Historic Step by the Council of Europe:
Convention on the Protection of the Legal Profession Adopted
The Council of Europe adopted the first international Convention aimed at protecting the legal profession. This step was taken in response to reports of increasing attacks on the legal profession, which can take various forms, including harassment, threats, physical attacks or interference with the performance of professional duties (e.g. denial of access to clients).
Lawyers play a critical role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring access to justice for all, which includes redressing potential human rights violations. Public confidence in justice systems is therefore highly dependent on the role played by lawyers.
The Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Legal Profession covers lawyers and professional organizations defending their rights and interests. It addresses the right to practice, professional rights, freedom of expression, professional discipline and special protection measures for lawyers and professional organizations.
Under the Convention, States parties are obliged to ensure that lawyers are able to carry out their professional duties without being subjected to any physical attack, threat, harassment, intimidation or improper obstruction or interference. Where such situations may constitute a criminal offense, States parties must conduct an effective investigation. Furthermore, parties must ensure that professional organizations function as independent and self-governing bodies.
The Convention will be opened for signature at the Council of Europe Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Luxembourg on 13 May.
For the Convention to enter into force, at least eight countries must ratify the Convention, at least six of which must be members of the Council of Europe. The implementation of the Convention will be monitored by a committee composed of a group of experts and representatives of States Parties.
Contract text:
file:///home/victory/Downloads/eurocouncil of Europe_tr-1.pdf
/home/victory/Dokumente/JusticeUphold/Bülten/May Bulletin/eurocouncil of Europe_en-1.pdf
A First at the ECHR;
EVALUATION OF THE THIRD PARTY OPINION SUBMITTED BY THE UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE APPLICATION “YASAK/TURKEY”.
The United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur is an independent expert established by Human Rights Council Resolution 40/16 with a mandate to promote the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. In this capacity, Professor Ben Saul monitors compliance with the principles of international human rights law, in particular the prohibition of retroactive application of sentences. In this context, he provided a third-party opinion in Yasak v. Turkey (no. 17389/20). This is because the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) questioned the compatibility of the applicant’s conviction for membership of an armed terrorist organization with the “foreseeability” requirement of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In this context, the Special Rapporteur sought to provide the Court with an opinion from an international law perspective, addressing the human rights implications of the ambiguities in the definition of terrorism offenses and the retroactive application of criminal law (Opinion of the Special Rapporteur, p. 6). The Opinion of the Special Rapporteur is analyzed under 6 headings, including the consistency of the Opinion with the case-law of the ECtHR and, in this context, assessments regarding the Yasak v. Turkey judgment to be heard by the Grand Chamber on 07/5/2025.
This was a pioneering intervention in the ongoing cases against Turkey before the ECtHR and raised expectations for a reconsideration of the Ban decision.
Critical Intervention in terms of International Human Rights
The opinion submitted by the UN Special Rapporteur assessed the case in light of universal principles on the protection of human rights in the context of counter-terrorism. Prof. Saul’s opinion directly criticizes the approach taken by the Second Chamber of the ECtHR in the Yasak judgment and points to a violation of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (the principles of legality and foreseeability).
In particular, the following points stand out in the opinion:
– Vague definition of terrorism: It is stated that actions related to the Gülen Movement in the 2011-2014 period cannot be defined as “terrorist offenses” and that the activities in this period do not clearly constitute a crime.
– Lack of moral element of the crime: It is emphasized that there is no concrete evidence that Yasak knew about the coup attempt, which is the ultimate goal of the organization, and only abstract assumptions such as “he should have known” are used.
– Criticism of covert activity: It states that the use of “code names” and similar behavior can be done to ensure personal security in repressive regimes, and that such actions should not automatically be criminalized.
– The vagueness of TCK 314: It is stated that criteria such as “continuity, diversity and intensity”, which pave the way for many people in Turkey to be tried under the same criteria, are used vaguely and arbitrarily.
The decision is expected to set a precedent for thousands of cases in Turkey
The UN Special Rapporteur’s opinion sheds light not only on the Yasak case, but also on thousands of similar cases filed after July 15. The rapporteur found that in most of these cases, individualized criminal intent was not examined and sentences were handed down based on a collective logic.
In this context, the Grand Chamber’s judgment could not only decide the fate of Şaban Yasak, but could also be a legal turning point for freedom of expression, freedom of religion and the right to a fair trial in Turkey.”
To Access the Opinion Document:
097554080931910?t=d5Nwy3ghLDyc7C7OJ_LdBQ
Click here for the full text:
Turkce
English
HEARING ON THE “BAN” AT THE GRAND CHAMBER OF THE ECHO CHAMBER ON MAY 7, 2025
On 27 August 2024, the ECtHR issued its judgment in Yasak v. Turkey and ruled that the principle of “no crime and punishment without law” set out in Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was not violated in the case of the applicant who was sentenced to imprisonment on charges of membership of an armed terrorist organization due to his links to the Gülen Movement.
After the coup attempt on 15 July 2016, an investigation was initiated against the applicant Şaban Yasak on the basis of witness statements that he was a “big region talebe mesul” and he was arrested for membership of an armed terrorist organization. Subsequently, the indictment included evidence that the applicant had an account at Bank Asya and that his name appeared in the HTS record brought from the file of another person charged with the same offense. After two sessions of the trial, the applicant was sentenced for membership of an armed terrorist organization. The reasoned verdict was based on two witness statements, the HTS record in which his name was mentioned only once and his Bank Asya account. Subsequently, the case was upheld at the appeal and Court of Cassation stages and the case was taken to the ECtHR after the Constitutional Court found the applicant’s individual application inadmissible.
How will the next process work?
In the following process, the parties will first submit any additional information or documents to the Court within 8 days.
The transmitted documents will also be sent to the other party and, if necessary, counter-arguments will be received. The Court will then hold several secret meetings to draft and adopt the judgment.
When will the decision be issued?
As this judgment is based on a review of a judgment delivered by the Grand Chamber, it will be easier to write than the Yalçınkaya judgment. This is because the Grand Chamber will more easily formulate its judgment on the basis of quotations from the Chamber’s judgment.
This time, if a departure from the Chamber’s judgment is to be made, it will be easier to formulate the judgment by writing the reasons for it. Since the Yalçınkaya judgment also contains ready-made texts on certain issues, it is possible that the drafting process will proceed faster by referring to this judgment.
On the other hand, given that the Yalçınkaya judgment has not yet been implemented and the uncertainty continues, and given that the ECtHR will want to categorize the cases in a similar context as soon as possible, it can be said that this case may be decided in a shorter time than the Yalçınkaya judgment.
VIDEO LINK TO THE HEARING:
Vidéo: audience Yasak v. Turkey https://t.co/Looyk3gdUE
Video: hearing Yasak c. Turkey https://t.co/guSf9XOebe
Speech by Prof. Dr. Johan Vande Lanotte, lawyer of the applicant Şaban Yasak | YASAK case at the ECHR | 07 May 2025 Turkish subtitles:
Law and Human Rights are Alarming;
320 University Students Banned from Seeing Lawyers and Confidentiality Order Imposed on University Students after Detention on Trumped Up Charges
In the statements taken at Gaziantep Security Directorate Anti-Terror Branch, the students were asked many questions that violate the constitutional right to freedom of movement, including why they traveled to countries such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Macedonia, Georgia, whether they attended camps abroad, who bought their plane tickets, which hotel they stayed in, who accompanied them to the countries they visited, and who welcomed them. The students were also questioned about whether they had any family members who had been subjected to judicial proceedings.
A New Type of Crime; “Why Did You Go Abroad?”
Lawyers and human rights defenders note that police departments have been making outrageous interpretations of crime definitions. One of the latest examples is the question “why did you go abroad?”. Grounds for detention include participation in the Erasmus program, study abroad, home visits or family members.
Article 36 of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial, while Article 19 refers to the right to liberty and security of person. The right of a detainee to meet with his/her lawyer in private and in confidence can only be restricted in very limited circumstances, by a judge’s decision and temporarily. Articles 147 and 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) also contain clear provisions in this regard. According to Articles 147 and 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC), the right of suspects to have private and confidential access to a lawyer can only be temporarily restricted by a judge’s decision under certain conditions. Furthermore, according to the Law on Lawyers, obstruction of the right to defense is an attack on the law itself.
The 24-hour ban on detainees’ access to their lawyers, the prevention of access to files by defense lawyers and the conduct of secret meetings directly affect the right to a fair trial. Within the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, such practices violate both domestic law and international conventions.
While allegations of torture and ill-treatment have also come to the fore from some detention centers, it is not possible to investigate and report on these allegations due to the ban on access to lawyers. Legal experts warn that interrogating people without a lawyer makes them vulnerable to ill-treatment.
Australian Department of Foreign Affairs ‘Turkey’ report:
“Service Movement members at high risk”
The practices involving the use of the state of emergency were included in Australia’s ‘Turkey Report’. Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s (DFAT) Country Information Report on Turkey states that tens of thousands of people have been dismissed, detained and arrested with emergency decrees, accused of ‘legal’ activities. The report clearly states that members of the Hizmet Movement are at high risk: “DFAT assesses that those accused of membership of the Gülen Movement are at high risk of social discrimination, including stigmatization, through publication of their names.”
The report also included important findings on torture and ill-treatment: “Very few of those dismissed or arrested were accused of involvement in the coup attempt. Most were arrested for alleged membership of the movement and improper appointment to public office for public officials. Most of those arrested after the 2016 coup attempt were subjected to torture in detention. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch recorded cases of beatings, stress positions, denial of food, water and medical care, mock executions, sexual assault and rape. Torture was usually carried out by the police, often during interrogations in unofficial detention centers and sometimes in the presence of police doctors. Victims include judges, prosecutors, police officers, soldiers and other public officials.”
Amnesty International’s activities banned in Russia
Russia bans Amnesty International in latest crackdown on opposition and activists. Russian authorities banned Amnesty International from operating as an “undesirable organization” on 19 May 2025, a label that, under a 2015 law, makes it a criminal offense to associate with such organizations.
Amnesty International Secretary-General Agnès Callamard said the move was part of the Russian government’s efforts to silence dissent and isolate civil society. “If the authorities believe that by labeling our organization “undesirable” they will stop our work documenting and exposing human rights abuses, they are deeply mistaken – quite the opposite,” she said. “We will not bow to threats and will continue to work to ensure that people in Russia can enjoy their human rights without discrimination.”
https://apnews.com/article/russia-amnesty-international-3e6c3d50042b2b27cdd5f20eebafe70c
Increasing Applications against Turkey at the ECtHR
Case applications against Turkey at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) reached 21,600, representing 35.8% of the total number of applications. Especially cases related to the use of ByLock and the Gülen organization are high on the ECHR’s agenda.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) announced its statistics for 2024. According to the ECHR data, Turkey is the country with the highest number of case applications against it in 2024.
The total number of complaints filed to the ECHR from 47 European countries is 60,350. 35.8 percent of these are claims of rights violations originating from Turkey. This means 21,600 pending judgments. Turkey was by far ahead of other countries with this number. Turkey is followed by Russia, which left the Council of Europe, with 8,150 applications and Ukraine with 7,700. The total number of applications from the remaining 44 countries is 22,900.
Turkey also ranked first in 2023. However, the number in 2023 was higher than in 2024.
In 67 of the 73 judgments issued against Turkey, at least one article of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was found to have been violated.
FIDU’S THIRD PARTY REPORT IN BAN V.
Statements of the FIDU “Italian Federation for Human Rights”, which sent one of the 3rd party reports in favor of the ban against the ban decision.
The Italian Federation for Human Rights (FIDU) submits this third-party intervention with the permission of the President of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) pursuant to Article 36(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Rule 44(3) of the Rules of Court.
Founded in 1987, FIDU advocates for human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
It has contributed expertise on judicial independence and anti-terrorism laws in cases such as Altintas v. Turkey and the execution of the Yüksel Yalçınkaya verdict. FIDU has analyzed numerous court rulings on Turkey’s counter-terrorism practices and closely followed high-profile cases, including the “young girls case” in Istanbul.
Through observations in courtrooms and consultations with legal experts and civil society, FIDU has gained important insights into terrorism-related cases in Turkey. These observations stem from its extensive experience in this field. The FIDU has gained important insights into terrorism-related cases in Turkey.
The following observations stem from their extensive experience in this field. The purpose of this submission is to provide an expert analysis of the legal and factual context of the application of Turkey’s anti-terrorism legislation, in particular Article 314 of the Turkish Penal Code and Anti-Terrorism Law No. 3713, in light of the requirements of foreseeability and legal certainty set out in Article 7 of the Convention, in order to assist the Court in its examination of the Yasak v. Turkey case.
FIDU submits this intervention to support a fair judgment in Yasak v. Turkey, to strengthen the rule of law and to ensure that counter-terrorism measures are compatible with human rights standards.