While the non-implementation of ECHR judgments is being debated through the Osman Kavala case, it was argued that the issue is not limited to a single individual and concerns the legal security of all citizens. The text states that domestic legal remedies and Constitutional Court judgments have been rendered ineffective in Türkiye, and that the right to individual application to the ECHR is the only independent and universal avenue of review remaining.
It was stated that this right, recognized during the Turgut Özal era, serves as a safeguard protecting freedom of thought and expression, freedom of religion and conscience, and freedom of enterprise. It was emphasized that the Council of State, the Constitutional Court or any other authority should not take steps to abolish this right.
Why it matters
The significance of the debate lies less in the outcome of a single application than in the question of which mechanism individuals can use to have rights violations that cannot be remedied by national institutions reviewed. According to the approach of the opinion piece, weakening access to the ECHR could mean narrowing the avenues of application concerning freedom of thought and expression, freedom of religion and conscience, and freedom of enterprise. For this reason, the issue concerns not only those following the Osman Kavala case, but all citizens who rely on the implementation of domestic legal decisions. However, the text is an opinion and analysis piece; its assessments leave open the questions of whether the right to individual application to the ECHR will be protected and how the effect of national judicial decisions will be secured.