I have friends with degrees in economics who almost can't stand to watch congressional testimony on economic issues because the level of misunderstanding on display is so terrible.
Actually this is the worst one. Politicians only occasionally interact with the other disciplines but they are involved with economics all the time. In fact they are pretty much in charge in the economic sphere in a way that they aren't elsewhere.
These cases are insane. To realise how insane this could get consider what has happened in Belgium.
Because it is clear that, in fact, the Russian government will never pay the 50 Billion the Yukos shareholders have made an attempt to recover the money from anyone in Belgium who has any link to the Russian state - however tenuous that might be. For example the local branch of the Russian Orthodox Church, whose assets have been accumulated by donations from local people - mostly Belgian nationals with Russian ancestry- has been included on a list of organisations from which the shareholders could recover money.
This will continue until there is a significant penalty for failure in this type of case.
At present US practice doesn't routinely require the loser to pay costs in these cases. Hence it is inevitable that the defendant will balance the cost of fighting (and winning) against a modest licencing fee and accept the fee.
Winning such a case should never leave the defendant out of pocket.
This is true in other countries - which is why the US has more problems than the ret of the world.
Also Erdogan is on record - in his early, more openly Islamist days, saying that "democracy is like a bus - you use it to get where you want and then when you arrive you get off".
His agenda - as often happens in countries with an Islamic culture - is to use democracy to establish his own power and then gradually dismantle it. The increasing number of religious laws and his recently tightened grip on the media are evidence of this.
Turkey is transitioning from the secular autocracy established by Ataturk to a religious based one. The secular democracy that Ataturk attempted to bequeath has not survived.
In that case the key and the encrypted data are essentially equivalent. Thus handing over the key would be the same thing as handing over the data. I don't think the nature of the encryption should be regarded as important - and since the key is stored in his memory handing over the key is exactly equivalent to self incrimination.
Having said that I don't think the court used legal precedent and logic to arrive at their conclusions - I think they attempted to use them to justify a conclusion that they had predetermined.