CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 25 janvier 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s36109428 { width:18.7pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s1D4E86C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE32676A2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s635176F2 { width:141.94pt; display:inline-block } .s9B753B46 { width:198.3pt; display:inline-block } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 14377/05 by Hamza GÜLER and 49 other applications against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25   January 2011 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Danutė Jočienė,   András Sajó,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Işıl Karakaş,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications introduced on the dates indicated in the appendix, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by some of the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are Turkish nationals [1] and at the time of their applications were either serving prison sentences or being held in detention pending trial in various establishments. The names and dates of birth of the applicants, as well as the names of their representatives, appear in the appendix. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants were found guilty of breaching prison order by decisions of the respective prison disciplinary boards (“the board”). Pursuant to the Regulations on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences, they were all sentenced to various types of disciplinary sanctions. Their appeal requests were rejected by the Enforcement Judges and the Assize Courts respectively, on the basis of the case file, without hearing the applicants or their lawyers, pursuant to Law no.   4675 on Enforcement Judges, dated 16 May 2001. The details of the applications as well as the complaints raised by the applicants appear in the table below.   Application no. and case name Disciplinary breach committed Type of sanction imposed on the applicant Date of Board’s decision Date of final decision delivered by the Assize Court Intro-duction date of the application Complaints raised by the applicant 14377/05 Güler v. Turkey breaching prison order by disturbing other inmates in the prison ban on receiving visitors for 1 month 31/08/2004 4/10/2004 05/04/2005 Articles 3, 6 and 8 14530/05 Gümüş v. Turkey pressing emergency buttons in the cell and refusing to participate in social activities, vocational workshops in the prison ban on correspondence for 15 days 29/12/2004 26/01/2005 18/02/2005 Article 6 36458/06 Tanış v. Turkey supporting fellow prisoners on hunger strike   ban on correspondence and communication for 3 months 17/02/2006 23/3/2006 03/08/2006 Article 8 11493/07 Danış v. Turkey (no. 4) writing petition to the public prosecutor in support of Öcalan ban on receiving visitors for 1 month 05/10/2006 13/12/ 2006 08/02/2007 Articles 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 13 and 14 14393/07 Çelebi v. Turkey (no. 3) writing petition to the public prosecutor in support of Öcalan ban on correspondence and communication for 1 month 05/10/2006 13/12/2006 08/02/2007 Articles 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13 and 14 51629/07 Özbil v. Turkey (no.2) a) banging on the doors of the cells and chanting slogans   b) writing petition to the Ministry of Justice and public prosecutor, concerning unfounded allegations against the prison staff a) ban on correspondence for 1 month       b) ban on certain activities for 45 days a) 25/05/2007         b) 03/09/2007 a) 03/07/2007         b) 09/10/2007 a) 02/11/2007         b) 02/11/2007 Articles 6, 8, 10 and 13 15614/08 Maho v. Turkey (No.1) writing petition to the Ministry of Justice to protest against the detention conditions of Öcalan ban on correspondence for 1 month 13/12/2007 15/01/2008 12/03/2008 Article 8 39323/08 Şorli v. Turkey launching a hunger strike to protest against the detention conditions of Öcalan ban on certain activities for 3 months 31/03/2008 27/05/2008 23/07/2008 Articles 6, 8, 9, 10 and 13 39406/08 Koçuk v. Turkey launching a hunger strike ban on correspondence and communication for 1 month 06/12/2007 29/01/2008 28/07/2008 Articles 6 and 13 39446/08 Taç v. Turkey launching a hunger strike and writing petition to the Ministry of Justice in which he praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed 11 days’ cellular confinement 14/12/2007 31/01/2008 28/07/2008 Articles 6 and 13 42109/08 Uçar and others v. Turkey launching a hunger strike to protest against the detention conditions of Öcalan   deprivation of any paid work for 3 months 28/11/2007 14/02/2008 13/08/2008 Articles 6 and 13 42597/08 Kortak and Öztürk v. Turkey writing petition to the CPT in which they praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed 13 days’ cellular confinement 25/12/2007 31/01/2008 29/07/2008 Articles 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17 and 18 43047/08 Kızıldemir and Taç v. Turkey launching a hunger strike ban on correspondence and communication for 45 days 15/01/2008 29/02/2008 29/08/2008 Articles 6, 8, 13 and 14 43600/08 Karakoç v. Turkey writing petition to the Ministry of Justice in which he praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed 13 days’ cellular confinement 14/01/2008 25/02/2008 25/08/2008 Articles 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14 43872/08 Doğan and Ulusan v. Turkey launching a hunger strike and writing petition to the Ministry of Justice in which they praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed 13 days’ cellular confinement 28/12/2007 25/02/2008 25/08/2008 Articles 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14 44646/08 Çetin v. Turkey (no.12) launching a hunger strike ban on receiving visitors for 15 days 31/05/2005 01/07/2005 09/11/2005 Articles 6 and 8 44647/08 Çetin v. Turkey (no.13) launching a hunger strike ban on prison workshops and sports activities for 1 month 20/02/2006 03/04/2006 19/06/2006 Article 6 44648/08 Çetin v. Turkey (no.14) chanting slogans ban on correspondence for 1 month 01/03/2006 03/04/2006 15/06/2006 Article 8 44649/08 Çetin v. Turkey (no.15) writing petition to the prison administration protesting the detention conditions ban on correspondence for 1 month 15/03/2006 27/04/2006 22/06/2006 Articles 6 and 8 44650/08 Çetin v. Turkey (no.16) launching a hunger strike ban on prison workshops and sports activities for 1 month 24/03/2006 27/04/2006 26/06/2006 Article 6 44651/08 Çetin v. Turkey (no.17) writing petition to the public prosecutor in which he praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed ban on prison workshops and sports activities for 45 days 09/05/2006 08/06/2006 19/07/2006 Article 6 47204/08 Bozçalı v. Turkey (no.3) writing petition to the Ministry of Justice in which he praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed ban on certain activities for 3 months 05/06/2008 25/07/2008 15/09/2008 Articles 1, 3, 6, 7 and 8 51490/08 Rüzgar v. Turkey launching a hunger strike and writing petition to the Ministry of Justice in which he praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed 13 days’ cellular confinement 26/02/2008 09/04/2008 08/10/2008 Articles 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 14 53325/08 Sarı v. Turkey (no.2) launching a hunger strike and writing petition to the Ministry of Justice in which he praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed ban on certain activities for 3 months 05/06/2008 11/07/2008 21/10/2008 Articles 9, 10 and 14 53414/08 Kartal v. Turkey writing petition to the CPT in which he praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed 11 days’ cellular confinement 25/12/2007 04/03/2008 03/09/2008 Articles 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17 and 18 53417/08 Kılınç and others v. Turkey a) R. Kortak launching a hunger strike and writing petition to the Ministry of Justice in which they praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed   b) N. Adanmış launching a hunger strike       c) C. Cengiz, H. Yünaçtı, M. Ulusan, Ö. Bitirgeç, D. Kılınç, F. Taç, A. Kaçmaz, R. Kortak launching a hunger strike and writing petition to the Ministry of Justice in which they praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed a) 15 days’ cellular confinement                               b) ban on correspondence and communication for 50 days   c) 15 days’ cellular confinement a) 17/03/2008                                 b) 17/03/2008         c) 05/06/2008 a) 23/04/2008                                 b) 13/05/2008         c) 28/08/2008 a) 22/10/2008                                 b) 22/10/2008         c) 22/10/2008 Articles 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17 and 18   60918/08 Özen v. Turkey (no.9) launching a hunger strike and writing petition to the Ministry of Justice in which he praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed ban on certain activities for 3 months 05/06/2008 25/07/2008 24/11/2008 Articles 6, 7, 9, 10, 13 4353/09 Ersayan v. Turkey (no.1) launching a hunger strike to protest against the detention conditions of Öcalan ban on certain activities for 2 months 20/05/2008 14/10/2008 09/01/2009 Articles 6, 8, 9, 10 and 13   6887/09 Koyuncu (no.9) launching a hunger strike ban on certain activities for 2 months 13/10/2008 28/11/2008 22/01/2009 Articles 6, 7 and 9 10088/09 Yiğit v. Turkey (no.9) a) launching a hunger strike         b) launching a hunger strike a) ban on correspondence and communication for 1 month   b) ban on correspondence and communication for 2 months a) 22/09/2008         b) 30/10/2008 a) 31/10/2008         b) 12/11/2008 b) 20/01/2009         b) 20/01/2009 Article 10 10867/09 Taşdemir v. Turkey (no.2) chanting slogans ban on correspondence and communication for 1 month 06/11/2008 24/12/2008 09/02/2009 Articles 6, 9 and 10 13784/09 Kızıldağ and others v. Turkey chanting slogans ban on correspondence and communication for 1 month 06/11/2008 24/12/2008 13/02/2009 Articles 6, 9 and 10 14980/09 Tekin v. Turkey chanting slogans ban on correspondence and communication for 1 month 06/11/2008 24/12/2008 20/02/2009 Articles 6, 9 and 10 16412/09 Dünder v. Turkey (no.2) a) launching a hunger strike       b) launching a hunger strike a) ban on prison workshops and sports activities for 2 months   b) ban on correspondence and communication for 45 days a) 22/09/2008       b) 17/10/2008 a) 27/10/2008       b) 31/10/2008 a) 10/02/2009       b) 10/02/2009 Articles 6, 7 and 10 16930/09 Osman v. Turkey (no.2) chanting slogans ban on correspondence and communication for 1 month 06/11/2008 24/12/2008 12/02/2009 Articles 6, 9 and 10 16932/09 Bahadır v. Turkey (no.3) chanting slogans ban on correspondence and communication for 1 month 06/11/2008 24/12/2008 12/02/2009 Articles 6, 9 and 10 17113/09 Yeşilmen and Others v. Turkey (no.1) a) S. Yeşilmen supporting fellow prisoners on hunger strike   b) E. Baysal launching a hunger strike   c) C. Yaşar launching a hunger strike a) ban on certain activities for 2 months       b) ban on certain activities for 3 months   c) deprivation of any paid work for 3 months a) 12/06/2008         b) 12/06/2008     c) 12/06/2008 a) 19/09/2008         b) 19/09/2008     c) 19/09/2008 a) 19/03/2009         b) 19/03/2009     c) 19/03/2009 Articles 6, 8, 10, 13 and 14   19769/09 Şorli and Others launching a hunger strike For the applicant R. Öz: ban on certain activities for 3 months For the applicants M. Şorli, M. Aladağ and M. Uğur: deprivation of any paid work for 3 months 12/06/2008 19/09/2008 21/01/2009 Articles 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 20911/09 Gedik v. Turkey (no.15) insulting the prison authorities and prison guards ban on correspondence and communication for 1 month 02/01/2009 10/02/2009 23/02/2009 Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 14 22673/09 Tuncer v. Turkey launching a hunger strike ban on correspondence and communication for 1 month 24/12/2008 07/03/2009 23/03/2009 Articles 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17 and 18 22689/09 Ersayan v. Turkey (no.2) a) launching a hunger strike     b) writing petition to the public prosecutor in which he praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed a) ban on certain activities for 2 months   b) 11 days’ cellular confinement a) 26/06/2008     b) 17/07/2008 a) 14/10/2008     b) 21/11/2008 a) 11/04/2009     b) 11/04/2009 Articles 6, 8, 9, 10, 13 23560/09 Yaman v. Turkey avoiding telephone calls to protest against the prison administration ban on receiving visitors for 2 months 20/06/2008 08/10/2008 08/04/2009 Articles 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17 and 18 24109/09 Taşar v. Turkey (no.2) chanting slogans ban on correspondence and communication for 1 month 06/11/2008 24/12/2008 13/02/2009 Articles 6, 9 and 10 24115/09 Mustafa v. Turkey (no.2) chanting slogans ban on correspondence and communication for 1 month 06/11/2008 24/12/2008 13/02/2009 Articles 6, 9 and 10 24117/09 Kudat v. Turkey (no.2) chanting slogans ban on correspondence and communication for 1 month 06/11/2008 24/12/2008 13/02/2009 Articles 6, 9 and 10 25034/09 Tekmenüray v. Turkey (no.12) Illegal correspondence Ban on prison workshops and sports activities for 1 month 14/01/2009 12/02/2009 11/03/2009 Articles 8 and 10 25650/09 İnan v. Turkey chanting slogans ban on correspondence and communication for 2 months 18/08/2008 21/10/2008 16/12/2008 Articles 6, 8 and 13 25659/09 Yıldırım v. Turkey chanting slogans ban on correspondence and communication for 2 months 18/08/2008 21/10/2008 16/12/2008 Articles 6, 8 and 13 25667/09 Karaaslan v. Turkey (no.3) launching a hunger strike and writing petition to the Ministry of Justice in which he praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed 11days’ cellular confinement 01/02/2008 05/03/2008 14/05/2008 Articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 13 25952/09 Taşgir And Others v. Turkey launching a hunger strike ban on correspondence and communication for 2 months 17/09/2008 30/10/2008 21/04/2009 Articles 6, 8, 13 and 14 B.     Relevant domestic law and practice A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Gülmez v.   Turkey (no. 16330/02, §§ 13-15, 20 May 2008) and Aydemir and Others ((dec.), nos. 9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05 and 9509/05, 9   November 2010). THE LAW Given the similarity of the applications, as regards both fact and law, the Court deems it appropriate to join them. The applicants mainly argued that they did not have a fair hearing during the disciplinary proceedings in question as the domestic courts had delivered their decisions on the basis of the case files and that they had been deprived of their right to defend themselves in person or through the assistance of a lawyer. In this respect, most of the applicants relied on Article   6 of the Convention. The remaining applicants based on the same facts and raising the same complaint, merely cited Articles 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, 17 and 18. The Court notes that although the applicants referred to different Articles of the Convention, they all complained about the unfairness of the disciplinary proceedings in dispute. It will thus examine these complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. Furthermore, some of the applicants (as indicated in the table above), alleged a violation of Article 8 in respect of the ban on their right to correspondence and/or visiting rights, or a violation of Article 10, stating that the disciplinary sanctions imposed on them had violated their right to freedom of expression. The Court notes that by Law no. 6008 of 22 July 2010, Section 6 of the Law on Enforcement Judges was amended so as to allow prisoners charged with disciplinary offences to defend themselves in person or through legal assistance. It further observes that the new law also provides a remedy for all those prisoners who had previously been charged with disciplinary offences to file a fresh objection with the Enforcement Judge concerning their previous sentences within six months following the adoption of this law. Such requests would be examined by the Enforcement Judge in the light of the new procedure. The Court has already examined that remedy and found it effective in respect of complaints for applications concerning prison disciplinary sanctions. In particular, it considered that the new remedy was accessible and provided reasonable prospects of success (see Aydemir and Others , cited above). In assessing the effectiveness of the new remedy, the Court had regard to sample decisions submitted by the Government, according to which upon fresh objections, the Enforcement Judges had re-evaluated the evidence in the case file and annulled the disciplinary sanctions in dispute, clearing the respective prisoners of all consequences of the offence. Considering that there are no exceptional circumstances capable of exempting the present applicants from the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies, the Court concludes that they should have avail themselves of the new remedy offered by Law no. 6008 of 22 July 2010. Therefore, the applications must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Françoise Elens-Passos   Françoise Tulkens   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   Application No. Name of Applicant Date of Birth 14377/05 Hamza Güler 1974 14530/05 Şahin Gümüş 1973 36458/06 Mehmet Nuri Tanış 1975 11493/07 Mehmet Veysi Danış 1976 14393/07 Mehmet Nur Çelebi 1974 51629/07 Sami Özbil 1977 15614/08 Tevfik Maho 1968 39323/08 Muhammed Şorli 1987 39406/08 Alaheddin Koçuk 1987 39446/08 Faik Taç 1972 42109/08 a) Abdülkadir Uçar   b) Abdullah Günay   c) Cengiz Atsız   d) Fesih Nardan 1983   1979   1982   1964 42597/08 a) Remazan Kortak   b) Nevzat Öztürk 1966   1966 43047/08 a) Tahir Kızıldemir   b) Faik Taç 1971   1972 43600/08 Fikret Karakoç 1975 43872/08 a) Tuncay Doğan   b) Mahmut Ulusan 1970   1970 44646/08 Fermani Çetin 1972 44647/08 Fermani Çetin 1972 44648/08 Fermani Çetin 1972 44649/08 Fermani Çetin 1972 44650/08 Fermani Çetin 1972 44651/08 Fermani Çetin 1972 47204/08 Mehmet Şirin Bozçalı 1966 51490/08 Abdullah Rüzgar 1969 53325/08 Hüseyin Sarı 1958 53414/08 Sedat Kartal 1989 53417/08 a) Derviş Kılınç   b) Hamza Yünaçtı   c) Abdülcelil Kaçmaz   d) Cafer Cengiz   e) Nurettin Adanmış   f) Faik Taç   g) Remazan Kortak   h) Mahmut Ulusan   i) Önder Bitirgiç   j) Tuncay Doğan 1967   1976   1967     1956   1971   1972   1966   1970   1984   1970 60918/08 Mehmet Nuri Özen 1976 4353/09 Halis Ersayan 1989 6887/09 Turgut Koyuncu 1974 10088/09 Kemal Yiğit 1982 10867/09 Mehmet Şirin Taşdemir 1969 13784/09 a) Ramazan Kızıldağ   b) Abdullah Çelik   c) Hikmet Kara   d) Barış Kılıç 1974   1972   1970   1976 14980/09 Cemal Tekin 1968 16412/09 Barış Dünder 1986 16930/09 Abdulmenaf Osman 1965 16932/09 Nevzat Bahadır 1978 17113/09 a)Şabeddin Yeşilmen   b) Enver Baysal   c) Cahit Yaşar 1971   1975   1979 19769/09 a) Muhammed Şorli   b) Mehmet Aladağ   c) Medeni Uğur   d) Resul Öz 1987   1974   1988   1987 20911/09 Soncan Gedik 1967 22673/09 Mete Tuncer 1969 22689/09 Halis Ersayan 1989 23560/09 Mahmut Yaman 1974 24109/09 İsmail Taşar 1976 24115/09 Ahmet Mustafa 1975 24117/09 Aydın Kudat 1969 25034/09 Mehmet Şirin Tekmenüray 1970 25650/09 Barış İnan 1973 25659/09 Süleyman Yıldırım 1987 25667/09 Kenan Karaaslan 1966 25952/09 a) Zeynep Taşgir   b) Azime Işık   c) Aslı Doğan   d) Sibel Kurt 1985   1977   1979   1984   1.     With the exception of Mr Maho, who is a Syrian citizen.