CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 juillet 2023

.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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB6A7F5BF { width:17.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6E24AFEB { width:129.08pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt }       SECOND SECTION CASE OF AYVAZ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE ( Applications nos. 14347/17 and 130 others – see appended list )     JUDGMENT   This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 27 May 2025.             STRASBOURG 11 July 2023 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ayvaz and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Pauliine Koskelo , President ,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Davor Derenčinović , 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 thirty-one 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 under Article 5 of the Convention 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, the alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons when ordering and extending the pre-trial detention, as well as the ineffectiveness of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention, the absence of a remedy to obtain compensation and under Article 8 of the Convention concerning 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; Having deliberated in private on 20 June 2023, 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 §§ 109-110, 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, 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 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 , 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. THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION No. 36993/19 7 .     The Government argued that the applicant in application no.   36993/19 had submitted his complaints to another procedure of international investigation or settlement within the meaning of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention, namely the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (the “WGAD”), and invited the Court to dismiss the application as being inadmissible. In this connection, they referred to a letter entitled “joint urgent appeal”, relating to the detention of and the criminal charges against the applicant, along with twelve other individuals similarly charged with membership of the FETÖ/PDY, signed by the Vice-Chair of the WGAD and four UN Special Rapporteurs. The letter, which had been sent to the Turkish Government on 4 May 2018 and which invited the latter to submit their observations on, inter alia , the applicant’s detention, concluded as follows: “Lastly, we would like to inform your Excellency’s Government that after having transmitted an urgent appeal such as this to the Government, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention may also transmit the individual cases to the Government through its regular procedure in order to render an opinion on whether the deprivation of liberty was arbitrary or not. The present communication in no way prejudges any opinion the Working Group may render. The Government is expected to respond separately to the present urgent appeal and to the communication of the Working Group under its regular procedure.” 8.     The applicant contested the Government’s argument. He explained that despite having lodged an application before the WGAD, he had subsequently withdrawn it. In this regard, he provided copies of two e-mails dated 4   January and 11 March 2022 that he had submitted to the WGAD to request the discontinuation of his application, to which he had not received any reply to date. 9.     The Court has previously examined the procedure before the WGAD and concluded that this Working Group was indeed a “procedure of international investigation or settlement” within the meaning of Article   35 §   2   (b) of the Convention (see Peraldi v. France (dec.), no. 2096/05, 7   April 2009, and Sabuncu and Others v. Turkey , no. 23199/17, § 112, 10   November 2020; see for the “urgent action” procedure of the WGAD also Kavala v.   Turkey , no. 28749/18, §§ 78-79, 10 December 2019). 10.     Admittedly, and as indicated in the aforementioned letter (see paragraph   7 above), an urgent appeal may give rise to the opening of a regular procedure, in the context of which the WGAD is called upon to issue an opinion as to whether or not the deprivation of liberty was arbitrary (compare also Kavala , cited above, § 93). However, there is nothing in the case file to indicate that the WGAD has actually opened such a procedure in respect of the present applicant, or that it has rendered such an opinion (compare in this latter respect also Peraldi , cited above). The Court further notes that the applicant’s allegation that he had subsequently withdrawn his application before the WGAD has not been contested by the Government. 11.     The Government’s objection under Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention must accordingly be dismissed. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     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 on judges and prosecutors and section   46 of the Court of Cassation Act (Law no. 2797) (see Baş v.   Turkey , no.   66448/17, § 67, 3 March 2020, and Turan and Others v.   Turkey , nos.   75805/16 and 426 others, §§ 30-31, 23 November 2021). 13.     The Government claimed that seven of the applicants, namely those in applications nos. 45059/18, 62714/19, 11664/20, 22923/20, 36837/20, 37234/20 and 50209/20, had not duly exhausted the available domestic remedies in relation to their complaint under Article 5 § 1, as they had not made use of the individual application remedy before the Constitutional Court. They further invited the Court to declare this complaint inadmissible in respect of all applicants for the reasons that they had raised in the case of Turan and Others (cited above, § 55). 14.     Firstly, an examination of the case files of the seven applicants mentioned above reveals that contrary to the Government’s claim, they have expressly raised their complaints under Article   5   § 1 of the Convention in the application forms submitted to the Constitutional Court. Secondly, as for the remaining objections relating to all applicants, 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. 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. 15.     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 16.     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 17.     The applicants, except for those in applications nos. 61445/17, 64047/17, 13104/19, 15783/19, 15883/19, 26715/19, 36192/19, 51877/19, 22923/20 and 41241/20, requested compensation in varying amounts in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage within the time-limit allotted. Most of the applicants in question 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. 18.     The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive. 19.     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, save for those in applications nos. 61445/17, 64047/17, 13104/19, 15783/19, 15883/19, 26715/19, 36192/19, 51877/19, 22923/20 and 41241/20, 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, save for those in applications nos. 61445/17, 64047/17, 13104/19, 15783/19, 15883/19, 26715/19, 36192/19, 51877/19, 22923/20 and 41241/20, 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’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 July 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Dorothee von Arnim   Pauliine Koskelo   Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 14347/17 Ayvaz v. Türkiye 27/01/2017 Emre AYVAZ 1985 Denizli Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ 2. 14626/17 Aydın v. Türkiye 12/01/2017 Serkan AYDIN 1977 Ankara Turkish Memnune AKYILDIZ 3. 41660/17 Uslu v. Türkiye 17/05/2017 Mustafa USLU 1984 Düzce Turkish Ramazan SÖYLER 4. 41894/17 Turhal v. Türkiye 07/04/2017 Ramazan TURHAL 1978 Sinop Turkish Derya ÇELİK 5. 43590/17 Aydoğan v. Türkiye 04/04/2017 Bülent AYDOĞAN 1977 Ankara Turkish Erhan ÖZEN 6. 45007/17 Çağlıyan v. Türkiye 03/05/2017 Ahmet ÇAĞLIYAN 1982 İzmir Turkish Ömer Faruk DOĞAN 7. 49247/17 Çelik v. Türkiye 24/03/2017 Mehmet Üstün ÇELİK 1987 Muş Turkish Mehmet ÖZKAN 8. 49743/17 Şahin v. Türkiye 27/04/2017 Doğan ŞAHİN 1970 Kayseri Turkish Burak BALCI 9. 61445/17 Selvi Kıllıbaş v. Türkiye 01/06/2017 Özlem SELVİ KILLIBAŞ 1980 ŞANLIURFA Turkish İbrahim Halil TÜYSÜZ 10. 62123/17 Uslan v. Türkiye 26/04/2017 Hüseyin USLAN 1982 Kırıkkale Turkish Elif Nurbanu OR 11. 63687/17 Sepetler v. Türkiye 09/06/2017 İbrahim SEPETLER 1978 Ankara Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 12. 64047/17 Kablan v. Türkiye 24/01/2017 Erol KABLAN 1982 Sakarya Turkish   13. 71343/17 Yolaçar v. Türkiye 15/09/2017 Nevzat YOLAÇAR 1979 Istanbul Turkish Fatma ALBAYRAK 14. 79841/17 Balkaya v. Türkiye 27/10/2017 Ramazan BALKAYA 1982 Kırşehir Turkish Enes Malik KILIÇ 15. 83091/17 Karakuş v. Türkiye 15/06/2017 Mehmet KARAKUŞ 1977 Samsun Turkish Enes Malik KILIÇ 16. 6833/18 Patarya v. Türkiye 24/01/2018 Orhan PATARYA 1987 Kütahya Turkish Okan GÜNEL 17. 9907/18 Akdemir v. Türkiye 05/02/2018 Togay AKDEMİR 1977 Istanbul Turkish Gülşen ZENGİN 18. 10612/18 Bölükbaş v. Türkiye 13/02/2018 Tonguç BÖLÜKBAŞ 1976 Istanbul Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 19. 10778/18 Zorlu v. Türkiye 09/02/2018 Ali ZORLU 1976 Ankara Turkish Xavier LABBEE 20. 16030/18 Yıldırım v. Türkiye 15/03/2018 Özay YILDIRIM 1983 Ankara Turkish Fatih DÖNMEZ 21. 19873/18 Kaplan v. Türkiye 11/04/2018 Mete KAPLAN 1988 Manisa Turkish   22. 21049/18 Kuş v. Türkiye 25/04/2018 Nazir KUŞ 1982 Manisa Turkish İrem TATLIDEDE 23. 22157/18 Özdemir v. Türkiye 04/05/2018 Kenan ÖZDEMİR 1966 Kayseri Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 24. 26332/18 Gazioğlu v. Türkiye 14/05/2018 Mikail GAZİOĞLU 1990 Konya Turkish Fatih KAYA 25. 29589/18 Yıldız v. Türkiye 11/06/2018 Maksut YILDIZ 1982 Gaziantep Turkish Mehmet Fatih İÇER 26. 32404/18 Kılıç v. Türkiye 19/06/2018 Ahmet KILIÇ 1990 Istanbul Turkish Gamze AKSOY 27. 43688/18 Yavuz v. Türkiye 05/09/2018 Mehmet YAVUZ 1979 Kocaeli Turkish Murat YILMAZ 28. 43956/18 Bozyiğit v. Türkiye 05/09/2018 Ömer BOZYİĞİT 1982 Ankara Turkish Kamile KILDAN 29. 45059/18 Görenez v. Türkiye 18/09/2018 Halime GÖRENEZ 1987 Manisa Akhisar Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 30. 47603/18 Demiröz v. Türkiye 27/09/2018 Mehmet Sait DEMİRÖZ 1964 Konya Turkish Süleyman Serdar BALKANLI 31. 54235/18 Zengin v. Türkiye 12/10/2018 İbrahim ZENGİN 1968 Kirikkale Turkish Adem KAPLAN 32. 54713/18 Bekler v. Türkiye 12/10/2018 Arif BEKLER 1968 Ankara Turkish Adem KAPLAN 33. 59564/18 Akbaba v. Türkiye 26/11/2018 Ahmet AKBABA 1979 İzmir Turkish Enes Malik KILIÇ 34. 6970/19 Yıldızeli v. Türkiye 18/01/2018 Ahmet YILDIZELİ 1969 Sivas Turkish Fatih SARIKUŞ 35. 9217/19 Gümüş v. Türkiye 01/02/2019 Nurcan GÜMÜŞ 1980 Konya Turkish   36. 10884/19 Tutal v. Türkiye 04/02/2019 Erhan TUTAL 1978 Ankara Turkish Hasan Hüseyin ERDOĞAN 37. 11344/19 Özkan v. Türkiye 13/02/2019 Ömer Taha ÖZKAN 1981 Manisa Turkish Fatma BAHAR ÖZKAN 38. 13104/19 Cambolat v. Türkiye 13/02/2019 Yeliz CAMBOLAT 1980 Gaziantep Turkish Melek KOGYİĞİT 39. 15742/19 Büyük v. Türkiye 05/03/2019 Samet BÜYÜK 1987 Mardin Turkish Cenk Berker PARDOĞAN 40. 15783/19 Aydın v. Türkiye 27/02/2019 Yunus AYDIN 1986 Ankara Turkish Memnune AKYILDIZ 41. 15883/19 Poyrazoğlu v. Türkiye 07/03/2019 Pınar POYRAZOĞLU 1972 Osmaniye Turkish Melek KOÇYİĞİT 42. 22696/19 Serter v. Türkiye 22/04/2019 Hüseyin SERTER 1964 Ankara Turkish Zeynep Sacide SERTER 43. 23692/19 Cengiz v. Türkiye 18/04/2019 Ahmet CENGİZ 1966 İzmir Turkish Ömer Furkan CENGİZ 44. 25975/19 Şengönül v. Türkiye 25/04/2019 Salih ŞENGÖNÜL 1984 Malatya Turkish Semih Onur DANACI 45. 26715/19 Coşar v. Türkiye 06/05/2019 Aykut COŞAR 1989 Gaziantep Turkish Melek KOÇYİĞİT 46. 36192/19 Ertan v. Türkiye 17/06/2019 Ali ERTAN 1968 Samsun Turkish   47. 36993/19 Akman v. Türkiye 03/07/2019 Muhittin AKMAN 1975 Diyarbakır Turkish Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞIN 48. 45663/19 Zorlu v. Türkiye 15/08/2019 Uğur ZORLU 1970 Mardin Turkish   49. 46744/19 Güney v. Türkiye 15/08/2019 Tarık GÜNEY 1972 Bartın Turkish   50. 51877/19 Süzer v. Türkiye 04/09/2019 Emrah SÜZER 1988 Sakarya Turkish   51. 54509/19 Subaşı v. Türkiye 11/09/2019 Mehmet SUBAŞI 1983 Adana Turkish Mustafa YELBEY 52. 54772/19 Kukul v. Türkiye 01/10/2019 Metin KUKUL 1975 Istanbul Turkish   53. 61473/19 Benli v. Türkiye 11/11/2019 Recep BENLİ 1975 İzmir Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDIBI 54. 61485/19 Ata v. Türkiye 14/11/2019 Yener ATA 1989 Edirne Turkish Aydın ÖZDEMIR 55. 62714/19 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 08/11/2019 Samet YILMAZ 1989 Gaziantep Turkish   56. 5767/20 Gülbaş v. Türkiye 26/11/2019 Cüneyt GÜLBAŞ 1976 Istanbul Turkish   57. 7969/20 Girgin v. Türkiye 15/01/2020 Ali GİRGİN 1971 Aydın Turkish Mustafa TUNA 58. 9343/20 Özmen v. Türkiye 04/02/2020 Adem ÖZMEN 1985 Istanbul Turkish Burcu BÖLÜKBAŞI 59. 10681/20 Cebiş v. Türkiye 10/02/2020 Yalçın ÇEBİŞ 1971 İzmir Turkish Şerafettin GÜCÜ 60. 11500/20 Karaaslan v. Türkiye 13/02/2020 Ahmet Bülent KARAASLAN 1980 Denizli Turkish   61. 11663/20 Koyuncu v. Türkiye 13/02/2020 Ruhi KOYUNCU 1974 Kocaeli Turkish Nurettin TEMUR 62. 11664/20 Ayar v. Türkiye 18/02/2020 Ertuğrul AYAR 1972 Istanbul Turkish Emre AKARYILDIZ 63. 12883/20 Kaygın v. Türkiye 20/02/2020 Mehmet KAYGIN 1968 Kayseri Turkish Mustafa Uğur SOYGÜLLÜCÜ 64. 13576/20 Küçükkaplan v. Türkiye 23/01/2020 Mehmet KÜÇÜKKAPLAN 1988 Konya Turkish Mehmet Fatih İÇER 65. 13779/20 Öz v. Türkiye 29/02/2020 Bayram ÖZ 1977 Karabük Turkish Burcu HAS 66. 13824/20 Akdamar v. Türkiye 07/03/2020 Türkşen AKDAMAR 1969 Ankara Turkish Ahmet Alperen AKDAMAR 67. 14846/20 Karagöz v. Türkiye 28/02/2020 Yusuf KARAGÖZ 1984 Nevşehir Turkish Yunus Emre ÖZKAN 68. 14874/20 Turgut v. Türkiye 04/03/2020 Abdullah TURGUT 1971 Ankara Turkish Rukiye COŞGUN 69. 14972/20 Erol v. Türkiye 17/01/2020 Abdulkadir EROL 1967 Istanbul Turkish   70. 15740/20 Şua v. Türkiye 16/03/2020 İbrahim Halil ŞUA 1974 Istanbul Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 71. 16141/20 Sivri v. Türkiye 31/03/2020 Sinan SİVRİ 1969 Adana Turkish Halil KIZILYAR 72. 16243/20 Barut v. Türkiye 27/03/2020 Özkan BARUT 1981 Diyarbakır Turkish Halime BARUT 73. 16784/20 Tankişi v. Türkiye 26/03/2020 Mutlu TANKİŞİ 1989 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Meryem YAŞAR KARAYAZGAN 74. 17012/20 Söyler v. Türkiye 01/04/2020 Ramazan SÖYLER 1985 Kayseri Turkish Enver BALTÜRK 75. 17126/20 Bozkurt v. Türkiye 24/03/2020 Özgür BOZKURT 1977 Aksaray Turkish Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ 76. 19143/20 Uslu v. Türkiye 07/05/2020 Mustafa USLU 1970 Ankara Turkish Zafer İRAZ 77. 19656/20 Gülleci Demir v. Türkiye 16/04/2020 Gonca GÜLLECİ DEMİR 1982 Ankara Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 78. 20126/20 Gündoğdu v. Türkiye 15/05/2020 Muhammed GÜNDOĞDU 1984 Istanbul Turkish Burhan DEMİRCİ 79. 20135/20 İhtiyar v. Türkiye 15/05/2020 Önder İHTİYAR 1980 Trabzon Turkish Mehmet ARI 80. 20587/20 Kuzgun v. Türkiye 16/01/2020 Ersan KUZGUN 1984 Kırklareli Turkish Cebrail Eren KAYNAR 81. 21061/20 Ceran v. Türkiye 05/05/2020 Hakan CERAN 1977 Kayseri Turkish Özcan AKINCI 82. 21062/20 Akgün v. Türkiye 20/05/2020 Fahrettin AKGÜN 1980 Kütahya Turkish Fatma SEVER AKGÜN 83. 21088/20 Borucu v. Türkiye 05/05/2020 Metin BORUCU 1968 Izmir Turkish Oğuzhan AŞLIK 84. 21123/20 Girdi v. Türkiye 06/05/2020 Seyfettin GİRDİ 1988 Istanbul Turkish Fatma BABAYİĞİT 85. 21367/20 Köylü v. Türkiye 22/05/2020 Mustafa KÖYLÜ 1971 Istanbul Turkish   86. 21551/20 Güngör v. Türkiye 23/03/2020 Mesut GÜNGÖR 1969 KIRIKKALE Turkish Ahmet AKSOY 87. 21749/20 Demir v. Türkiye 27/04/2020 Yavuz DEMİR 1987 Ankara Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 88. 22243/20 Çelik v. Türkiye 03/03/2020 Noyan ÇELİK 1978 Kocaeli Turkish Mehmet Nazım GENÇTÜRK 89. 22923/20 Özdemir v. Türkiye 08/06/2020 Mustafa ÖZDEMİR 1989 Ankara Turkish   90. 22952/20 Mendilcioğlu v. Türkiye 28/01/2020 Kıymet Sema MENDİLCİOĞLU 1975 Denizli Turkish İsmail KAPLAN 91. 22956/20 Çalışkan v. Türkiye 08/06/2020 İsmail ÇALIŞKAN 1982 Aksaray Turkish Muhammet GÜNEY 92. 23007/20 Sönmez v. Türkiye 07/04/2020 Sebati SÖNMEZ 1979 Antalya Turkish   93. 23436/20 Aslan v. Türkiye 22/05/2020 Faruk ASLAN 1974 Ankara Turkish Gülşen ZENGİN 94. 24030/20 Çıtak v. Türkiye 12/06/2020 İsmail ÇITAK 1987 Aksaray Turkish Muhammet GÜNEY 95. 25514/20 Dündar v. Türkiye 20/04/2020 Olcay DÜNDAR 1980 Bursa Turkish   96. 26039/20 Kuşku v. Türkiye 25/06/2020 Ersin KUŞKU 1985 Bursa Turkish Hanifi BAYRI 97. 26042/20 Sefer v. Türkiye 25/06/2020 Doğan SEFER 1976 Balıkesir Turkish Hanifi BAYRI 98. 26146/20 Bilge v. Türkiye 12/06/2020 Mehmet Salih BİLGE 1979 Sivas Turkish Meryem GÜNAY 99. 26337/20 Aslan v. Türkiye 05/06/2020 Ramazan ASLAN 1975 Manisa Turkish Oğuz İÇİER 100. 27067/20 Kızılay v. Türkiye 15/02/2020 Bilgin KIZILAY 1976 Istanbul Turkish Nevzat AKBİLEK 101. 29062/20 Gökçe v. Türkiye 02/07/2020 Murat GÖKÇE 1967 Ankara Turkish Fatih DÖNMEZ 102. 29753/20 Bülbül v. Türkiye 25/06/2020 Barış BÜLBÜL 1979 Istanbul Turkish Bilal KÜÇÜKŞENGÜN 103. 29994/20 Bütün v. Türkiye 26/06/2020 Selçuk BÜTÜN 1976 Manisa Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ 104. 30003/20 Bakay v. Türkiye 02/07/2020 Bekir BAKAY 1977 Mersin Turkish Gülcan BERÇEM COŞKUN 105. 30010/20 Polat v. Türkiye 06/07/2020 Erhan POLAT 1968 Ankara Turkish Hülya POLAT 106. 30329/20 Uçar v. Türkiye 06/07/2020 Cemalettin UÇAR 1973 Kayseri Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 107. 32774/20 Özel v. Türkiye 20/07/2020 Ali ÖZEL 1972 Kayseri Turkish Hacer ŞAHİN 108. 34445/20 Baş v. Türkiye 14/07/2020 Salih BAŞ 1977 Tokat Turkish   109. 34682/20 Kebeşoglu v. Türkiye 04/06/2020 Halil İbrahim KEBEŞOĞLU 1972 Kayseri Turkish İbrahim Talha DEMİRCAN 110. 34959/20 Özkarslı v. Türkiye 07/08/2020 Oğuz ÖZKARSLI 1978 Ankara Turkish Ayşe Sümeyye BEKLEYEN 111. 36651/20 Bülbül v. Türkiye 10/08/2020 Davut BÜLBÜL 1977 Gaziantep Turkish Mehmet Fatih İÇER 112. 36837/20 Menengiç v. Türkiye 07/08/2020 Erdal MENENGİÇ 1985 Ankara Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 113. 36884/20 Çengeloğlu v. Türkiye 21/08/2020 Enes ÇENGELOĞLU 1989 Ankara Turkish Ömer Faruk ERGÜN 114. 37234/20 Sevdim v. Türkiye 11/08/2020 Ali Erdem SEVDİM 1977 Gaziantep Turkish Yekta Mustafa POLAT 115. 37894/20 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 18/08/2020 Ömer YILMAZ 1977 Ankara Turkish Ömer Faruk ERGÜN 116. 38272/20 Aygün v. Türkiye 20/08/2020 Fatih AYGÜN 1987 Trabzon Turkish Yasemin BAL 117. 38305/20 Arslantürk v. Türkiye 13/08/2020 Samet ARSLANTÜRK 1989 Istanbul Turkish Elif ARSLANTÜRK 118. 41241/20 Aslan v. Türkiye 01/07/2020 Atilla ASLAN 1965 Bursa Turkish Emine Feyza ASLAN HERDEM 119. 41402/20 Pehlivan v. Türkiye 27/08/2020 Sercan PEHLİVAN 1989 Samsun Turkish   120. 43083/20 Kılınç v. Türkiye 15/09/2020 Erhan KILINÇ 1979 Manisa Turkish Kadriye TÜMEN 121. 43232/20 Karaarslan v. Türkiye 08/09/2020 Abdulkadir KARAARSLAN 1983 Malatya Turkish Gizem Tugce KARAARSLAN 122. 49609/20 Coşkun v. Türkiye 26/10/2020 Şenol COŞKUN 1976 Mersin Turkish   123. 50209/20 Kanlı v. Türkiye 28/08/2020 Hasan KANLI 1967 Ankara Turkish Mehmet Fatih İÇER 124. 51555/20 Gültekin v. Türkiye 30/06/2020 Özkan GÜLTEKİN 1974 Ankara Turkish Enes Malik KILIÇ 125. 52598/20 İnal v. Türkiye 24/11/2020 Erhan İNAL 1977 Balikesir Turkish Yakup GÖNEN 126. 54011/20 Baysal v. Türkiye 27/08/2020 Mustafa BAYSAL 1969 İstanbul Turkish Gülhan TABAK 127. 54412/20 Göztaş v. Türkiye 25/11/2020 Kenan GÖZTAŞ 1980 Ankara Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 128. 54426/20 Taşdelen v. Türkiye 19/10/2020 Okan TAŞDELEN 1978 Ankara Turkish   129. 3160/21 Çapa v. Türkiye 08/12/2020 Ömer ÇAPA 1980 Edirne Turkish Nevzat AKBİLEK 130. 6976/21 Ekim v. Türkiye 14/01/2021 Gamze EKİM 1980 Osmaniye Turkish Habibe BULUT 131. 9539/21 Aydın v. Türkiye 17/11/2020 Asil AYDIN 1978 Istanbul Turkish Fatma BABAYİĞİT