The European Court of Human Rights has communicated to the Turkish government nine applications concerning the criminal proceedings over events at the Ankara 4th Main Jet Base Command, known as the Akıncı base, on the night of 15 July 2016. The communication was made on 7 September 2026 and published on 28 September. The lead case is Köroğlu v. Türkiye, application no. 23096/25.

Communication is a procedural step. The Court has put questions to the respondent government and has made no finding.

All nine applicants were members of the Turkish Armed Forces at the time, holding various ranks. They were convicted under Article 309(1) of the Criminal Code of attempting to subvert the constitutional order by force and sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Court of Cassation upheld the judgment on 18 December 2023. The Constitutional Court subsequently declared their individual applications inadmissible in summary decisions.

The Court’s statement of the case records the domestic courts’ findings: that the events at the Akıncı base formed part of the coup attempt, that they included armed confrontations involving putschist soldiers, security forces and civilians, and that they resulted in the death of a significant number of people and serious injuries to many others.

The applicants complain under Article 6(1) and 6(2) that the overall attitude of the presiding judge of the first-instance court, the language he used and the remarks he made during the hearings breached the principles of judicial independence and impartiality and the presumption of innocence.

They complain under Article 6(3)(c) of restrictions on their meetings with their lawyers imposed by Decree Law No. 667, and of practices adopted by the trial court during the hearings. Among those practices, the Court’s text records the hanging of microphones from the ceiling above the area where the defendants were seated, and limitations on their contact with their lawyers during hearings.

Three of the applicants further complain under Article 5(1)(a) that the court which ordered the continuation of their detention alongside their conviction was not independent and impartial, and that their detention was therefore unlawful.

The Court has asked the government whether the applicants’ doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the trial court were objectively justified and, if so, whether the higher courts remedied that shortcoming. It has asked whether the right to confidential communication with a lawyer was restricted by Article 6 of Decree Law No. 667 and by the practices applied at the hearings, and if so what compelling reasons existed. It has asked whether the presumption of innocence was respected. And it has asked whether a conviction ordered by a court allegedly lacking impartiality rendered the resulting detention incompatible with Article 5(1)(a).

The Akıncı base, near Kahramankazan some 35 kilometres from Ankara, was identified by the domestic courts as the command centre of the coup attempt. The Ankara 4th Assize Court gave judgment on 26 November 2020 in respect of 475 defendants, convicting 405 and acquitting 70. The Ankara Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment in June 2022. In December 2023 the Court of Cassation upheld the outcome for 430 defendants and quashed it for 39.

Article 6 of Decree Law No. 667 is the same provision the Court examined in Canavcı and Others v. Türkiye in 2023 and again in Benli v. Türkiye this month, finding on both occasions that the discretion it gave prosecutors to restrict detainees’ communication with their lawyers lacked defined scope and safeguards, and that the resulting interference was not in accordance with the law.

The questions now before the Turkish government concern the conduct of the largest trial arising from the coup attempt, and a decree provision the Court has already found wanting twice.