Fatih Altaylı’s second hearing in the case in which he is being tried in detention was held on 26.11.2025 at the Silivri Prison Hearing Hall. The hearing was marked by the prosecutor’s opinion, the defence submissions of counsel, discussions on the elements of the offence, and the assessment of detention.
The case was closely followed by the public, particularly because of the assessment made under Article 310/2 of the Turkish Penal Code (Türk Ceza Kanunu, TCK). At the end of the hearing, the court ruled that Altaylı be sentenced and that his detention continue.
Pre-Hearing Process: Prosecutor’s Opinion and Written Defences
Before the hearing began, spectators, members of the press, and lawyers took their places in the courtroom. After Fatih Altaylı was brought into the hearing hall, the panel of judges also entered the courtroom and the hearing commenced.
It was stated that, between hearings, the prosecution had submitted its opinion on the merits, requested a sentence in that opinion, and that the defence had also submitted its written defences to the case file. For this reason, it was considered that the hearing might be relatively short.
After the hearing was opened, the presiding judge issued a warning regarding courtroom order. The prosecution stated that it repeated the opinion submitted between hearings. Counsel for the complainant also stated that they concurred with the prosecutor’s opinion.
Fatih Altaylı’s Defence: Emphasis on “No Intent to Threaten”
The court gave Fatih Altaylı the floor to present his defence. Altaylı stated that, because the prosecutor’s opinion had been submitted approximately 20 days before the hearing, they had had the opportunity to examine it.
In his defence, he particularly assessed the precedent decisions submitted to the file by the prosecution. According to Altaylı, some of these precedents did not directly correspond to the subject matter of the case. The defence stated that, of the six precedent decisions submitted by the prosecutor, three had resulted in decisions of lack of jurisdiction, two concerned threats made by leaders of terrorist organisations, and one concerned an incident that clearly involved a threat.
Altaylı also stated that the remarks in his own YouTube broadcast did not constitute an offence and that there was no intent to threaten in his statements. He pointed out that there had been no change after the broadcast in terms of the President’s protective measures or programme schedule.
“There was no change in the President’s schedule after my broadcast either. The number of security personnel did not increase. In any event, the President is not someone who would be afraid of such things.”
Altaylı argued that the President had not shown fear even during the attempted coup in the past, and that, therefore, it was not possible for his own words to be perceived as a threat. In conclusion, he requested his acquittal.
The Legal Axis of the Defence: Were the Elements of the Threat Offence Established for TCK 310/2?
The main argument of the defence at the hearing was that the elements of the alleged offence had not been established. Defence counsel focused in particular on the relationship between TCK Article 310/2 and TCK Article 106/1.
Rezzan Aydınoğlu, one of the defendant’s counsel, stated that they repeated their written defences and assessed the precedent decisions. According to Aydınoğlu, in order for an assessment to be made under TCK Article 310/2, the elements of the threat offence regulated under TCK Article 106/1 first had to be established.
The defence’s approach on this point may be summarised as follows:
- First, the material and mental elements of the offence of threat must be identified.
- TCK Article 310/2 cannot be invoked unless the elements of the threat offence are established.
- In the concrete case, it has not been demonstrated that the words constituted a clear, imminent, and serious threat.
- It is legally problematic to take a speech falling within the scope of freedom of expression out of its context and make it the subject of criminal liability.
Detention and the Catalogue Offence Debate
Ömer Teker, one of the defendant’s counsel, stated that he did not see a substantial difference between the prosecutor’s opinion and the indictment. According to Teker, the opinion also included an assessment concerning detention, and TCK Article 310/2 was treated as falling within the scope of catalogue offences.
Counsel argued that this approach was not legally possible. As reported in the thread, Teker stated that the opinion included an assessment of detention and catalogue offences under Article 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu, CMK), but that TCK Article 310/2 could not be treated as a catalogue offence in this manner.
Teker also stated that the indictment was based on a doctrinal view, in particular referring to an assessment in an article by Zeki Hafızoğulları. However, according to the defence, the relevant academic opinion had been interpreted by the prosecution outside its own context.
The Debate on “Physical Attack by Words”: The Principle of Legality Was on the Agenda
Metin Aslan, one of the defendant’s counsel, stated that the essence of the trial was based on two fundamental questions:
- Do Fatih Altaylı’s words constitute a threat?
- Can this threat be considered a physical attack against the President?
Aslan stated that the prosecutor’s opinion was based on the rationale of the law. However, according to the defence, it had to be set out in a clear, comprehensible, and lawful manner how a person could carry out a “physical attack” by means of words.
At this point, the principle of legality was particularly emphasised. Counsel argued that, in accordance with the principle of legality in crimes and punishments, criminal provisions cannot be interpreted in an expansive and unforeseeable manner.
“It needs to be explained to us in a way that a person of average intelligence can understand how a person can carry out a physical attack by words.”
Aslan asserted that the prosecution’s references to doctrine had also been taken out of context. According to the defence, the relevant academic source criticised this offence type from the perspective of legality, and the example of its being “capable of being committed by words” was given in order to explain the nature and problematic aspect of the offence type.
Threats Against the President and the Alleged Legislative Gap
Another important point raised by the defence was that the act of threatening the President is not separately and specifically regulated in the Turkish Penal Code. Counsel Aslan argued that, in practice, there is a tendency to impose a heavier sentence for threats directed at the President, but that this is being forced under the existing provisions.
In this context, the defence expressed the view that the legislature should enact an explicit regulation. According to the defence, if it is desired that threats directed at the President be subject to a heavier sanction, this should be achieved not through interpretation but through an explicit statutory regulation to be enacted by Parliament.
Counsel argued that, if the offence type were interpreted as broadly as the prosecution proposed, practice could become unforeseeable. In this context, he stated that the threat had to be clear, and that if a debate had been going on for six months as to whether “there is a threat or not”, then there was no clear threat at issue.
Assessments by the President of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations
Erinç Sağkan, President of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations (Türkiye Barolar Birliği), also took the floor at the hearing. Sağkan stated that he had read the prosecutor’s opinion and that he considered the opinion to be a reflection of the legal problems that had persisted since Altaylı was taken into custody.
According to Sağkan, the excerpt of the statement included at the beginning of the opinion was the same as the section shared on social media by an adviser to the President, which was stated to have been taken out of the context of the speech. For this reason, the defence argued that the allegation had been constructed not on the basis of the speech as a whole, but on the basis of a selected excerpt.
Sağkan also drew attention to the element of specific targeting in relation to the accusation. According to the account given, Altaylı had not uttered the name “Erdoğan” anywhere in his speech. Sağkan argued that, under the current constitutional order, it is not possible for anyone to be President for life, and that, for this reason, the expression “for life” in Altaylı’s speech did not target an existing person.
Key Legal Issues at the Hearing
The statements made at the hearing essentially centred on several legal issues:
| Issue | Defence’s Main Argument |
|---|---|
| Offence of threat | It was argued that the words did not constitute a clear threat within the meaning of TCK Article 106/1. |
| TCK Article 310/2 | It was stated that treating words as a “physical attack” was problematic from the perspective of the principle of legality. |
| Specific targeting | It was stated that the expressions were not directed at a specific person and that the President’s name was not mentioned. |
| Detention | An objection was raised to TCK Article 310/2 being made the subject of a catalogue offence assessment. |
| Context | It was asserted that the speech had been cut and taken out of context as the basis for the accusation. |
Decision: 4 Years and 2 Months’ Imprisonment and Continued Detention
After the defences were completed, the presiding judge asked Fatih Altaylı for his final statement. Altaylı stated that he agreed with the statements of his lawyers and requested his acquittal and release.
The court adjourned the hearing to announce its decision. After the recess, the courtroom was reopened to spectators, lawyers, and the press. The decision was announced when the panel entered the courtroom.
The court ruled that Fatih Altaylı, who was tried for the offence titled “other physical attacks” against the President by means of threat, be sentenced, in conclusion, to 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. It also ordered the continuation of his detention.
After the decision was announced, reactions rose in the courtroom. Spectators and some members of the press voiced their criticism of the decision. After the decision was read, the panel of judges left the courtroom and an instruction was given for the courtroom to be cleared.
What Does It Mean in Practice?
This hearing brought to the agenda important debates in criminal proceedings regarding freedom of expression, the offence of threat, offences against the President, and the limits of the detention measure.
- The scope of TCK Article 310/2 came to the fore as a contentious issue, particularly as to whether verbal statements may be interpreted as a “physical attack”.
- The defence emphasised that a more serious offence type cannot be invoked unless the elements of the offence of threat have been established.
- At the hearing, emphasis was placed on the principle of legality and the need not to interpret criminal provisions expansively.
- The court’s decision imposing 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment and ordering continued detention will be at the centre of appellate and possible further legal remedy discussions in the subsequent stages of the case.
- In public cases, an assessment of specific targeting in terms of the entirety of the speech, its context, and the person at whom it was directed is of determinative importance.