The closure decision issued against the Association for Solidarity with Migrants (GÖÇIZDER) as a result of a lawsuit filed by the Bakırköy Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office has entered a new phase in the judicial process.
An appeal lodged against the decision of the Bakırköy 15th Civil Court of First Instance, which ordered the dissolution of the association on 25 December 2024, has been reviewed by the 4th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice (Appeals Court).
The Appeals Court upheld the local court’s ruling, finding it to be in accordance with the law. Following this decision, the association’s board and its lawyers carried the case to the Court of Cassation, thereby initiating the cassation review process.
Local court deemed “oppression” characterization as insulting the state
The Bakırköy 15th Civil Court of First Instance, which signed the closure decision, linked the association’s activities to serious accusations in its reasoned judgment. The court argued that the GÖÇIZDER acted in line with the aims and ideology of a “terrorist organization” and transformed the phenomenon of migration into a one-sided campaign of agitation and defamation by distancing it from the realities experienced in Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia.
The court identified as one of the strongest grounds for dissolution the association’s characterization of state security operations as “oppression” in reports it had prepared, as well as the alleged denigration of state institutions.
In addition, the court claimed that the association constituted a continuation of GÖÇ-DER, which had been closed by Decree Law No. 677, and alleged that it carried out organizational mass propaganda under the guise of a civil society organization.
Financial transactions and project funds cited as grounds for closure
Another significant pillar of the decision consisted of allegations regarding the association’s financial structure. The local court asserted that the association received substantial amounts of foreign currency through European Union projects and alleged that these funds were used to finance members of a “terrorist organization” under the pretext of providing assistance to refugees.
The Appeals Court upheld the closure of GÖÇIZDER, and although the association’s executives were acquitted in a criminal case, its lawyers have taken the decision to the Court of Cassation.
Based on Financial Crimes Investigation Board (MASAK) reports and law enforcement findings, the court maintained that the association provided logistical and financial support to the organizational structure of the “terrorist organization” while operating under a legal appearance.
Although the association’s lawyers stated that these funds were entirely lawful and subject to oversight, the court concluded that these activities exceeded the objectives set out in the association’s statute.
Appeals court did not require “organic link” and rejected application on merits
The 4th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice, which examined the case file, found the ruling of the local court to be appropriate in its decision dated 1 April 2026. The Appeals Court emphasized that the acquittal of the association’s executives on charges of “membership in a terrorist organization” in the case heard before the Istanbul 26th High Criminal Court did not prevent a civil court from issuing a closure decision.
The ruling underlined that the absence of the “organic link” required under criminal law does not mean that the association did not engage in activities contrary to its statute or to national security. The chamber concluded that the evidence presented constituted a “just cause” necessitating the dissolution of the association and therefore rejected the application on its merits.
Process continues at the Court of Cassation
Lawyers representing the GÖÇIZDER did not accept the Appeals Court’s decision to uphold the closure and submitted the case to the Court of Cassation for further review.
The association’s management argued that the migration reports it had prepared fall within the scope of freedom of expression and academic work, and that the attempt to dissolve the association despite acquittal decisions in the criminal proceedings constitutes pressure on civil society.
Leave a Reply