Noting that Ilıcak’s writings on which the charges against her were based concerned matters of public interest relating to facts and events that were already known, the Court concluded that the measures imposed on Ilıcak were based on mere suspicion

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued its judgment in the case of Nazlı Ilıcak on 14 December 2021, ruling by a majority that her pre-trial detention as part of the “Altans case” violated her right to liberty and security and freedom of expression, enshrined in Articles 5/1 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Turkish Judge Saadet Yüksel expressed a partly dissenting opinion.

Ilıcak, a well-known journalist and columnist and a former MP, was arrested following the failed coup of 15 July 2016 on the grounds of her work as a journalist in media outlets considered close to the Gülenist movement and on the allegation that she knew about the coup attempt beforehand. On 16 February 2018, she was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment for “attempting to overthrow the constitutional order.” Her sentence was quashed in 2019 by the Supreme Court of Appeals, which held that Ilıcak should be charged with “aiding a terrorist organization without being its member.” Concluding the retrial on 4 November 2019, the trial court sentenced Ilıcak to 8 years and 9 months in prison and ordered her release under judicial supervision taking into account the time she had spent in pre-trial detention.

Ilıcak’s application was lodged with the European Court on 19 December 2016.

Ruling by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 5/1 (right to liberty and security), the ECtHR held that there had been no plausible reason to suspect Ilıcak of committing the offences of belonging to a terrorist organization or of attempting to overthrow the government or of hindering its functioning. The Court noted that Ilıcak’s writings on which the charges against her were based concerned matters of public interest relating to facts and events that were already known; that they fell within the scope of Convention freedoms; and they neither supported nor promoted the use of violence in the political domain. Asserting that the media outlet Ilıcak was working for during the time of the coup attempt could not in itself be equated with “membership of a terrorist organization,” the Court concluded that the measures imposed on Ilıcak were based on mere suspicion. The court also held that the material admitted in evidence after Ilıcak’s arrest did not amount to facts or information capable of giving rise to further suspicions which might have justified prolonging her detention.

As to Article 15 of the Convention and Turkey’s derogation, the Court noted that Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK) -- under which Ilıcak had been placed and kept in pre-trial detention -- had not been amended during the state of emergency (OHAL) and that no derogation could apply to the situation.

Again by six votes to one, the Court ruled that the pre-trial detention measure imposed on Ilıcak in the context of criminal proceedings against her for offenses directly related to her work as a journalist constituted an interference with her right to freedom of expression (Article 10). Referring back to its finding that Ilıcak’s detention had not been based on plausible reasons to have suspected her of committing an offense, the Court held that the interference with her Article 10 rights had not been prescribed by law.

The Court held, by six votes to one, that Turkey was to pay the applicant 16,000 euros in non-pecuniary damage.