Turkey has not complied with judgment Of European Court of Human Rights

Application concerning Mr Kavala’s detention after the Court’s judgment of

10 December 2019 and the criminal proceedings in which he was sentenced to

aggravated life imprisonment: case relinquished to Grand Chamber

The Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights to which the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (no. 2)

(application no. 2170/24) had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand

Chamber of the Court1 on 16 December 2025.

The case concerns Mr Kavala’s detention after the judgment delivered by the Court on 10 December

2019 (Kavala v. Turkey, no. 28749/18, 10 December 2019) and the ensuing criminal proceedings in

which he was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment.

Principal facts

The applicant has been deprived of his liberty since 18 October 2017. His pre-trial detention was the

subject of a judgment delivered by the Court on 10 December 2019, finding violations of Article 5

§§ 1 (right to liberty and security) and 4 (right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention),

and of Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights), taken in conjunction with Article 5 § 1.

Under Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments), the Court held that the respondent

State was to take all necessary measures to put an end to Mr Kavala’s detention and to secure his

immediate release.

As the applicant had not been released, in February 2022 the Committee of Ministers referred to the

Court, on the basis of Article 46 § 4, the question whether the Republic of Türkiye had failed to abide

by the above judgment.

In its judgment of 11 July 2022 in the infringement proceedings (Kavala v. Türkiye (infringement

proceedings), no. 28749/18), the Court found that Türkiye had failed to fulfil its obligation under

Article 46 § 1 to abide by its Kavala judgment of 10 December 2019.

The present application concerns the applicant’s detention and conviction after the Kavala judgment

of 10 December 2019.

Complaints and procedure

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 January 2021.

Relying on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant submits that his detention since the

judgment delivered by the Court on 10 December 2019 has amounted to an arbitrary deprivation of

liberty. Relying on Article 5 § 4, he complains that the proceedings brought before the Constitutional

Court with a view to challenging the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention were not conducted in

compliance with the requirements of the Convention. The applicant further submits that the

1 Under Article 30 of the European Convention of Human Rights “Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question

affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might

have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its

judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber. ”deprivation of his liberty was imposed for a purpose

other than those specified in Article 5, in violation of Article 18 of the Convention.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he submits that he was not heard by an “impartial” and

“independent” tribunal within the meaning of that provision. He further alleges that, during the

criminal proceedings against him, he was denied a fair trial and his defence rights were infringed, in

clear violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. The applicant further complains of an

infringement of his right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The applicant complains that the principle of the presumption of innocence, as guaranteed by

Article 6 § 2, was breached in his case.

The applicant also submits that his conviction was not in keeping with the principles of lawfulness

and foreseeability enshrined in Article 7 (no punishment without law).

Relying on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association), he

complains that his detention and conviction amount to an unjustified interference with his right to

freedom of expression and association.

Relying on Article 18, taken in conjunction with Articles 6, 7, 10 and 11, the applicant complains that

his Convention rights were restricted for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention.

Lastly, the applicant complains of a breach of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or

degrading treatment).

On 16 December 2025 the Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in

favour of the Grand Chamber.