TÜRKİYE ORTA ASYA HABER KKUORDİNATÖRÜ

Judicial Harassment in Turkey The İmamoğlu Case and the ECtHR’s Crucial Role The arrest of the opposition’s presidential frontrunner Ekrem İmamoğlu marks a historic turning point for Turkey. In a recent post on Verfassungsblog, Cem Tecimer compellingly demonstrated how judicial harassment has become a central tool of political control in Turkey, focusing on the domestic dimensions of Ekrem İmamoğlu’s criminalization. This piece complements and builds on that analysis by turning the lens toward Strasbourg. It argues that the İmamoğlu case, emblematic of Turkey’s shift from “competitive authoritarianism” towards “full authoritarianism” or a weak form of fascism, demands immediate and preventive intervention by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Most importantly, retrospective assessments of the recent events in Turkey are insufficient at this point. It is crucial to invoke Article 18 and the “chilling effect” doctrine before irreparable political damage occurs. Judicial harassment systematically aims to neutralize opposition and suppress democracy. If the ECtHR fails to act now, it risks relegating itself to the role of a historical observer rather than upholding its mandate as a guardian of democratic constitutionalism in Europe. The First Instance of Judicial Harassment: The “Foolish Case” Ekrem İmamoğlu first attracted Erdoğan’s attention during the 2019 local elections when, as the CHP candidate, he narrowly defeated AKP’s Binali Yıldırım. Following AKP’s objections, the Supreme Electoral Council (SEC) annulled the election, leading to a repeat vote in June 2019, where İmamoğlu won decisively with 54.22% of the vote. As the first non-Islamist to win Istanbul since Erdoğan’s 1994 mayoral victory, İmamoğlu became a key target. Since then, he has faced what the Council of Europe calls ‘judicial harassment’ — repeated legal actions aimed at intimidating or silencing individuals through prolonged legal entanglements. The first major case of judicial harassment against İmamoğlu arose from the “Foolish Case.” In a speech at the European Congress of Local and Regional Authorities in Strasbourg on October 30, 2019, İmamoğlu criticized the annulment of the Istanbul election, the refugee crisis, and the appointment of trustees over elected mayors. Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu retaliated, calling İmamoğlu “the fool who went to the European Parliament to complain about Turkey.” İmamoğlu responded by calling those who annulled the election “the real fools.” It led to a criminal case accusing him of “collectively insulting public officials” (Art. 125/3-5), supposedly targeting the SEC members. His lawyers argued that his remarks were directed at Soylu and referenced the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Council of Europe resolution advocating for the decriminalization of defamation. Despite these arguments, İmamoğlu was sentenced to 2 years, 7 months, and 15 days in prison, resulting in a potential political ban preventing him from running in the 2023 presidential elections, where Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, a much weaker contender, ran as the opposition’s joint candidate. The ‘Foolish Case’ fulfilled its intended purpose: It acted not only as a deterrent (see the “chilling effect doctrine”) but also as a politically motivated measure involving a severe sentence based on an overbroad and vague legal provision. The legal process violated ECHR standards. The harassing nature of the present proceedings—despite the absence of a conviction—triggers the rationale in Akçam v. Turkey, where the Court held that even a discontinued criminal investigation under a vague and overly broad provision may exert a chilling effect and justify victim status. Dilipak v. Turkey further confirms that a prolonged criminal trial based on such a norm can itself amount to an interference with freedom of expression, regardless of its outcome. These cases demonstrate that the lack of a final conviction does not bar admissibility where the process itself has a deterrent effect. In the present case, the exceptional nature of the sentence, its suspicious timing, the restrictions imposed on political activity, and the accusatory discourse in pro-government media all point not only to a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections), but also to a breach of Article 18 (misuse of power), taken in conjunction with them. Therefore, in the forthcoming case concerning his detention, the application should be examined not only under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) but also in light of these aspects. Other Instances of Judicial Harassment The ‘Foolish Case’ is far from being the only instance of judicial harassment targeting İmamoğlu. In recent years, a multitude of criminal and administrative investigations have been initiated against him. Over 90 investigations—most of them politically motivated—were launched against İmamoğlu between 2019 and 2023. Du