June 4, 2026
MLSA Legal Unit has taken the arrest of journalist Vedat Örüç on a charge of "membership in an organization" to the ECtHR. The application states that Örüç was deprived of his liberty because of his journalistic activities, and that his right to liberty and security, his right to protection of private life, and his freedom of expression and the press were violated.
The Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA) Legal Unit has applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) over the arrest of journalist Vedat Örüç.
The application stated that Örüç was arrested because of his journalistic activities and emphasized that Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), governing the right to liberty and security; Article 8, on the protection of private life; and Article 10, which guarantees freedom of expression and the press, had been violated.
Örüç, a freelance journalist whose reports had previously appeared in outlets such as Gazete Duvar, bianet and T24, was detained on Jan. 17, 2025, at his home in the Tarsus district of the southern province of Mersin, and was jailed on Jan. 20 by the Istanbul 3rd Criminal Judgeship of Peace. Örüç was released under judicial control measures at the first hearing, held on May 29, 2025.
"No reasonable suspicion of a crime"
In the ECtHR application, MLSA lawyers stated that the "reasonable suspicion of a crime" required for Örüç's arrest had not been demonstrated.
The application stated that the grounds for the arrest included Örüç's SGK (social security) registration at the company where he worked, photographs shown to him during the investigation that the prosecution claimed had been taken with journalist Eylem Babayiğit, and certain phone calls. The application conveyed that Örüç had said the person in the photograph was not Babayiğit and that the image had been taken after following up on a news story. The lawyers emphasized that these elements were journalistic activity and ordinary contacts within daily life.
The application stated that the alleged relationship between the company where Örüç worked and Medya Haber TV had not been demonstrated with concrete evidence, and that it had not been explained which broadcasts of Medya Haber TV constituted organizational activity.
"A journalist cannot be held responsible for the editorial policy of the institution where they work"
The application stated that Örüç could not be held responsible for the editorial policy of the institution where he worked. It noted that Örüç reported in the field of ecology and that no evidence had been presented that he bore any responsibility over the outlet's general editorial policy. The application included the following:
"Moreover, it is not possible to hold journalists responsible for the editorial policy of the institution where they work. The investigating authorities made no assessment of the applicant's position at the press organization where he worked and, without establishing whether he was responsible for editorial policy, held the applicant responsible for the general course of the broadcasts of a media organization solely on the basis of his SGK registration. Holding journalists working at press and broadcasting organizations responsible for all broadcasts through such a broad interpretation both expands liability under criminal law and violates the principle of individual responsibility for a crime. In its Cemil Uğur ruling, the Constitutional Court held that journalists cannot be held responsible for the editorial policies of the press organizations where they work, but this principle was not applied in this case."
MLSA lawyers argued that arresting a journalist on a charge of membership in an organization solely on the basis of an SGK registration violated the principle of individual responsibility in criminal law.
"Journalistic relationships were turned into evidence of a crime"
The application emphasized that journalists' communication with their colleagues and news sources is a natural part of the profession. It stated that Örüç's conversations with fellow journalists had been portrayed as organizational activity, even though these conversations contained no call to violence, organizational propaganda or element of crime.
The lawyers also emphasized that Örüç's phone conversations had been recorded unlawfully and made grounds for arrest.
"Arrest should have been a last resort"
In the application, MLSA stated that the decisions on arrest and continued detention had not explained why lighter measures, such as judicial control, would be insufficient. It argued that the decisions did not concretely establish a suspicion of flight or evidence tampering and that detention had been continued on the basis of boilerplate justifications.
The application stated that arresting journalists because of their activities is an exceptional measure that can be applied only as a last resort, and that no such necessity had been demonstrated in Örüç's case.
"It creates a chilling effect on press freedom"
MLSA lawyers stated that Örüç's arrest created a deterrent and chilling effect not only on the applicant but on journalists generally.
The Constitutional Court found Örüç's individual application inadmissible on March 25, 2026, and the decision was served on the lawyers on April 14, 2026.
The MLSA Legal Unit took the file to the ECtHR after domestic remedies were exhausted. The application stated that Örüç's rights to liberty and security, to protection of private life, and to freedom of expression and the press had been violated.ludağ.
