This report provides a detailed analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgment in Yasak v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/em>, delivered on 27 August 2024. The case concerns the conviction of \u015eaban Yasak for his alleged membership in the G\u00fclen Movement. The ECtHR deemed Yasak\u2019s conviction foreseeable despite his limited role as a student coordinator from 2011 to 2014 and his use of a code name. Prepared by ASSEDEL at Yasak\u2019s request, this report argues that the judgment is based on an erroneous factual account and overlooks critical shortcomings in domestic proceedings, casting doubt on the fairness of the trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this judgment, the ECtHR did not examine the applicant’s Article 6 complaints concerning the right to a fair trial. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that there was no violation of Article 7, implicitly assuming the fairness of the domestic proceedings despite the application file containing ample information on the unfairness of the domestic process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Le Yasak<\/em> case diverges substantially from the Court\u2019s earlier Yal\u00e7\u0131nkaya.<\/em> judgment. In Yal\u00e7\u0131nkaya.<\/em>, a violation of Article 7 was found where the conviction was based mainly on the use of the ByLock application, which suggested membership in the G\u00fclen Movement but not a terrorist organization. The report argues that there is no meaningful distinction between Yal\u00e7\u0131nkaya.<\/em> et Yasak<\/em>, as the acts attributed to Yasak involved only student coordination within the G\u00fclen Movement and the use of a pseudonym. In Yasak<\/em>, the Court attached excessive importance to the element of ‘secrecy’ in the G\u00fclen Movement, which, according to the report, should not justify criminal liability. The report contends that Yasak’s conviction lacked the material and mental elements required for a criminal offense, as similarly seen in Yal\u00e7\u0131nkaya.<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Le Yal\u00e7\u0131nkaya.<\/em> judgment affects hundreds of thousands of individuals, but its principles have not been implemented in T\u00fcrkiye. Despite the similarities, the Second Section’s Chamber reached a conclusion in Yasak<\/em> that contradicted its prior case law by failing to recognize the absence of any criminal activity in Yasak\u2019s involvement with the G\u00fclen Movement before its designation as a terrorist organization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\nKey Points:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n