Operated from Belgium
No ads · no accounts · no cookies

PlainRecord

Clear accounts of documented events, with visible sources, explicit limitations, and transparent corrections.

Earlier record, added at launch

This record already existed when PlainRecord first read this source. It is published here for completeness and is not a newly occurring event.

European Court of Human Rights judgments · European Court of Human Rights judgments

European Court of Human Rights found Türkiye in violation of Articles 3, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 18 in CASE OF KAVALA v. TÜRKİYE (No. 2)

On 25 August 2026 a Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered judgment in CASE OF KAVALA v. TÜRKİYE (No. 2) (application no. 2170/24).

On 25 August 2026 a Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered judgment in a case it titles “CASE OF KAVALA v. TÜRKİYE (No. 2)”, brought against Türkiye under application no. 2170/24.

The Court recorded a violation of Articles 3, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 18 of the Convention.

The Court states its conclusion as: “Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-a - After conviction;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 18 - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18 - Restrictions for unauthorised purposes);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of…”

The wording in quotation marks above is the Court's own conclusion, reproduced so that the finding can be checked against the record. It is not this service's summary of the judgment.

The Court's record marks this judgment as carrying one or more separate opinions, meaning at least one judge set out a concurring or dissenting view. Their contents are not reported here.

This record establishes that the Court delivered this judgment on 25 August 2026 and what it recorded as its findings. It does not establish anything about the underlying events beyond what the Court found, it does not report what either party said, and it does not state what follows for Türkiye or for anyone else. A Chamber judgment may be referred to the Grand Chamber and is not necessarily the end of the case.

Times

These are different things and are not interchangeable.

Event occurred
25 August 2026, 00:00 UTC (as recorded by the source)
Published here
12 September 2026, 02:10 UTC

Evidence

Record identifier
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0825JUD000217024
Retrieved
12 September 2026, 14:23 UTC
Snapshot checksum
21ff97111668bf28924e8008ede6443f73033a9053173230e2c1ca62eb04a7aa
Attribution
Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, from HUDOC. (C) ECHR-CEDH. — ECHR copyright and disclaimer
Where each figure above comes from (8 values)
ValueAs publishedOriginSource field or calculation
Case name, as the Court titles it CASE OF KAVALA v. TÜRKİYE (No. 2) field docname
Application number 2170/24 field appno
Respondent State Türkiye calculation country name for ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code TUR
Date of judgment 2026-08-25 field kpdate
Bench Grand Chamber field doctypebranch
Conclusion, in the Court's own words Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-a - After conviction;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 18 - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18 - Restrictions for unauthorised purposes);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - Systemic problem;Article 46-2 - General measures);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) field conclusion
Reproduced from the Court's record so that the finding can be checked against it. It is not this service's summary.
European Case Law Identifier ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0825JUD000217024 field ecli
Identifies the judgment rather than one language version of it. HUDOC publishes an English and a French record per judgment.
Articles the Court recorded a violation of 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 18 calculation article numbers taken from each code before the first '-' or '+'

Wording template echr_judgment version 1.0.

Revision history

  • 12 September 2026, 02:10 UTC — First publication

    Assembled from the source record listed under evidence. This record predates the start of this service's coverage and was added when the source was first read.

Limits of this brief

Chamber and Grand Chamber judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, in English. Committee judgments are not reported: they apply well-established case-law to repetitive applications and are roughly two thirds of the Court's output by volume, so excluding them is a large omission and is stated here rather than left to be discovered. Decisions on admissibility, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries are not reported either. Where the Court found a violation on one limb of an article and none on another, that is reported as appearing in both findings; neither half is ever stated without the other. Case names are reproduced as the Court publishes them, including where they name an applicant and where the Court has anonymised one. This service makes no separate anonymisation decision. A judgment establishes what the Court decided on a date. It does not establish anything about the underlying events beyond the Court's own findings, it does not report what either party argued, and a Chamber judgment may still be referred to the Grand Chamber.

If something here is wrong, write to [email protected] quoting the record identifier above. Corrections are recorded on this page, not made silently.