Top European Court Takes Up Cases of Christians Banned from Türkiye

  • European Court of Human Rights formally communicates 20 cases of Christians banned from Türkiye solely for living out their faith
  • ADF International supports 17 cases, highlighting serious, systemic human rights concerns

Strasbourg (5 February 2026) — The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has formally taken up and “communicated” 20 cases brought by Christians whom Türkiye effectively banned from re-entry solely for living out their faith.

These cases — almost all supported by ADF International — stem from the Turkish government’s use of internal security codes such as “N-82” to label peaceful foreign Christian residents as threats to national security, blocking them from entering or remaining in the country despite long-standing lawful residence.

Since 2019, Turkish authorities have issued internal security codes like “N-82” and “G-87” to hundreds of foreign Christians, preventing them from re-entering Türkiye after trips abroad or denying them residence permits. These measures have affected at least 160 foreign workers and their families — estimated to be hundreds of individuals — many of whom lived and served in Türkiye for decades.

The ECtHR has jointly communicated these cases to the Turkish Government, indicating that the Court considers the applications sufficiently related to be examined together and has invited Türkiye to submit its observations as the proceedings move forward.

“Peaceful worship and participation in church life are not threats to national security. Yet foreign Christians in Türkiye — pastors, teachers, ministry workers, and missionaries — have been labelled security risks and expelled based on undisclosed files,” said Dr. Lidia Rider, Legal Officer for ADF International. “Deprived of access to the allegations, they had no meaningful opportunity to defend themselves in courts. The Court’s communication of these cases is a crucial step toward accountability and redress.”

Discrimination Behind the Numbers

The government’s use of these codes effectively labels individuals as a “threat to public order and security,” a classification normally reserved for terrorism suspects. In practice, however, those targeted have no criminal records and no evidence of unlawful conduct — the only thing that they have in common is openly practicing and sharing their Christian faith.

The 2024 Human Rights Violation Report presented by the Protestant Church Association records 132 people who have been arbitrarily branded with an entry ban code, preventing them from entering Türkiye solely on the basis of their Christian faith. The total number of those affected is 303, according to the report.

Reports of similar measures affecting many foreign Protestant Christians show that these cases are not isolated, but point to a wider pattern of systemic discrimination. The cases raise serious questions about fundamental rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights — including freedom of religion, family life, and protection from discrimination  — and highlight the need for clear, evidence-based decisions when governments invoke public order or national security, especially given the severe disruption these sudden and unexplained bans have caused to long-term residents and their families.

Real People, Real Consequences

Among those affected are long-term residents such as Pam and Dave Wilson, who served in Türkiye for almost 40 years before being barred from returning; Rachel and Mario Zalma (pseudonyms to preserve anonymity), whose ministry work led to an N-82 designation after attending a church conference; and David Byle, a Christian minister forced into exile after 19 years of service.

These bans have not only separated families from the communities they helped build but also left local churches without stable leadership, weakening the already-small Christian presence in a country where Christians make up a tiny fraction of the population.

A Longstanding Effort to Expose Systemic Abuse

Over several years, ADFI has raised awareness of these human rights violations through, among other activities, workshops with local lawyers, academic publications and expert submissions highlighting systemic violations of freedom of religion or belief and related rights.

ADF International has supported a number of applicants and counsel in these cases over several years. ADF International directly represents four individuals before the Court, two of whom are lead applicants, and has supported nearly all the other cases.

“We welcome the Court’s decision to jointly communicate these cases. These are not isolated mistakes or one-off decisions,” said Kelsey Zorzi, Director of Global Religious Freedom for ADF International. “By examining these cases together, the Court is acknowledging that they may reveal a pattern of discrimination against Christians in Türkiye. We look to the Court to uphold the fundamental principle that governments cannot strip people of their rights simply for living out their faith.”

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Dave and Pam Wilson; David Byle; Lidia Rieder; Kelsey Zorzi

Top human rights court deems Evangelical church’s appeal inadmissible

Breccia di Roma church in Rome, Italy

  • Italian Christian community forced to pay tens of thousands in taxes or make “structural modifications” to their place of worship to satisfy the authorities’ demands that their space look more like “a conventional church”

  • Represented by ADF International, the church had filed an appeal at the European Court of Human Rights, which has rejected the case

Breccia di Roma church in Rome, Italy

Strasbourg/Rome (March 24, 2025) – In a blow to religious freedom, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that the case of Breccia di Roma, an Evangelical church in Rome, is inadmissible. The church, represented by ADF International, had appealed to the Court after Italian authorities classified its place of worship as a “shop” due to its non-traditional appearance, which led to a demand for around 50,000€ in taxes and fines. 

Despite the church’s argument that the modest architecture of its place of worship does not detract from its use for religious practice and that the Italian Tax Agency’s classification violated its right to worship freely, the ECtHR has decided not to intervene. The decision effectively upholds the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation’s ruling, denying the church the tax exemption granted to other religious buildings in Italy. 

“This ruling is disappointing, as it fails to recognize the right of churches to freely determine the manner of their worship. We continue to believe that the government has no right to dictate the appearance of a place of worship."

- Leonardo De Chirico, president of Breccia di Roma

Court dismissal despite strong legal case 

Even though the church went up to the highest domestic court claiming a violation of its religious freedom, the ECtHR denied hearing the case claiming “non-exhaustion of domestic remedies”. The Court provided no explanation as to why it does not consider the church to have “exhausted domestic remedies,” given that Breccia di Roma has no other domestic avenues left to pursue. The court also rejected the church’s claim of having been unjustly discriminated against, despite two lower instance courts in Italy having ruled in Breccia di Roma’s favor on this matter. The decision is final. Breccia di Roma must now pay tens of thousands in taxes or make “structural modifications” to their place of worship to satisfy the authorities’ demands.  

In recent years, “inadmissibility” has become the most common outcome of any application pending before the ECtHR. The court received 28,800 new applications in 2024, and 34,650 in 2023. At the same time, the court declared 25,990 pending applications inadmissible in 2024, and 31,329 in 2023.  

“It is highly regrettable that Breccia di Roma will not receive justice from the European Court of Human Rights.This religious group was unjustly discriminated against because its chosen place of worship does not look like a conventional church in the eyes of the authorities. The small community is now burdened with thousands of Euros in taxes from which other religious buildings in Italy are exempted."

- Dr. Lidia Rieder, Legal Officer for ADF International, which brought the church’s case before the ECHR

ADF International remains committed to advocating for the protection of religious freedom and ensuring that churches can operate without unnecessary discrimination based on their appearance or practices.

Breccia di Roma can be supported here.  

Case background 

The Evangelical Christian community, Breccia di Roma, which uses a former shop as it’s place of worship, obtained authorization to change the building’s intended commercial use – in part, so that the applicable taxation would align with the religious, i.e. non-commercial, nature of their activities.  

The Italian Tax Agency, however, claimed that the interior architecture of Breccia di Roma’s worship space was not sufficiently religious in appearance. Therefore, it required the church to pay commercial taxes. Despite winning in the lower courts, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation sided with the authorities. With no further avenues for justice in Italy, the church turned to the European Court of Human Rights, which has now declined to decide their case.   

“We don’t make money —we bring people together closer to Christ. Granted, our building does not match the Great Synagogue, a mosque, or any of the basilicas in Rome. Also, because our resources are limited, we meet in a comparatively unspectacular building. But why would a state punish us for that? Our church is not worse or less spiritual, just because our architecture is different,” De Chirico asserted.    

Further details on the case can be found here. 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

From Belgium to Canada, Euthanasia Signals a Deep Crisis of Meaning

Growing euthanasia practice in Canada spells a deep crisis of meaning

Nobody should be offered death as the solution to suffering

Growing euthanasia practice in Canada spells a deep crisis of meaning

In 2002, Belgium and the Netherlands became the first countries to legalize euthanasia. Since then, other countries have followed suit, and more countries are considering it.

Whether called “euthanasia”, “assisted suicide”, “medical aid in dying”, or “MAID”, the act involves a medical professional intentionally and prematurely ending a patient’s life. 

At the outset, legislators frequently stress that euthanasia should be seen as a last resort, intended to be a compassionate approach to end a person’s suffering.

However, the experience of countries that have legalized euthanasia shows that more and more people seem to be requesting to die than anyone imagined or expected.

This is often because many people lack the social, economic, psychological, and palliative care support they need to live. 

In 2016, Canada legalized euthanasia nationwide and has since become the fastest-growing euthanasia regime in the world, posing a somber warning to the rest of the world. 

Rising healthcare and social security costs, the widespread reality of cognitive and mental health challenges, and conceits about autonomy and control are just some of the factors that will make euthanasia one of the most dramatic life issues of the 21st century. 

Like our other Generational Wins—our core priorities—preventing euthanasia is not only a legal battle but also a cultural one. Advocates like Amanda Achtman in Canada are focused on raising awareness about euthanasia in the public square from a cultural standpoint through her Dying to Meet You project. 

How euthanasia gains popularity

Across jurisdictions, public opinion about euthanasia has been driven by court decisions, political campaigns, lobby groups, and media.

When a doctor in the Netherlands euthanized her mother in the 1970s, the physician was treated leniently and given a weeklong probation rather than a long prison sentence. This sparked the erosion of norms surrounding a doctor’s responsibility to do no harm, even upon the patient’s request.

In Belgium, the euthanasia law was ushered in following the political victory of a left-wing coalition in the 1999 federal election that defeated the Christian Democrats. 

In Canada, the lobby group Dying with Dignity has campaigned for more than 40 years to promote and expand legal euthanasia. Exerting considerable pressure, this organization has lobbied politicians, mounted legal challenges, and run marketing campaigns to bolster public support for “MAiD”.

Proponents of euthanasia will usually highlight the stories of individuals who are suffering profoundly and who seem to be making the request to die with full consent and even with the support of their family and friends. Similarly, such stories have become the basis for influential movies and even advertisements.

Since all human beings suffer, the prospect of avoiding or eliminating it is a temptation. Without question, a suffering or vulnerable person summons relief and help; killing the person is never the appropriate way to end his or her suffering.

Once euthanasia is legalized, it will not be limited

When the Canadian government legalized euthanasia, they enacted certain so-called “safeguards”. At first, the patient’s death needed to be deemed “reasonably foreseeable.” Only adults capable of consenting could receive euthanasia. They had to make their request in writing before two witnesses and undergo a mandatory 10-day reflection.

Not even five years later, the government began loosening the requirements and expanding euthanasia to broader demographics. This is because if euthanasia is seen to be a reasonable means of ending suffering, then there is no serious basis on which a person should be excluded from having the option. 

On the grounds of equality, euthanasia was expanded to persons suffering but not imminently dying, to persons with disabilities and various neurological conditions, and to others. Unfortunately, this has led to a tremendous devaluing of life within the public healthcare system.

A man with disabilities says he’s been offered euthanasia “multiple times.” A woman with disabilities says a nurse accused her of being selfish for not considering euthanasia. One woman says she was offered MAiD instead of cancer treatment. A mother says her 23-year-old son, who has diabetes and partial vision loss, was scheduled to die by MAiD until she intercepted the process and went to the media. 

Legal euthanasia is destroying the doctor-patient relationship and eroding trust between healthcare professionals and families. Prematurely ending a patient’s life through killing is completely different than helping a person to live well until their natural death.

Tackling euthanasia and assisted suicide as a new threat to life 

Some people do not have strong opinions about euthanasia because they figure that it is a matter of individual freedom and personal decision. That is what Tom Mortier thought until he received the shocking call that his mother had been euthanized. His mother had struggled with depression but was otherwise physically healthy. Her psychiatrist did not think she satisfied the legal requirements for euthanasia under Belgian law. But Tom’s mother was diagnosed with “incurable depression” and then euthanized by an oncologist with no psychiatric expertise. 

Robert Clarke, the Deputy Director of ADF International, represented Tom Mortier before the Court of European Human Rights. In October 2022, the Court ruled that Belgium violated the right to life of Tom Mortier’s mother. 

ADF International intervened in another recent euthanasia case. In Hungary, a man suffering from ALS challenged his country’s ban on assisted suicide. ADF International argued in favour of Hungary’s existing stance and defended the country’s obligation to protect the right to life because there is no “right to die.” In June 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of Hungary’s right to prohibit assisted suicide to protect life. 

While winning legal cases is important, it’s also important to win in the court of public opinion.

Canada and beyond: Dying to Meet You

A glimmer of hope is Canadian Amanda Achtman, and her mission is to prevent euthanasia and encourage hope throughout her home country and beyond. She founded a project called ‘Dying To Meet You’ through which she engages people in conversations on suffering, death, meaning, and hope. A key feature of her advocacy involves giving a platform through short films to those whose voices have been sorely lacking from the euthanasia debates. In one short film, she interviews Christine Nagel, an 88-year-old woman who decided to get a tattoo that says, “Don’t Euthanize Me.”

In another, Achtman interviewed Eulalia Running Rabbit, an Indigenous Canadian woman who says, “I don’t think it’s right for the government to push euthanasia on the Nations. We really believe the Creator is the one who’s going to take us back.” In another, she interviewed Roger Foley, a Canadian man with disabilities who says he’s been offered euthanasia “multiple times” as he fights for the support he needs to live. 

In addition to writing, speaking, and appearing on podcasts and in documentaries about euthanasia, Achtman also organizes events to engage diverse faith and culture communities in end-of-life conversations. For example, she recently organized an event at Adath Israel Congregation in Toronto featuring Rabbi Dr. David Novak, a renowned Jewish thinker who wrote his dissertation on suicide.

During his presentation, Dr. Novak stated, “Nobody really lives unless they’re convinced that somebody else wants them to live. […] And this is an indictment of our much-praised Canadian health service: that it is now recommended to people that they would be better off dead than alive.”

Hope for a wounded world

Achtman is committed to advancing a positive and proactive alternative vision to a euthanasia society because, as she puts it, “As long as euthanasia is legal in Canada, my generation cannot grow up properly. Our growth and development are stunted when we lack opportunities to be called out of ourselves.”

To learn more about her and Dying to Meet You, visit the project online. 

Conclusion: Every single person has dignity

Euthanasia is one symptom of our wounded world. The person who asks for euthanasia is really wondering whether someone will love them enough to push back.

As euthanasia becomes more of a risk across Europe and throughout the West, it is crucial that we redouble our efforts to protect life. Whether at the beginning, end, or in between, every life has a purpose, and every life is worth defending.