In a recent development, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has issued a significant ruling against Turkey in the case of Yüksel Yalçınkaya, a teacher who was convicted on September 26th for charges related to “ByLock usage” and having an account at “Bank Asya.” The ECHR’s decision has ignited a political controversy in Turkey, drawing reactions from key figures, including President Tayyip Erdoğan and Justice Minister Yılmaz Tunç of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP).
President Erdoğan and other prominent AKP members have voiced their strong opposition to the ECHR’s ruling, declaring it as unacceptable. However, the verdict has also received support from various quarters within the country.
Speaking with Özlem Ergün from Kronos, Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu, a Member of Parliament representing Kocaeli, underscored the imperative of implementing the ECHR’s decision. He emphasized that ECHR judgments hold a higher legal precedent than decisions from the Turkish Constitutional Court (AYM). Consequently, Gergerlioğlu argued that the Constitutional Court would need to review its stance. The decision has placed Turkey in a complex position, leading to President Erdoğan’s evident frustration, as observed in his recent speech before the General Assembly.
Erdoğan’s speech indicated two significant sources of concern: the ECHR’s ruling in the Yalçınkaya case and the documentary focusing on statutory decrees (KHK). Gergerlioğlu emphasized that President Erdoğan is well aware of the need to adhere to the ECHR’s decision and maintain Turkey’s diplomatic ties with Western nations.
Furthermore, Gergerlioğlu pointed out that President Erdoğan’s references to “Ankara criteria” could be perceived as a political maneuver, suggesting that Turkey could potentially release refugees onto Europe, leveraging this as a bargaining tool. Nevertheless, Gergerlioğlu highlighted that Turkey has limited options and must ultimately abide by the ECHR’s ruling.
As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how Turkey will navigate this challenge, and what it means for the country’s future relationship with international human rights organizations. This latest development underscores the complexity of the intersection between national politics and international legal obligations.
