Here’s a breakdown of the Bozyokuş and Others v. Türkiye decision:
1. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) examined a series of applications concerning convictions in Türkiye for membership in the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure” (FETÖ/PDY), which the Turkish authorities consider responsible for the 2016 coup attempt. The convictions were largely based on the applicants’ use of the encrypted messaging app ByLock, which domestic courts considered exclusive to FETÖ/PDY members. The ECHR found that these convictions violated Article 7 of the Convention (no punishment without law), as the mere use of ByLock was treated as conclusive proof of membership in a terrorist organization. The Court referenced its previous judgments in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye and Demirhan and Others v. Türkiye, which addressed similar issues. The ECHR decided not to separately examine complaints regarding Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and other articles of the Convention, considering the Article 7 violation sufficient. The Court held that the finding of a violation of Article 7 constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, noting the possibility of reopening domestic proceedings.
2. The judgment begins by outlining the subject matter of the case, focusing on the applicants’ convictions and the reliance on ByLock as primary evidence. It references the broader context established in previous cases like Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye. The structure then moves to the Court’s assessment, which includes the joinder of the applications due to their similar subject matter. The core of the decision addresses the alleged violation of Article 7 of the Convention, with the Government’s arguments and the Court’s reasoning. It also touches upon the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1, but ultimately decides not to examine it separately. The judgment concludes with the application of Article 41, addressing just satisfaction and costs. Compared to previous decisions, this judgment reinforces the principles established in Yüksel Yalçınkaya and Demirhan, applying them to a new set of applicants with similar circumstances.
3. **** The most important provision is the finding that the Turkish courts’ approach of treating the mere use of ByLock as conclusive evidence of terrorist organization membership violates Article 7 of the Convention. This confirms that individuals should not be objectively liable based solely on their use of the application. The decision also highlights the possibility for applicants to seek the reopening of domestic proceedings under Article 311 § 1 (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, offering a potential avenue for redress. This aspect is particularly significant for those convicted on similar grounds, as it provides a legal basis for challenging their convictions.
