- The Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA) has filed an individual application with Turkey’s Constitutional Court on behalf of journalist Yavuz Akengin, citing violations of his fundamental rights stemming from his one-month pretrial detention and nearly nine months of judicial control measures.
- The application argues that Akengin’s rights to liberty and security, a fair trial, privacy, and freedom of expression and the press—protected under Articles 19, 36, 20, and 25-28 of Turkey’s Constitution—have been breached.
MLSA lawyers said Akengin was subjected to a criminal investigation due to his journalistic activities. He was detained for one month and, following his release, has been required to comply with a travel ban and a weekly obligation to report to the nearest law enforcement unit.
Akengin was referred to the Criminal Judgeship of Peace in Artvin, a province in northeastern Turkey near the Georgian border, after giving a statement to prosecutors in June 2025. In his defense statement, he said he worked as a reporter for the now-defunct Zaman newspaper between 2013 and 2016, before the outlet was taken over by government-appointed trustees amid a broader crackdown following the 2016 attempted coup. He added that he later had to take on other jobs.
He told authorities that in 2020 he began working on a freelance basis for the news website Kronos at the invitation of Selahattin Sevi, whom he knew from Zaman, and that he also edited content and contributed reports to another website, Velev. The application states that money transfers into his account were payments for these articles.
On June 16, 2025, the Artvin Criminal Judgeship of Peace ordered Akengin’s arrest. A month later, on July 16, the same court ruled for his release, citing that evidence had been collected and that judicial control measures would suffice. However, it imposed a ban on leaving the country and required him to report to authorities once a week.
Akengin’s lawyers challenged these measures on March 31, arguing that the allegations against their client were based entirely on his journalistic work, that phone calls cited in the case reflected professional contacts, and that call detail records alone could not constitute evidence. They also argued that the Artvin Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office lacked jurisdiction. The Artvin 1st Criminal Court of First Instance rejected the appeal on April 3.
In the Constitutional Court filing, the lawyers said the weekly reporting requirement significantly restricts both Akengin’s family life and his ability to carry out journalistic work, while the travel ban hampers his professional activities.
They further argued that the phone conversations and financial transactions cited as evidence should be considered part of legitimate journalistic activity. According to the application, the individuals Akengin communicated with were journalists and the contacts were professional exchanges with news sources.
The filing emphasized that the accusations against Akengin are based on royalty payments he received from news websites and his phone conversations with other journalists, which his lawyers maintain do not constitute criminal activity.
