Turkey’s top court rules travel ban on journalist violated rights

AHMET TAŞ / WISE NEWS PRESS

ANKARA, TURKEY — Turkey’s Constitutional Court has ruled that a nearly six-year travel ban imposed on journalist Yusuf Inan violated his constitutional right to respect for private and family life, ordering a retrial and symbolic compensation after a years-long delay.

The ruling, issued on 9 December 2025, concerns an individual application filed by Inan in April 2022 under an “urgent” request, arguing that the judicial travel restriction had effectively turned into punishment and separated him from his family during the war in Ukraine.

The court’s decision has reignited debate in Turkey over whether prolonged judicial control measures amount to “delayed justice” and whether they undermine fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Why the ruling matters

The case goes beyond the personal circumstances of a single journalist. Legal experts say the decision sets an important precedent for thousands of defendants subject to open-ended travel bans, a common form of judicial control in Turkey.

In its judgment, the Constitutional Court found that the restriction, which lasted almost six years, exceeded what could reasonably be considered a preventive measure and failed the test of proportionality under Article 20 of the Constitution, which protects private and family life.

Background of the case

Yusuf Inan, editor-in-chief of WiseNewsPress, SehitlerOlmez, and YerelGundem, was detained on 15 July 2018 upon entering Turkey at Istanbul Airport. At the time, he was living in Ukraine with his wife and two young children, where he was also engaged in business activities.

Although he was released in 2019, a court imposed a travel ban as a judicial control measure. That restriction remained in force despite the passage of years and developments in his case.

Inan was later sentenced by the Izmir 19th High Criminal Court to three years and four months in prison on charges of terrorist propaganda. On appeal, the conviction was reclassified as “aiding” a terrorist organization, increasing the sentence to three years and nine months. The travel ban, however, continued independently of the sentence’s execution.

Family separation during the Ukraine war

In his application to the Constitutional Court, Inan emphasized that the travel ban had severe humanitarian consequences. His wife and children remained in Ukraine, and one of the children was an infant when the restriction was imposed.

Following the outbreak of the Russia–Ukraine war on 24 February 2022, the family faced escalating security risks. Inan told the court that his wife required eye surgery, that there was no one to care for the children, and that the family had spent time in bomb shelters.

Local courts rejected repeated requests to lift the travel ban, stating that “the family can come to Turkey,” without addressing the realities of war conditions or the family’s specific vulnerabilities.

Constitutional Court’s assessment

The Constitutional Court examined the case not merely as a question of freedom of movement but within the broader scope of private and family life.

In its reasoning, the court stated that judicial measures cannot be applied indefinitely without concrete justification and stressed that authorities must demonstrate a genuine and continuing need for such restrictions.

The judges noted that lower courts relied on standardized and abstract reasoning, failing to assess the applicant’s individual circumstances, including the war in Ukraine and the care needs of his children.

Proportionality and lack of justification

A key element of the ruling was the court’s finding that the travel ban had lost its preventive character and effectively become punitive.

The judgment highlighted that alternative measures — such as passport confiscation — were never seriously considered or explained by lower courts, despite being less intrusive.

As a result, the court concluded that the restriction imposed a disproportionate burden on Inan and disrupted his family and professional life in a manner incompatible with constitutional guarantees.

An “urgent” application delayed by 1,334 days

The timeline of the Constitutional Court’s review itself has drawn criticism. Inan filed his application on 15 April 2022, requesting urgent consideration due to the ongoing war and his family’s safety.

The court delivered its decision 1,334 days later, on 9 December 2025.

While the court ultimately ruled in his favor, critics argue that the delay undermines the effectiveness of individual application mechanisms designed to prevent irreparable harm.

The ruling and its consequences

The Constitutional Court unanimously decided that:

• Article 20 of the Constitution was violated

• The case should be sent back to the Izmir 19th High Criminal Court for retrial to eliminate the consequences of the violation

• The applicant should receive 20,000 Turkish lira in non-pecuniary damages

The court found no need for a separate examination under freedom of expression, having already established a violation of private and family life.

Wider implications for judicial control measures

Legal observers say the ruling sends a clear message to lower courts that judicial control measures must be time-bound, reasoned, and proportionate.

The decision is expected to influence future cases involving travel bans, particularly where family unity, international ties, or professional activities are at stake.

A long legal ordeal

Inan is also known for his 27-year involvement in advocacy for families of fallen soldiers through the Sehitler Olmez platform. Ironically, while covering the suffering of others, he endured years of separation from his own family.

As of 1 February 2026, his legal process has lasted more than seven and a half years, raising renewed questions about the meaning of “reasonable time” in Turkish judicial practice.

What comes next

The retrial process will now determine whether the travel ban is lifted in line with the Constitutional Court’s findings. Human rights advocates stress that timely implementation will be crucial to restoring the applicant’s rights in practice.

For many observers, the case stands as a stark reminder that justice delayed can become justice denied.

www.wisenewspress.com