AİHM tarihindeki üçüncü Fransız başkan olacak olan Guyomar, Yalçınkaya kararında madde 7 ihlali olduğunu belirten hakimler arasındaydı.

Yalçınkaya başvurusunda madde 7 ihlaline (kanunsuz suç olmaz) ilişkin hakimler hemfikir değildi. İhlale 6’ya karşı 11 oyla hükmedilmişti.

For your second question, you are right. I got that wrong and edited that part. I thought before it was about posts not accounts but indeed, there were challenges against account blockings.
Thank you so much 🙏🏻

Of course, X’s lack of transparency has a great role in this.

In most cases, X says it will challenge court decisions but it doesn’t share any further information.

We don’t know for which accounts X litigates.

I think it is not limited to Gulen group, but don’t have enough info to comment..

Another example: X announced that it challenged the blocking of 126 accounts by tagging 2 popular journalists and a news platform. These names can be considered as let’s say secular dissidents. X didn’t tag, for example, very influential journalist Cevheri Guven despite his insistent tweets.

It was no different for X either.

For instance, the X made no public comment whatsoever regarding the blocking of 177 accounts on “terrorist propaganda” grounds in October 2024 after the death of movement’s leader Fethullah Gulen.

Mostly exiled journalists and human rights activists were blocked.

The Gulen movement was declared as the “armed terrorist organisation” behind the coup attempt despite group’s denial. Since then, over 2 million terror investigations have been opened.

So, it became a “don’t touch this” issue for everybody while hundreds of thousands of people persecuted.

Thank you for the questions!
First, there are a few indications that X is being selective. We can briefly say that it’s political.

To begin with the context, the Turkish regime has an official “July 15 coup attempt” narrative. Since 2016, Erdogan built his authoritarian reign on this narrative.