A new judicial confrontation in Turkey marks yet another rupture in the country’s already fragile rule of law. The Istanbul 13th High Criminal Court has refused to implement a binding judgment by the Constitutional Court (AYM) that found a violation of urban planner Tayfun Kahraman’s right to a fair trial in the Gezi Park case.
The refusal, accusing the Constitutional Court of “usurping authority,” is more than judicial dissent—it is an act of defiance that strikes at the core of Turkey’s constitutional hierarchy.
Kahraman’s appeal against this decision was also refused by Istanbul 14th High Criminal Court and has become final.
AYM: “No Causal Link Between Acts and Violence”
In its October 16 decision, the AYM concluded that Kahraman’s prosecution breached the guarantees of a fair trial under Article 36 of the Constitution, ruling that his civic activities bore no causal link to violent events during the 2013 Gezi protests.
The Court found that both the trial court and the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) failed to provide sufficient reasoning or evidence connecting Kahraman to any act of violence, and criticized the use of unexamined evidence in appeal proceedings—violating the principles of equality of arms and adversarial procedure.
AYM’s judgment was supposed to trigger a retrial and possible release. Instead, the 13th Court rejected the order, claiming that the AYM had acted as a “super appellate court” and exceeded its powers.
Defiance as Constitutional Practice
This act mirrors a growing pattern of judicial insubordination. In the Can Atalay case (2023), the Court of Cassation had already refused to comply with an AYM ruling, initiating criminal proceedings against nine Constitutional Court justices. Human rights lawyer Ali Yıldız and legal scholar Emre Turkut warned in their Verfassungsblog article “The Individual Application Mechanism is on the Verge of Collapse, and so is Turkish Constitutionalism” that the confrontation between Turkey’s top courts represented “the erosion of constitutional authority and the decay of Turkish constitutionalism.”
Their diagnosis has now proven prescient. As they observed, the individual application mechanism—once celebrated as Turkey’s bridge to Strasbourg—has been systematically hollowed out. The 13th Court’s open defiance in the Kahraman case confirms that the system no longer functions as an effective domestic remedy.
A Pattern of Defying Strasbourg
The domestic collapse coincides with Turkey’s deepening estrangement from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
A June 2025 report by Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project exposes a “multi-pronged and calculated strategy” of defiance. Turkey, the report notes, now holds the highest number of unimplemented ECtHR judgments in Europe—over 500 leading cases—demonstrating a deliberate and systemic refusal to abide by Strasbourg rulings.
According to the report, Turkish authorities employ judicial shell games, parallel prosecutions, and pretend compliance—submitting hollow “action plans” to the Council of Europe while continuing politically motivated prosecutions. This pattern has been especially evident in the emblematic cases of Osman Kavala, Selahattin Demirtaş, and Can Atalay.
Perhaps most alarming is the government’s open hostility toward the ECtHR’s authority. Even the President of the Constitutional Court recently declared that “ultimately, Turkish courts will make the decision”—a direct challenge to the binding nature of international human rights law.
A Turning Point: The Yıldırım Turan Case
The crisis did not emerge overnight. It was foreshadowed by a 2020 landmark decision that reshaped Turkey’s relationship with Strasbourg:
The fraught relationship between the ECtHR and the TCC hit a dramatic crescendo when the latter issued the Yıldırım Turan case in July 2020. By unanimously finding that domestic courts are better placed to interpret the provisions of domestic law than international human rights monitoring bodies, the TCC, for the first time, openly defied the ECtHR’s authority. Later, in November 2021, the ECtHR found the detention of Yıldırım Turan and 426 others—all of whom were sitting judges or prosecutors before the 2016 attempted coup—was unlawful and lacked reasonable suspicion.
That episode marked the first open rupture between Ankara’s top court and Strasbourg—a precursor to today’s open rebellion.
Judicial Capture and Executive Control
The 2025 human rights report further documents how judicial capture has entrenched this defiance. Out of 15 Constitutional Court judges, 12 were directly appointed by President Erdoğan. The Council of Judges and Prosecutors (CJP)—which governs judicial appointments—is likewise under executive control, ensuring that loyalty to the ruling party outweighs constitutional duty.
As a result, the TCC, once viewed as a bulwark against authoritarianism, now faces accusations of selective justice and political opportunism, alternately shielding or abandoning rights depending on the sensitivity of the case.
Kahraman’s Case: The Symbolism of Resistance
Tayfun Kahraman’s case thus becomes emblematic of a broader constitutional breakdown. His wife, Dr. Meriç Demir Kahraman, expressed her despair after the latest ruling:
“We met Tayfun in Silivri this morning, full of hope. He doesn’t yet know about the decision. I don’t know what to tell our daughter. We are devastated.”
Kahraman has been imprisoned for nearly four years and faces worsening health conditions. His lawyers are now considering new appeals, possibly before the European Court of Human Rights, though Turkey’s record of non-compliance casts doubt on any effective remedy.
Conclusion: The End of Constitutional Remedies
What began in 2012 as Turkey’s most promising human rights reform—the individual application to the Constitutional Court—has devolved into a façade. With local courts openly defying AYM orders, and the AYM itself estranged from Strasbourg, Turkey’s legal system is trapped in a constitutional freefall.
As Yıldız and Turkut warned two years ago, the mechanism designed to anchor Turkey within the European human rights system is now the scene of its unraveling. The refusal to implement the Kahraman decision thus signifies not just a miscarriage of justice for one individual, but the near-complete collapse of Turkish constitutionalism.
Categories: Turkey Human Rights Blog