Today, on 4 September, Turkish authorities issued detention orders for 31 lawyers and began simultaneous searches at 39 law offices. Digital material was seized. Prosecutors allege the lawyers accessed citizens’ personal data through unauthorised query panels and used it to send false enforcement and foreclosure notices.
Those allegations are untested. No charges have been filed, no evidence has been made public, and no court has ruled. What is already on the record is the response of the Justice Minister, Akın Gürlek, who declared on the day of the operation that no one who abuses the law to commit injustice will get away with it.
That is a member of the executive characterising the guilt of 31 named suspects before a prosecutor has drafted an indictment. Under Article 6(2) ECHR, the presumption of innocence binds public officials as well as courts.
The searches raise a separate question. Turkish criminal procedure sets specific conditions for searching a lawyer’s office, including a court decision and the presence of both a prosecutor and a bar association representative — safeguards that exist because a law office holds the files of clients who are not suspected of anything. Thirty-nine offices were searched simultaneously and digital material was taken. Whether those conditions were met at each one, and how privileged client material was screened, has not been stated.
Whatever the merits of this particular investigation, it arrives from a ministry and a judiciary whose independence is not established, in a system where the detention of lawyers has become routine. Safeguards on searching law offices and the presumption of innocence do not depend on who the suspect is. That is the point of having them.
Sources:
1- Turkey: Detention order for 31 lawyers! Searches launched at law offices
2- https://en.haberler.com/massive-operation-against-lawyers-using-the-panel-2309210
3- https://www.hukukihaber.net/31-avukat-hakkinda-gozalti-karari-39-farkli-avukatlik-burosunda-arama
4- https://www.babaocagi.com.tr/31-avukat-hakkinda-gozalti-karari
Legal Note:
In Allenet de Ribemont v. France (10 February 1995), the ECtHR held that the presumption of innocence under Article 6(2) is breached where a public official declares a suspect guilty before a court has ruled. The guarantee binds not only judges but ministers, prosecutors and police.
In Niemietz v. Germany (16 December 1992), the Court held that the search of a lawyer’s office engages Article 8, and that where professional premises are searched the interference may extend to the rights of clients who are not themselves suspected of anything.
Turkish law reflects this. Article 130 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits the search of a lawyer’s office only on a court decision, in the presence of a public prosecutor and a bar association representative.
These protections attach to the office, not to the lawyer’s innocence. They exist because client files are in the room.
