Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Friday, April 19, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

Opposition Leader Wins Free Speech Case Against Turkey

Europe’s top human rights courts held Tuesday that Turkey was wrong to fine a leading opposition politician for criticizing the country’s strongman ruler.

STRASBOURG, France (CN) — Europe’s top human rights courts held Tuesday that Turkey was wrong to fine a leading opposition politician for criticizing the country’s strongman ruler.

The European Court of Human Rights found that Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu’s right to freedom of expression was violated when then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan brought a civil suit after Kılıçdaroğlu made two 2012 speeches critical of Erdoğan’s government. Erdoğan has been Turkey’s president since 2014.  

“The remarks made by the applicant in his two political speeches were to be regarded as part of his political style and contributed to a debate of general interest concerning various current issues,” the Strasbourg-based court wrote. 

Kılıçdaroğlu, a member of parliament and the leader of the main opposition party, the Republican People’s Party, spoke before his party’s parliamentary group in January and February 2012 on a range of topics, from the construction of a hydroelectric power station to a case before the Supreme Administrative Court. In both, he was critical of the government led by Erdoğan, describing it as a “postmodern dictatorial regime.”

In March 2012, Erdoğan brought two civil suits against Kılıçdaroğlu, claiming the speeches had damaged his personal reputation. A lower court found Kılıçdaroğlu guilty, fining him 5,000 Turkish lira ($600) for each speech. Kılıçdaroğlu’s appeal was rejected by the Turkish high court. 

The European Court of Human Rights, or ECHR, was established by the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the civil and political rights of those living in its 47 member states. It is considered a court of last resort, so applicants must first exhaust their options in their national courts before filing a complaint.

The ECHR's seven-judge panel found that while Kılıçdaroğlu’s style of speaking was provocative, the content was not directed at Erdoğan’s private life and could not be considered a personal attack.

“The two offending speeches were manifestly political in nature, having been given by the leader of the main opposition party,” the court wrote. 

Turkey’s high court found that Kılıçdaroğlu’s remarks were a series of insults rather than political criticism, but the ECHR disagreed.

“Whilst an individual taking part in a public debate on a matter of general concern is required to show respect for the reputation and rights of others, he or she is allowed to have recourse to a degree of exaggeration or even provocation,” Tuesday’s ruling states.

The ECHR ordered Turkey to pay Kılıçdaroğlu 11,000 euros ($13,000) in damages plus legal expenses. 

While Turkey is officially a presidential republic, Erdoğan has been consolidating power in recent years. According to Human Rights Watch, “Turkey has been experiencing a deepening human rights crisis over the past four years with a dramatic erosion of its rule of law and democracy framework.”

In a separate case involving Turkey, the ECHR also held Tuesday, in a ruling only available in French, that the country had violated the rights of 24 Public Service Workers Union employees who were suspected of being involved with the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK.

The PKK is separatist group regarded as a terrorist organization by the Turkish government. The 24 workers were detained for a year before charges were brought against them and the criminal trial is still ongoing. They argued that Turkey has violated their right to liberty by illegally jailing them and the ECHR agreed. 

“The assertion that some members and supporters of a terrorist organization were acting under the cover of non-governmental organizations and political parties cannot be considered sufficient to satisfy an objective observer that the applicant could have committed an offense as severely punished as belonging to a terrorist organization,” the court wrote, awarding the group 5,000 euros ($6,000) each plus legal expenses. 

Follow @mollyquell
Categories / Civil Rights, Government, International

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Loading...