- An Istanbul court has increased a prison sentence to 5 months for journalist Ali Ergin Demirhan over a 2015 Sendika.Org news report that had been blocked on the grounds of “insulting religious values,” despite a Constitutional Court ruling that found a violation of freedom of expression.
The Istanbul 26th Criminal Court of First Instance raised Demirhan’s sentence from 3 months and 22 days to 5 months following an objection. If the ruling is finalized, enforcement of the sentence will be on the agenda.
The case stems from a report published in 2015 that was blocked within a month for allegedly “denigrating religious values.” In 2024, Turkey’s Constitutional Court ruled that the access ban violated freedom of expression and ordered it lifted after readers filed applications.
Following the top court’s decision, the content was made accessible again. During this period, Sendika.Org and members of its editorial board were targeted by some media outlets and social media posts.
Prosecutors launched an investigation after the targeting. Demirhan was summoned twice to give statements under the same accusation. While the first investigation resulted in a case, the second was canceled on the grounds that it was duplicative.
The Istanbul 29th Criminal Court of First Instance, ruling on the file without a hearing, found that the 10-year-old report constituted the offense of “publicly denigrating the religious values adopted by a segment of the public.” The court initially sentenced Demirhan to 6 months in prison, later reduced to 3 months and 22 days.
After lawyers for Sendika.Org objected, the case file was transferred to the Istanbul 26th Criminal Court of First Instance, which on March 24 increased the sentence to 5 months.
Demirhan’s lawyer, Tuba Güneş, said the case was initiated not when the report was published but after the Constitutional Court lifted the censorship. She argued that rulings by the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation, and the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the 8-year statute of limitations, were not taken into account, adding, “The court issued a decision by stepping outside its role.” Güneş said they would appeal the ruling.
In his statement to prosecutors, Demirhan recalled that the Constitutional Court had determined the report did not constitute a crime. He said some media outlets and social media posts reacted to that ruling by targeting Sendika.Org, and that the court should have taken the Constitutional Court’s decision into account rather than those reactions.
In comments sent to MLSA, Demirhan said the process began after the Constitutional Court ruling: “An 11-year-old report of ours that had previously been blocked was made accessible again by a Constitutional Court decision. We were not the applicants—our readers were. The Constitutional Court clearly established that this report falls within the scope of freedom of expression.”
Referring to the aftermath, he said, “Following this content, some circles targeted Sendika.Org, the names of our editorial board members were shared. Reactions grew on social media, and then investigations were launched.”
Speaking about the trial process, Demirhan said, “While we were expecting an acquittal, a sentence of 3 months and 22 days was issued without a hearing. We objected, and this time the sentence was increased to 5 months.”
“We will appeal and continue publishing,” he added.
Background
On January 7, 2015, 12 people were killed in an attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Following the attack, Turkish translations of the magazine’s issue were published across various platforms in Turkey.
Access to this content was subsequently blocked. The decision by the Gölbaşı Criminal Judgeship of Peace was challenged before the Constitutional Court, which in 2024 ruled that access bans on 49 reports violated freedom of expression and ordered them lifted.
