The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled on Tuesday that Turkey violated the right to a fair trial of eight judges and prosecutors.
The court found that Turkey’s Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) failed to provide sufficient procedural safeguards, such as formal hearings, rules for evidence and detailed reasoning in its decisions regarding the eight applicants, undermining the applicants’ right to a fair hearing. Seven applicants were each awarded 2,500 euros in non-pecuniary damages; one did not file a claim.
The case, Kurtoğlu Karacık and others v. Turkey, involved eight judges and prosecutors who were involuntarily transferred to other cities and one instance of a demotion in the same city. These transfers occurred between 2014 and 2015 through a series of decisions made by the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK).
The applicants argued that these transfers severely disrupted their private and family lives and were carried out without appropriate justification. They contended that they had no legal recourse to challenge the HSYK’s decisions, which they said violated Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Güneş Kurtoğlu Karacık and her husband İbrahim Karacık, both judges, were transferred from Ankara to Mersin, and they claimed the move disrupted their family life. They cited adverse effects on their son’s education and health due to the change in climate and higher financial burdens associated with the move.
Tayfun Kaya, a prosecutor transferred from Ankara to Kütahya, argued that his child, who has a disability, faced interruptions in medical care due to the relocation. This also led to family separation, as his spouse had to remain in Ankara for employment reasons.
Nalan Can, a judge, and her husband, Hasan Can, a prosecutor, were transferred from Istanbul to Elazığ. They argued that the move deprived their children of scholarship opportunities and disrupted their daughter’s medical treatment.
The Turkish government defended the transfers, claiming they were based on “the needs of the service” and were essential for operational efficiency and administrative considerations. They argued that members of the judiciary, a special category of civil service, could be subject to such measures without judicial review, as allowed under national law.
Additionally, the government linked the issue to national security concerns, asserting that many of the transferred individuals were later dismissed for alleged connections to the faith-based Gülen movement. They claimed that this affiliation justified the exclusion of these civil servants from the protections of Article 6, which guarantees the right to a fair and public trial, given their questionable loyalty to the rule of law and democratic principles.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been targeting followers of the Gülen movement, inspired by the late Muslim cleric Fethullah Gülen, since corruption investigations revealed in 2013 implicated then-Prime Minister Erdoğan as well as some members of his family and his inner circle.
Dismissing the investigations as a Gülenist coup and conspiracy against his government, Erdoğan designated the movement as a terrorist organization and began targeting its members. He intensified the crackdown on the movement following an abortive putsch in 2016, which he accused Gülen of masterminding. The movement strongly denies involvement in the coup attempt or any terrorist activity.
The European court rejected these arguments, stating that the absence of individualized reasoning for the transfers undermined the government’s justification. While acknowledging the possibility of dismissals or transfers in extraordinary circumstances, the court emphasized that at the time of the transfers, no investigations or disciplinary actions had been initiated against the applicants. The HSYK’s decisions cited only generic “needs of the service” without evidence of compelling state interests.
Furthermore, the court held that excluding judges and prosecutors from judicial review was unjustified, as it eroded constitutional protections for judicial independence. The court cited the precedent set in the Bilgen v. Turkey case, reiterating that such measures must meet stringent standards to be compatible with the ECHR.
The court, however, dismissed claims made under Article 8, which protects private and family life. It ruled that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the transfers caused severe enough harm to their personal lives to meet the threshold for Article 8 protections. The Article 13 claims, which ensure effective remedies for rights violations, were also denied as a result. Only the Article 6 claims were upheld.
Following the abortive putsch, the Turkish government declared a state of emergency and carried out a massive purge of state institutions on the pretext of an anti-coup fight. Over 130,000 public servants, including 4,156 judges and prosecutors, as well over 24,000 members of the armed forces were summarily removed from their jobs for alleged membership in or relationships with “terrorist organizations” by emergency decree-laws subject to neither judicial nor parliamentary scrutiny.
Former public servants were not only fired from their jobs; they were also banned from working again in the public sector and getting a passport. The government also made it difficult for them to work formally in the private sector. Notes were put on the social security database about dismissed public servants to deter potential employers.
Since the 2016 coup attempt, the ECtHR has ruled against the Turkish government in numerous cases, many of which involve the treatment of judges, prosecutors and other public officials. These cases often center on rights violations tied to dismissals, detentions and transfers carried out during widespread purges in the judiciary and civil service.
A significant number of the cases before the ECtHR have involved individuals accused of affiliation with the Gülen movement. The ECtHR has consistently emphasized the importance of fair trial guarantees, procedural safeguards and the right to an independent tribunal, even in situations where national security concerns are invoked. In these cases, the court has ruled that Turkey’s actions fell short of the standards set by the ECHR, reinforcing the need for adherence to due process.
