Kavala Ruling Tests Europe’s Human Rights Enforcement System

Uncategorized

September 23, 2026

CC BY-SA 4.0/ © Photo by Janbazian (Osman Kavala in 2015.)

A new judgement of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has intensified the long-running dispute over Türkiye’s treatment of Osman Kavala and its compliance with earlier Strasbourg rulings. Delivered on August 25^th, the judgment found violations of Articles 3, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court ordered Türkiye to secure Kavala’s release at the earliest possible date and to eliminate the consequences of his conviction. The Court held that, under the European Convention on Human Rights, Kavala’s conviction should no longer have legal effect.

From detention case to enforcement dispute

The judgment builds on a dispute that began with Osman Kavala’s detention in 2017 over allegations that he had sought to overthrow the government and constitutional order in connection with the 2013 Gezi Park protests and an attempted coup in 2016. In 2019, the European Court of Human Rights found that the evidence against him fell below the threshold required for reasonable suspicion and concluded that his detention pursued the ulterior purpose of silencing him as a human rights defender. The Court required Türkiye to secure his immediate release.

The case then moved from an individual human rights dispute into the ECHR’s enforcement system. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe launched infringement proceedings under Article 46(4) ECHR. This procedure allows the Committee of Ministers to ask the Court whether a state has failed to carry out an earlier judgment.

In 2022, the Grand Chamber found that Türkiye had breached its obligation to abide by the original judgment and reiterated the requirement to release Kavala. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe later described Kavala as only the second case in which Article 46(4) had been used and the first in which the judgment remained unimplemented.

A test for Article 46 ECHR

Article 46 gives final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights binding force and places their execution under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers. The infringement procedure allows the Committee to return a case to the Court when a state resists execution of a final judgment.

Kavala shows what happens when this exceptional mechanism produces a judicial finding but still leaves execution unresolved. Article 46(4) was built around the expectation that an infringement judgment and the political pressure surrounding it would encourage compliance. The Convention gives much less guidance for the stage that follows when implementation remains outstanding. This points to clearer remedial orders, sustained high-level engagement, differentiated monitoring and graduated measures as possible ways to strengthen the process.

The new judgment is thus significant beyond Kavala’s individual case. The Court has again defined the measures required from Türkiye, while responsibility for securing execution continues to rest largely with the Committee of Ministers and the political mechanisms of the Council of Europe.

What comes next

The Kavala case remains under the Council of Europe’s execution process. During the Committee of Ministers meeting from September 15^th to 17^th, the case returned to the agenda, while the Deputy Secretary General Gonggrijp stressed the unconditional obligation of states to execute judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

The next phase therefore concerns the credibility of the enforcement framework itself. Türkiye can implement the judgment by releasing Kavala and taking measures to address the effects of his conviction. Continued delay would place greater weight on diplomatic pressure and other institutional tools available within the Council of Europe. The European Convention on Human Rights also provides a formal route to withdraw from the Convention on six months’ notice, while obligations linked to earlier acts continue after withdrawal takes effect.

Kavala has therefore developed from an individual human rights case into a broader question about the effectiveness of the European human rights system. The Court has already found that Türkiye failed to comply with an earlier judgment. The next stage will show which tools the Council of Europe can use when implementation remains outstanding even after that finding.

Sources