Adem Yavuz Arslan*
The European Parliament’s 2025 report on Turkey has caused an unusually strong reaction in Ankara. At first glance, the reason may appear to be the report’s call for potential European Union sanctions on Justice Minister Akın Gürlek. But the real issue runs much deeper.
The message coming from Brussels is not directed at a single individual. It is directed at the governing model that has gradually taken shape in Turkey over the past decade.
Gürlek, a former judge and İstanbul chief public prosecutor, has been associated with some of Turkey’s most politically sensitive investigations, including cases targeting opposition figures and municipalities run by the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), making him a symbol of Europe’s concerns about judicial pressure on government critics.
Most of the criticisms contained in the report are not new. European institutions have repeatedly raised concerns about press freedom, politically motivated prosecutions, pressure on opposition parties, the appointment of government trustees to elected municipalities, restrictions on freedom of expression, judicial independence and the weakening of democratic checks and balances.
What makes this report different is that Europe is no longer treating these developments as isolated incidents. They are increasingly viewed as elements of a systematic pattern of authoritarian consolidation.
That perception was reflected in the remarks of Turkey rapporteur Nacho Sánchez Amor, who warned that Turkey is moving rapidly toward “a fully authoritarian model.”
Turkish officials were quick to portray the report as an attempt to interfere in the country’s internal affairs and judicial system. Yet a closer reading suggests that the European Parliament’s concerns are focused less on individuals than on institutional transformation.
The report highlights investigations targeting İstanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu and opposition-run municipalities, describing them as developments that risk undermining democratic political competition. The use of judicial mechanisms against political opponents is increasingly viewed in European capitals not as a series of individual legal cases but as a governing practice.
The same logic applies to cases involving journalists, academics, human rights defenders and civil society actors. European institutions increasingly see these prosecutions not merely as legal proceedings but as instruments of political pressure.
At the heart of Europe’s criticism lies a fundamental question: Has the judiciary ceased to function as an independent check on executive power and instead become an extension of the political system?
That perception appears to be gaining ground in Brussels.
From Kavala and Demirtaş to Yalçınkaya
The central point of tension between Turkey and Europe is no longer foreign policy. It is the rule of law.
Perhaps the clearest example is Turkey’s approach to judgments issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
The cases of businessman and philanthropist Osman Kavala and Kurdish politician Selahattin Demirtaş have remained major points of contention between Ankara and the Council of Europe for years. Despite ECtHR rulings finding rights violations, both cases became symbols of Turkey’s reluctance to comply fully with the court’s decisions.
For European institutions, this is not simply a matter of individual rights. It is increasingly seen as a challenge to the authority of the European human rights system itself.
More recently, however, attention has shifted beyond these high-profile cases.
The ECtHR’s Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye has emerged as one of the most consequential rulings concerning a widespread crackdown that followed a failed coup in 2016.
The court found that activities such as using the ByLock messaging application, membership in a legally operating trade union and transactions with Bank Asya could not automatically be treated as evidence of terrorism-related offenses. These actions have been used to prosecute hundreds of thousands of people on terrorism charges in the post-coup crackdown.
The significance of the ruling extends far beyond one individual case. Legal experts across Europe have described it as the most comprehensive ECtHR judgment addressing the mass prosecutions that followed the failed coup in July 2016.
The subsequent Şaban Yasak ruling reinforced the principles established in Yalçınkaya, finding that similar convictions violated the right to a fair trial.
Yet Ankara has so far refrained from taking comprehensive steps to address the broader implications of these judgments. This has triggered a growing debate in Europe: Is Turkey still a country that implements ECtHR rulings, or has it become a country that formally accepts its treaty obligations while largely ignoring them in practice?
Even Constitutional Court rulings are being ignored
The issue is not limited to Strasbourg. One of the most troubling developments in recent years has been the refusal of lower courts to implement decisions issued by Turkey’s Constitutional Court.
The case of imprisoned lawmaker Can Atalay has been the most visible example. Despite clear Constitutional Court rulings finding violations of his rights, lower courts and the Supreme Court of Appeals effectively resisted implementation, producing a conflict between the top courts unprecedented in modern Turkish legal history.
In a functioning rule-of-law system, the authority of the highest court is not open to negotiation. Once court decisions themselves become subjects of political contestation, the foundations of legal certainty begin to erode. This is one of the principal reasons why European institutions have adopted an increasingly critical tone toward Turkey.
From Europe’s perspective, the issue is not simply about specific defendants or controversial cases. The broader concern is whether citizens can rely on a legal system in which even decisions handed down by the highest courts may go unenforced.
Geopolitical importance does not erase democratic concerns
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has repeatedly argued that Europe needs Turkey more than ever.
There is considerable truth to that claim. The war in Ukraine, European energy security, NATO’s evolving strategic posture, Black Sea stability, migration management and crises across the Middle East have all increased Turkey’s geopolitical importance.
Yet the European Parliament’s report highlights a parallel reality: Strategic importance and democratic performance are now being treated as separate files.
Europe wants to continue cooperating with Turkey on security, defense and regional stability. At the same time it has become increasingly vocal about democratic backsliding and rule-of-law concerns.
As a result, Ankara’s argument that Europe cannot afford to alienate Turkey does not neutralize criticism from European institutions. If anything, it reflects a relationship that is becoming more transactional, more pragmatic and increasingly devoid of the political trust that once underpinned Turkey’s EU accession process.
The real risk is not sanctions but reputational damage
The likelihood of immediate EU sanctions on Gürlek remains relatively low. Any such measure would require a lengthy and politically complicated decision-making process within the European Union.
But focusing solely on sanctions risks missing the larger story. The real issue is how Turkey is increasingly perceived in Europe.
A country that was once praised for democratic reforms and viewed as a promising candidate for EU membership is now frequently discussed in European political circles along with states such as Russia, Belarus and Iran when concerns about democratic governance and judicial independence are raised.
That shift may ultimately prove more consequential than any specific sanction. In international politics the loss of credibility and trust often carries a higher cost than formal punitive measures. Whether the issue is visa liberalization, modernization of the customs union, foreign investment or broader political relations, European assessments of Turkey’s democratic trajectory will continue to influence future policy decisions.
The European Parliament’s latest report sends a clear message.
The debate is no longer about a handful of controversial court cases or individual political figures. It is about a growing European perception that Turkey is moving away from the rule of law, that the decisions of its highest courts are no longer consistently enforced and that judicial mechanisms are increasingly being used to constrain political opposition. That is the warning Europe is issuing. And that is why the report matters.
*Adem Yavuz Arslan is a journalist with over two decades of experience in political reporting, investigative journalism and international conflict coverage. His work has focused on Turkey’s political landscape, including detailed reporting on the 2016 coup attempt and its aftermath, as well as broader issues related to media freedom and human rights. He has reported from conflict zones such as Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq, and has conducted in-depth research on high-profile cases, including the assassination of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. Arslan is the author of four books and has received journalism awards for his investigative work. Currently living in exile in Washington, D.C., he continues his journalism through digital media platforms, including his YouTube channel, Turkish Minute, TR724 and X.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Turkish Minute.