KAYA A OSTATNÍ proti Turecku

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF KAYA AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

(Applications nos. 3715/17 and 3 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

10 February 2026

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kaya and Others v. Türkiye,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Jovan Ilievski, President,
Péter Paczolay,
Juha Lavapuro, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the time, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, former Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

the decision to dismiss the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;

Having deliberated in private on 20 January 2026,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The present applications concern the lack of access to a court for the applicants in relation to the premature and allegedly arbitrary termination of their terms of office at the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court following the entry into force of Law no. 6723 (see paragraph 3 below). The applicants complained of a violation of their right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention alone or read in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention.

2. At the material time the applicants were judges, sitting as members of either the Court of Cassation (the applicants in applications nos. 3715/17, 15898/17 and 18850/17) or the Supreme Administrative Court (the applicant in application no. 13106/17).

3. On 1 July 2016 the Turkish Grand National Assembly adopted Law no. 6723, which amended certain laws in order to change the number of chambers, and the number of members of those chambers, of the Court of Cassation and of the Supreme Administrative Court, in the light of the establishment of a three-tier judicial system with the creation of appeal courts. Article 22 of Law no. 6723 – which entered into force upon its publication in the Official Gazette on 23 July 2016 – inserted a provisional Article 15 into Law no. 2797 on the Court of Cassation. Similarly, Article 12 of Law no. 6723 inserted a provisional Article 27 into Law no. 2575 on the Supreme Administrative Court. Those provisions terminated the terms of office of all members of the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court respectively, with a few exceptions. The applicants were among the members of the above-mentioned courts whose terms of office were brought to an end by Law no. 6723 (for the context of the adoption of the Law and its content, see Sözen v. Türkiye, no. 73532/16, §§ 5‑11, 9 April 2024).

4. On 25 July 2016 the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (“the HSYK”) – which was later renamed the Council of Judges and Prosecutors – appointed new members to the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court. As the applicants in the present case were not among those reappointed, they were reassigned as judges to various other courts.

5. Only the applicant in application no. 15898/17 lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court in relation to the termination of his term of office. His application was dismissed on 24 July 2017 for non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies because he had not applied to the Inquiry Commission on the State of Emergency Measures (for the background to the creation of the Commission, see Köksal v. Turkey (dec.), no. 70478/16, § 16, 6 June 2017).

6. The other applicants did not lodge individual applications with the Constitutional Court, arguing that it did not have the constitutional jurisdiction to examine legal provisions within the framework of individual applications.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

7. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

8. The applicants complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that they had been denied access to a court in order to contest the premature and allegedly arbitrary termination of their terms of office at the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court by the entry into force of Law no. 6723.

9. The Court reiterates that Article 6 of the Convention constitutes a lex specialis in relation to Article 13, the requirements of the latter being included in the stricter requirements of the former (see Grzęda v. Poland [GC], no. 43572/18, § 352, 15 March 2022). As the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 126, 20 March 2018), the Court therefore considers it appropriate to examine the applicants’ complaints solely from the perspective of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Sözen v. Türkiye, no. 73532/16, § 31, 9 April 2024).

1. Admissibility
   1. The parties’ submissions

10. The Government raised a series of objections of inadmissibility. They argued first that the applicants’ complaint was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. They contended that the applicants had not had a “civil right” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. They further argued that the applicants’ lack of access to a court had been justified in view of the conditions set out in Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland ([GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-II).

11. The Government also argued that the applications should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In this regard, they first submitted that only one of the present applicants (the applicant in application no. 15898/17) had lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court in respect of the termination of his term of office by Law no. 6723. Referring to three Constitutional Court judgments from 2018 and 2019 in which that court had found that complaints stemming from legal provisions were admissible, the Government submitted that an individual application to the Constitutional Court constituted an effective remedy that should have been pursued by the other applicants in the present case. In addition, the Government argued that the applicant in application no. 15898/17 could have requested that the Constitutional Court rectify its decision on the grounds of an alleged material error regarding its finding of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the Inquiry Commission on the State of Emergency Measures.

12. The applicants contested the Government’s arguments.

2. The Court’s assessment

13. As regards the objection of incompatibility ratione materiae, the Court reiterates that it has already examined and dismissed a similar objection in Sözen (cited above, §§ 45-61) and Tosun and Others v. Türkiye ([Committee], nos. 60220/16 and 83 others, §§ 12-18, 11 February 2025) regarding the termination, by the same Law no. 6723, of the terms of office of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court and of the Court of Cassation respectively, and considered Article 6 § 1 to be applicable under its civil head. It therefore dismisses this objection on the same grounds.

14. Regarding the objections relating to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court reiterates that it has already examined and dismissed similar objections in Olcay and Others v. Türkiye ([Committee], nos. 59481/16 and 29 others, §§ 15-22, 11 February 2025) and Tosun and Others (cited above, §§ 21-29). It therefore dismisses these objections on the same grounds.

15. The Court notes that these applications are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits
   1. The parties’ submissions

16. The applicants argued that they had been denied access to a court in respect of the termination of their terms of office under Law no. 6723, which, in their view, had not pursued a legitimate aim.

17. The Government argued that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They contended that Law no. 6723, which had ended the applicants’ terms of office, had been part of a major judicial reform aimed at upholding the rule of law and boosting public confidence by creating a three-tier judicial system with regional courts of appeal. They added that the Law had constituted a justified exception to the rules on judicial tenure and had not targeted individuals on the basis of their views or actions.

18. The Government further maintained that Law no. 6723 had respected the acquired rights of the applicants and had been proportionate. Although the above-mentioned Law had terminated the terms of office of all members of the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court, it had preserved the judges’ rank and salary. The Government submitted that the independent HSYK had elected new members to the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court from among those whose terms of office had been terminated by the new Law, and that the Turkish Constitution guaranteed the irremovability of judges, but not the duration of their tenure.

19. The Government lastly argued that some members of the highest courts whose terms of office had been terminated by Law no. 6723 had been convicted for membership of an armed terrorist organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure” (Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü/Paralel Devlet Yapılanması – “FETÖ/PDY”).

2. The Court’s assessment

20. The general principles concerning the right of access to a court have been summarised in Zubac v. Croatia ([GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-79, 5 April 2018) and Sözen (cited above, §§ 69-70).

21. In Sözen (cited above, §§ 71-78) – the circumstances of which were similar to those in the present case – the Court held that the applicant’s lack of access to the domestic courts, in order to have examined the genuine and serious dispute over his arguable right not to have his term of office terminated arbitrarily, had not been justified. It found that the respondent State had impaired the very essence of the applicant’s right of access to a court on account of the lack of a judicial review (ibid., § 78).

22. The Court perceives no grounds to depart from that conclusion in the present case.

23. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

24. The applicants claimed an award for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.

25. With regard to pecuniary damage, the applicant in application no. 3715/17 submitted that as a result of the measure in question, she had lost a part of her salary that she otherwise – until her retirement date of 9 October 2034 – would have earned.

26. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the applicants submitted that they had suffered distress as a result of the measure taken against them. They claimed the amounts indicated in the appended table (except for the applicant in application no. 15898/17, who did not specify the amount claimed).

27. With regard to costs and expenses, some of the applicants claimed various amounts specified in the appended table, submitting the supporting documents indicated therein.

28. The Government contended that the applicants’ claims in respect of pecuniary damage were unsubstantiated and excessive, in addition to being unrelated to the subject matter of the instant case. They further submitted that there was no causal link between the applicants’ claims in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage on the one hand and the alleged violation on the other. They also argued that the applicants’ claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage were unsubstantiated and excessive and did not correspond to the amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases. The Government lastly contended that the applicants had failed to submit valid or convincing documents in support of their claims for costs and expenses.

29. The Court does not discern a causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. However, it awards each applicant 3,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

30. In respect of costs and expenses, having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants who submitted supporting documents (see the appended table) the amounts indicated in that table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, and dismisses the remainder of the claims.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
4. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii) the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the indicated amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period, plus three percentage points;

5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 February 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Dorothee von Arnim Jovan Ilievski
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases: