Published on 13 April 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 12122/24
Ersin ÖLGÜN against Türkiye
and 6 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 23 March 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the repeated criminal proceedings against the applicants, on the basis of allegations of evasion of military service obligations. All applicants, except for the seventh, are members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The seventh applicant identifies himself as an anti-militarist and a pacifist, and states that he had been actively involved in movements for anti-militarism and conscientious objection.
All applicants have been repeatedly called up for compulsory military service for many years, since between 2005 and 2014 (see the Appendix below). However, none of them had ever presented himself for military service following their initial call-up. Instead, some of the applicants submitted letters to the local military service directorates declaring their conscientious objection to performing military duties and expressing their willingness to undertake an alternative form of civil service. Yet, the authorities rejected these requests on the basis that Turkish legislation contains no provision for an exemption from compulsory military service on these grounds. Consequently, they have all been repeatedly prosecuted and convicted as draft evaders.
In connection with these criminal proceedings, the applicants lodged individual applications with the Turkish Constitutional Court (“TCC”) at different times (see Appendix), primarily invoking Articles 3 and 9 of the Convention. Some of them also invoked Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.
To date, all of these applications remain pending before the TCC. Nevertheless, the applicants lodged the present applications with the Court on the dates indicated in the Appendix. In this connection, they contended that, since its jurisdiction over individual applications was established in 2013, the TCC has not issued a judgment on the merits in any conscientious objection case. They therefore maintained that the TCC can no longer be regarded as an effective remedy for their complaints and, thus, they were not obliged to await a decision by it.
The applicants invoke Articles 3 and 9 of the Convention before the Court, complaining that repeated criminal proceedings for refusing to perform military duties on account of their conscience violate these articles. Except for the seventh applicant, they also argue that Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention has been violated due to their repeated punishment for not complying with a renewed order to serve in the military, as they consider this to constitute multiple punishments for the same offence. Furthermore, the applicants argue that the TCC’s failure to address matters relating to conscientious objection has deprived them of an effective remedy under national law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
In particular, having regard to the particular circumstances of the present applications, is an individual application to the Turkish Constitutional Court an effective remedy to be exhausted for the applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 9 of the Convention and Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (see, for the general principles, Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, §§ 68-71, 17 September 2009)?
2. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy for their complaints under Articles 3 and 9 of the Convention and Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
In this connection, did the first and the seventh applicants duly raise a complaint concerning the lack of an effective remedy under national law, given that they referred to this matter explicitly only in Sections E and G of the Court’s Application Form, namely in the parts on the “Statement of Facts” and on “Compliance with the admissibility criteria under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention”?
3. Have the measures taken against the applicants for refusing to perform military service amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Ülke v. Turkey, no. 39437/98, §§ 52-64, 24 January 2006; Feti Demirtaş v. Turkey, no. 5260/07, §§ 87-93, 17 January 2012; and Buldu and Others v. Turkey, no. 14017/08, §§ 74-78, 3 June 2014)?
4. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ freedom of thought, conscience, or religion, within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the repeated criminal proceedings against them for refusing to perform their military service (see, among other authorities, Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], no. 23459/03, §§ 112-128, ECHR 2011; Feti Demirtaş, cited above, §§ 98-115; Buldu and Others, cited above, §§ 84-93; Mushfig Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 14604/08 and 3 others, §§ 80-94, 17 October 2019; and Kanatli v. Türkiye, no. 18382/15, §§ 44‑48, 12 March 2024)?
5. In applications nos. 12122/24, 30338/24, 32650/24, 32652/24, 32654/24 and 32998/24, have the applicants been tried and/or convicted twice (or more) for the same offences of which they have already been finally convicted or acquitted, as prohibited by Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (see, for the general principles, Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, §§ 70-84, ECHR 2009; A and B v. Norway [GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, §§ 117-134, 15 November 2016; and Bajčić v. Croatia, no. 67334/13, §§ 25-47, 8 October 2020)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Represented by
Individual applications pending before the TCC (date of submission and application number)
Compulsory military service call-up date
1.
12122/24
Ölgün v. Türkiye
22/04/2024
Ersin ÖLGÜN
Petr MUZNY
22/01/2024; no. 2024/6343
2005
2.
30338/24
Orak v. Türkiye
08/10/2024
Arif Emrah ORAK
Petr MUZNY
07/08/2018; no. 2018/25273
2012
3.
32650/24
Sarıalp v. Türkiye
30/10/2024
İlker SARIALP
Petr MUZNY
21/08/2019; no. 2019/30683
2008
4.
32652/24
Altay v. Türkiye
30/10/2024
Volkan ALTAY
Petr MUZNY
01/08/2016; no. 2016/4486 02/02/2024; no. 2024/9375 22/04/2025; no. (n/a)2008
5.
32654/24
Elbe v. Türkiye
30/10/2024
Nuri ELBE
Petr MUZNY
18/04/2019; no. 2019/13550 21/02/2022; no. 2022/25835 29/03/2022; no. 2022/35010 14/04/2022; no. 2022/44205 09/06/2022; no. 2022/62750 17/10/2022; no. 2022/937422007
6.
32998/24
Yalınay v. Türkiye
24/10/2024
Mehmet Bülent YALINAY
Petr MUZNY
1) 06/01/2023; no. 2023/3201
2) 14/01/2025; no. (n/a)
2014
7.
22159/25
Aru v. Türkiye
11/07/2025
İnan ARU
Kerem ALTIPARMAK
1) 01/08/2018; no. 2018/23832
2) 03/04/2023; no. 2023/32167
2011