CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 septembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sC5C0E1D8 { margin-top:78pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s31408353 { font-family:Arial; color:#ff33cc } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sAE715370 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:18.45pt; text-align:justify } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .sB81C5FD1 { width:141.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }       SECOND SECTION CASE OF BAYRAM AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 20061/17 and 107 others)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 September 2022         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Bayram and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Pauliine Koskelo, President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Saadet Yüksel, judges , and Hasan Bakırcı , Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by one hundred and nine Turkish nationals, whose relevant details are listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein; the decision to give notice of the applications to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye; the parties’ observations; the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;   Having deliberated in private on 28 June 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The present applications mainly concern the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants in the aftermath of the coup attempt of 15   July   2016, on suspicion of their membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation / Parallel State Structure” (Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması, hereinafter referred to as “FETÖ/PDY”), which was considered by the authorities to be behind the coup attempt (further information regarding the events that unfolded after the coup attempt, including the details of the state of emergency declared by the respondent Government and the ensuing notice of derogation given to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, as well as the legislative developments that followed the declaration of the state of emergency, may be found in the case of Baş v. Turkey , no. 66448/17, §§   7 ‑ 14 and §§ 109-110, 3 March 2020). All of the applicants were serving as judges or prosecutors at different types and/or levels of court at the material time. 2.     On 16 July 2016 the Ankara chief public prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation into, inter alios , the suspected members of FETÖ/PDY within the judiciary, including members of high courts, in accordance with the provisions of the ordinary law, on the ground that there had been a case of discovery in flagrante delicto falling within the jurisdiction of the assize courts (further information regarding the orders issued by the chief public prosecutor’s office within the context of that investigation, as well as the ensuing suspensions and dismissals of judges and prosecutors suspected of being members of FETÖ/PDY, may be found in Baş , cited above, §§ 9-10 and 15-21). 3.     Following their arrest and detention in police custody on the orders of the regional and provincial prosecutors’ offices, the applicants were placed in pre-trial detention on various dates, mainly on suspicion of membership of the FETÖ/PDY organisation, an offence punishable under Article   314 of the Criminal Code (see Baş , cited above, § 58). The pre-trial detention decisions were issued by the magistrates’ courts located at the respective places of the applicants’ arrest. In the majority of the decisions, it was noted specifically that the criminal investigation was governed by the ordinary rules, given that the offence of which the suspects were accused, namely membership of an armed terrorist organisation, was a “continuing offence” and that there was a case of discovery in flagrante delicto governed by the relevant provisions of domestic law (see Baş , cited above, § 67, and Turan and Others v.   Turkey , nos.   75805/16 and 426 others, §§ 30-31, 23 November 2021) 4.     According to the latest information provided by the parties, most of the applicants were convicted of membership of a terrorist organisation by the first instance courts, and some were acquitted. It appears that, for the most part, the appeal proceedings are still pending. 5.     In the meantime, the applicants lodged individual applications with the Constitutional Court in respect of, inter alia , the alleged violation of their right to liberty and security on various accounts, including the alleged unlawfulness of their detention by reason of the disregard of the procedural safeguards afforded to members of the judiciary in domestic law, all of which were declared inadmissible (see Turan and Others , cited above, §§   26 ‑ 27). THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained that they had been placed in pre-trial detention in breach of the domestic laws governing the arrest and pre-trial detention of the members of the judiciary and disputed that there had been a case of discovery in flagrante delicto for the purposes of section 94 of Law no.   2802 on judges and prosecutors and section 46 of the Court of Cassation Act (Law no.   2797). 8.     The Government invited the Court to declare this complaint inadmissible for the reasons that they had raised in the case of Turan and Others (cited above, § 55). The Court notes that the Government’s objections have already been dismissed in the case of Turan and Others (cited above, §§   57 ‑ 64) and sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present case. The Court therefore considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 9.     The Court further considers, having regard to its findings in the cases of Baş and Turan and Others (both cited above, §§ 143-158 and §§   79 ‑ 96, respectively), that the pre-trial detention of the applicants had not taken place in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law within the meaning of Article   5 § 1 of the Convention and that, therefore, there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the unlawfulness of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention. Moreover, while the applicants were detained a short time after the coup attempt – that is, the event that prompted the declaration of the state of emergency and the notice of derogation by Türkiye –, which is undoubtedly a contextual factor that should be fully taken into account in interpreting and applying Article 5 of the Convention in the present case, the measure at issue cannot be said to have been strictly required by the exigencies of the situation (see Baş , cited above, §§ 115-116 and §§   159 ‑ 162, and Turan and Others , cited above, § 91 and 95). OTHER COMPLAINTS Alleged violation of Article 6 (non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion) and Article 8 (registration of letters) 10.     Applicant in application no. 53285/19 complained under Article 6 of the Convention of the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s written opinion during the proceedings before the Bakırköy Assize Court, where he had contested some restrictions imposed by the prison authorities. Furthermore, the applicant in application no. 47398/19 complained under Article 8 that the letters he sent from the prison were being registered on the National Judicial Network Server (UYAP). 11.     The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention (see, for instance, Uzun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10755/13, §§ 33-71, 30 April 2013, and Günana and Others v. Turkey , nos. 70934/10 and 4 others, § 79, 20 November 2018). 12.     It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints 13.     As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4, 5 and Article   8 of the Convention, the Court decides not to examine them, in view of its findings under Article 5 § 1 above and its considerations in the case of Turan and Others (cited above, § 98). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     The applicants requested compensation in varying amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Most of the applicants also claimed pecuniary damage, corresponding mainly to their loss of earnings resulting from their dismissal, as well as the legal costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. 15.     The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive. 16.     For the reasons put forth in Turan and Others (cited above, §§   102 ‑ 107), the Court rejects any claims for pecuniary damage and awards each of the applicants a lump sum of 5,000 euros (EUR), covering non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lawfulness of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of the initial pre-trial detention of the applicants; Declares the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention regarding the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion (application no.   53285/19) and the complaint under Article 8 concerning the registration of letters sent from prison (application no.   47398/19) inadmissible; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ remaining complaints under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, within three months, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these amounts, which are to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 September 2022, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Hasan Bakırcı   Pauliine Koskelo   Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of cases   :     No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth Represented by Applicant’s status at the time of pre-trial detention 1. 20061/17 Bayram v. Türkiye 23/02/2017 Mehmet BAYRAM 08/05/1975 Kadri İNCE Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 2. 27433/17 Yaz v. Türkiye 27/02/2017 Burhan YAZ 17/03/1968 Elif EKİCİ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 3. 36899/17 Yalçın v. Türkiye 16/01/2017 Ali YALÇIN 01/06/1975 Cengiz ÇITAK Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 4. 40719/17 Türkyılmaz v.   Türkiye 27/03/2017 Muhammed TÜRKYILMAZ 04/03/1988 Mustafa YILDIZ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 5. 41664/17 Karaarslan v.   Türkiye 27/04/2017 Yavuz KARAARSLAN 13/02/1972 Tuğba ÜSTÜNEL ÖZKAN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 6. 41879/17 Kopal v. Türkiye 17/04/2017 Murat KOPAL 21/01/1981   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 7. 45028/17 Erşen v. Türkiye 26/05/2017 Serkan ERŞEN 24/07/1980 Gökçehan SAĞLAM Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 8. 46942/17 Uğurlu v. Türkiye 15/03/2017 Mehmet UĞURLU 31/07/1976 Mehmet ARI Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 9. 58972/17 Alanur v. Türkiye 20/04/2017 Hakkı Hakan ALANUR 12/11/1968 Şakir HEPİYİLER Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 10. 61242/17 Beydili v. Türkiye 16/06/2017 Mustafa BEYDİLİ 03/03/1988 İmdat BERKSOY Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 11. 61647/17 Turgut v. Türkiye 30/05/2017 Salih TURGUT 10/05/1983 Süleyman DOĞRUER Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 12. 61652/17 Varol v. Türkiye 25/04/2017 Muhammet VAROL 02/05/1979 İlyas TEKİN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 13. 61970/17 Demircan v.   Türkiye 26/04/2017 Mustafa DEMİRCAN 24/08/1976 Yasemin DEMİRCAN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 14. 62720/17 Pınar v. Türkiye 28/04/2017 Mehmet Erkan PINAR 01/01/1969   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 15. 62773/17 Gürses v. Türkiye 28/04/2017 Uğur GÜRSES 25/01/1987 Ebubekir RENK Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 16. 62774/17 Arkuntaş v.   Türkiye 10/02/2017 Mesut ARKUNTAŞ 31/08/1973 Sefanur BOZGÖZ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 17. 63579/17 Toprak v. Türkiye 25/05/2017 Ahmet TOPRAK 21/12/1990 Önder ÖZDERYOL Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 18. 63582/17 Şahin v. Türkiye 10/05/2017 Adil ŞAHİN 12/07/1985 Kamile KILDAN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 19. 63622/17 Aburşu v. Türkiye 28/03/2017 Serdar ABURŞU 20/08/1982 Tufan YILMAZ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 20. 63712/17 Şişaneci v.   Türkiye 20/04/2017 Mustafa ŞİŞANECİ 15/05/1983   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 21. 63740/17 Köse v. Türkiye 13/06/2017 Ahmet KÖSE 27/03/1982   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 22. 63784/17 Akkan v. Türkiye 29/05/2017 Bahattin AKKAN 10/09/1977 Fatih DÖNMEZ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 23. 66359/17 Altun v. Türkiye 26/01/2017 Recep ALTUN 16/07/1976 Mehmet ÖNCÜ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 24. 66371/17 Soyal v. Türkiye 18/05/2017 Metin SOYAL 01/01/1973 Ahmet Can DEMİRCİ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 25. 70544/17 Tarhan v. Türkiye 27/07/2017 Kadir TARHAN 05/04/1982 Fatih DÖNMEZ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 26. 70628/17 Özdemir v.   Türkiye 21/08/2017 Hasan ÖZDEMİR 01/01/1984 Ahmet Can DEMİRCİ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 27. 70857/17 Güneş v. Türkiye 08/08/2017 Cuma GÜNEŞ 17/01/1986 Özge ALTINTOP Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 28. 73516/17 Çelebi v. Türkiye 05/09/2017 Bülent ÇELEBİ 04/04/1974 Regaip DEMİR Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 29. 82865/17 Ülkü v. Türkiye 03/11/2017 Musa ÜLKÜ 30/11/1972   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 30. 6613/18 Kayaalp v.   Türkiye 16/01/2018 Selahattin KAYAALP 15/02/1987 Demet YÜREKLİ KAYAALP Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 31. 14769/18 Yalçınöz v.   Türkiye 25/07/2018 Bahadır YALÇINÖZ 19/02/1980 Barış ANTÜRK Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 32. 17830/18 Aras v. Türkiye 04/04/2018 Bahattin ARAS 15/11/1977   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 33. 20047/18 Karaosmanoğlu v.   Türkiye 06/03/2018 Mustafa KARAOSMANOĞLU 15/08/1980 Şerafettin AKTAŞ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 34. 27587/18 Memiş v. Türkiye 22/05/2018 Yusuf MEMİŞ 01/06/1966 Esad MEMİŞ Member of Court of Cassation 35. 40298/18 Duran v. Türkiye 16/08/2018 Eyüp Murat DURAN 04/02/1977 Ali DURGUN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 36. 52619/18 Gedikli v. Türkiye 26/10/2018 Halük GEDİKLİ 01/02/1969 İrem TATLIDEDE Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 37. 54227/18 Kaya v. Türkiye 12/10/2018 İlhan KAYA 03/08/1965 Yakup GÖNEN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 38. 11804/19 Şanal v. Türkiye 22/02/2019 Osman ŞANAL 10/03/1972 Ali ALAGÖZ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 39. 13253/19 Çakın v. Türkiye 26/02/2019 Akın ÇAKIN 11/07/1967 Ahmet Kerem ÇAKIN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 40. 20941/19 Gülbaş v. Türkiye 05/04/2019 Abdullah GÜLBAŞ 03/10/1983 Halil İbrahim GÜLBAŞ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 41. 23663/19 Navruz v. Türkiye 22/04/2019 Yakup NAVRUZ 05/01/1981 Kamile KILDAN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 42. 24746/19 Ertürk v. Türkiye 29/04/2019 Mustafa Celal ERTÜRK 11/02/1968 Oğuz Emre ERTÜRK Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 43. 27944/19 Karabacak v.   Türkiye 03/05/2019 Engin KARABACAK 23/12/1980 Ömer Faruk ERGÜN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 44. 28219/19 Evğün v. Türkiye 08/05/2019 Saniye EVĞÜN 25/01/1984 Emre AKARYILDIZ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 45. 28260/19 Aydın v. Türkiye 03/05/2019 Sami AYDIN 08/01/1973 Ahmet OKU Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 46. 30433/19 Saatçıoğlu v.   Türkiye 20/05/2019 Fuat SAATÇIOĞLU 08/03/1984 Fatma Vildan YİRMİBEŞOĞLU Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 47. 30652/19 Kurmaz v. Türkiye 16/05/2019 Harun KURMAZ 01/10/1981 Hatice YILDIZ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 48. 31483/19 Karpuz v. Türkiye 21/05/2019 İbrahim KARPUZ 30/03/1973 Ayşe DURMUŞ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 49. 31513/19 Temiz v. Türkiye 31/05/2019 Ömer TEMİZ 14/08/1980   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 50. 32201/19 Sarıkaya v.   Türkiye 29/05/2019 Mustafa SARIKAYA 03/01/1987   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 51. 33924/19 Şahin v. Türkiye 14/06/2019 Mehmet ŞAHİN 03/12/1980 Nurcan BAL Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 52. 34034/19 Akıllı v. Türkiye 11/06/2019 İlhan AKILLI 23/04/1980 Mustafa SOYLU Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 53. 34060/19 Sarı v. Türkiye 17/06/2019 Halil SARI 26/03/1990   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 54. 36029/19 Çelik v. Türkiye 25/06/2019 Hasan ÇELİK 01/10/1984 Ebubekir ÇELİK Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 55. 36037/19 Bekar v. Türkiye 24/06/2019 Mustafa BEKAR 18/09/1984 Ebubekir RENK Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 56. 36331/19 Aydın v. Türkiye 18/06/2019 Fatma Serpil AYDIN 22/07/1988 Mehmet Fatih İÇER Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 57. 36334/19 Şahin v. Türkiye 19/06/2019 İlyas ŞAHİN 01/01/1976 Fatih DÖNMEZ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 58. 36454/19 Karakaya v.   Türkiye 26/06/2019 Mustafa KARAKAYA 12/03/1981   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 59. 36535/19 Tatar v. Türkiye 18/06/2019 Sinan TATAR 01/07/1989 Hanifi BAYRI Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 60. 36918/19 Kılıçaslan v.   Türkiye 03/07/2019 Osman KILIÇASLAN 09/10/1978 Enes Malik KILIÇ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 61. 36941/19 Kara v. Türkiye 03/07/2019 Enis KARA 01/09/1981 Murat ÇAKAL Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 62. 36957/19 Alkan v. Türkiye 03/07/2019 Ömer Faruk ALKAN 08/05/1990 Rabia ALKAN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 63. 37541/19 Cebre v. Türkiye 30/05/2019 Ayvaz CEBRE 30/07/1984 Ceren ATALAY Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 64. 38913/19 Akdoğan v.   Türkiye 09/07/2019 Şerife AKDOĞAN 09/03/1989 Murat GÜNDEM Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 65. 40674/19 Zengin v. Türkiye 20/07/2019 Ali Osman ZENGİN 26/04/1971   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 66. 41521/19 Serli v. Türkiye 08/07/2019 Ufuk SERLİ 08/05/1985 Sultan TEKE SOYDİNÇ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 67. 44303/19 Çekiç v. Türkiye 09/08/2019 Mahmut ÇEKİÇ 23/10/1970 Ömer NAZLIM Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 68. 44341/19 Polat v. Türkiye 05/08/2019 İsmail POLAT 15/01/1974 İlyas TEKİN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 69. 44464/19 Dönmez v.   Türkiye 08/08/2019 Celalettin DÖNMEZ 15/12/1972 Fatih DÖNMEZ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 70. 44529/19 Sağlam v. Türkiye 06/08/2019 Harun SAĞLAM 15/06/1979 Gizay DULKADİR Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 71. 46185/19 Kuzgun v. Türkiye 20/08/2019 Ersan KUZGUN 13/11/1984 Cebrail Eren KAYNAR Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 72. 46758/19 Aykaç v. Türkiye 26/08/2019 Fatih AYKAÇ 01/02/1975 Menekşe Merve TEKTEN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 73. 47398/19 Yetim v. Türkiye 24/08/2019 Servet YETİM 08/09/1971 İzettin DEMİR Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 74. 47483/19 Kurt v. Türkiye 15/08/2019 Sami KURT 18/02/1978   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 75. 50697/19 Ünlü v. Türkiye 28/08/2019 Erhan ÜNLÜ 01/09/1967   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 76. 50704/19 Demirci v.   Türkiye 04/09/2019 Osman DEMİRCİ 04/08/1972 Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 77. 51002/19 Takımsu v.   Türkiye 27/08/2019 Mehmet TAKIMSU 01/11/1983 Kamile KILDAN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 78. 51180/19 Demirtaş v.   Türkiye 23/08/2019 Murat DEMİRTAŞ 15/10/1988 Hanifi BAYRI Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 79. 51768/19 Kızılyel v. Türkiye 03/09/2019 Serkan KIZILYEL 10/02/1979 Fatih Mehmet ADANIR Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 80. 51798/19 Müftüoğlu v.   Türkiye 10/09/2019 Kamil MÜFTÜOĞLU 10/08/1983 Cemal GELİNCİK Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 81. 52458/19 Öztürk v. Türkiye 25/09/2019 Özcan ÖZTÜRK 16/02/1982 Tolga Kaan PATAZ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 82. 52774/19 Öztürk v. Türkiye 23/09/2019 Hakan ÖZTÜRK 20/03/1983 Emre AKARYILDIZ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 83. 52792/19 Küçükkaya v.   Türkiye 10/09/2019 Mukadder KÜÇÜKKAYA 26/02/1978 Mehmet MİRZA Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 84. 53000/19 Karabidek v.   Türkiye 27/09/2019 Mehmet KARABİDEK 01/05/1971 İrem TATLIDEDE Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 85. 53078/19 Karaca v. Türkiye 02/10/2019 Yalçın KARACA 01/01/1973 Uğur ALTUN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 86. 53172/19 Gönen v. Türkiye 27/09/2019 Fikret GÖNEN 21/05/1975 Yeşim KAYALI GÖNEN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 87. 53285/19 Beyazıt v. Türkiye 20/09/2019 Arzu BEYAZIT 28/03/1978   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 88. 53497/19 Koç v. Türkiye 09/10/2019 Ali KOÇ 22/07/1974 Hanifi BAYRI Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 89. 53539/19 Şahinkaya v. Türkiye 28/08/2019 Murat ŞAHİNKAYA 25/06/1982 Burcu AKYÜZ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 90. 53547/19 Ekinci v. Türkiye 28/08/2019 Mehmet EKİNCİ 02/01/1988 Atıf DOĞUŞ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 91. 54194/19 Demirtaş v.   Türkiye 11/10/2019 Nidai DEMİRTAŞ 19/02/1979 İbrahim Menderes ÇÖLOVA Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 92. 54226/19 Güngör v. Türkiye 25/09/2019 Engin GÜNGÖR 06/01/1983 Elif Nurbanu OR Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 93. 56008/19 Kalaycı v. Türkiye 07/10/2019 Emrah KALAYCI 01/12/1981 Muhammet ATALAY Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 94. 56175/19 Avcı v. Türkiye 23/09/2019 Sadettin AVCI 04/01/1971 Emre AKARYILDIZ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 95. 56405/19 Uğurlu v. Türkiye 17/10/2019 Hüseyin UĞURLU 01/12/1975 Mehmet Fatih İÇER Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 96. 56568/19 Sarışık v. Türkiye 16/10/2019 Alper SARIŞIK 10/05/1989 Hürriyet SÜMER KALA Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 97. 56778/19 Okur v. Türkiye 24/09/2019 İbrahim OKUR 29/12/1966 Mehmet ÖNCÜ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 98. 57719/19 Şahin v. Türkiye 25/10/2019 Ömer ŞAHİN 05/09/1982 Miraç TAMER Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 99. 58816/19 Hendek v. Türkiye 09/10/2019 Hasan HENDEK 15/01/1972 Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 100. 59635/19 Yeşil v. Türkiye 07/11/2019 Ufuk YEŞİL 16/09/1979 Merve Elif GÜRACAR Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 101. 63404/19 Püsküllüoğlu v.   Türkiye 25/11/2019 Mustafa PÜSKÜLLÜOĞLU 09/02/1984   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 102. 64701/19 Gün v. Türkiye 05/12/2019 Hüsnü GÜN 05/05/1985 Kübra DEMİRTAŞ Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 103. 1068/20 Özdemir v.   Türkiye 17/12/2019 Erdal ÖZDEMİR 29/09/1981 Kubilay PARLAK Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 104. 2167/20 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 10/12/2019 Ali Çetin YILMAZ 01/08/1976   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 105. 2511/20 Çolak v. Türkiye 26/12/2019 Ümit Zafer ÇOLAK 30/08/1974 Şeyma SÜMENGEN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 106. 6245/20 Ulusoy v. Türkiye 13/01/2020 Sinan ULUSOY 11/11/1977 Samet CAM Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 107. 6385/20 Çakmak v.   Türkiye 09/01/2020 Ahmet Salim ÇAKMAK 14/04/1988 Kadriye TÜMEN Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 108. 9017/20 Barut v. Türkiye 24/01/2020 Mehmet BARUT 27/03/1987 Esra BARUT 09/10/1989 Elkan ALBAYRAK Ordinary judge or public prosecutor Ordinary judge or public prosecutor