Yet, the real test, as always with Strasbourg judgments, lies in their implementation.
Turkey’s overall compliance rate with European Court of Human Rights rulings hovers around 90 per cent as of May 6, 2026, roughly in line with the European average of 91 per cent (up-to-date statistics are available at the website of the court’s Execution Department).
However, the picture gets gloomier when one examines “leading judgments” that reveal structural or systemic problems and require general measures, such as legislative or judicial reform.
In this category, Turkey’s compliance rate stands at about 68 per cent, well below the EU average of 81 per cent. Several high-profile and frequently cited cases, such as Demirtaş, Kavala, and Yalçınkaya, remain only partially or not at all implemented.,
As things stand, Turkey holds the unfortunate distinction of being first country to have full monitoring procedure reopened in the history of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, PACE; the first was lifted in 2004 in response to the reforms by the then new government under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
In 2022, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe launched infringement proceedings against Turkey due to its refusal to implement the judgment in the Kavala case, which concerned a man sentenced to life in prison for alleged ties to the Gülen Movement, among other things.
In 2023, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, PACE adopted Resolution (No. 2518), which called on the Turkish authorities to “release Osman Kavala immediately” and on European Union member states to apply the so-called Magnitsky anti-corruption laws to “impose targeted sanctions” against Turkish officials, including prosecutors and judges.
As a follow-up to this Resolution, on April 22, 2026, a motion was tabled before the PACE to produce concrete results in relation to Magnitsky sanctions, given that nearly three years had passed since Resolution 2518 and Kavala has still not been released. This motion remains to be discussed at the PACE.
Despite these pressures, however, the Turkish authorities remain reluctant to implement or genuinely engage with the judgments of international human rights mechanisms.
To conclude, the Yasak judgment is a significant legal milestone in the Court’s Article 7 jurisprudence. It is also a stark reminder to the Turkish government to align its domestic practice more fully with the fundamental requirements of legality, individual responsibility and the rule of law that lie at the heart of the European Convention on Human Rights system.
For a country that aspires to play a leading role in its region and maintain strong traditional ties with European institutions, respecting these principles is not merely a legal obligation but a strategic necessity. But whether the Turkish authorities will heed this message remains an open question.
Dr Emre Turkut is an international law scholar, legal consultant and a former visiting researcher at the European Court of Human Rights.
The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of BIRN.
