Tuğluk v Türkiye: Pre-trial detention of opposition politician violated Convention rights

The European Court of Human Rights has delivered a significant judgement concerning the pre-trial detention of Aysel Tuğluk, a prominent Kurdish politician in Türkiye, finding violations of Articles 5 §§ 1 and 3, Article 10, and Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

Ms Tuğluk, a former member of the Turkish Parliament and deputy chair of the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP), was arrested on 26 December 2016 and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of forming or leading an armed terrorist organisation under Article 314 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code. The authorities based their suspicion primarily on her role as co-chair of the Democratic Society Congress (DTK) between 2011 and 2014, an organisation alleged to have links with the PKK/KCK.

The evidence cited against her included alleged email communications from an individual described as a PKK/KCK spokesperson, her participation in meetings and demonstrations, speeches delivered during her tenure at the DTK, and interviews given to Roj TV. She remained in pre-trial detention for approximately fifteen months before being convicted in March 2018 of membership (rather than leadership) of an illegal armed organisation.

Reasonable suspicion analysis

The Court's analysis focused on whether there existed reasonable suspicion justifying Ms Tuğluk's detention under Article 5 § 1(c). Crucially, the Court noted that during her tenure as DTK co-chair, representatives of that organisation were officially invited to present views before the Turkish Parliament's Constitutional Consensus Committee in 2012. This suggested the DTK was regarded as a legitimate interlocutor rather than an unlawful entity at the material time.

Regarding the email evidence, the Court emphasised that when an accused disputes the authenticity of intercepted communications, judicial authorities bear an obligation to verify credibility. The domestic courts failed to conduct any meaningful examination of the emails' authenticity, despite Ms Tuğluk's assertion that her email account had been compromised.

The Court found that the applicant's political speeches, whilst touching upon sensitive matters such as "democratic autonomy", constituted political opinions rather than incitement to violence. The statements did not contain elements encouraging violent action and fell within the protection of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. The Court identified a troubling pattern in Turkish jurisprudence whereby links to illegal armed organisations were established on remarkably weak evidence relating to statement content.

Ulterior purpose under Article 18

The Court's findings under Article 18 proved particularly significant. Whilst a violation of Article 5 § 1 does not automatically establish an Article 18 breach, the Court identified several factors pointing to an ulterior political purpose. The timing proved critical: more than three years elapsed between the impugned statements and the detention decision. Moreover, Ms Tuğluk's detention occurred contemporaneously with arrests of numerous HDP members of parliament, mayors, and party officials.

The Court concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the detention, particularly during the April 2017 referendum and June 2018 presidential election campaigns, pursued the ulterior purpose of stifling pluralism and limiting political debate—matters of indisputable gravity for democracy.

The Court awarded €16,000 in non-pecuniary damages and €1,500 in costs and expenses. The judgement reinforces the principle that pre-trial detention of political figures requires particularly rigorous justification and must not serve as a tool for suppressing legitimate political opposition.