ECtHR orders Turkey to immediately release pro-Kurdish opposition leader

11 January 2021 by

Selahattin Demirtaş delivering a speech in 2016. Photograph: Ozan Köse/AFP/Getty Images. Source: The Guardian

On 22 December 2020, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) published a Grand Chamber decision against Turkey, requiring the immediate release of the pro-Kurdish opposition leader Selahattin Demirtaş from pre-trial detention (Selahattin Demirtaş v Turkey, Application no. 14305/17). The ECtHR said that Mr Demirtaş’ detention went against “the very core of the concept of a democratic society” and was in breach of Articles 5, 10, 18 and Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the “Convention”).

The decision is particularly significant given Mr Demirtaş’ high profile status and the numerous cases against Turkey that the ECtHR is now hearing, following the attempted coup in July 2016 and the government’s subsequent crackdown on civil society. Shortly after publication of the judgment, the ECtHR website was subject to a cyber-attack and rendered temporarily inaccessible. A group of pro-Turkish hackers claimed responsibility for the attack via a Twitter post.


In May 2016 the Turkish Grand National Assembly passed an amendment to the Constitution to lift parliamentary immunity in all instances where prior requests had been made to lift it. The explanatory memorandum to the amendment indicated that it was directed at “certain members of parliament” who had “made speeches voicing moral support for terrorism” and who were “abusing their [parliamentary] immunity”.

Mr Demirtaş was one of the members of parliament affected. He was originally taken into pre-trial detention in November 2016 on allegations of membership of an armed organisation (an offence under Article 314 of the Turkish Criminal Code) and of public incitement to commit an offence (prohibited under Article 214 of the Criminal Code). At the time, Mr Demirtaş was the co-chair of the left-wing, pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (“HDP”). The allegations against him were connected with street demonstrations in October 2014. The demonstrations had protested the lack of government action following Islamic State’s attack on the Kurdish town of Kobani, located over the border in Syria. The demonstrations had turned violent. The Turkish prosecutor based its allegations against Mr Demirtaş on certain tweets issued from the HDP Twitter account in October 2014, as well as public speeches by Mr Demirtaş which called for people to attend the demonstrations.

The ECtHR Grand Chamber decision

Protesters during a demonstration in Ankara in October 2014 against attacks launched by Islamic State insurgents targeting the Syrian city of Kobane. Photograph: Adem Altan/AFP/Getty. Source: The Guardian

The ECtHR decision on 22 December 2020 was issued by a panel of 17 judges of the Grand Chamber, following referral from the lower Chamber. The Grand Chamber decided that Mr Demirtaş’ detention was in breach of the following articles of the “Convention”:

  1. Article 10 (freedom of expression): lack of foreseeability

Governments may only interfere with an individual’s right to freedom of expression if the interference is (a) prescribed by law, (b) in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and (c) necessary in a democratic society. One element of the requirement to be ‘prescribed by law’ is for the interference to be sufficiently foreseeable. This means that people should be able to foresee to a reasonable degree the consequences which their actions may entail. 

The ECtHR noted that Turkish courts had in other cases imposed liability for membership of an armed organisation on the basis of a very broad range of acts, and often on very weak evidence. It said that, in deciding to detain Mr Demirtaş’, the Turkish courts had failed to consider whether his parliamentary immunity had in fact been effectively lifted. The ECtHR also said the Turkish courts had failed to take into account their own case law regarding what evidence is required to demonstrate “membership of an armed organisation”. For these reasons, the ECtHR held that the Article 314 of the Turkish Criminal Code does not afford adequate protection against arbitrary interference by the national authorities. The interference with Mr Demirtaş’ freedom of expression was not sufficiently foreseeable so as to be adequately ‘prescribed by law’.

  1. Article 5 (liberty and security of person): no reasonable suspicion for detention

The ECtHR found that neither the HDP’s tweets, nor Mr Demirtaş’ speeches, could be construed either as a call to violence or as a direct cause of the violence which took place. It held that there was no clear link between the statements Mr Demirtaş made and the offences for which he was detained: therefore he had been detained without reasonable suspicion in breach of Article 5.

  1. Article 3 of Protocol 1 (right to free elections)

The ECtHR held that the effect of Mr Demirtaş’ detention was to prevent him from exercising his right to be elected and to sit in the National Assembly.

  1. Article 18 (rights not to be restricted for an ulterior purpose)

The ECtHR found that Mr Demirtaş’ detention, which continued during two referendum campaigns and a presidential election, pursued the ulterior purpose of stifling pluralism and limiting freedom of political debate. 


The Grand Chamber’s decision is significant not only because of Mr Demirtaş’ prominence as an opposition leader. According to Amnesty International, since the attempted coup 2016, Turkey has detained more than 10,000 people, including members of opposition parties. The EtCHR has already made findings against Turkey in a number of cases, including for breaches of Article 5 of the Convention for the pre-trial detention, without reasonable suspicion, of journalists (Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey (application no. 13237/17); Şahin Alpay v. Turkey (application no. 16538/17)), judges (Alparslan Altan v. Turkey (application no. 12778/17); Baş v. Turkey (application no. 66448/17)) and a businessman involved in various human rights NGOs (Kavala v. Turkey (application no. 28749/18)). 

The Demirtaş’ judgment will add to the growing body of precedents on which future applicants may seek to rely. As Ahval News notes, the judgment is of particular legal significance for its finding that Article 314 of the Criminal Code does not provide sufficient foreseeability for the purposes of Convention Articles 10 and 5. In recent years, Turkey has increasingly relied on Article 314 as the basis for detaining opposition activists and those it perceives as adverse to the government’s interests. 

The extent to which Turkey will comply with the ECtHR’s ruling remains to be seen.

Further reading

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: