Debate Over a New Judicial Package in Türkiye Heightens the Urgency of Kaos GL v. Türkiye Before the ECtHR

[Nina Keese and Dr. Beril Önder are members of the legal team of the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project, a Middlesex University School of Law–based initiative focused on strategic litigation, research, and advocacy]

Kaos Gay and Lesbian Cultural Research and Solidarity Association (Kaos GL) v. Türkiye (App. nos. 27507/23 and 5797/22) is a pending case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerning local bans on Pride marches and other public events organized by groups promoting LGBTI+ rights in Türkiye. On 2 December 2024, six human rights organisations submitted a third-party intervention in the case, outlining the systemic restrictions faced by LGBTI+ rights organisations in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The intervention underscored that the Turkish authorities’ decade-long pattern of targeting LGBTI+ individuals and organisations constituted discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

This case comes at a critical moment, as legislative reforms entrenching discrimination against LGBTI+ individuals and rights groups have been narrowly avoided following strong criticism from civil society and human rights advocates. On 27 November, a draft omnibus reform law, referred to as the 11^th Judicial Package, was submitted to Türkiye’s Parliament by Türkiye’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). A leaked version of the draft revealed discriminatory reform proposals that would have marked a severe rollback on LGBTQI+ rights and openly flouted Türkiye’s international human rights obligations. These provisions, which threatened to criminalise LGBTQI+ individuals and rights groups, were ultimately excluded from the version submitted to Parliament. However, similar proposals had surfaced in an earlier leaked draft, suggesting a pattern of repeated attempts to introduce such measures.  

The repeated efforts to criminalise LGBTQI+ individuals and rights groups in Türkiye reflect a longstanding pattern of more than a decade of systemic denial of the human rights of the LGBTQI+ community and LGBTQI+ rights defenders in Türkiye. They also highlight the critical importance of sustained advocacy and mobilisation around LGBTQI+ rights and the need for human rights courts and bodies to take a firm stance on Türkiye’s human rights obligations in this respect. This post first draws on the third-party intervention in Kaos GL v. Türkiye and highlights some of the existing systematic violations of LGBTQI+ rights in Türkiye. The post then discusses the leaked reform proposals targeting the rights of the LGBTQI+ community and those defending them, which reflect an anti-LGBTQI+ agenda blatantly at odds with human rights. Finally, it underscores the urgency of addressing these violations and developments amidst growing pressure on LGBTQI+ individuals and rights groups in the country.

Systematic Violations of LGBTQI+ Rights Before the European Court of Human Rights

In the application of Kaos GL v. Türkiye, Türkiye-based LGBTQI+ rights NGO Kaos GL argues that several of its rights under the ECHR were violated by local bans imposed on organisations promoting LGBTI+ rights in Türkiye on Pride marches and public events. These include the organization’s and its members’ freedom of assembly and association, their right to respect for private life, their freedom of thought and freedom of expression, their right to an effective remedy, and the prohibition on discrimination. 

In their third party intervention, six human rights organisations (listed below) highlighted systematic restrictions on LGBTQI+ assemblies and collective activities in Türkiye, including blanket bans on demonstrations, violent dispersals and arbitrary convictions. These arbitrary restrictions, enabled by a lack of legal safeguards and authorities’ arbitrary interpretation and application of the law, often rely on vague justifications such as “public order”, “safety”, or “social sensitivities”. 

Secondly, the intervention draws attention to the ineffectiveness of domestic remedies against bans on LGBTI+ events. As affirmed by the ECtHR in Bączkowski and Others v. Poland (para.82) and other case law (at para.109), preventing an event from occurring at its scheduled time or date can make the right to freedom of assembly meaningless. In this regard, given the importance of the time and place of a public event for its political and social impact, it is not sufficient to provide only post-hoc remedies, after the event’s planned date. In Türkiye, although decisions to ban events can in theory be challenged, LGBTI+ events have often been banned just days or hours before their start, preventing organisers from obtaining judicial review before the planned event date. Proceedings to lift bans or suspension measures have frequently been subject to unreasonable delays, being annulled only several years later. In addition, domestic courts have repeatedly failed to meaningfully apply and uphold standards on freedom of assembly and association and the right to an effective remedy, while authorities have ignored rulings in favour of LGBTI+ rights organisations and imposed new bans on similar events (see paragraph 11 of the intervention). Applications to the Constitutional Court have been subject to major delays (see para. 56 of the Country Memorandum), and the Court has been reluctant to substantively address discrimination and rights violations against LGBTI+ groups and to apply. 

Thirdly, the organisations describe other practices violating LGBTI+ individuals’ rights and preventing them from exercising their freedom of expression and freedom of association and assembly. This includes the systematic use of disproportionate force – often amounting to torture or ill-treatment – and arbitrary detention by police forces to disperse peaceful LGBTQI+ assemblies and activities. Judicial harassment of LGBTQI+ protest participants through criminal sanctions and fines, further deters participation in such activities. Associations and activists have also faced administrative harassment, including abusive audits and inspections, while university students are subjected to disciplinary action for participating in Pride marches off-campus. These practices are compounded by the increasing use of hateful rhetoric by state officials and politicians regarding LGBTQI+ individuals, fuelling violence against the LGBTQI+ community and a climate of impunity.

Finally, the intervention makes clear that Turkish authorities’ practices targeting LGBTI+ individuals unmistakably violate the prohibition on discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

The Push to Criminalise “Immoral” Gender Identities and Sexual Orientations

The draft version of the legislative proposal leaked in October 2025 included a proposed amendment to Article 225 of the Penal Code (no. 5237) rendering “attitudes and behaviour” deemed “contrary to biological sex and general morality”, as well as their promotion or incitement, a criminal offense punishable by one to three years imprisonment. The amendment would also have made same-gender engagement or marriage a criminal offense punishable by one year and six months to four years imprisonment. In addition, the leaked draft required raising the legal age for gender-affirming surgery from 18 to 25, while substituting the current requirement of a single medical report by the obligation to conduct four separate assessments at least three months apart. It would also have introduced a new article into the Penal Code, allowing for criminal charges against both transgender people and medical professionals who provide gender-affirming health care outside these new limits. 

The leaked draft law’s preamble openly affirmed its aim of “combatting movements of uniformization and erasure of gender”, paving the way to the criminalisation of gender identity and sexual orientation. If Parliament had adopted these amendments, LGBTQI+ individuals in Türkiye, already subjected to systemic pressure, arbitrary interference, and unlawful restrictions on their rights, as illustrated in the Kaos GL case, would have faced criminal charges and prison sentences for their identity and preferences. LGBTQI+ rights defenders, who have expressed strong concerns about the proposal, would have similarly been punished for promoting and defending the human rights of LGBTQI+ individuals. 

The measures and interferences formulated in the leaked draft by the Government are blatantly incompatible with Türkiye’s obligations under international human rights law. Binding legal instruments, including the ECHR and the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), guarantee to all persons, including LGBTQI+ individuals, the right to life (Article 2 ECHR, Article 6 ICCPR), the right not to be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 3 ECHR, Article 7 ICCPR), to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR, Article 17 ICCPR), to freedom of expression (Article 10 ECHR, Article 19 ICCPR) and to freedom of association and assembly (Article 11 ECHR, Articles 21 and 22 ICCPR).

While the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment is absolute, and the right to life may be subject only to very limited exceptions, restrictions on other civil and political rights must be provided by law, must pursue a legitimate aim, and must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. Any restrictions must respect the prohibition on discrimination and the principle of equality before the law.

 In addition, under the European Social Charter (ESC) and the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ISESCR) – both of which Türkiye is a party to – all persons have socio-economic rights, including the right to health (Article 11 ESC, Article 12 ICESCR). 

Further, discrimination on the grounds of gender identity and sexual orientation is prohibited under Article 14 ECHR, Articles 2(1) and 26 ICCPR (see for example relevant decisions of the UN Human Rights Committee here and here), Article 2(2) ICESCR (see the ICESCR Committee’s General Comment no. 20), and Article E ESC  (as affirmed by the ESC Committee here and here).

The terms used in the leaked draft to criminalise LGBTQI+ individuals and rights defenders, including terms like “general morality” and “attitudes and behaviour”, are vague and open to arbitrary interpretation, providing authorities with an unacceptably broad discretion and failing to satisfy the requirement of legality, particularly given their dependence on subjective, shifting political and religious interpretations. Similarly, “general morality” or the alleged protection of children cannot legitimise discriminatory restrictions based on stereotypes regarding gender identity and sexual orientation. On the contrary, the State is responsible for taking adequate measures to prevent and eliminate discriminatory legislation and practices and to combat harmful stereotypes. Prosecuting and convicting individuals for their gender orientation or sexual identity cannot be considered necessary in a democratic society. 

Furthermore, unreasonable requirements for access to gender-affirming health undermine the effectiveness of affected persons’ rights. As highlighted by Amnesty International, raising the age limit for gender-affirming health care from 18 to 25 would constitute an arbitrary encroachment on bodily autonomy, the right to health, and the prohibition on discrimination. Similarly, the suggested hardening of the conditions for obtaining a report would have made the procedure excessively onerous. 

Read together, the leaked reform proposals and the issues raised in the Kaos GL case illustrate the Government’s ongoing agenda to deepen arbitrary restrictions of LGBTQI+ rights and institutionalise violence, discrimination, and impunity. The Kaos GL third party intervention recalls that the State’s duty is to protect the rights of LGBTQI+ individuals, not to make them the target of intimidation and punishment. Attempts to criminalise LGBTQI+ individuals and movements and the imposition of arbitrary restrictions on access to gender-affirming health care must be rejected as unacceptable within a democratic society governed by the rule of law. 

Although two such attempts by the Government to introduce the intended legislative amendments have so far failed, largely due to strong resistance within the country, the leaked information about them reveals the sustained and significant threats faced by LGBTQI+ individuals in Türkiye. To prevent similar steps, it is imperative that the international human rights community, including the ECtHR, join this effort and respond promptly and firmly to the ongoing violations and developments.

The authors of the third party intervention are: The Turkey Litigation Support Project (TLSP), the Association for Monitoring Equal Rights (Eşit Haklar İçin İzleme Derneği), the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (Türkiye İnsan Hakları Vakfı), the Truth Justice Memory Center (Hakikat Adalet Hafıza Merkezi), the University Queer Research and LGBTI+ Solidarity Association (Üniversiteli Kuir Araştırmaları ve LGBTİ+ Dayanışma Derneği) and Women for Women’s Human Rights (Kadının İnsan Hakları Derneği).