Levent Kenez/Stockholm
A German administrative court has ruled that criminal proceedings in Turkey against people accused of links to the Gülen movement, a group critical of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, are disproportionate and discriminatory, finding that individuals remain at risk of new criminal proceedings, arbitrary punishment and politically motivated targeting even after serving prison sentences and concluding that such cases warrant international protection under asylum law.
In a decision dated November 24, 2025, the Administrative Court of Sigmaringen granted asylum and refugee status to a Turkish national previously convicted in Turkey of alleged membership in the Gülen movement. The court overturned a decision by Germany’s Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) and annulled a deportation order to Turkey.
The plaintiff, a Turkish citizen born in 1965, entered Germany in October 2023 and applied for asylum the following month. He had been sentenced in Turkey to more than eight years in prison under Article 314 of the Turkish Penal Code, which criminalizes membership in an armed terrorist organization. The charge has been widely used by Turkish authorities against alleged supporters of the Gülen movement since 2016.
The Turkish government under President Erdogan has faced sustained criticism over its designation of the Gülen movement, a civic network inspired by the late Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen, as a terrorist organization. Ankara blames the movement for a coup attempt on July 15, 2016, a claim it has not substantiated publicly.
The terrorist designation was first announced in late 2013, shortly after corruption investigations implicated Erdogan, members of his family and senior officials in cases involving Iranian sanctions violator Reza Zarrab and former al Qaeda financier Yasin al Qadi, both linked to figures close to the government.
The asylum seeker served several years in prison and was released on probation in early 2023 after completing a substantial portion of his sentence. He later left Turkey legally and traveled directly to Germany, where he sought international protection. During asylum proceedings, he argued that his earlier conviction was unjust and that Turkish authorities could reopen proceedings or initiate new ones based on additional allegations of Gülen affiliation.
Original text of the decision issued by the Administrative Court of Sigmaringen on November 24, 2025:
BAMF rejected his asylum application in August 2024. The agency argued that the applicant had not been subject to persecution at the time of departure, that his criminal proceedings had concluded and that no concrete evidence showed an ongoing investigation into him. BAMF also cited his lawful exit from Turkey using a valid passport as evidence that he was not under active threat.
The Sigmaringen court disagreed, finding that the plaintiff had already been subjected to politically motivated persecution remained substantial. The court ruled that his prior conviction constituted discriminatory and disproportionate punishment linked to his perceived membership in the Gülen movement, which it recognizes as a protected social group under German asylum law.
In its reasoning, the court relied extensively on recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), particularly Demirhan and Others v. Türkiye and Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye. Those rulings found that Turkish courts violated fundamental rights by convicting alleged Gülen supporters on the basis of routine and lawful activities.
The German court noted that according to the ECtHR, actions such as using the encrypted messaging app ByLock, having an account at the now-defunct Bank Asya, subscribing to Gülen-affiliated publications or sending children to Gülen-linked schools do not, in and of themselves, constitute criminal conduct. In the plaintiff’s case, the Turkish conviction relied largely on such factors.
The court found that this approach violated principles of legality and fair trial guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights. It concluded that the plaintiff’s punishment carried a clear “political penalty,” meaning it was imposed not for genuine criminal conduct but because of his perceived ideological and religious affiliation.
The ruling placed the plaintiff’s case within the broader context of Turkey’s post-coup crackdown. According to country information cited by the court, more than 700,000 people have faced criminal proceedings in Turkey for alleged Gülen links since 2016. Tens of thousands have been convicted, imprisoned, dismissed from public service or subjected to property confiscation.
The court cited reports describing widespread dismissals of judges, prosecutors, police officers, academics and civil servants, as well as the closure of media outlets, schools and civil society organizations. It noted that criminal investigations are often initiated based on vague criteria, denunciations or digital indicators, and that outcomes can be unpredictable.
The judges emphasized that Turkey’s judiciary has been criticized for lacking independence in politically sensitive cases. They pointed to repeated ECtHR findings that Turkish courts failed to provide sufficient evidence for pretrial detention and convictions in Gülen-related cases and that national courts have continued such practices despite binding European court judgments.
Addressing BAMF’s argument that the plaintiff had completed his sentence and therefore faced no further danger, the court rejected the claim. It held that Turkey does not consistently respect the principle prohibiting double punishment and that alleged Gülen supporters may be subjected to renewed criminal proceedings, surveillance, travel restrictions or detention even after serving sentences.
The court also considered the plaintiff’s situation after leaving Turkey. Court records show that he engaged in activities in Germany associated with organizations critical of the Turkish government and linked to the Gülen movement. In addition his social media account was blocked in Turkey by court order following critical posts, indicating continued interest by the Turkish authorities.
The judges found that these activities increased the likelihood that the plaintiff would be identified and targeted if he returned to Turkey. They rejected the suggestion that his actions were undertaken solely to strengthen his asylum claim, concluding instead that they reflected a long-standing political and religious identity.
The ruling further stated that the plaintiff could not safely relocate within Turkey since the risk of persecution stemmed from state authorities and existed nationwide. It also found that his legal departure from Turkey did not negate his fear of persecution, describing it as potentially the result of administrative timing or oversight rather than evidence of safety.
Based on these findings, the court granted the plaintiff refugee status under Germany’s Asylum Act and asylum protection under Article 16a of Germany’s Basic Law. It ordered BAMF to recognize his status and to bear the costs of the proceedings.
The decision was issued by a single judge after the case was transferred from a full chamber, a procedure permitted under German asylum law. BAMF did not send a representative to the hearing, according to the court record.
It was not immediately clear whether BAMF would appeal the ruling. Appeals in asylum cases are subject to strict procedural rules and require leave from a higher court.
The Sigmaringen judgment adds to a growing number of German court decisions granting protection to Turkish nationals convicted over alleged Gülen ties. German judges have increasingly relied on ECtHR case law when assessing whether such convictions amount to political persecution.
The court stressed that its ruling was based on the specific facts of the case and the current human rights situation in Turkey as documented by international courts and official country reports. It did not address broader political or diplomatic implications.
In addition to its earlier rulings, the European Court of Human Rights most recently ruled on December 16, 2025, that Turkey had violated the rights of 2,420 individuals convicted of terrorism charges due to their alleged ties to the faith-based Gülen movement. The court found that Turkish courts failed to ensure fair trials and imposed criminal penalties without a sufficiently clear and foreseeable legal basis. In its judgment the ECtHR held that the convictions violated Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits punishment without law and requires that criminal offenses be clearly defined at the time the acts are committed. The court concluded that routine and lawful activities were retrospectively criminalized and that domestic courts did not adequately demonstrate how the applicants’ conduct constituted membership in a terrorist organization under the applicable law.
