The Italian Federation for Human Rights (FIDU) has, as a third-party intervener, challenged the conviction of a Turkish construction worker on terrorism charges due to his links to the faith-based Gülen movement, in a case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Turkish Minute reported, citing the the organization’s announcement.
The case concerns the application of Nevzat Altıntaş, who was sentenced to seven years, six months in prison on charges of terrorist organization membership under Article 314 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) by a high criminal court in the western province of İzmir in 2017 due to his links to the Gülen movement.
The Gülen movement is accused by the Turkish government and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of masterminding a failed coup and is labeled a “terrorist organization,” although the movement denies involvement in the coup attempt or any terrorist activity.
FIDU, which was granted leave to intervene in the case of Altıntaş in August, has submitted its views regarding why Altıntaş suffered a violation of his fundamental rights through his conviction based on former rulings of the ECtHR.
Altıntaş lodged an application at the ECtHR in February 2020 after exhausting domestic remedies including the filing of an individual application at the Constitutional Court.
Altıntaş’s conviction in Turkey was based on his activities such as having an account at the now closed, Gülen-linked Bank Asya, a subscription to the Gülen-linked Zaman newspaper, his social media posts and interactions and donations he made to the Gülen-affiliated charity organization, Kimse Yok Mu, and his statements indicating that he had attended a few organization meetings where participants read religious books and discuss religious topics.
FIDU’s intervention in the Altıntaş case addressed key legal issues under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly concerning the use of Article 314 of the Turkish Penal Code (TCK) regarding alleged membership in terrorist organizations.
Third-party intervention under Article 36 § 2 of the ECHR is a procedural device whose chief purpose is to enable the ECtHR to become acquainted with the views of states and other persons who are not parties to a case before it on the issues raised by that case, and be presented with information or arguments that are broader than or different from those put forward by the parties.
Such intervention can take place either at the initiative of the court itself or at the initiative of the would-be third party.
The intervention questions whether this provision complies with European standards of legal clarity and foreseeability. FIDU raises concerns about the vague legal definitions and the over-broad application of this law, which has been used to criminalize activities that were lawful at the time they were carried out in addition to stressing the importance of safeguarding freedom of expression and association in a democratic society.
FIDU also challenged the recognition of the Gülen movement as a terrorist organization, recalling that no other state party to the ECHR has designated the Gülen movement as a terrorist organization, while Fethullah Gülen, whose views inspired the movement, was acquitted in 2006 of charges of attempting to change the constitutional order. The verdict was upheld by higher courts in 2008.
Yalçınkaya ruling
The organization cited some relevant ECtHR rulings favoring applicants who applied to the court with similar complaints mentioned by Altıntaş.
One of those decisions was a landmark ruling concerning a former teacher, Yüksel Yalçınkaya, who was also convicted of terrorism due to his links to the Gülen movement by a Turkish court following the coup attempt, issued by the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in September 2023.
The Strasbourg court ruled that Yalçınkaya’s conviction violated three articles of the ECHR: Article 6, which concerns the right to a fair trial; Article 7 on no punishment without law; and Article 11 on freedom of assembly and association.
Yalçınkaya’s conviction in 2017 was based on his Bank Asya bank account, membership in a Gülen-linked labor union and use of a mobile messaging application called ByLock, which according to Turkish authorities was a secret communication tool among Gülen followers.
Following the coup attempt the Turkish government accepted such activities as benchmarks for identifying and arresting alleged followers of the movement on charges of membership in a terrorist organization.
The ECtHR also said the problem related to the use of ByLock as evidence was systemic, calling on the Turkish authorities to address thousands of similar cases.
Legal experts said the Grand Chamber’s decision clarified that the use of ByLock, depositing money at a Gülen-linked bank or being a member of a Gülen-affiliated association cannot be considered criminal evidence against Gülen movement members.
FIDU said in its view submitted to the court that the Turkish government seeks to establish indicators of membership in the Gülen movement rather than focusing on the criminal aspects of these activities or how they might serve as evidence of criminal conduct.
“As a result, the same ‘presumption of guilt’ attributed to the use of the Bylock app is extended to any other evidence that suggests a relationship amounting to GM (Gülen movement) membership,” it said.
In June the ECtHR asked for Turkey’s defense in the Altıntaş case, asking several questions to determine if the man had been subjected to rights violations during his pretrial detention, court proceedings and conviction.
FIDU is a non-profit civil society organization based in Rome and operating across Italy and internationally. It promotes human rights and civic engagement, adhering to international and EU standards as well as the Italian Constitution. It pursues social utility, solidarity and human rights advocacy, often collaborating with international networks with similar goals, according to information on its website.
