CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 6 avril 2023

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sA10C00D6 { width:14.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s889B3B8E { width:131.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s935FFEBF { width:7.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sDCEB1D12 { width:138.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 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 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 41340/18 Danyal KILIÇALP against Türkiye and 23 other applications (see appended table) [1] The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 April 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Frédéric Krenc , President ,   Diana Sârcu,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of the applicants and their representatives is set out in the appendix. The applicants’ various complaints under Article 5 of the Convention were communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letters, sent by registered post and dated 6 October 2022, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations   had expired on the various dates and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The registered letters either returned to the Court as unclaimed or were received by the applicants. No reply to the letters has been received by the Court and there are no previous letters from the applicants informing the Court about the change of address. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications. Accordingly, the cases should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 May 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Frédéric Krenc   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 of the Convention   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 41340/18 Kılıçalp v. Türkiye 10/08/2018 Danyal KILIÇALP 1993 Gaziantep Turkish   2. 6597/19 Tiryaki v. Türkiye 17/01/2019 Vedat TİRYAKİ 1975 Hatay Turkish   3. 6676/19 Memiş v. Türkiye 15/01/2019 Yüksel MEMİŞ 1973 Afyonkarahisar Turkish Abdurrahman ÇAKIR 4. 6755/19 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 18/01/2019 Erkan YILMAZ 1981 Osmaniye Turkish   5. 6932/19 Gülgen v. Türkiye 18/01/2019 Erol GÜLGEN 1969 Antalya Turkish Münip ERMİŞ 6. 7289/19 Beşik v. Türkiye 22/01/2019 Abdullah BEŞİK 1975 Istanbul Turkish   7. 7294/19 Işık v. Türkiye 26/01/2018 Dağhan İŞIK 1976 Istanbul Turkish Harun AK 8. 8354/19 Şimşek v. Türkiye 23/01/2019 Erkan Yener ŞİMŞEK 1975 Izmir Turkish   9. 9127/19 Karabacak v. Türkiye 07/02/2019 Mustafa KARABACAK 1974 Trabzon Turkish   10. 9222/19 Cankurtaran v. Türkiye 06/02/2019 Haşim CANKURTARAN 1974 İzmir Turkish   11. 9243/19 Sertçelik v. Türkiye 16/01/2019 Ömer SERTÇELİK 1965 İzmir Turkish   12. 9397/19 Köse v. Türkiye 04/02/2019 Ramazan KÖSE 1977 Kocaeli Turkish   13. 9433/19 Uzun v. Türkiye 31/01/2019 Selçuk UZUN 1991 Trabzon Turkish   14. 9443/19 Müdürhanoğlu v. Türkiye 08/02/2019 Mecit MÜDÜRHANOĞLU 1974 Antalya Turkish Fevzi ÖZTUNÇ 15. 9445/19 Zengin v. Türkiye 08/02/2019 Tuncay ZENGİN 1987 Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 16. 9463/19 Barutcu v. Türkiye 08/02/2019 Necaittin BARUTCU 1980 TRABZON Turkish   17. 9493/19 Tekin v. Türkiye 06/02/2019 Mehmet Gökhan TEKİN 1986 Elazığ Turkish   18. 9682/19 Tokuş v. Türkiye 08/02/2019 Mehmet TOKUŞ 1987 Malatya Turkish   19. 9810/19 Küçük v. Türkiye 28/01/2019 Namık Kemal KÜÇÜK 1964 İzmir Turkish Timur GÜLER 20. 10917/19 Şahin v. Türkiye 14/02/2019 Erdal ŞAHİN 1975 Çorum Turkish   21. 10937/19 Varolu v. Türkiye 19/02/2019 Arif VAROLU 1980 Balıkesir Turkish Fehmi Levent KOCABAŞ 22. 10977/19 Öztaş v. Türkiye 13/02/2019 Muzaffer ÖZTAŞ 1974 Balıkesir Turkish Fehmi Levent KOCABAŞ 23. 10981/19 Aygün v. Türkiye 14/02/2019 Osman AYGÜN 1983 Samsun Turkish   24. 10985/19 Yarıkan v. Türkiye 19/02/2019 Erdal YARIKAN 1985 Balikesir Turkish Fehmi Levent KOCABAŞ   [1] The case has been restored to the list of cases in respect of application no. 8354/19 Şimşek v. Türkiye on   7 May 2026.