CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 18 octobre 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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sB6A7F5BF { width:17.54pt; display:inline-block } .s71DADAB9 { width:127.41pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .sE2D594D1 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s1536B7BA { margin-left:36pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .sB0BD18D7 { margin-left:36pt; text-indent:-18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE4CB1DB5 { width:25.64pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF SEVİNÇ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 63634/16 and 134 others see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 18 October 2022   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sevinç and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Branko Lubarda , President, Jovan Ilievski , Diana Sârcu , judges, and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy 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 thirty-five 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 complaints concerning the lawfulness and length of pre-trial detention and the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of an offence, the alleged lack of prompt information of the reasons for the applicants’ arrest and of any charge against them, as well as the ineffectiveness of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention, the absence of a remedy to obtain compensation and the lawfulness of the searches conducted by the authorities 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, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; 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 27 September 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 Terror 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, §§   6 ‑ 14 and §§   109-10, 3 March 2020). All of the applicants were serving as ordinary judges or prosecutors at different types and/or levels of court, subject to Law no. 2802 on judges and prosecutors (“Law no. 2802”) (see Baş , cited above, §§   66-67), 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 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). 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 a few 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 (compare also Turan and Others v. Turkey , nos.   75805/16 and 426   others, §§ 26-27, 23   November 2021). 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 under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention 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 (see Baş , cited above, § 67). 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). They also added that one of the applicants (application no. 38986/19) had been granted some compensation by the Constitutional Court, which had found that the said applicant’s detention had not been based on a reasonable suspicion. The Court notes that similar objections raised by the Government 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. It notes in particular the absence of any finding in respect of the applicant in application no.   38986/19 constituting an acknowledgement that his placement in pre-trial detention had not been in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and thereby removing his victim status in that regard. 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, §§ 143-58 and §§   79-92 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 (compare Baş , cited above, §§ 115-16 and   §§   159 ‑ 62, and Turan and Others , cited above, § 91). OTHER COMPLAINTS 10.     As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 3, 4 and   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 11.     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. 12.     The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive. 13.     For the reasons put forth in Turan and Others (cited above, §§   102 ‑ 07), 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; 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 this amount, which is 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 18 October 2022, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Dorothee von Arnim   Branko Lubarda   Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of cases:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth Represented by   63634/16 Sevinç v. Türkiye 27/10/2016 Şamil SEVİNÇ 05/01/1973     14439/17 Özalp v. Türkiye 12/01/2017 Faruk ÖZALP 10/11/1984 Mesut BAŞOL   14942/17 Ulak v. Türkiye 05/01/2017 Mustafa Yener ULAK 11/05/1969     14976/17 Altun v. Türkiye 11/01/2017 Mustafa ALTUN 29/01/1979 İrem TATLIDEDE   34032/17 Sarı v. Türkiye 10/03/2017 Mehmet SARI 01/01/1971 İrem TATLIDEDE   40177/17 Bekri v. Türkiye 16/01/2017 Muhammet Nedim BEKRİ 05/10/1979 Tülin BEKRİ   41766/17 Çakır v. Türkiye 12/05/2017 Abdulkadir ÇAKIR 20/03/1971 Zehra KILIÇ   41864/17 Üşümez v. Türkiye 28/04/2017 İzzettin ÜŞÜMEZ 30/03/1974 Şefik KARAKIŞ   43739/17 Acu v. Türkiye 04/04/2017 Nedim ACU 01/07/1974 İrem TATLIDEDE   45034/17 Balık v. Türkiye 05/05/2017 İbrahim BALIK 02/07/1973 Doğan Güney YILMAZ   48010/17 Çakmak v. Türkiye 23/06/2017 Seyfullah ÇAKMAK 22/03/1971 Gökhan DİRİCAN   49244/17 Uslu v. Türkiye 29/03/2017 Nihal USLU 02/07/1969 Mehmet ÖNCÜ   58673/17 Okur v. Türkiye 20/07/2017 Orhan Yavuz OKUR 14/02/1989     62627/17 Karaduman v. Türkiye 15/06/2017 Mehmet KARADUMAN 01/10/1991 Sevgi KOÇER VAROL   62735/17 Dede v. Türkiye 24/01/2017 Hakan DEDE 12/06/1968 Elkan ALBAYRAK   63197/17 Binici v. Türkiye 26/05/2017 Burhan BİNİCİ 26/01/1973 Büşra BİNİCİ   63650/17 Kandemir v. Türkiye 15/02/2017 Osman KANDEMİR 07/02/1974 Ahmet Can DEMİRCİ   66402/17 Babayiğit v. Türkiye 16/01/2017 Mustafa BABAYİĞİT 01/10/1978 Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ   67340/17 Ünal v. Türkiye 17/08/2017 Kamber ÜNAL 01/12/1968     68205/17 Kayın v. Türkiye 13/01/2017 Mustafa KAYIN 24/12/1968 M. Aytaç POYRAZ   69728/17 Mercimek v. Türkiye 03/08/2017 Hamza MERCİMEK 20/11/1976 Memnune AKYILDIZ   79642/17 Kartal v. Türkiye 27/10/2017 Kadir KARTAL 29/07/1981     80957/17 Şen v. Türkiye 06/11/2017 Yavuz ŞEN 03/03/1979 Elif Nurbanu OR   6919/18 Çelik v. Türkiye 19/01/2018 Adem ÇELİK 29/09/1980 Muhammed ÇELİK   16155/18 Özkan v. Türkiye 14/03/2018 Ercan ÖZKAN 04/04/1976 Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ   23455/18 Demir v. Türkiye 30/04/2018 İbrahim DEMİR 24/03/1974     25201/18 Günal v. Türkiye 26/05/2018 Erol GÜNAL 29/08/1978 Muhammet Talha BOL   29932/18 Yıldız v. Türkiye 29/05/2018 Serkan YILDIZ 15/10/1983     35634/18 Demir v. Türkiye 13/07/2018 İlhami DEMİR 15/06/1983 Cihat ÇITIR   43696/18 İ.Ö. v. Türkiye 11/09/2018 İ.Ö. 05/05/1988 Asım Burak GÜNEŞ   11854/19 Bektaş v. Türkiye 04/02/2019 Hakan BEKTAŞ 01/03/1986 İlhan YILDIZ   13857/19 Sayılgan v. Türkiye 08/03/2019 Cengiz SAYILGAN 01/01/1969 Menekşe Merve TEKTEN   14274/19 Şayık v. Türkiye 28/02/2019 Hüsnü Sidal ŞAYIK 19/06/1978     15881/19 Akbaba v. Türkiye 07/03/2019 İlhami AKBABA 21/08/1985 Mehmet ÖNCÜ   15995/19 Uzun v. Türkiye 03/01/2019 Selim UZUN 28/11/1982 Tufan YILMAZ   16213/19 Dağlı v. Türkiye 21/11/2018 Neslihan DAĞLI 04/06/1981     16424/19 Yediyıldız v. Türkiye 28/02/2019 Ali Cihan YEDİYILDIZ 25/11/1983 Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ   17501/19 Benli v. Türkiye 11/03/2019 Salih BENLİ 10/10/1976 Çağrı Seyfettin GÖKDEMİR   17527/19 Altunbey v. Türkiye 18/03/2019 Sameddin ALTUNBEY 01/07/1980     17548/19 Kesim v. Türkiye 13/03/2019 Yahya KESİM 20/11/1965     17780/19 Kaya v. Türkiye 18/03/2019 Salih KAYA 10/04/1967 Barış BAYHAN   18787/19 Canoğlu v. Türkiye 19/03/2019 Bülent CANOĞLU 01/03/1974 Vedi YÜCETAŞ   19743/19 A.B. v. Türkiye 29/03/2019 A.B. 07/01/1984 Cihat ÇITIR   20067/19 Uzun v. Türkiye 30/03/2019 Mehmet Burak UZUN 24/06/1981     20293/19 Acar v. Türkiye 29/03/2019 Metin ACAR 02/03/1981 Serdar Numan BAŞARAN   20749/19 Dalkılıç v. Türkiye 01/04/2019 Süleyman DALKILIÇ 06/11/1989 Meryem YAŞAR   21017/19 Kaya v. Türkiye 02/04/2019 Ahmet KAYA 24/07/1966 Afra Ece KAYA   21248/19 Gürpınar v. Türkiye 05/04/2019 Mehmet Hakkı GÜRPINAR 18/12/1972 İlyas TEKİN   21260/19 Kartal v. Türkiye 12/04/2019 Adem KARTAL 01/01/1972 Kamile KILDAN   21968/19 Arı v. Türkiye 19/04/2019 Vahip ARI 10/06/1981 Hasan AĞIRTAŞ   22462/19 İnce v. Türkiye 17/04/2019 Süleyman İNCE 15/12/1969     22482/19 Pehlivan v. Türkiye 12/04/2019 İlyas PEHLİVAN 27/08/1973     22731/19 Bulut v. Türkiye 09/04/2019 Nurettin BULUT 25/05/1978 Ayşe Sibel TORUN   22734/19 Öztürk v. Türkiye 17/04/2019 Hakan ÖZTÜRK 03/03/1974 Zülal ÜNSAL   23438/19 Yıldırımer v. Türkiye 26/04/2019 Engin YILDIRIMER 20/01/1984     23673/19 Ayanoğlu v. Türkiye 24/04/2019 Hüseyin AYANOĞLU 20/11/1972 İhsan MAKAS   23953/19 Arslan v. Türkiye 24/04/2019 Murat ARSLAN 30/07/1977     24366/19 Aksakal v. Türkiye 17/04/2019 Taner AKSAKAL 13/09/1970 Ebubekir RENK   24387/19 Çavdar v. Türkiye 24/04/2019 Kemal ÇAVDAR 09/09/1982 Mustafa ÇAVDAR   24668/19 Yenitepe v. Türkiye 29/04/2019 Zafer YENİTEPE 04/12/1970 Abdullah YALÇINKAYA   24755/19 Sırıklıgil v. Türkiye 03/05/2019 Ali SIRIKLIGİL 01/10/1980 İhsan MAKAS   24760/19 Ovacıklı v. Türkiye 29/04/2019 Sadullah OVACIKLI 18/12/1979     24939/19 Bayır v. Türkiye 24/04/2019 Can BAYIR 16/04/1976     25151/19 Bayman v. Türkiye 22/04/2019 İbrahim BAYMAN 21/08/1969     25409/19 Kavak v. Türkiye 03/05/2019 Durdu KAVAK 02/06/1965 Hidayet Elif VURAL   25701/19 Kılıç v. Türkiye 30/04/2019 Eyüp KILIÇ 02/06/1979 Enes Malik KILIÇ   25759/19 Varol v. Türkiye 24/04/2019 Esra VAROL 05/04/1982 İlyas TEKİN   25777/19 Tekkoyun v. Türkiye 02/05/2019 Mehmet TEKKOYUN 05/09/1978 İbrahim KOCAOĞUL   25907/19 Özdemir v. Türkiye 17/04/2019 Hasan ÖZDEMİR 14/05/1973 Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ   25912/19 Tombak v. Türkiye 19/04/2019 Eren TOMBAK 01/06/1989 Tufan YILMAZ   26080/19 Öztürk v. Türkiye 08/05/2019 Veysi ÖZTÜRK 12/10/1984 Ferat ÇAĞIL   26282/19 Ayaz v. Türkiye 30/04/2019 Eslem AYAZ 05/02/1982     26378/19 Bağırcı v. Türkiye 14/05/2019 Hasan Tarık BAĞIRCI 18/08/1990 Muhammet GÜNEY   26525/19 Etöz v. Türkiye 02/05/2019 İsmail ETÖZ 04/06/1990     26769/19 Özcan v. Türkiye 20/04/2019 Musa ÖZCAN 16/09/1985 Sabahattin GÖÇMEN   27075/19 Yıldırım v. Türkiye 30/04/2019 Mükremin YILDIRIM 01/03/1981 Muhammet GÜNEY   27141/19 Öcal v. Türkiye 09/05/2019 Ziya ÖCAL 16/02/1979 Kazım KASA   27501/19 Çelik v. Türkiye 15/05/2019 İsa ÇELİK 02/06/1974 Kamile KILDAN   27577/19 Kavak v. Türkiye 26/04/2019 Tarık KAVAK 02/04/1976 Güntaç DEĞER   27686/19 Arslan v. Türkiye 29/04/2019 Mustafa ARSLAN 08/04/1988     27739/19 Özçelik v. Türkiye 30/04/2019 İlkay ÖZÇELİK 12/01/1979     28703/19 Yetişgen v. Türkiye 03/05/2019 Resul YETİŞGEN 01/04/1974 Ahmet OKU   28935/19 Toltar v. Türkiye 07/05/2019 Yusuf TOLTAR 11/02/1988 Emre AKARYILDIZ   28963/19 Şenses v. Türkiye 15/05/2019 Ümit ŞENSES 21/06/1984 Sinan KARAHAN   29438/19 Aydın v. Türkiye 10/05/2019 Aykut AYDIN 22/12/1990     30478/19 Oruç v. Türkiye 27/05/2019 Bahadır ORUÇ 01/04/1980 Cengiz BALCI   30481/19 Önder v. Türkiye 27/05/2019 Yusuf ÖNDER 20/02/1974 Celal SÖYLEMEZ   30485/19 Dal v. Türkiye 10/05/2019 Hasan Tahsin DAL 01/01/1981 Nurhan ÖZDURAN   30865/19 Ocak v. Türkiye 29/05/2019 Ümit OCAK 30/10/1974 Kamile KILDAN   31626/19 Uysal v. Türkiye 20/05/2019 Ömer UYSAL 16/06/1969     32316/19 Bozkurt v. Türkiye 10/06/2019 Yeliz BOZKURT 01/03/1978 Muhterem SAYAN   32943/19 Aydın v. Türkiye 29/05/2019 Uğur AYDIN 08/06/1984     33224/19 Acar v. Türkiye 07/06/2019 Bilal ACAR 13/01/1981     34173/19 Yurt v. Türkiye 17/06/2019 Bahattin YURT 01/07/1975 İrem TATLIDEDE   35008/19 Kayalar v. Türkiye 02/07/2019 Yasin KAYALAR 12/10/1983 Engin KARA   35059/19 Aydın v. Türkiye 02/07/2019 Adem AYDIN 22/05/1988 Fatma Serpil AYDIN   35075/19 Yücel v. Türkiye 02/07/2019 Sırrı YÜCEL 17/02/1971 Mehmet ÇAVDAR   35089/19 Arslan v. Türkiye 14/06/2019 Mahmut ARSLAN 15/01/1978 İhsan MAKAS   35107/19 Devran v. Türkiye 28/06/2019 Talha DEVRAN 25/10/1990 Sultan TEKE SOYDİNÇ                     35366/19 Bozoğlu v. Türkiye 17/06/2019 Ömer BOZOĞLU 18/01/1980 Mehmet ÇAVDAR                     35588/19 Alıcı v. Türkiye 25/06/2019 Cebrail Cem ALICI 10/01/1973 Sefanur BOZGÖZ                     35824/19 Gemici v. Türkiye 31/05/2019 Remzi GEMİCİ 02/08/1969 Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ                     35885/19 Demir v. Türkiye 18/06/2019 Timur DEMİR 24/09/1977 Handan CAN                     35891/19 Özdemir v. Türkiye 17/06/2019 Ali ÖZDEMİR 04/04/1976 Fatma KOCAEL                     36055/19 Gökgöz v. Türkiye 27/06/2019 Mustafa GÖKGÖZ 01/05/1965 Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ                     36208/19 Doğan v. Türkiye 21/06/2019 Erdem DOĞAN 06/08/1977 Muhammet GÜNEY                     36383/19 Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye 27/06/2019 Mehmet Arif YALÇINKAYA 17/11/1983 Mehmet ÖNCÜ                     36783/19 Demirel v. Türkiye 28/06/2019 İrfan DEMİREL 20/03/1974 Oktay BİLGİN                     36828/19 Aydın v. Türkiye 01/07/2019 Emin AYDIN 15/08/1979 Mehmet AKÇAKOCA                     36871/19 Ejder v. Türkiye 01/07/2019 Muhammet Emre EJDER 06/04/1974 Özcan AKINCI                     37238/19 Aytaç v. Türkiye 03/07/2019 İsmail AYTAÇ 01/08/1973 Emin BAYRAM                     37749/19 Eröz v. Türkiye 18/06/2019 İsmail Hakkı ERÖZ 22/02/1969 Leman TALASLIOĞLU                     38054/19 Tansel v. Türkiye 28/06/2019 Ferhat TANSEL 08/01/1977 Mevlit ERMİŞ                     38392/19 Çatal v. Türkiye 16/07/2019 Ali ÇATAL 16/09/1972 T. Mertcan SEYMEN                     38449/19 Çabuk v. Türkiye 05/07/2019 Mehmet ÇABUK 01/03/1972                       38528/19 Ayan v. Türkiye 04/07/2019 Mahmut AYAN 05/01/1981                       38986/19 Demir v. Türkiye 09/07/2019 Nuran DEMİR 10/03/1979                       39217/19 Tanrıöver v. Türkiye 10/07/2019 Mehmet TANRIÖVER 30/07/1985 Veysel MALKOÇ                     39485/19 Kara v. Türkiye 12/07/2019 Engin KARA 09/09/1985 Onur GÜNDEM                     39599/19 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 09/07/2019 Mustafa YILMAZ 09/10/1969 Mustafa Emre ŞAHİN                     39778/19 Doğan v. Türkiye 19/07/2019 Lokman DOĞAN 13/08/1971                       40949/19 Yavuz v. Türkiye 17/07/2019 Hüseyin YAVUZ 10/08/1980 Ahmet ÇEVİK                     41060/19 Baki v. Türkiye 20/07/2019 Bülent BAKİ 19/12/1974 Elkan ALBAYRAK                     41129/19 Gürsoy Fırat v. Türkiye 22/07/2019 Gülüzar GÜRSOY FIRAT 12/04/1972 İrem TATLIDEDE                     41261/19 Kuvel v. Türkiye 22/07/2019 İlyas KUVEL 01/11/1974 Emre AKARYILDIZ                     41667/19 Gürel Aygün v. Türkiye 29/05/2019 Nur GÜREL AYGÜN 28/07/1988 Yasemin BAL                     42065/19 R.M. v. Türkiye 22/07/2019 R.M. 09/04/1969 Mehmet ÖNCÜ                     42479/19 Er v. Türkiye 29/07/2019 Fatih ER 29/03/1975 Bekir DÖNMEZ                     42974/19 Şengül v. Türkiye 29/07/2019 Ömer ŞENGÜL 22/01/1978 Mahmut ÇİFTÇİ                     43617/19 Özçelik v. Türkiye 01/07/2019 Yusuf ÖZÇELİK 14/07/1983 Adnan ZEYBEK                     44708/19 Akyol v. Türkiye 09/08/2019 Ramazan AKYOL 15/11/1970 Yakup TAŞCI                     47050/19 Sarıkaya v. Türkiye 28/08/2019 Ramazan SARIKAYA 15/07/1982 Mahmut ÇİFTÇİ                     48100/19 Nas v. Türkiye 24/08/2019 Mehmet Raşit NAS 11/12/1983 Mehmet Akif CANPOLAT                     51627/19 Şahin v. Türkiye 27/08/2019 İbrahim ŞAHİN 05/12/1980 Ömer Faruk ERGÜN                     51686/19 Çivi v. Türkiye 01/10/2019 Erdinç ÇİVİ 29/08/1974