantial evidence of Kavala’s attempts to overthrow the state could be found.
On 12 February 2020, an Istanbul court acquitted Kavala and other defendants in the Gezi case. Nevertheless, the acquittal did not lead to Kavala’s release since he was quickly arrested anew for his alleged involvement in the July 2016 coup attempt. Fast change from the acquittal to the arrest became one of the key moments of criticism of the European court.
The Gezi case was subsequently revived, and the proceedings were merged with the coup-related allegations. In April 2022, an Istanbul court convicted Kavala of attempting to overthrow the government and sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole. Seven other defendants received lengthy prison sentences in the same case.
Turkey’s Court of Cassation upheld the convictions in 2023. The decision maintained Kavala’s imprisonment even though the European Court of Human Rights had already found that his detention served an ulterior political purpose.
Why the word “systemic” matters
The European court’s description of a “systemic problem” carries greater weight than a finding of an isolated procedural error. It indicates that the court sees weaknesses embedded in the way Turkey’s justice system operates.
Among those weaknesses were the doubts regarding the independence of the judges and prosecutors, the potential influence of political authorities, the application of the criminal law to civil society actors, and the lack of adequate redress in case of a violation of Convention rights by courts. The concern of the European Court is not that every judge in Turkey operates under political instructions. On the contrary, it is the fact that the legal and institutional system allows the judges to be put under pressure through appointments, promotions, transfers, and disciplinary measures.
It is especially true in politically sensitive cases where the vulnerability of the judges affects the fairness of the process and the results. Similar concerns have been voiced by the United States. According to its country report on human rights, while the Turkish law ensures the independence of the judiciary, the judiciary remains susceptible to influence, primarily from the executive power. Furthermore, the report mentions that the Turkish courts ignored the European Court judgment that calls for the release of Kavala. The 2025 report of the European Commission concerning Türkiye came to the same conclusion, namely that the judiciary remains under the executive control, thus undermining judicial independence and integrity.
These assessments provide context for the European court’s latest decision. The Kavala judgment is not occurring in isolation; it forms part of a broader international record documenting concerns about the rule of law in Turkey.
The Gezi protests and political interpretation
The 2013 Gezi Park protests remain one of the most politically sensitive episodes of Erdoğan’s rule. What began as a local environmental demonstration grew into a nationwide movement involving millions of people. Protesters criticized government policies, police tactics and what they viewed as the increasing concentration of political power.
The Turkish government viewed the protests as a conspiracy to overthrow the government. In the eyes of the government, Kavala had assisted in financing the protest. The legal defense of Kavala stated that his support of cultural and civil society activities cannot be viewed as an attempt to bring down the government through crime. The differences in interpreting the events at Gezi have made the case a politically sensitive issue. For the Turkish government, it is a sign of holding those responsible accountable for the disruption of public order. On the other hand, the European institutions and human rights organization view the case as an example of criminalizing any form of protest and using the judicial system to silence pluralism. The decision of the European court in the case was harsh. The decision stated that the arrest of Kavala had been used for the ulterior motive of silencing pluralism and constraining political discussion.
Turkey’s defense of the conviction
The Turkish government rejects the characterization of Kavala as a political prisoner. Ankara maintains that the judiciary is independent and that Kavala was convicted following domestic legal procedures for serious crimes.
According to Turkish officials, the European court does not have the right to replace national courts when examining criminal evidence. The claim of Turkish officials is that it is for national judges to decide if any acts constitute an attempt to topple the government, while international organizations should take into account the sovereignty and judicial process of Turkey. President Erdoğan refuses any criticism from the institutions of Europe.
In his previous statements regarding the Kavala case, he stated that
“Turkey will never accept anyone who does not accept our courts.”
Such statements show the general objection of Ankara to any kind of foreign interference in the judicial process of Turkey. Nevertheless, Turkey’s membership in the Council of Europe reduces the strength of this position. By signing the European Convention on Human Rights, Turkey has committed itself to following the judgments of the European court.
A direct challenge to Turkey’s obligations
The European Court of Human Rights first ordered Kavala’s release in 2019. It found that his detention violated the Convention and was designed to silence political opposition and civil-society activity.
Turkey did not free him. In July 2022, the court determined that Turkey had violated its obligations in the previous ruling. Thus, the issue entered the infringement procedure, which theoretically could result in sanctions imposed on Turkey by the Council of Europe. Moreover, the court instructed Turkey to pay €7,500 in damages to Kavala. This ongoing conflict has called into question the effectiveness of the European human rights system. If one member state could ignore an authoritative ruling in a politically significant case, then, according to critics, the Convention would have lesser force to protect people of other countries. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe oversees the implementation of rulings of ECtHR. Hence, Kavala’s case turned out to be an ongoing institutional challenge for Europe.
Wider implications for political cases
This decision may have implications in terms of how other politically sensitive Turkish cases will be evaluated. Its focus on judicial independence, executive intervention, and the way rights activists are treated can help defendants to prove that their cases are politically motivated. This particular case may be particularly relevant in connection with the incarceration of Selahattin Demirtaş, a prominent Kurdish political figure. The European court has already requested his release, but Turkish authorities have been resisting its implementation. Another important case is the Grand Chamber judgment in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye of 2023.
The court recognized violations of the right to a fair trial, the prohibition of punishment without a legal basis, and freedom of association. This case is related to the prosecution of a Turkish teacher after the 2016 coup attempt and the use of evidence collected on an alleged ByLock messaging-app. Some 8,500 applications on similar cases were pending at the court at the time of the judgment. The Yalçınkaya judgment showed that the European court was ready to recognize systematic problems in post-coup prosecutions in Turkey.
International pressure and diplomatic consequences
The imprisonment of Kavala has not only affected relations with Western governments but also with Western countries. The US government, European states and other international human rights organizations have continuously called for his release. In 2021, the President Erdoğan threatened to expel 10 foreign ambassadors from Turkey, including diplomats representing the US, France and Germany because all of them demanded the release of Kavala together. The diplomatic crisis ended later but it showed that this case could rapidly turn into a conflict between Turkey and its NATO members.
Open Society Foundations, which is the civil society foundation associated with Kavala, stated that his conviction in 2022 was a “travesty of justice”. No credible evidence was found to prove the charges. This case is also connected with the European Union as far as the relations between this union and Turkey are quite long-lasting. Judicial independence and human rights respect belong to the political criteria of the EU.