Austria has banned the hand sign. France has dissolved a group. In Germany, the Bundestag has asked for a ban to be examined. In this dossier we open the official documents behind those decisions one by one, and answer each of them with history, law and sources.
Türük, in the Orkhon script
The Bozkurt (Grey Wolf) was not born as a party emblem. It is one of the oldest stories the Turks tell about their own origins. It was recorded not only in Turkish sources but also by the official historians of the Chinese court.
None of the records below has anything to do with modern politics. All of them are sources that anyone can check in museums, libraries and academic publications.
Moves sideways as you scroll.
552
Bumın Kağan ends the rule of the Juan-juan (Rouran), and the Göktürk Khaganate is founded. According to the Chinese chronicles, the ruling lineage of the Turks is the Ashina, and this lineage traces its descent to a she-wolf1.
580s
Found in Mongolia in 1956, the inscription was erected between 584 and 587 in the name of Taspar Kağan. Three of its faces are written in Sogdian, the back in Brahmi script. The relief at the top shows a she-wolf suckling a child. The stone is now in the Arkhangai provincial museum in Tsetserleg, Mongolia2.
Image: copy of the Bugut inscription, Yastanovog, CC BY-SA 3.0
636
The Zhoushu, an official Chinese history, tells the origin of the Ashina lineage. A she-wolf feeds a boy who has survived a massacre. She gives birth to ten sons in a mountain cave, and from them the Turkic clans descend1.
旗纛之上，施金狼頭。蓋本狼生，志不忘舊。 “On top of their banners and standards they place a golden wolf's head. Because they descend from a wolf, they do not forget their origins.”
The Suishu, completed in the same year, also records that a wolf-headed standard stood at the gate of the khagan's tent, and that this was done so as “not to forget the root”3.
732
This monument in the Orkhon valley carries one of the most famous texts the Turks wrote in their own language and their own alphabet. The old letters you see on this site come from that alphabet: 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰜 “Türük”, and 𐰋𐰇𐰼𐰃 “böri”, meaning wolf4.
Image: Kül Tigin monument, Betta27, public domain
13th–15th c.
The only copy of the epic in Uyghur script is kept today in Paris, at the National Library of France (Supplément turc 1001). Its date is disputed; estimates range from the late 13th to the early 15th century5.
kök tülüklüg, kök çallug bedik bir irkek böri çıkdı “From that light came a great male wolf with sky-blue fur and a sky-blue mane.” The wolf tells Oğuz “I will walk ahead of you” and guides the army6.
Image: Gallica / BnF, public domain. The only manuscript of this Turkish epic of the grey wolf is kept in the national library of France, the country that dissolved a group named “Grey Wolves”.
1912
Ziya Gökalp, the founding thinker of Türkçülük, or Turkism (attachment to the Turkish language, history and culture), turns Ergenekon into a poem. Inside the iron mountain a wolf finds the way out, and the smith who follows it is given the name “Bozkurt”7.
It matters to get this right. In the Ergenekon accounts of Rashid al-Din in the 14th century and of Abu al-Ghazi Bahadur Khan in the 17th, the iron mountain is melted, but there is no wolf showing the way. The first known text in which the wolf shows the way is Gökalp's poem8.
1927
The first banknotes of the Republic entered circulation on 5 December 1927. On the front of the 5 and 10 lira notes, a grey wolf appears together with Ankara Castle9. From 1926 onwards, the 10 para stamps also carried the motif of “the legendary smith and the grey wolf”10.
In other words, the Grey Wolf was a national symbol on the young Republic's official money and stamps more than 40 years before the Ülkücü movement was founded.
Image: Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye, 1927, public domain
1968
The organisation of the Ülkücü movement dates back to 196811. By then, counting from the Bugut inscription, the Grey Wolf symbol was about 1,400 years old. A movement adopting a symbol does not make that symbol the movement's property.
1990s
Today's hand sign became widespread in the early 1990s. According to one account, Alparslan Türkeş learnt the sign in 1991 from young Gagauz Turks visiting Ankara, who had in turn seen it among young Ülkücü supporters in Istanbul12. Another account says that Türkeş used the sign in Baku in 1992.
2019
On 1 March 2019 an amendment to the Symbols Act (Symbole-Gesetz) enters into force. The “Grey Wolves” group is added to the law that bans the symbols of ISIS and al-Qaeda, and for the first time the law also covers hand signs1314.
2020
On 4 November France announces that it has dissolved a de facto group called “Les Loups gris”15. On 18 November the German Bundestag adopts a resolution asking for bans on Ülkücü associations to be examined16.
2024
On 1 January the maximum fine in Austria rises from €4,000 to €10,00017. On 2 July in Leipzig, Merih Demiral's goal celebration earns him a two-match ban from UEFA18.
2026
The European Parliament's resolution of 17 June 2026 no longer contains the 2021 wording about “adding to the terrorist list”19. In July 2026 the German Federal Government states that it does not comment on ban assessments. In Germany, the sign and the associations remain legal20.
The wolf also lives on in Europe's own founding legends and civic coats of arms. Europe looks at these symbols in their context. We ask that the Turkish wolf be judged by the same standard.
In Rome's founding legend, a she-wolf suckles Romulus and Remus. The bronze wolf in the Capitoline Museums has stood there since 1471; the figures of the twins were added in the 15th century21.
The parallel with the Ashina legend is striking: both peoples trace their origins to a she-wolf that nursed a child.
Image: Jastrow, public domain
Since 1432 the coat of arms of Passau has shown a red wolf rampant on a silver field. The arms of Wolfsburg show a golden wolf walking on the battlements of a castle. The arms of Wolfsberg, a town in the Austrian state of Carinthia, also feature a black wolf22.
No one would think of banning these coats of arms, because their context is clear. That standard of context is exactly what we are asking for.
The wolf hook (Wolfsangel) was used by SS units in the Nazi era, and by a neo-Nazi youth organisation that was banned in 1982. Even so, Germany's Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) writes:
„Davon unabhängige Verwendungen, wie z. B. in Stadt- und Vereinswappen sind nicht strafbar.““Unrelated uses, for example in the coats of arms of towns and associations, are not punishable.”23
Germany looks at context even for a symbol the Nazis used. Asking for the same standard to be applied to a 1,400-year-old Turkish symbol is not a request for privilege. It is a request for equality.
Three countries, three different paths. Austria banned the sign. France dissolved a group. Germany has so far banned neither the sign nor the associations.
Look at the table first, then at the documents themselves. For each document we have summarised the other side's reasoning without distorting it, and then written our answer.
| Country | Hand sign | What was done? | Legal basis | Sanction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austria | BannedSince 1 March 2019 | The “Grey Wolves” group was added to the Symbols Act; the hand sign was described in a regulation.The Constitutional Court requires each case to be examined separately. | Symbole-Gesetz § 1 Z 4BGBl. I Nr. 2/2019 and BGBl. II Nr. 58/2019 | Administrative fine of up to €10,000Up to €20,000 for a repeat offence (since 2024) |
| France | Not banned | A de facto group called “Les Loups gris” was dissolved.4 November 2020, decree of the Council of Ministers | Code de la sécurité intérieure, L. 212-1Points 1° and 6° | Continuing the dissolved group is an offenceThe sign itself is permitted |
| Germany | Not banned | In 2020 the Bundestag asked for bans on associations to be examined; no ban has followed to date. | § 86a StGB does not applyIt covers only the symbols of banned organisations | MonitoringBfV report estimates 13,500 people (2025) |
| EU | No ban | In 2021 the European Parliament called for terrorist listing and a ban on associations to be examined; its 2026 resolution did not mention the terrorist list. | Parliament resolutions are recommendationsNot binding | Not on the EU terrorist list |
When you open a document, you see its original title, what it says, the reasoning behind it and our answer, all in one place.
AustriaFederal act, BGBl. I Nr. 2/2019
Federal act amending the Symbols Act
Brought the “Grey Wolves” group within the scope of the banned symbols, and extended the law to cover hand gestures as well as badges and emblems. Entered into force on 1 March 2019.
In English: Federal act amending the Symbols Act. Federal Law Gazette BGBl. I Nr. 2/2019, 9 January 2019. In force: 1 March 2019.
The law was passed in 2014 to ban the symbols of ISIS and al-Qaeda. The amendment added the “Grey Wolves group” to Section 1 as a fourth item. In Section 2, the phrase “badges and emblems” became “badges, emblems and gestures”. For the first time in Austrian law, a hand gesture could now be banned13.
„Als Symbole sind auch Abzeichen, Embleme und Gesten anzusehen.“
The law rests on the assumption that the listed groups hold an ideology that calls for violence, and that displaying their symbols in public spreads that ideology24. Alongside the Grey Wolves, the law also covers the symbols of organisations on the EU terrorist list.
On 14 February 2019 the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that it did not accept the ban and condemned it “strongly”. It called the listing of the Grey Wolf sign alongside the symbol of a terrorist organisation such as the PKK “a complete scandal”27.
BGBl. I Nr. 2/2019, Austrian Federal Legal Information System (RIS), PDF
AustriaMinisterial regulation, BGBl. II Nr. 58/2019
Symbols Designation Regulation, annex item 20
The Ministry of the Interior describes the banned symbols one by one. Item 20 of the annex defines the hand sign finger by finger; item 19 is devoted to the group's wolf emblem.
In English: Regulation of the Ministry of the Interior amending the Symbols Designation Regulation. BGBl. II Nr. 58/2019, 27 February 2019. Annex items 15–23 entered into force on 1 March 201914.
The annex to the regulation describes what the banned symbols look like. The hand sign is defined as follows (text taken from the 2024 ruling of Austria's Supreme Administrative Court28):
„Handzeichen der Gruppierung „Graue Wölfe“ (sog. „Wolfsgruß“), der Daumen wird mit dem Ring- und Mittelfinger zusammengelegt, der Zeigefinger und der kleine Finger stehen dabei nach oben ab.“
For a ban to be enforceable, what is banned has to be defined in concrete terms. That is why the regulation gives a visual description of the group's emblems and hand sign.
AustriaFederal act, BGBl. I Nr. 177/2023
2023 amendment to the Prohibition Act, Article 5
The maximum fine under the Symbols Act rose from €4,000 to €10,000, and for a repeat offence from €10,000 to €20,000. Final penalties are now reported to the security authorities. Entered into force on 1 January 2024.
In English: 2023 amendment to the Prohibition Act. BGBl. I Nr. 177/2023, 30 December 2023. In force: 1 January 202417.
The package mainly amends the law banning Nazi propaganda (Verbotsgesetz). Its Article 5, however, raises the penalties under the Symbols Act. Prison terms stayed the same: up to one month, or up to six weeks for a repeat offence.
„… werden der Betrag „4 000 Euro“ durch den Betrag „10 000 Euro“ und der Betrag „10 000 Euro“ durch den Betrag „20 000 Euro“ ersetzt.“
To make penalties a stronger deterrent, and to reinforce the fight against extremist symbols within a single package.
AustriaConstitutional Court, E 3120/2021
Ruling of the Austrian Constitutional Court
Austria's Constitutional Court required a separate examination in each case before a penalty can be imposed under the Symbols Act. In doing so, it relied on the Vajnai judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
In English: Ruling of the Austrian Constitutional Court, 8 March 202224.
The case concerns a demonstration that was banned outright because the flag of an organisation on the banned list (the PKK) was used at it. The Court did not find the 2019 amendment unconstitutional. But it held that banning the demonstration as a whole violated freedom of assembly, and it set the following test for a penalty:
„… mit der Verwendung des verbotenen Symboles das spezifische zur Anwendung von Gewalt aufrufende Ideengut der Gruppierung gutgeheißen oder propagiert werden …“
FranceDecree of the Council of Ministers
Decree of 4 November 2020 dissolving a de facto group
France dissolved an unregistered de facto group known as “Les Loups gris”. The grounds: incitement to armed demonstrations in the street, and to discrimination, hatred and violence. The hand sign was not banned.
In English: Decree dissolving a de facto group. Adopted by the Council of Ministers and published in the Official Journal on 5 November 20203015.
The legal basis is Article L. 212-1 of the Internal Security Code: point 1 (incitement to armed demonstrations in the street) and point 6 (incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence). The Ministry of the Interior's official reply to the National Assembly sums up the grounds as follows:
« ce groupement provoquait à des manifestations armées dans la rue »
The following is based on the text of the decree as reported in the press. It was asserted that on 24 July 2020 in Décines-Charpieu, at a counter-demonstration against a rally held by an Armenian association, about 70 members of the group called for violence and used weapons; that there were further violent incidents in Vienne on 28 October; and that the group holds an ideology inciting discrimination and violence against people of Kurdish and Armenian origin. On 1 November the Armenian memorial in Décines was daubed with the words “Loup Gris” and “RTE”. On 2 November the Minister of the Interior announced the dissolution.
Let us be honest: in 2020 the ECtHR found France's system of dissolution under L. 212-1 compatible with the Convention in general terms32. Our objection is therefore not to the technical legality of the decree. It is to the decree's equating of a symbol with the actions of a group.
“Bugün Fransız Hükümeti tarafından lağvedildiği açıklanan ‘Bozkurtlar’ isimli bir hareket olmadığı esasen bilinmektedir.”
GermanyBundestag resolution, Drucksache 19/24388
Standing up to nationalism and racism: pushing back the influence of the Ülkücü movement
The Bundestag asked the government to examine bans on Ülkücü associations. It is a request for an examination, not a ban. In the six years since, no ban has followed.
In English: “Standing up to nationalism and racism: pushing back the influence of the Ülkücü movement.” Joint motion by the CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and the Greens, tabled on 17 November 2020 and adopted on 18 November 202016.
The motion relies on the BfV's estimate of about 11,000 people, names ADÜTDF and ATİB as umbrella organisations and welcomes France's dissolution decision. It asks the government to push back the movement's influence in Europe, to monitor it, to support educational programmes and to take the following step:
„… gegen die Vereine der „Ülkücü“-Bewegung Organisationsverbote zu prüfen …“
In the vote, the CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP, the Greens and the Left Party voted in favour, and the AfD against. On the same day, motions from the Left Party and the AfD calling directly for a ban were rejected33.
In the view of the parliamentary majority, the Ülkücü movement holds an ultranationalist and racist ideology, has influence over young people and threatens social peace in Germany. France's step is cited as an example.
GermanyReport on the Protection of the Constitution
Report on the Protection of the Constitution 2025: Turkish right-wing extremism
The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution estimates 13,500 supporters for 2025. None of the associations named in the report has been banned.
In English: Report on the Protection of the Constitution 2025, chapter on “extremism with links abroad”. Presented on 30 June 2026 by the Minister of the Interior and the President of the BfV35.
The report estimates the number of supporters of “Turkish right-wing extremism” at 12,500 for 2023, 12,900 for 2024 and 13,500 for 2025. It links about 10,500 of them to three umbrella organisations: ADÜTDF (about 7,000), ATİB (about 2,500) and ANF (about 1,000). It counts about 3,000 people as part of the unorganised scene20.
„Sie beruft sich auf eine extrem nationalistische bis rechtsextremistische Ideologie, die von Elementen wie Rassismus, Antisemitismus und einer Überhöhung des Türkentums geprägt ist.“
According to the BfV, the movement's ideology conflicts with constitutional principles such as human dignity and equality. For this reason, it is kept under intelligence surveillance.
European ParliamentResolution, P9_TA(2021)0243, paragraph 16
The European Parliament's resolution on Turkey, 2021
Parliament called on the EU and the member states to examine adding the Grey Wolves to the EU terrorist list and banning their associations. The resolution is not binding; no such listing has ever been made.
European Parliament resolution on the Commission's 2019–2020 reports on Turkey, 19 May 2021, paragraph 1637.
“… calls on the EU and its Member States to examine the possibility of adding Grey Wolves to the EU terrorist list, to ban their associations …”
Parliament calls the Ülkücü movement “racist right-wing extremist” and says it is “highly worried” about it.
European ParliamentResolution, TA-10-2026-0215, paragraph 23
The European Parliament's resolution on Türkiye, 2026
Parliament repeats its concern and asks for bans on associations to be examined. But the 2021 call for “adding to the terrorist list” does not appear in this resolution.
European Parliament resolution on the Commission's 2025 report on Türkiye, 17 June 2026, paragraph 2319.
“… calls for the EU and its Member States to examine the possibility of banning their associations in EU countries …”
UEFADecision of the UEFA Appeals Body
Urgent decision of the UEFA Appeals Body, Euro 2024
Merih Demiral made the sign as a goal celebration in the match against Austria and was given a two-match ban. He missed the quarter-final against the Netherlands.
Urgent decision of the UEFA Appeals Body, 5 July 202418.
In the round-of-16 match in Leipzig on 2 July 2024, Türkiye beat Austria 2–1. Demiral made the sign after the second goal. UEFA opened an investigation the next day and announced the penalty on 5 July. According to the text of the decision as reported in the press, the penalty was imposed on the following grounds:
“… for failing to comply with the general principles of conduct, for violating the basic rules of decent conduct, for using sports events for manifestations of a non-sporting nature and for bringing the sport of football into disrepute.”
On 3 July, Germany's Interior Minister Nancy Faeser wrote: “The symbols of Turkish right-wing extremists have no place in our stadiums.” Germany summoned Türkiye's ambassador to the Federal Foreign Office on 4 July.
On 5 July the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed its regret at the penalty40. Türkiye had summoned Germany's ambassador to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 3 July.
The European Court of Human Rights has already held that a general ban on a symbol with more than one meaning violates freedom of expression. Germany, Austria and France recognise the jurisdiction of this court; all three are parties to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The beam of the scales is tilted on purpose. To weigh everyone who carries a symbol in the same pan as the few who misuse it is disproportionate.
“… this indiscriminate feature of the prohibition corroborates the finding that it is unacceptably broad.”(§ 56)29
A politician had been punished for wearing a red star. The Court said that a symbol with more than one meaning cannot be equated with its most dangerous meaning. It added that public unease cannot set the limits of freedom of expression; otherwise a kind of “heckler's veto” would arise (§ 57). The lesson for the Grey Wolf: the fact that a symbol disturbs some sections of society is not, on its own, a reason to ban it.
“… ill feelings or even outrage, in the absence of intimidation, cannot represent a pressing social need …”(§ 56)41
Someone had been punished for displaying the Árpád-striped flag near an anti-racism demonstration. The fascist Arrow Cross had also used this flag in the 1940s. Even so, the Court ruled that punishment in the absence of intimidation or incitement was a violation. The lesson for the Grey Wolf: what matters is not the symbol itself, but whether there is a concrete threat.
„… das spezifische zur Anwendung von Gewalt aufrufende Ideengut der Gruppierung gutgeheißen oder propagiert …““… the group's specific ideas calling for the use of violence are endorsed or propagated …”24
The Constitutional Court of the very country that imposed the ban relied on the Vajnai judgment and required each case to be examined separately. The lesson for the Grey Wolf: even in Austria, making the sign is not enough on its own. It must be shown in concrete terms that an ideology calling for violence is being endorsed.
You can test whether a ban is legitimate with these four questions. They are European law's own standards.
A state that restricts a fundamental right must show whether it could reach its aim by milder means. If threats and violence are already punishable, a blanket ban on a hand gesture is a heavier measure than necessary.
A law must be clear enough for citizens to know in advance what is an offence. When a hand gesture is a “salute”, and when it is an imitation of a wolf or a children's game, is often unclear.
Criminal liability is personal. A crime committed by one person cannot be attributed to other people who carry the same symbol. Collective blame is a method that the rule of law rejects.
Similar situations must be treated in similar ways. If Europe views the wolf symbols of its own history in their context, it must apply the same standard of context to the Turkish wolf symbol.
Nix v. Germany (2018): the ECtHR declared inadmissible the application of someone who had been punished for using, on his blog, a photo of Himmler in SS uniform with a swastika. The reasons were Germany's “special moral responsibility” arising from its Nazi past, and the fact that the swastika has no meaning other than Nazi ideology42.
Ayoub and Others v. France (2020): the ECtHR found France's system of administrative dissolution under the Internal Security Code compatible with the Convention32.
These two rulings do not support a ban on the Grey Wolf. They show the difference. In Nix, the Court set the swastika apart precisely from the red star in Vajnai, which has several meanings: a symbol with a single meaning and a symbol with many meanings are not treated alike. With its 1,400-year history, its place on the Republic's money and its use today by everyone from athletes to ordinary fans, the Grey Wolf is clearly a symbol with many meanings. Ayoub, for its part, holds that the dissolution system is legitimate in general. It says nothing about banning a symbol.
We have not hidden the other side's strongest precedents. Anyone who knows them can also explain why they do not fit this case.
We have set out the other side's strongest arguments without distorting them. Anyone who wants to persuade must first understand the other side correctly. Click on any heading to open the full answer and its source.
Let us start honestly. The hand sign emerged among young Ülkücü supporters and became widespread in the early 1990s12. There is no need to hide this. But what the sign depicts, the wolf, has been a symbol of lineage and of guidance in the sources on the Turks since the 6th century12.
The meaning of a symbol depends on who uses it, where and with what intent. At the 2024 European Championship, Merih Demiral made the sign as a goal celebration, and it was also seen in the stands18. Whether someone making the sign belongs to an organisation or is simply supporting their national team cannot be read from the sign itself. A ban that assumes a single meaning also punishes everyone who uses the sign in another sense.
Take the victory sign (V). It can also be seen at rallies of supporters of the PKK, which waged an armed campaign for decades and is still on the EU terrorist list, for example alongside flags bearing Öcalan's portrait4849. Yet nobody thinks of banning it, because for millions of people around the world it stands for peace, for victory or simply for a pose in a photo. The misuse of a symbol does not justify banning it for everyone. That is exactly the standard we ask for the Grey Wolf.
This is exactly the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights in Vajnai: a general ban on a symbol with more than one meaning cannot be justified by looking only at its most dangerous meaning29.
In the second half of the 1970s, thousands of people lost their lives in Türkiye in clashes between right-wing and left-wing groups. In that period, people from Ülkücü circles were also involved in serious crimes and were convicted by the courts. Denying this would harm the cause we defend.
But under the rule of law, crime and punishment are personal. The European Court of Human Rights held that a general ban on even the red star, the symbol of regimes responsible for the deaths of millions, violated freedom of expression. The reason: it is not possible to identify everyone who carries the symbol with the crimes of those regimes29.
The same standard applies to the Grey Wolf. A young person who makes the sign today has no connection at all with a crime committed decades before they were born.
Austria's Symbols Act brought the symbols of very different kinds of movements under the same ban, alongside terrorist organisations13. This is a legislative technique, not a finding that they are equivalent.
The concrete difference is this: the PKK, which is covered by the same law, is on the EU terrorist list; ISIS and al-Qaeda are under UN and EU sanctions25. In 2021 the European Parliament asked for the addition of the Grey Wolves to this list to be examined, but no such listing has been made to date37.
Putting a symbol rooted in a nation's founding legend into the same provision as the signs of organisations that massacre civilians is not a legal necessity. It is a political choice. The price of that choice is paid by people of Turkish origin in Austria who have never been involved in any crime.
On 1 November 2020, a memorial of the Armenian community in Décines-Charpieu, near Lyon, was daubed with the words “Loups gris” and “RTE”30. We do not defend the vandalising of a memorial. An attack on a place that any community holds in respect does not represent our cause.
But look at the decision itself. France dissolved not a registered association but a “groupement de fait”, a de facto group30. The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that no entity of that name existed in France31. If there is no official structure to close down, the real effect of the decision is not legal but symbolic: it files a shared symbol of the Turks under the same heading as a crime.
One important detail: the dissolution did not ban the hand sign. So even French law drew a line between the symbol itself and the actions of a group. That is exactly the distinction we defend.
The German Bundestag's 2020 resolution dealt with the Ülkücü movement under the heading of nationalism and racism16. Opposing racism is our principle too. But loving a nation's language, history and symbols is not racism. In every European country, flags, coats of arms and national anthems are ordinary expressions of that love.
Millions of people of Turkish origin who were born and raised in Europe carry two identities at once43. Showing them a symbol of their origins on a list of bans does not strengthen their sense of belonging; it feeds a feeling of exclusion. Integration cannot be achieved by asking people to be ashamed of where they come from.
In its annual report, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) deals with the Ülkücü movement under the heading of extremism with links abroad, and gives an estimated number of supporters35. This is not the number of people who have committed crimes. It is an estimate of a broad milieu that the intelligence service associates with the movement.
Being named in an intelligence report is not a judicial decision. In Germany, banning an association requires the Ministry of the Interior to issue a ban order on concrete grounds, and that order is subject to review by the courts. In 2020 the Bundestag asked for this option to be examined; no such ban has been issued to date16.
On 2 July 2024 in Leipzig, Merih Demiral made the sign after his second goal against Austria. On 5 July UEFA gave him a two-match ban, and he missed the quarter-final18. Among the grounds listed was “using sports events for manifestations of a non-sporting nature”. There is no criminal court ruling. And as the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs also pointed out, the sign is not a banned symbol in Germany38.
Compare this: at the 2018 World Cup, in the match against Serbia, the Swiss players Granit Xhaka and Xherdan Shaqiri made the Albanian double-headed eagle sign, and FIFA only fined them39. A sign of national identity drew a fine at one tournament, and at another a ban that cost a player the quarter-final. That is incompatible with the principle of equal treatment.
We take this feeling seriously. Some people, including some of Kurdish and Armenian origin, associate this sign with past violence and threats. France's 2020 decree also rests on armed incidents around Lyon and on hostility towards these communities30. This perception has real causes.
We say it plainly: anyone who uses this sign to threaten or intimidate someone, or who resorts to violence or terror, must be prosecuted and punished, whoever they are. Defending such people is not the purpose of this site. A crime that hides behind the sign also harms the sign itself.
But the answer to a crime is to punish the person who committed it, not to place everyone who uses the same symbol under a ban. According to the European Court of Human Rights, ill feelings or even outrage, in the absence of intimidation, cannot justify a ban41, and public unease alone cannot set the limits of free expression29. Attributing the acts of a few to the symbol of a whole community is a generalisation. We oppose that generalisation.
The same principle works both ways. The sign made in front of an Armenian memorial or facing a Kurdish rally does not carry the same meaning as a goal celebration. The ECtHR, too, accepts that restrictions may be justified at specific sites of mass atrocities on days of remembrance41. Those who defend context must accept this context as well. This is exactly what Austria's Constitutional Court requires: each case must be examined in its own context24.
This topic will come up at school, at work and on social media. Know what is banned in which country, give short and accurate answers, and avoid the mistakes that lose you the argument.
Situation as of 27 October 2026. This is not legal advice; for your own situation, talk to a lawyer.
Banned in public
The sign is not banned
Not banned
Click or tap a card. On the back you will find a short answer with its source.
A cause defended with accurate information is weakened by a single error. Do not use these. If the person you are talking to knows the facts, everything you say becomes suspect.
The Chinese chronicles say there was a golden wolf's head at the top of the banner poles. They give no information about the colour of the flag1. The blue flag is a modern interpretation.
There is no guiding wolf in the medieval Ergenekon accounts. In its known form, the motif first appears in Ziya Gökalp's poem87. In the older story in the Chinese chronicles, the wolf is the mother of the lineage.
Türkiye has no official coat of arms. The winning design in the 1925 coat-of-arms competition featured a grey wolf, but it was never officially adopted46. What is true is this: the grey wolf appeared on the 1927 banknotes9.
The photos in circulation are montages. Some of them were made from a photo of Hitler with his dog47. Sharing these images hands the other side the easiest possible weapon.
Every claim in this dossier rests on one of the sources below. For official documents we have linked, wherever possible, to the primary source: the law, the ruling or the report itself.