The CoE Committee of Ministers will consider the implementation of the EctHR, the Court judgment on Osman Kavala v Turkey on 12- 13 March. In December 2019, the ECtHR held that Türkiye violated Kavala’s rights to liberty under Article 5 and Article 18 which provides that restrictions under the ECHR cannot be “applied for any purpose other than those for which they are prescribed” in conjuction with right to liberty (Article 5(1). The Court found that the measures brought against Kavala “pursued an ulterior purpose” namely that of “reducing the applicant to silence”. Critically, the Court noted that these measures “were likely to have a dissuasive effect on the work of human rights defenders”. This article outlines the long struggle for justice and reveals important delays and gaps in national and international protection.
2026 is a crucial year for the CoE and the ECHR system since it will address prominent cases such as Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, whose individual application the ECtHR has decided to examine as a matter of priority. In 2026 the Committee of Ministers will also examine the implementation of judgment in the case of Selahattin Demirtaş, former co-leader of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) from 2014 to 2018 and remains in prison since 2016. Furthermore, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR will hear that case of Osman Kavala regarding infringement proceedings on 26 March 2026.
What happened?
A businessman and a human rights defender, Osman Kavala has been deprived of his liberty since 18 October 2017– for 3,046 days as of 4 March 2026. He has been involved in setting up numerous CSOs that are active in the areas of human rights, culture, reconciliation, and environmental protection.
Proceedings before national courts
The national court proceedings against Osman Kavala have been marked by prolonged pre-trial detention, shifting indictments, and serious concerns regarding compliance with fair trial guarantees under international human rights law. Initially detained in October 2017 on allegations related to the 2013 Gezi Park protests and later accused of involvement in the 2016 coup attempt, Kavala was acquitted in February 2020 by the Istanbul 30th Assize Court due to insufficient evidence; however, he was immediately re-arrested on new charges. This raised concerns about the circumvention of judicial release orders. Subsequent proceedings consolidated multiple indictments, and in April 2022 the Istanbul 13th Assize Court convicted him of attempting to overthrow the government and sentenced him to aggravated life imprisonment. Throughout the proceedings, domestic and international observers have highlighted deficiencies including the reliance on speculative or insufficient evidence, restrictions on defence rights.
Kavala applied to the Constitutional Court (AYM) on 4 May 2020, alleging that his rights had been violated. On 29 December 2020, the 15-member Court dismissed the application by eight votes to seven.
EctHR proceedings
In June 2018, Kavala applied to the ECtHR, claiming that Türkiye had breached several of his rights under the ECHR, specifically Article 5 (the right to liberty and security) and Article 18 (limitations on the use of restrictions on rights).
ECtHR delivered its judgement on Osman Kavala v. Turkey in December 2019 – the judgement became final in May 2020- and found that Türkiye had violated Article 5(1) and 5(4), as well as Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5(1). The Court found that the authorities had failed to show that either the initial detention or its continuation was justified, and concluded that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect Kavala of attempting to overthrow the government by force or violence. Importantly, the Court held that the actions taken against him served an improper purpose—namely, to silence him in his role as an NGO activist and human rights defender. Consequently, the ECtHR ruled that Türkiye must take all necessary steps to end his detention and ensure his immediate release.
Infringement proceedings
In the aftermath of the judgment delivered by the ECtHR, the Committee of Ministers—the organ entrusted with supervising the execution of the Court’s judgments—repeatedly called upon Türkiye to end Kavala’s detention. Despite these calls his deprivation of liberty persisted, and he continued to face additional hearings and proceedings before the domestic courts.
In December 2021, the Committee of Ministers formally notified Türkiye of its intention to initiate infringement proceedings on the basis that the state had failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 46(1) of the ECHR to abide by final judgments of the Court. The Grand Chamber announced that it would hear Kavala’s case on 25 March 2026. Türkiye was requested to submit its observations by 26 January 2026.
What are infringement proceedings?
Infringement proceedings constitute a special enforcement mechanism under Article 46(4) of the ECHR whereby the Committee of Ministers may refer a case of non-compliance to the Grand Chamber, the highest judicial formation of the Court. In February 2022, the Committee of Ministers referred Kavala v. Turkey to the Grand Chamber. In such proceedings, the Grand Chamber does not reconsider the original human rights violation. Instead, it determines whether the state has failed to fulfil its legal obligation under Article 46(1) to abide by the Court’s final judgment. If non-compliance is found, the case is returned to the Committee of Ministers for further supervisory and political measures to secure execution.
The application of infringement proceedings is highly significant both legally and politically. Before Kavala, the infringement proceedings had been initiated only once—against Azerbaijan in 2019—following its failure to comply with the judgment in Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan.
What happens now?
As the Committee of Ministers prepares to assess Türkiye’s compliance and the Grand Chamber examines the infringement proceedings, the outcome of Kavala’s case will carry implications far beyond the individual applicant. It will directly affect the credibility and enforceability of the ECHR system, the protection of political pluralism and civil society across Europe, and the integrity of Article 46 obligations binding on all member states. Ensuring full and prompt execution of the Court’s judgment is therefore essential not only for Osman Kavala’s liberty, but also for safeguarding the authority of the Convention system as a whole.