Pre-trial detention of a journalist and freedom of expression: Müyesser Uğur v. Türkiye

Introduction

On 6 October 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) delivered its judgment in the case of Müyesser Uğur v. Türkiye (Application no. 45738/22; ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:1006JUD004573822). The case was brought by a Turkish national, Ms Müyesser Uğur, an investigative journalist based in Ankara, who lodged her application with the Court on 12 September 2022 under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The application concerned the applicant's pre-trial detention following criminal charges that she had disclosed confidential information relating to the security and political interests of the State. The charges arose from a series of articles she had published on the news website odatv.com. The Court identified issues under both Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.

The Chamber was composed of President Arnfinn Bårdsen and six further judges, with Andrea Tamietti serving as Section Registrar. The judgment was adopted following private deliberations held on 1 September 2026 and is subject to becoming final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.

Background: the applicant and the articles at issue

Ms Uğur was born in 1963 and has an established professional background as a journalist, having written columns in numerous newspapers and websites on topics including military-political relations, domestic politics, and national security in Türkiye. At the time of the events giving rise to the application, she was publishing articles on odatv.com concerning a military cooperation agreement signed between the Turkish Government and the Libyan Government of National Accord, and the subsequent deployment of Turkish Armed Forces personnel to Libya.

The articles that formed the basis of the criminal charges were published in the context of significant public debate about Türkiye's military engagement in Libya. According to the judgment, the applicant published a total of six articles that were the subject of the proceedings. The first, published on 19 December 2019 and entitled 'What kind of soldiers will be sent to Libya?', discussed the possibility of Türkiye deploying troops through private military companies rather than through the Turkish Armed Forces directly, drawing on statements attributed to a retired major general described as a presidential advisor.

A second article, published on 24 December 2019 and entitled 'Who are these Turkish commanders who met with Haftar?', addressed allegations reported in the Greek press concerning meetings between Turkish military commanders and General Haftar. The judgment records that the applicant's articles collectively addressed matters of considerable public interest relating to Türkiye's military posture and diplomatic activity in Libya.

The Court's assessment of the six articles

A central feature of the Court's analysis was its differentiated treatment of the six articles that formed the basis of the charges against the applicant. The Court found that, in relation to five of the six articles, the domestic authorities had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression. Specifically, the Court found that those five articles did not disclose confidential information or State secrets in a manner that could ground the charges brought against her.

The sixth article was treated differently. The Court acknowledged that this article disclosed the identity, background, and personal characteristics of the military commander designated to lead Turkish military operations in Libya. The Court accepted that the disclosure of the commander's identity was capable of causing what it described as 'considerable damage' to national security and of affecting his personal safety. In that respect, the Court recognised that the subject matter of the sixth article engaged legitimate national security concerns of a qualitatively different character from those raised by the other five articles.

Notwithstanding this recognition, the Court found that the domestic courts had failed to assess the interference with the applicant's rights in the light of all the relevant circumstances of the case. Even where a genuine national security interest was at stake, the Convention requires that domestic courts conduct a careful and proportionate analysis. The failure to undertake that assessment meant that the interference could not be regarded as meeting the standards required by Article 10 of the Convention.

Pre-trial detention and the chilling effect on journalism

A significant element of the Court's findings concerned the nature and duration of the measure applied to the applicant. The judgment records that the applicant was held in pre-trial detention for approximately five months. The Court characterised this period of detention as an excessive measure, and found that it was liable to produce a significant chilling effect on journalistic activity.

The concept of a chilling effect is well established in the Court's jurisprudence on freedom of expression: measures that deter journalists from reporting on matters of public interest undermine not only the rights of the individual journalist but also the broader public interest in receiving information. The Court's finding that a five-month pre-trial detention in these circumstances constituted such a chilling effect reflects the particular importance it attaches to the role of investigative journalism in a democratic society.

The Court concluded that the domestic courts had upset the fair balance that must be struck between the protection of national security interests and the applicant's right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. The judgment therefore found a violation of that provision.

Significance of the judgment

The judgment in Müyesser Uğur v. Türkiye illustrates the Court's approach to cases in which national security considerations are invoked to justify restrictions on journalistic activity. The Court does not dismiss national security as an irrelevant consideration: it expressly acknowledged that the disclosure of a military commander's identity could cause considerable damage and affect his safety. However, the judgment makes clear that even where such concerns are genuine, domestic courts are required to assess the full circumstances of the case and to apply a proportionate response.

The case also underlines the Court's consistent position that pre-trial detention of journalists charged in connection with their published work requires particularly careful scrutiny. The finding that approximately five months of detention amounted to an excessive measure with a chilling effect on journalistic activity signals the Court's concern about the use of custodial measures in cases involving the press.

The judgment was prepared by the Registry and, as noted in the document itself, does not bind the Court in future cases. It will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention and may be subject to editorial revision. The full text of the judgment is available on the HUDOC database of the European Court of Human Rights at the URL recorded in the case metadata.

Conclusion

The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Müyesser Uğur v. Türkiye addresses the intersection of national security law, pre-trial detention, and the freedom of expression of investigative journalists. The Court's differentiated analysis of the six articles at issue demonstrates that not all journalistic disclosures are treated identically: where a publication is capable of causing considerable damage to national security or endangering an individual's safety, the Court acknowledges the legitimacy of the underlying state interest. However, the judgment reaffirms that domestic courts must assess all relevant circumstances and apply proportionate measures, and that prolonged pre-trial detention of a journalist can itself constitute a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.

Readers seeking to understand the full legal reasoning and operative provisions of the judgment are encouraged to consult the official text available through the HUDOC database of the European Court of Human Rights. The procedural status of the judgment, including whether it has become final, should be verified against official Court records.

This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Sources consulted

• CASE OF MÜYESSER UĞUR v. TÜRKİYE - European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe