Published on 22 June 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 30312/24
Süreyya BAŞLI
against Türkiye
lodged on 19 August 2024
communicated on 1 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant, who was convicted of insulting the President.
On 3 March 2017 the Inspection Board of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (Hakimler ve Savcılar Yüksek Kurulu – “HSYK”), subsequently renamed as the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (“HSK”), lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant on the basis of statements made by two anonymous witnesses in the context of a disciplinary investigation. The witnesses alleged that the applicant had engaged in political propaganda against the President and had insulted him. The applicant was subsequently committed to stand trial.
During the proceedings, the applicant denied the charges and stated that he knew the identities of the witnesses, identifying them as O.İ. and M.Ö.
On 25 May 2018 the Twenty-fourth Division of the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) heard the witnesses. M.Ö. stated that he had learned of the incident only from O.İ. On the other hand, O.İ. retracted his earlier allegations concerning the alleged political propaganda but maintained that he had heard the applicant insult the President. When questioned, he stated that there were no pending criminal investigations against him.
On 16 October 2018 the trial court convicted the applicant of insulting the President primarily on the ground of the allegedly mutually consistent testimonies of O.İ. and M.Ö.
On 21 November 2018 the applicant appealed, arguing, among other things, that O.İ. had retracted similar allegations made against another individual and that criminal proceedings for perjury were pending against O.İ.
On 23 May 2019 O.İ. submitted a handwritten petition to the Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), retracting his previous statements, denying that he had heard the applicant insult the President, and requesting to be heard again.
On 19 June 2019 the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction with final effect, without holding a hearing.
On 12 July 2019 the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal lodged an objection as an extraordinary legal remedy provided for in Article 308/A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relying on O.İ.’s retraction and his perjury conviction for similar allegations made against another individual, and asking the Court of Appeal to, inter alia, set aside its decision of 19 June 2019 and to deliver a fresh decision in the light of the outcome of the proceedings against O.İ.
On 23 September 2019 the Court of Appeal, without holding a hearing, rejected the prosecutor’s request relying extensively on the statements made by O.İ., which it assessed as credible.
On 24 October 2019 Law no. 7188 entered into force, rendering the judgment of 19 June 2019 amenable to cassation review. The applicant accordingly appealed. On 1 March 2023 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment with final effect.
On 28 May 2024 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s individual application inadmissible.
Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, the applicant complains of, inter alia, the domestic courts’ failure to provide sufficient reasoning for their decisions and the Court of Appeal’s failure to hold a hearing following O.İ.’s withdrawal of his earlier statements incriminating the applicant, thereby infringing his right to examine that witness in light of this new development. The applicant further complains under Article 13 of the Convention that, in the extraordinary review proceedings, his case was examined by the same panel of the Court of Appeal that had adjudicated the proceedings subject to the review.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention? In particular,
a. Did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasoning for their decision to convict the applicant for insulting the president, having particular regard to the main arguments of the applicant (see, for general principles, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 83-84, 11 July 2017)?
b. Did the absence of a hearing before the Regional Appeal Court entail a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to the petition submitted by O.İ. to that court, retracting his prior statements, denying having heard the applicant insult the President, and requesting to be heard again (see Deliktaş v. Türkiye, no. 25852/18, §§ 40-44, 12 December 2023)?
c. Was the applicant able to examine the witness against him, namely O.İ., as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention following the retraction of his statements at the appeal stage and in view of the applicant’s argument that O.İ., had been found guilty of perjury for similar accusations against another individual (see Al‑Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011; Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, ECHR 2015; and Orhan Çaçan v. Turkey, no. 26437/04, § 41, 23 March 2010)?
2. Did the extraordinary judicial review carried out by the Court of Appeal following the objection lodged by the Chief Public Prosecutor under Article 308/A of the Code of Criminal Procedure fall within the ambit of the criminal limb of Article 6 of the Convention? (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, 11 July 2017, §§ 60-67)? In the affirmative, did the Fourth Criminal Division of the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal satisfy the requirement of impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention given that it examined its own judgment (see, mutatis mutandis, Fazlı Aslaner v. Turkey, no. 36073/04, §§ 30-43, 4 March 2014)?