The Grand Chamber is reminded of Erdoğan’s statements about Deniz Yücel
The Legal Unit of MLSA requested the referral of Deniz Yücel’s case to the Grand Chamber for further consideration on the grounds that the ECthR’s judgment in Yücel’s case raises serious questions concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention as well as the case-law of the Court. In the request, it was argued that the Court rendered its judgment overlooking the essence of the case and especially with regards to the complaints concerning Articles 5/3, 5/4 and Article 18 violations. It is requested of the Grand Chamber that the case be reconsidered for these complaints as well. Referring to the ECtHR’s judgments on Osman Kavala and Selahattin Demirtaş, in the request it was argued that the Court overlooked the fact that Yücel’s detention was politically motivated and that it was carried out and prolonged for intimidating journalists in Turkey but also to use Yücel who is also a German national as a leverage in the relationship between Germany and Turkey which was strained at the time. In order to emphasize the political motivations behind Yücel’s detention, the request recalls the separate opinion of Judge Koselo in Yücel’s application in which she argued that “it seems difficult to us to conclude that it is not necessary to examine the applicant's complaint from the of Article 18, in conjunction with Article 5” considering the statements by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in which he claimed that Yücel was “a German agent”, “a PKK representative” and declared that “Deniz Yücel will never be extradited as long as I am the president.”The violation of Yücel’s right to defense was also overlooked by the Court
The request for Yücel’s case to be referred to the Grand Chamber was also grounded on the avoidance of the Court to examine the complaint that Yücel’s right to defense was also violated during his detention as Yücel and his lawyers access to the investigation file was denied despite Erdoğan’s claim that there were footage and documents proving that Yücel was an “agent-terrorist.” However, Yücel and his lawyers could only infer the content of the investigation through questions directed at Yücel. Reminding that the articles and news stories by Yücel were the only evidence against Yücel, the Legal Team of MLSA argued that the Court should have found violation concerning Yücel’s right to defense, especially considering the fact that the articles in question were in German and were mistranslated to justify Yücel’s detention. It is argued that by avoiding to find that the principles of equality of arms and adversarial procedure were violated, the Court “seems to be developing separate case law with regard to a single Contracting State, Turkey, even though access to the files of detainees constitutes a systemic problem.”‘The ECtHR must face the reality that in Turkey, journalists are detained with political motivations’
MLSA’s Co- Director Attorney Veysel Ok described the Deniz Yücel judgment of the ECtHR as inadequate even though it confirmed that Yücel’s detention was arbitrary and unlawful. Attorney Ok stated that “Considering the statements by top-ranking officials, including President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan during Yücel’s detention, the concrete facts of the case and the separate opinion of Judge Koskelo, there are no reasonable explanation for the failure of the ECtHR to find Article 18th violation in Yücel’s case. The ECtHR must face the reality that in Turkey, journalists and especially those who oppose the government are detained and prosecuted with political motivations. We expect that the Grand Chamber’s reconsideration will remedy the mistakes of the ECtHR’s ruling.”The ECtHR found three violations of the Convention in Yücel’s case
On January 25th, the ECtHR issued its decision on an individual application filed by Deniz Yücel who was held in the Silivri prison between 27 February 2017 and 16 February 2018 on the accusations of “propaganda for a terrorist organization” and “inciting the public to hatred and hostility.”
The Court held, by a 5 to 2 majority vote, that Yücel’s right to personal liberty and security (Art. 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights – ECHR) were violated on the grounds that he had been imprisoned in the absence of plausible reasons to suspect him of a criminal offense. The Court also found the Turkish judiciary to be in violation of the 5th paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention, which secures the right to compensation for unlawful detention. Although the Turkish Constitutional Court found in May 2019 that Yücel had suffered a breach of his right to liberty and security and of his right to freedom of expression and of the press, the ECtHR noted that Yücel had not been awarded appropriate compensation by the Constitutional Court ruling. However, the compensation awarded to Yücel was “manifestly insufficient” the Court said, adding that this meant Yücel still held the right to an individual application to the ECtHR under Article 34 of the Convention. The Court ordered Turkey to pay EUR 13,300 in compensation to the journalist.