CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 24 juin 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sDE1FCA9C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s1E95FD3E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:150% } .s8FB4A552 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:150% } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s216DBE45 { width:187.29pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA56BACAB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .sC4575BE4 { width:7.64pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 4692/09 Nurgül UÇAR and others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 24   June 2014 as a Chamber composed of:   Guido Raimondi, President,   Işıl Karakaş,   András Sajó,   Helen Keller,   Paul Lemmens,   Robert Spano,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and, Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 January 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicants, whose names and places of residence are set out in the appendix, are Turkish nationals. They are represented before the Court by Ms Deniz Karakurt, a lawyer practising in Izmir. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 3.     The applicants were the mayors of 190 municipalities at the time of lodging their application with the Court. 4.     On 6 March 2008 the Parliament of Turkey adopted Law no. 5747 “on establishing districts within the boundaries of metropolitan municipalities and amending various laws”, which was published in the Official Gazette of 22 March 2008 and entered into force on that date. Law no. 5747 stipulated, inter alia , that the legal personality of a number of municipalities, including those headed by the applicants, would be abolished and that either those administrative units would become villages/neighbourhoods and join other municipalities, or a certain number of them would together constitute new municipalities. Law no. 5747 further stipulated that the legal personality of those municipalities, as well as their authority and rights, would continue to exist until the next general local elections were held. 5.     On 9 April 2008 three members of parliament from the CHP, the main opposition party, Mr H.S. Okay, Mr K. Anadol and Mr   K.   Kılıçdaroğlu, the party leader, made an application to the Constitutional Court of Turkey. The MPs requested the Constitutional Court to repeal certain provisions of Law no. 5747, including those applicable to the applicants’ municipalities. The MPs claimed, inter alia , that there was no public interest in abolishing the legal personality of certain municipalities and that Law no. 5747 had been adopted so that the governing party, the AKP, could win the local elections in the areas in issue. They further submitted that a referendum should have been held in the municipalities in question, in accordance with the Law on Municipalities (Law no. 5393), and that Law no.   5747 was in contravention of the provisions of the Law on Elections in Local Administrations (Law   no.   2972) and the Constitution. On this last point, the MPs submitted that, according to Article 67 of the Constitution, a legislative amendment concerning elections would not be applicable to elections held within one year of the entry into force of those amendments and that the local election process of 2009 would start on 1   January 2009, in line with the provisions of Law no. 2972. They therefore considered that Law no. 5747 should not be applied to the local elections of 29   March 2009. 6.     On 31 October 2008 the Constitutional Court rendered its decision in the case (case no. 2008/34, decision no. 2008/153) and dismissed the case in so far as it concerned the municipalities headed by the applicants. The court noted at the outset that the MPs had not requested the repeal of the provision which concerned the entry into force of Law no. 5747, and that therefore their submissions regarding the compatibility of Law no. 5747 with Article 67 of the Constitution could not be examined. 7.     As regards the submission that a referendum should have been held in accordance with Law no. 5393 and that the provisions of Law no.   5747 were incompatible with Law no. 2972, the Constitutional Court held that a legal norm could be reviewed only in the light of the relevant constitutional norm and not in relation to another legal norm. It further held that the legislature had the authority to make, amend and repeal laws and the responsibility to maintain harmonisation between laws. The Constitutional Court concluded that it could therefore not review the compatibility of the provisions of Law no. 5747 with those contained in Law no. 5393 and Law   no. 2972. 8.     Lastly, as to the allegations that the provisions of Law no. 5747 lacked public interest and that this law had been passed for political reasons, the Constitutional Court noted at the outset that it had the authority to examine whether certain legislation had been passed with the purpose of serving the public interest. The court further noted that the question of whether a legal norm was compatible with the needs of the country was political in nature and that the legislature was permitted a degree of discretion on that point. The court considered that it could not assess the existence of a public interest on the basis of the political choice of the legislature alone. The Constitutional Court further noted that in accordance with the Constitution, the administrative units were to be determined, through laws, by the legislature and taking into account their geographical features, economic circumstances and need for public services. The court observed that the petition lodged by the MPs for the repeal of certain provisions of Law no. 5747 did not contain any concrete argument as to how those provisions did not serve the public interest but were the result of the political considerations of the governing party. The Constitutional Court also observed that the aim of the changes brought about by Law no. 5747 was the efficient functioning of the public services provided by the local administrations and the efficient and productive use of public resources by the central administration. The Constitutional Court held that there was no evidence demonstrating that the amendments had been made with the aim of acquiring political or personal gain. The court lastly noted that since, in accordance with Law no. 5747, the legal personality of the municipalities in question, as well as their authority and rights, would continue to exist until the first general local elections were held, the legislature had respected the will of the electorate regarding the last five-year election period in the areas concerned. 9.     On 29 March 2009 the local elections were held and as a result the legal personality of the municipalities headed by the applicants ceased to exist on that day. B.     Relevant domestic law 10.     Article 7 of the Constitution provides: “ Legislative Power Article 7 - Legislative power is vested in the Turkish Grand National Assembly on behalf of the Turkish Nation. This power cannot be delegated.” 11.     Articles 123 and 127 of the Constitution provide: “ A. Fundamentals of the Administration 1. Integral Unity and Public Legal Personality of the Administration Article 123 - The administration forms a whole with regard to its structure and functions, and shall be regulated by law. The organisation and functions of the administration are based on the principles of centralisation and local administration. Public corporate bodies shall be established only by law, or by the authority expressly granted by law.” 12.     Article 127 of the Constitution provides: “ C. Organisation of the Administration 2. Local administrative bodies ARTICLE 127 - Local administrative bodies are public corporate entities established to meet the collective local needs of the inhabitants of provinces, municipal districts and villages, whose decision-making organs are elected by the electorate as determined by law, and whose principles of structure are also determined by law. The formation, duties and powers of the local administration shall be regulated by law in accordance with the principle of local administration. ... The procedures dealing with objections to the acquisition by elected organs of local government or their status as an organ, and their loss of such status, shall be resolved by the judiciary. However, as a provisional measure, the Minister of the Interior may remove from office those organs of local administration or their members against whom an investigation or prosecution has been initiated on grounds of offences relating to their duties, pending judgment. The central administration has the power of administrative trusteeship over the local governments in the framework of the principles and procedures set forth by law with the objective of ensuring the functioning of local services in conformity with the principle of the integral unity of the administration, securing uniform public service, safeguarding the public interest and meeting local needs in an appropriate manner.” 13.     Articles 3 and 59 of the Law on Municipalities (Law no. 5393) provide, in so far as relevant, as follows: “ Definitions Article 3 - The terms listed below shall have the following meanings wherever they are used in this Law; a. Municipality: A public-law legal entity with administrative and financial autonomy, whose purpose is to meet the collective needs of the local residents and whose decision-making body is made up of members elected by direct suffrage. ...”   “ Income of the Municipality Article 59 – The Municipality draws its income from the following sources; a. Taxes, levies, charges and contributions, as specified in the laws. b. Its share of the tax income of the general budget. c. Payments to be made by the administrations within the general and special budgets. ... f. Income from interest and fines. ...” COMPLAINTS 14.     The applicants submitted the complaints below both on behalf of the municipalities that they head and in their personal capacity as voters. 15.     They complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court had been unfair. 16.     They further maintained that abolition of the legal personality of their municipalities under Law no. 5747 and the decision of the Constitutional Court constituted a breach of their rights under Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention. 17.     The applicants lastly complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that Law no. 5747 had been passed for political reasons and its aim had not been to serve the public interest, and that the Constitutional Court’s decision had violated their right both to be elected as mayors and to choose their representatives freely as ordinary citizens. THE LAW A.     In so far as the application was lodged on behalf of the municipalities headed by the applicants 18.     The applicants, on behalf of the municipalities that they represented, maintained that the abolition of the legal personality of their municipalities and the Constitutional Court’s decision had breached their rights under Articles 6, 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention, as well as Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. 19.     The Court reiterates that under the settled case-law of the Convention institutions, local administration authorities are public-law bodies which perform official duties assigned to them by the Constitution and by substantive law. They are therefore quite clearly governmental organisations (see Ayuntamiento de Mula v. Spain (dec.), no. 55346/00, ECHR 2001-I). The Court further observes that according to the constitutional and legislative definitions in Turkish law, municipalities are public-law legal entities whose purpose is to meet the collective needs of the local residents and whose decision-making bodies are made up of members elected by direct suffrage. Their budgets consist mainly of allocations from the State’s budget and other public revenue such as taxes and fines. The Court therefore finds no reason to depart from its well ‑ established case-law to the effect that local authorities lack locus   standi to lodge an application under Article 34 of the Convention (see Döşemealtı Belediyesi v. Turkey (dec.), no. 50108/06, 23 March 2010, and Ayuntamiento de Mula , cited above). 20.     It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione   personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35   §   3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §   4. B.     In so far as the application was lodged by the applicants in their personal capacity 21.     The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the Constitutional Court had failed to render a fair decision in the case brought by the members of parliament. 22.     The Court reiterates that a person cannot complain about a violation of his or her rights in proceedings to which he or she was not a party (see, mutatis mutandis , Nosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30877/02, 20 October 2005). In any event, even assuming that the Constitutional Court’s decision concerned the applicants’ right to stand as candidates or to choose their representatives in the local elections, and that this decision had a direct bearing on the applicants’ situation, the proceedings in question could only be deemed to relate to the applicants’ political rights, and not their “civil” rights within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention (see Cherepkov v.   Russia (dec.), no. 51501/99, ECHR 2000 ‑ I, and Mółka v. Poland (dec.), no. 56550/00, ECHR 2006 ‑ IV). Accordingly, Article 6 does not apply. 23.     It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione   materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35   §   3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §   4. 24.     The applicants further complained under Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention that on account of the enactment of Law no. 5747 and the Constitutional Court’s decision of 31 October 2008, their rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom from discrimination had been breached. 25.     The Court reiterates that Article 34 of the Convention does not permit individuals to complain against legislation in abstracto simply because they feel that it contravenes the Convention. In principle, it is not sufficient for individual applicants to claim that the mere existence of the legislation violates their rights under the Convention; it is necessary that the law was applied to their detriment. Nevertheless, Article 34 entitles individuals to contend that legislation violates their rights by itself, in the absence of an individual measure of implementation, if they run the risk of being directly affected by it (see Colon v. the Netherlands (dec.), no.   49458/06, 15 May 2012, and the cases cited therein). 26.     In the present case, the applicants failed to demonstrate in what way the adoption of Law no. 5747 and the decision of 10 October 2008 had an adverse effect on their rights guaranteed under Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention. In particular, they did not claim that they had been prevented from continuing their political activities or expressing their opinions, or that they had been subjected to discrimination in relation to their political activities. The Court therefore considers that the applicants cannot claim to be victims of the alleged violation of Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention. 27.     It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione   personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35   §   3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §   4. 28.     The applicants lastly submitted that Law no. 5747 had been passed for political reasons and its aim had not been to serve the public interest, and that the Constitutional Court’s decision had been in violation of their rights to be elected mayor and to choose their representatives freely as ordinary citizens. They relied on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in this regard. 29.     The Court firstly reiterates that the term “legislature” in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 does not necessarily mean the national parliament: it has to be interpreted in the light of the constitutional structure of the State in question. In the case of Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium , the 1980 constitutional reform had vested in the Flemish Council sufficient competence and powers to make it, alongside the French Community Council and the Walloon Regional Council, a constituent part of the Belgian “legislature”, in addition to the House of Representatives and the Senate (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium , 2 March 1987, § 53 Series A no. 113, and Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 40, ECHR 1999 ‑ I). 30.     On the other hand, the Convention organs have found that local authorities, such as the municipal councils in Belgium, the metropolitan county councils in the United Kingdom, the regional councils in France, and the municipal councils, district councils and regional assemblies in Poland do not form part of the “legislature” within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see Clerfayt, Legros v. Belgium , no. 10650/83, Commission decision of 17 May 1985, Decisions and Reports 42, p. 212; Booth-Clibborn v. the United Kingdom , no. 11391/85, Commission decision of 5 July 1985, DR 43, p. 236; Malarde v. France , (dec.) no. 46813/99, 5 September 2000; and Mółka (dec.), cited above). Furthermore, the power to make regulations and by-laws which is conferred on the local authorities in many countries is to be distinguished from legislative power, which is referred to in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Mółka (dec.) and Cherepkov (dec.), both cited above). 31.     The Court notes that the Constitution of Turkey confers the exercise of legislative power on the Turkish Grand National Assembly, that is, the Parliament (see Article 7 of the Constitution). Moreover, municipalities in Turkey are the repositories of powers of an administrative nature concerning the organisation and provision of local services. These powers are granted by statute which defines closely and restrictively the municipalities’ fields of application (see Law no. 5393). Thus, they do not exercise legislative power within the meaning of the Constitution of Turkey. The Court therefore concludes that municipalities do not form part of the legislature of Turkey. Accordingly, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 is not applicable to local elections held in order to constitute their decision-making bodies and, as a result, is not applicable to the present case. 32.     It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione   materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35   §   3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §   4. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible. Stanley Naismith   Guido Raimondi   Registrar   President   Appendix       Nurgül UÇAR, lives in IZMIR     Ramazan ACAR, lives in DENIZLI     Fadil AKA, lives in IZMIR     Halim AKAN, lives in MANISA     Caner AKDEMİR, lives in KAYSERI     Mehmet AKGÜL, lives in KONYA     Mustafa AKGÜL, lives in BURDUR     Remzi AKKOÇ, lives in TOKAT     Mustafa AKMAN, lives in ANTALYA Mehmet Ali AKTAY, lives in CORUM Mehmet Ali ALAR, lives in KÜTAHYA Riza ALTAYLI, lives in ORDU Mehmet ALTUN, lives in KONYA Salih APLAK, lives in YOZGAT İrfan ARAS, lives in IZMIR Dursun ARTVİN, lives in KONYA Ömer AVŞAR, lives in CANKIRI Hayati BAHÇEVAN, lives in CORUM Ali BAKIRCI, lives in CORUM Ahmet BAL, lives in CORUM Şevket BARKIR, lives in BALIKESIR Mehmet BAŞALAN, lives in AYDIN Selahattin BAYDAR, lives in GÖMÜRGEN Sami BAYIKBAŞI, lives in KAYSERI Fuat BAYIR, lives in KONYA Halil İbrahim BAYIR, lives in MANISA Hanefi BAYRAKÇI, lives in ISPARTA Hilmi BİRCAN, lives in KÜTAHYA Mustafa BÖLEK, lives in IZMIR Orhan BORA, lives in IZMIR Hüseyin BOZHALİL, lives in ERZURUM Ali BOZKURT, lives in MANISA Mehmet ÇAKAR, lives in AYDIN Sefer ÇAKIN, lives in TOKAT Süleyman ÇAKIR, lives in MANISA Hazim ÇALIŞ, lives in KONYA Cumhur ÇATIK, lives in AYDIN Bayram ÇAVDAR, lives in KONYA Özdemir ÇAYLI, lives in IZMIR Osman ÇELİKEL, lives in KONYA İbrahim ÇELİKKAYA, lives in MANISA Nafiz CERAN, lives in KAYSERI Birol CESUR, lives in KONYA İbrahim CEYHAN, lives in CANKIRI Nevzat ÇIĞIR, lives in KONYA İbrahim CİNKILIÇ, lives in IZMIR Veli DAL, lives in IZMIR Ali DANACIOĞLU, lives in IZMIR Nebi DELEN, lives in KONYA Ahmet DEMİRER, lives in YOZGAT Ahmet DEMİRER, lives in YOZGAT Saban DEMİRÖZÜ, lives in CANKIRI İsmail DENİZ, lives in SIVAS Ali DEVECİ, lives in SIVAS Mustafa DİNÇAY, lives in ANTALYA Gürsel DİRBİSOĞLU, lives in IZMIR Mehmet DOĞAN, lives in YOZGAT Musa DOĞAN, lives in KONYA Satılmış DOĞAN, lives in CANKIRI Ali DOĞDU, lives in IZMIR İsmail DÖNMEZ, lives in KÜTAHYA Hidayet DUDUOĞLU, lives in CANKIRI Tahsin DUKMAZEK, lives in KONYA Mehmet DURUKAN, lives in KAYSERI Sami EKER, lives in KAYSERI Abdurrahman ELLİALTI, lives in KONYA Hüseyin ERDAL, lives in SIVAS Şemsettin Necati EREN, lives in IZMIR Feyzullah ERGİN, lives in IZMIR Mehmet ERGÜL, lives in KONYA Abdullah EROĞLU, lives in KONYA Haldun ERTOK, lives in IZMIR Mustafa ERTUĞRUL, lives in KAYSERI Feti GEZEK, lives in MANISA Mustafa GÖKÇİL, lives in KONYA Mehmet GÖKŞEN, lives in CORUM Rasim GÖLBAŞI, lives in KAYSERI Halil GÜLEÇ, lives in MANISA Mehmet Nuri GÜMÜŞ, lives in KUTAHYA Leyla GÜVEN, lives in ADANA Yasin HALAT, lives in MANISA Mevlüt İBİŞ, lives in KONYA Ridvan İLKAYA, lives in KAYSERI Uğur İMREN, lives in KAYSERI Şerafettin IŞIK, lives in CORUM Kemal İSKEN, lives in ISTANBUL Dursun KARA, lives in KONYA Mehmet KARA, lives in KONYA Resül KARA, lives in KONYA Ömer KARAAĞAC, lives in CANKIRI Abdurrahman KARABULUT, lives in KONYA Bahri KARACA, lives in CORUM Zeki KARAKAŞ, lives in TOKAT Mustafa KARAKAYA, lives in CANKIRI Osman KARAN, lives in MANISA Hasan KARAPEHLİVAN, lives in MANISA Bayram KARAŞAHİN, lives in CANKIRI Ali Hikmet KARASU, lives in KÜTAHYA Ahmet KARATAŞ, lives in CANKIRI      Osman KARATEKE, lives in CORUM      Veli KASAP, lives in IZMIR      Aziz KAYA, lives in IZMIR      İbrahim KAYA, lives in MANISA      Celal KAYIR, lives in KAYSERI      Abdurrahman KESİR, lives in KONYA      Mehmet KESKİN, lives in IZMIR      Yaşar KESKİN, lives in ORDU      Erdal KIRAN, lives in TOKAT      Eşraf KORKMAZ, lives in KONYA      Bahadir KÖSE, lives in KAYSERI      İbrahim KÖSE, lives in KONYA      Namik KURT, lives in KONYA      Ziya KUZ, lives in KONYA      İbrahim MELKİ, lives in KONYA      Mustafa MUFTUOĞLU, lives in DENIZLI      Osman ODABAŞI, lives in KONYA      Ramazan ÖĞÜT, lives in KONYA      Ali OĞUZ, lives in IZMIR      Mustafa OKAY, lives in CORUM      Fahrettin ÖKSÜZ, lives in KONYA      Ramazan ÖLMEZ, lives in KONYA      Ahmet ORHAN, lives in KAYSERI      İbrahim ÖZDEMİR, lives in IZMIR      Necdet ÖZDEMİR, lives in CANAKKALE      Hüseyin ÖZER, lives in AYDIN      Mehmet ÖZER, lives in Konya      Hamdi ÖZSEÇER, lives in CORUM      Ali Galip ÖZSÜMBÜL, lives in KAYSERI      İbrahim ÖZTAŞ, lives in AYDIN      Ayhan ÖZTÜRK, lives in TOKAT      Mustafa PEHLİVAN, lives in Manisa      Süleyman PEKMEZ, lives in KONYA      Mehmet Ali PETEK, lives in KONYA      Ahmet POYRAZ lives in ISTANBUL      Vahap POYRAZ, lives in IZMIR      Bülent RÜZGAR, lives in IZMIR      Duran SAFRANTI, lives in KAYAPINAR      Nail ŞAHAN, lives in KAYSERI      Aslan ŞAHİN, lives in CORUM      Kadir ŞAHİN, lives in CANKIRI      Mustafa ŞAHİN, lives in KONYA      Mustafa ŞAHİN, lives in KONYA      Ünal ŞAHİN, lives in KAYSERI      Ramazan ŞAMAT, lives in KONYA      Ahmet SARIHAN, lives in CANKIRI      Haci Mustafa SARIYÜCE, lives in CORUM      Bülent SAYAR, lives in AYDIN      Hayati SAYDAM, lives in IZMIR      Ali SELÇUK, lives in KONYA      Ahmet ŞENTÜRK, lives in CORUM      Ömer ŞENTÜRK, lives in IZMIR      Mehmet ŞEREFLİOĞLU, lives in KAYSERI      Kazim SERTDEMİR, lives in KONYA      Ahmet SOBACIOĞLU, lives in CORUM      İsmet SOLAK, lives in AYDIN      Mehmet SOYOĞLU, lives in IZMIR      Bahattin TAŞ, lives in ORDU      Orhan TAŞPINAR, lives in KAYSERI      Mustafa TEPELİ, lives in BALIKESIR      Muzaffer TINAZTEPE, lives in IZMIR      Musa TÖK, lives in CORUM      Hasan TOKLU, lives in IZMIR      Nasuf TOSUN, lives in MANISA      Mehmet TUFAN, lives in ANTALYA      Hasan Hüseyin TURAN, lives in KONYA      Nihat TÜRKER, lives in ERZURUM      Mehmet TÜRKMEN, lives in IZMIR      Alaattin Bera TÜRKOĞLU, lives in ANKARA      Münir TÜRKOĞLU, lives in TOKAT      Abdurrahman TÜROĞLU, lives in CANKIRI      İrfan UÇAR, lives in CANKIRI      Salim UÇAR, lives in KONYA      Ramazan Hakan ULAK, lives in MANISA      Fariz ULUCAK, lives in SIVAS      Ridvan ÜRETEN, lives in IZMIR      Osman ÜRKMEZ, lives in IZMIR      Nurettin ÜSTÜN, lives in TOKAT      Yüksel YALÇIN, lives in KAYSERI      Veyis YARAR, lives in TOKAT      Fevzi YEŞİL, lives in ANTALYA      Ali YILDIZ, lives in TOKAT      Hilal YILDIZ, lives in SIVAS      Tacettin YILDIZ, lives in KONYA      Abdulkadir YILMAZ, lives in CORUM      Adem YILMAZ, lives in CORUM      Hasan YILMAZ, lives in KAYSERI      Osman YURTSEVEN, lives in IZMIR      Mehmet YÜZER, lives in KONYA      Mehmet ZENGİN, lives in BALIKESIR      Erkan ZEYLAN, lives in IZMIR