A journalist can criticize the authorities on Facebook — the ECHR indicated that this is not evidence of terrorism and is protected by freedom of speech

The European Court of Human Rights issued a decision in the case “Tuncer Çetinkaya v. Türkiye” (application No. 79795/17) dated June 16, 2026, which examined the legality of the pre-trial detention of a journalist suspected of involvement in the FETÖ/PDY organization and an attempted coup following the events of July 15, 2016, in Turkey.

Overall, the case raises one of the most sensitive issues for democratic societies — the boundary between the state's fight against terrorism and the protection of freedom of speech.

Case circumstances

The applicant, Tuncer Çetinkaya, worked as a journalist and collaborated for a long time with the newspaper “Zaman,” which the Turkish authorities considered the main media outlet of the FETÖ/PDY network. After the attempted coup on July 15, 2016, a criminal case was initiated against him.

During a search of the journalist's residence, law enforcement seized books by Fethullah Gülen, documents related to a Bank Asya account, radios, and other items.

The prosecution believed that the applicant worked in media linked to FETÖ/PDY, published materials with a similar editorial stance, maintained contacts with other journalists, criticized the authorities' actions regarding the newspaper “Zaman,” used a Bank Asya account, and traveled to the USA.

The investigation also considered the applicant's Facebook posts published after the appointment of a state trustee to the newspaper “Zaman,” including messages such as “Free media cannot be silenced,” “Zaman will not be silenced even if everyone else is,” and “The free press will not be silent.”

By a ruling dated July 26, 2016, the court placed the applicant in custody on suspicion of membership in a terrorist organization and attempting to overthrow the constitutional order. Subsequently, the detention period was repeatedly extended.

Only in April 2017 were materials added to the case regarding the alleged use by the applicant of the ByLock messenger, which Turkish authorities considered one of the communication tools of FETÖ/PDY members. In 2018, he was convicted of membership in a terrorist organization and sentenced to seven years and six months imprisonment.

Before the ECHR, the applicant argued that at the time of his detention there was no objective evidence to support reasonable suspicion of the crimes charged against him.

ECHR's position

The Court first emphasized that when assessing the legality of the initial arrest, only evidence existing at the time of detention should be considered.

The ECHR noted that the use of the ByLock messenger cannot be taken into account when assessing the legality of the July 26, 2016 arrest, as this information was added to the case file almost eight months after the preventive measure was imposed.

The Court stated that under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, it must verify whether the applicant's detention was based on reasonable suspicion, not decide on the continued existence of grounds for detention.

Assessing the applicant's activities as a journalist, the ECHR stressed that the mere fact of working in a media outlet that operated fully legally at the time, without considering the nature of publications and the individual's activities, cannot be equated with membership in a terrorist organization.

Regarding the applicant's article about problems in Turkey's tourism sector, the Court concluded that the contested article merely reflected the applicant's views on a matter of public interest. It contained his opinions on difficulties in the tourism sector and criticism of government policy at national and international levels.

The ECHR emphasized that the publication did not contain calls to commit terrorist acts, justification of violence, or encouragement to rebel against lawful authority.

The Court also highlighted that the facts attributed to the applicant related to his exercise of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, guaranteed by national law and the Convention.

Regarding the Facebook posts after the appointment of the state trustee to “Zaman,” the Court noted that these messages contained criticism of the legality and legitimacy of the measure taken by national authorities.

At the same time, the messages contained neither incitement to commit terrorist acts, nor justification of violence, nor calls for rebellion against lawful authority.

The ECHR also noted that authorities claimed the applicant had posts supporting FETÖ/PDY and its leader, but did not provide any specific message of such content either in the detention request or in court decisions.

Evaluating other circumstances, the Court concluded that possession of Fethullah Gülen's books, a Bank Asya account, trips to the USA, radios, or professional contacts with journalists alone cannot indicate involvement in terrorist activities.

The ECHR stressed that the mere fact of having a Bank Asya account cannot be considered a circumstance convincing an objective observer that the applicant was reasonably suspected of the crimes charged.

Separately, the ECHR rejected Turkey's reference to the state of emergency and derogation from certain Convention obligations under Article 15. The Court emphasized that even under such conditions, authorities must have factual data confirming reasonable suspicion. The absence of such data cannot be justified by the state of emergency.

In conclusion, the ECHR found that at the time of the applicant's detention there was no reasonable suspicion of his involvement in terrorist organization membership or an attempt to overthrow the constitutional order.

Violation of the Convention

The Court examined complaints under Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Article 5 § 3 (right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial), and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.

Regarding Article 5 § 1, the ECHR found a violation because at the time of the applicant's arrest there was no reasonable suspicion of the crimes charged. The facts cited by the authorities did not reach the minimum level of plausibility required to deprive a person of liberty.

Regarding Article 5 § 3, the Court also found a violation. The ECHR noted that the existence of reasonable suspicion is a mandatory condition for lawful detention. Since such suspicion did not exist from the outset, the continued detention was also contrary to the Convention.

Regarding Article 10, the Court recognized that the journalist's arrest constituted an interference with his freedom of expression. Since the detention was unlawful under Article 5, such interference could not be considered "prescribed by law." For this reason, the ECHR found a violation of Article 10.

The ECHR found violations of Articles 5 § 1, 5 § 3, and 10 in connection with the arrest and prolonged detention of the journalist without proper grounds.

The Court confirmed that journalistic activity, criticism of authorities, and participation in public debates cannot by themselves serve as evidence of involvement in terrorist activities. Restrictions on freedom require specific and objective evidence, not assumptions based on the exercise of freedom of expression.

Read more about another important ECHR position on press freedom guarantees in the article “Judicial and Legal Newspaper”, where the Court emphasized that before detaining a journalist, authorities must properly weigh public order interests and the right to freedom of the press.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and on Google News SUD.UA, as well as on our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and on Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.