CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 12 décembre 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB6A7F5BF { width:17.54pt; display:inline-block } .s235C1871 { width:137.76pt; 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 } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF KOLAY AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 15231/17 and 283 others)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 12 December 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kolay and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Jovan Ilievski , President ,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   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 the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”); the decision to give notice 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, of the complaints under Article 5 of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of an offence, the alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention, the length of pre-trial detention, the ineffectiveness of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention, and the absence of a remedy to obtain compensation, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible; the parties’ observations; the decision to dismiss the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee; Having deliberated in private on 21 November 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 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 Baş v. Turkey , no. 66448/17, §§   6 ‑ 14 and   109 ‑ 10, 3 March 2020). 2.     On various dates the applicants were arrested and placed in pre-trial detention, mainly on suspicion of membership of FETÖ/PDY, an offence punishable under Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see Baş , cited above, §   58). The applicants lodged objections against the detention orders but without success. On various dates in the course of the ensuing criminal investigations and trials, the competent judicial authorities ordered the applicants’ continued detention. The applicants were held in pre-trial detention for periods ranging from one year to four years and six months. 3 .     It appears from the information and documents in the case files that, when ordering and extending the applicants’ pre-trial detention, the competent judicial authorities relied on various evidential grounds, including but not limited to: witness statements indicating ties with FETÖ/PDY; social media posts; possession of pro-FETÖ/PDY publications; working in, or being a member of, institutions having ties with the organisation in question or an organisation shut down by the state ‑ of ‑ emergency legislative decrees; provision of financial support to FETÖ/PDY or to institutions with ties to FETÖ/PDY; attending or holding meetings ( sohbet ); communication with senior executives of the organisation; ensuring communication between FETÖ/PDY members; staying in FETÖ/PDY houses; and carrying out various other activities on the orders of the organisation. 4 .     It further appears from the case files that, in accordance with Articles   100 and 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”, for the text of these provisions see Kavala v. Turkey , no.   28749/18, §§ 71-72, 10   December 2019), the competent judicial authorities justified their decisions to deprive the applicants of their liberty not only on the basis of the existence of reasonable suspicion, but also on the grounds of the nature and the severity of the alleged offence of membership of an armed terrorist organisation and the fact that that offence was among the “catalogue” offences listed in Article 100 § 3 of the CCP. Without making an individualised assessment, they also relied on the state of the evidence and the risk of the applicants’ absconding and tampering with evidence, and considered that detention would be a proportionate measure in the circumstances. Moreover, in the later stages of the proceedings, the competent judges took into account the time spent by the applicants in pre ‑ trial detention when deciding to extend their detention, without explaining the relevance of that factor to their decision. 5.     In the meantime, the applicants lodged one or more individual applications with the Constitutional Court in respect of the detention orders, complaining, inter alia , about the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence and the alleged lack of reasons to justify the decision to remand them in pre-trial detention, all of which were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court in summary fashion. 6.     According to the latest information provided by the parties, most of the applicants were convicted of membership of an armed terrorist organisation by the courts of first instance on the basis of evidence that was present at the time of their detention or that appeared at a later stage in the proceedings. It further appears that, for the most part, the proceedings are still pending before the appellate courts or the Constitutional Court. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 7.     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 and 3 OF THE CONVENTION 8.     The applicants complained that there had been no specific evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that they had committed a criminal offence necessitating pre-trial detention. They further argued that the domestic courts had not provided relevant and sufficient reasons in their decisions ordering their placement in detention and their continued detention. They also maintained that the domestic authorities had failed to consider alternative measures to detention. In that connection, they alleged that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention. 9.     The Government first urged the Court to declare those complaints inadmissible in respect of the applicants who had not made use of the compensatory remedy under Article 141 of the CCP, or whose compensation claims were still pending. The Government further claimed that some of the applicants had been granted compensation pursuant to Article 141 of the CCP and had therefore lost their victim status. They also asked the Court to declare the applications inadmissible as being an abuse of the right of application, in so far as the applicants had not informed the Court of the developments in their cases following the lodging of their applications. The Government lastly submitted that the applicants’ initial and continued pre-trial detention had complied with the domestic legislation and Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention. 10.     The Court notes that similar objections raised by the Government have already been dismissed in other cases against Türkiye (see, for instance, Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, §§ 118-21, 3 March 2020; Alparslan Altan v. Turkey , no.   12778/17, §§ 84-85, 16 April 2019; Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no.   2) [GC], no. 14305/17, §§   212-214, 22 December 2020; and Turan and Others v. Turkey , nos.   75805/16 and 426 others, §§   57-64, 23 November 2021), and sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present case. The Court therefore considers that the applicants’ complaints under Article   5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §   3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. Alleged lack of reasoning in the decisions ordering the applicants’ pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 3 of the Convention) 11.     Under the Court’s established case - law under Article 5 § 3, the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the detainee has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the validity of his or her continued detention. The Court must further establish whether the national authorities gave relevant and sufficient reasons for the detention from the time of the first decision ordering detention on remand onwards. Those other grounds may be a risk of flight, a risk of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses or of evidence being tampered with, a risk of collusion, a risk of reoffending, or a risk of public disorder and the related need to protect the detainee (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§   87-88 and 101-102, 5 July 2016). Those risks must be duly substantiated, and the authorities’ reasoning on those points cannot be abstract, general or stereotyped (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, §   222, 28   November 2017). 12 .     The Court notes that when ordering the applicants’ initial and continued pre-trial detention, the judicial authorities cited, in a formulaic manner, numerous pieces of evidence in support of their findings that there were concrete indications that the applicants had committed an offence (see   paragraph 3 above). However, in the Court’s view, the national courts failed to demonstrate the link between the pieces of evidence they mentioned in the detention orders and the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” that the applicants had committed the offence of membership of an armed organisation they were suspected of. 13 .     Even assuming that there was “reasonable suspicion” that an offence has been committed, decisions ordering pre-trial detention must contain relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the necessity of the detention. In that connection, the Court observes that in Türkiye, as required by the Convention, domestic law provides that the competent judicial authorities must put forward “relevant and sufficient” reasons when considering the need to place and keep a suspect in pre-trial detention. This is a procedural obligation laid down in Articles 100 and 101 of the CCP, which provide that decisions to place or keep a suspect in pre-trial detention must include legal and factual reasons (see Tuncer Bakırhan v. Turkey , no. 31417/19, §§   23 ‑ 24, 14 September 2021). 14.     The Court notes in this regard that the competent courts relied on the following grounds for detention: the nature of the offence; the severity of the sentences prescribed by law for the offence concerned; the state of the evidence; the period spent in detention; the risk of the applicants’ absconding and tampering with evidence; and the finding that alternative measures to detention appeared insufficient (see paragraph 4 above). 15.     In so far as the detentions were justified on the basis of the “nature of the offence”, the Court notes that the courts ruling on the applicants’ detention considered that they were accused of offences listed in Article   100   § 3 of the CCP (also referred to as the “catalogue” offences). As regards these “catalogue” offences, the Court notes that under Article   100   §   3 of the CCP, Turkish law provides that for certain offences there is a statutory presumption of the existence of grounds for detention (risk of absconding, tampering with evidence or putting pressure on witnesses, victims and other persons). In this connection, the Court reaffirms that any system of mandatory detention on remand is per se incompatible with Article   5 § 3 of the Convention. Where the law provides for a presumption concerning the grounds for pre-trial detention, it must nevertheless be convincingly demonstrated that there are concrete facts warranting a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty. This is also the case where the judicial authorities justify the detention of a suspect by the nature of the offence in question or the severity of the potential sentence prescribed by law (compare also Tuncer Bakırhan , cited above, §§   46-49). The Court therefore needs to examine whether the national courts carried out an individualised examination when ordering the applicants’   pre ‑ trial detention. 16.     As regards the other reasons given by the national courts for placing or keeping the applicants in pre-trial detention, the Court observes firstly that they entail a formulaic enumeration of the grounds for detention under domestic law in a general and abstract manner, such as the state of the evidence, the period spent in detention and the risk of the applicants’ absconding and tampering with evidence. While the Court is prepared to accept that, in view of the particular circumstances surrounding the attempted coup, the risk of the applicants’ absconding and/or tampering with evidence might justify the measure of detention, at least during the initial phase of the criminal investigation, it nevertheless observes that the subsequent decisions ordering the applicants’ continued pre-trial detention did not contain an individualised analysis in that respect. In the Court’s view, decisions worded in formulaic and stereotyped terms as in the present case can on no account be regarded as sufficient to justify a person’s continued pre-trial detention (see, mutatis mutandis , Şık v.   Turkey , no.   53413/11, § 62, 8 July 2014). This is particularly so given that the applicants in the present case were remanded in pre-trial detention for periods ranging from one year to four years and six   months. 17.     The Court notes that it has already examined many cases in which it has found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention for similar reasons (see Tuncer Bakırhan , cited above, §§   40 ‑ 58, and the cases cited therein). In the present case, having regard to the grounds provided by the national judicial authorities, the Court considers that they ordered and extended the applicants’ pre-trial detention on grounds that cannot be regarded as “sufficient” to justify the measure in issue. 18.     As regards Article 15 of the Convention and Türkiye’s derogation, the Court notes at the outset that 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 (see Alparslan Altan v.   Turkey , no.   12778/17, § 147, 16 April 2019). Nonetheless, Articles 100 and 101 of the CCP, which specifically require the judicial authorities to provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons when deciding to place or keep a suspect in pre-trial detention and to provide legal and factual reasons as to why alternative measures would be insufficient, were not amended during the state of emergency, unlike some other provisions of the CCP in relation to deprivations of liberty (see, for instance, Alparslan Altan , §§ 113 and 117, and Baş , § 81, both cited above, for the restrictions introduced after the coup attempt on the procedural safeguards laid down in domestic law for those held in pre-trial detention, such as restrictions on access to case files and on the examination of objections against detention orders). The applicants’ detention was therefore decided on the basis of the legislation in force before the declaration of the state of emergency, legislation which is still applicable (see, mutatis mutandis , Akgün v. Turkey , no. 19699/18, §   183, 20 July 2021). While the Government requested that the applicants’ complaints under Article 5 be examined from the perspective of Article   15 of the Convention, they have not submitted arguments to justify the derogation from the above ‑ mentioned requirements set out under Articles   100 and 101 of the CCP. Therefore, the Court considers that it is not established that the failure to comply with the requirements described above could be justified by the derogation notified by the Government of Türkiye under Article 15 of the Convention and had not gone beyond the “extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation” (see, mutatis mutandis , Mehmet Hasan Altan v.   Turkey , no. 13237/17, § 140, 20   March 2018). This is particularly so having regard to the duration of the applicants’ pre-trial detention, which lasted at least one year in each case. The Court points out in this connection that the considerations giving rise to the application of Article 15 of the Convention have gradually become less forceful and relevant as the public emergency threatening the life of the nation, while still persisting, has declined in intensity, at which point the “exigency” criterion must be applied more stringently (see Baş , cited above, § 224). 19 .     In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants. Alleged lack of reasonable suspicion that the applicants committed a criminal offence (Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention) 20.     Having regard to the particular circumstances of the present case (see   paragraphs 12-13 above) and its findings under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 19 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to determine whether in the present case there was any objective information showing that the suspicion against the applicants was “reasonable” at the time of their initial detention (for a similar approach, see   Tuncer Bakırhan , cited above, §§ 36-39). OTHER COMPLAINTS 21.     As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention, the Court decides not to examine the admissibility and merits of those complaints, in view of its findings under Article 5 § 3 above and its considerations in Turan and Others (cited above, § 98). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 22.     Some of the applicants did not submit, or failed to submit within the allotted time-limit, a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on that account (see the appended table indicating the applicants to whom no award is to be made). 23.     The remaining applicants requested varying amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage, submitting their claims within the time-limit allotted. The majority of them also claimed compensation in respect of pecuniary damage, as well as the legal costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. 24.     The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive. 25.     For the reasons set out in Turan and Others (cited above, §§   102 ‑ 07), the Court rejects any claims for pecuniary damage and awards each of the applicants who submitted claims a lump sum of 3,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount (see the last column of the appended table). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the absence of sufficient grounds for ordering and keeping the applicants in pre-trial detention; Holds that there is no need to examine separately the merits of the complaints under Article   5 §   1 (c) of the Convention; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ remaining complaints under Article 5 of the Convention; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, to each of the applicants who submitted a claim for just satisfaction (see the appended table), EUR   3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, 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 12 December 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Dorothee von Arnim   Jovan Ilievski   Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Applicant Just satisfaction 1. 15231/17 Kolay v. Türkiye Fatih KOLAY Awarded 2. 34063/17 Yalçınsoy v. Türkiye Fikret YALÇINSOY Awarded 3. 34069/17 Ak v. Türkiye Mehmet AK Awarded 4. 39406/17 Kaya v. Türkiye Ogün KAYA Awarded 5. 41289/17 Demirci v. Türkiye Süleyman DEMİRCİ Awarded 6. 41522/17 Akıncı v. Türkiye Ahmet AKINCI Awarded 7. 41873/17 Atasoy v. Türkiye Fatih ATASOY Awarded 8. 43361/17 Yılmaz v. Türkiye Ali Rıza YILMAZ Awarded 9. 43769/17 Yücel v. Türkiye Rıdvan YÜCEL Awarded 10. 45792/17 Arslan v. Türkiye Erhan ARSLAN Awarded 11. 46354/17 Acar v. Türkiye Seyhan ACAR Awarded 12. 47114/17 Çağlar v. Türkiye Oğuz ÇAĞLAR Awarded 13. 49526/17 Anlaşıker v. Türkiye Mustafa ANLAŞIKER Awarded 14. 49744/17 Şanlı v. Türkiye Ersin ŞANLI Awarded 15. 56308/17 Cömert v. Türkiye Mustafa CÖMERT Awarded 16. 58475/17 Düzgün v. Türkiye Muştak DÜZGÜN Awarded 17. 58601/17 Toraman v. Türkiye Nurullah TORAMAN Awarded 18. 58643/17 Ünğan v. Türkiye Okan ÜNĞAN Awarded 19. 58681/17 Kılıç v. Türkiye Mehmet KILIÇ Awarded 20. 58682/17 Uzun v. Türkiye Muammer UZUN Awarded 21. 58697/17 Gökce v. Türkiye Ali GÖKCE Awarded 22. 59568/17 Karaloğlu v. Türkiye Hakan KARALOĞLU Not awarded 23. 60948/17 Erol v. Türkiye Hasan EROL Awarded 24. 60964/17 Yirik v. Türkiye Şevket YİRİK Awarded 25. 61339/17 Ateş v. Türkiye Oktay ATEŞ Awarded 26. 62832/17 Erdem v. Türkiye Cengiz ERDEM Awarded 27. 62876/17 Yüzbaşı v. Türkiye Kamil YÜZBAŞI Awarded 28. 63445/17 Tanrıverdi v. Türkiye İsmail TANRIVERDİ Awarded 29. 63612/17 Aynı v. Türkiye İsa AYNI Awarded 30. 63682/17 Yilmaz v. Türkiye Erdem YILMAZ Awarded 31. 63898/17 Şener v. Türkiye Hamit ŞENER Awarded 32. 66702/17 Bilgin v. Türkiye Zafer BİLGİN Awarded 33. 68983/17 Gökay v. Türkiye Kadir Koray GÖKAY Not awarded 34. 69764/17 Söztutan v. Türkiye Ali İhsan SÖZTUTAN Awarded 35. 69817/17 Baştuğ v. Türkiye Mustafa BAŞTUĞ Awarded 36. 69821/17 Devirmiş v. Türkiye Çağrı DEVİRMİŞ Awarded 37. 69824/17 Güllüce v. Türkiye Sinan GÜLLÜCE Awarded 38. 69851/17 Laçiner v. Türkiye Sedat LAÇİNER Awarded 39. 69855/17 Güney v. Türkiye Enis GÜNEY Awarded 40. 69857/17 Aslantaş v. Türkiye Muammer ASLANTAŞ Awarded 41. 69875/17 Yazgan v. Türkiye Cumali YAZGAN Awarded 42. 69883/17 Yılmaz v. Türkiye Özgür YILMAZ Awarded 43. 70186/17 Kahyalar v. Türkiye Kayhan KAHYALAR Awarded 44. 70276/17 Yıldız v. Türkiye Remzi YILDIZ Awarded 45. 70279/17 Erbağcı v. Türkiye Selim ERBAĞCI Awarded 46. 70499/17 Gökkoyun v. Türkiye Turgay GÖKKOYUN Awarded 47. 70869/17 Karaca v. Türkiye Hikmet KARACA Awarded 48. 71049/17 Çakmak v. Türkiye Fuat ÇAKMAK Awarded 49. 71071/17 Önler v. Türkiye Yusuf ÖNLER Awarded 50. 73021/17 Boy v. Türkiye Hayati BOY Awarded 51. 76224/17 Coruk v. Türkiye Mehmet CORUK Awarded 52. 76261/17 Yazılıtaş v. Türkiye Ahmet YAZILITAŞ Awarded 53. 76301/17 Yazıcı v. Türkiye Yavuz YAZICI Awarded 54. 76312/17 Bayar v. Türkiye Levent Serhat BAYAR Awarded 55. 79815/17 Derebaşı v. Türkiye Harun DEREBAŞI Awarded 56. 79844/17 Deniz v. Türkiye Hasan DENİZ Awarded 57. 80966/17 Demirkandan v. Türkiye Osman DEMİRKANDAN Not awarded 58. 81926/17 Kabak v. Türkiye İrfan KABAK Awarded 59. 82066/17 Çoksoylu v. Türkiye Mahmut Murat ÇOKSOYLU Awarded 60. 82313/17 Karabudak v. Türkiye Fatih KARABUDAK Awarded 61. 83959/17 Havabulut v. Türkiye Gökay HAVABULUT Awarded 62. 83973/17 Çiçek v. Türkiye Musa ÇİÇEK Awarded 63. 83983/17 Boyalı v. Türkiye Hacı Salih BOYALI Awarded 64. 83995/17 Sağlam v. Türkiye Gültekin SAĞLAM Awarded 65. 84046/17 Duran v. Türkiye Muharrem DURAN Awarded 66. 84322/17 M.Y. v. Türkiye Muharrem YILMAZ Awarded 67. 117/18 Keskin v. Türkiye Hüseyin KESKİN Not awarded 68. 352/18 Genç v. Türkiye Zafer GENÇ Awarded 69. 747/18 Demir v. Türkiye Bekir DEMİR Awarded 70. 2859/18 Şeker v. Türkiye Mustafa ŞEKER Not awarded 71. 6731/18 Biliyor v. Türkiye Fatih BİLİYOR Awarded 72. 6769/18 Olcay v. Türkiye Fatih OLCAY Awarded 73. 6959/18 Baş v. Türkiye Muammer BAŞ Awarded 74. 8386/18 Yiğit v. Türkiye İbrahim YİĞİT Awarded 75. 8903/18 Yaşar v. Türkiye Ferhat YAŞAR Awarded 76. 8913/18 Teyran v. Türkiye İshak TEYRAN Awarded 77. 9947/18 Çamcı v. Türkiye Adem ÇAMCI Awarded 78. 9954/18 Gelir v. Türkiye Ahmet Göksel GELİR Awarded 79. 9957/18 Arslan v. Türkiye Mustafa ARSLAN Awarded 80. 9965/18 Kaya v. Türkiye Şaban KAYA Awarded 81. 9975/18 Ayer v. Türkiye Gökhan AYER Awarded 82. 9984/18 Türker v. Türkiye Mustafa TÜRKER Awarded 83. 10286/18 Güneyisi v. Türkiye Ekrem GÜNEYİSİ Awarded 84. 10405/18 Arı v. Türkiye Bekir Enes ARI Awarded 85. 10618/18 Gözüaçık v. Türkiye Hakan GÖZÜAÇIK Awarded 86. 10640/18 Demir v. Türkiye Halil İbrahim DEMİR Not awarded 87. 10648/18 Bilsel v. Türkiye Mehmet BİLSEL Awarded 88. 10653/18 Tunçkol v. Türkiye Kadir TUNÇKOL Awarded 89. 10852/18 Sancar v. Türkiye Ufuk Selçuk SANCAR Awarded 90. 11782/18 Çakır v. Türkiye İsmail ÇAKIR Awarded 91. 11892/18 Balaban v. Türkiye Ayhan BALABAN Awarded 92. 12210/18 Turan v. Türkiye Mustafa TURAN Awarded 93. 12314/18 Sargın v. Türkiye Bayram SARGIN Awarded 94. 12602/18 Yıldırım v. Türkiye Resul YILDIRIM Awarded 95. 12631/18 Tufan v. Türkiye Fatih TUFAN Awarded 96. 13397/18 Abanoz v. Türkiye Yahya ABANOZ Awarded 97. 13739/18 Şahin v. Türkiye Ali Kemal ŞAHİN Awarded 98. 14817/18 Acar v. Türkiye Mehmet Cemal ACAR Awarded 99. 15433/18 Kaya v. Türkiye Mehmet KAYA Not awarded 100. 15883/18 Çelik v. Türkiye Bilgin ÇELİK Awarded 101. 16261/18 Çakıcı v. Türkiye Beytullah ÇAKICI Awarded 102. 16806/18 Öztürk v. Türkiye Ercüment ÖZTÜRK Awarded 103. 16906/18 Deniz v. Türkiye Hasan DENİZ Awarded 104. 16909/18 Yıldırım v. Türkiye Ahmet YILDIRIM Awarded 105. 16954/18 Arıtık v. Türkiye Ahmet Derviş ARITIK Awarded 106. 17141/18 Uğur v. Türkiye İbrahim UĞUR Awarded 107. 17353/18 Bakar v. Türkiye Sabiha Büşra BAKAR Awarded 108. 17681/18 Sabır v. Türkiye Alaattin SABIR Awarded 109. 17907/18 Kağızman v. Türkiye Mustafa Cağrı KAĞIZMAN Awarded 110. 18027/18 Serçe v. Türkiye Recep SERÇE Awarded 111. 18051/18 Uçkan v. Türkiye Sedat UÇKAN Awarded 112. 18054/18 Beyaz v. Türkiye İsmail BEYAZ Awarded 113. 18599/18 Bol v. Türkiye Akif BOL Awarded 114. 18785/18 Arık v. Türkiye Mehmet Ali ARIK Awarded 115. 18799/18 Sarı v. Türkiye Osman SARI Not awarded 116. 19248/18 Ünlü v. Türkiye Himmet ÜNLÜ Awarded 117. 19707/18 Öz v. Türkiye Tünay ÖZ Awarded 118. 20000/18 Çam v. Türkiye Turgay ÇAM Awarded 119. 20263/18 Uygur v. Türkiye Ramazan UYGUR Awarded 120. 20379/18 Kayabaşı v. Türkiye Muammer KAYABAŞI Awarded 121. 20393/18 Pala v. Türkiye Alaattin PALA Awarded 122. 20538/18 Altınkaynak v. Türkiye Önder ALTINKAYNAK Awarded 123. 20993/18 Cerit v. Türkiye Yusuf Ulvi CERİT Awarded 124. 21002/18 Çelik v. Türkiye Aykut ÇELİK Awarded 125. 21054/18 Yaşar v. Türkiye Ersan YAŞAR Awarded 126. 21066/18 Dinç v. Türkiye İsmail DİNÇ Awarded 127. 21079/18 Uyar v. Türkiye Erol UYAR Awarded 128. 21161/18 Yıldırım v. Türkiye Abdurrahim YILDIRIM Awarded 129. 21973/18 Yardımcı v. Türkiye Mustafa YARDIMCI Awarded 130. 22008/18 Göksel v. Türkiye Emrah GÖKSEL Not awarded 131. 22108/18 Güneş v. Türkiye Murat GÜNEŞ Awarded 132. 22134/18 Balık v. Türkiye Sinan BALIK Awarded 133. 22237/18 Koç v. Türkiye Özcan KOÇ Awarded 134. 23391/18 Kaplan v. Türkiye Müdayi KAPLAN Awarded 135. 23626/18 Çakır v. Türkiye Ayhan ÇAKIR Awarded 136. 23631/18 Ekiz v. Türkiye Ahmet Yılmaz EKİZ Awarded 137. 23635/18 Atalay v. Türkiye Nuh Taha ATALAY Awarded 138. 23646/18 Eker v. Türkiye İsa EKER Awarded 139. 23659/18 Yiğit v. Türkiye Şenduran YİĞİT Awarded 140. 23780/18 Dolamaç v. Türkiye Ahmet DOLAMAÇ Awarded 141. 23871/18 Çam v. Türkiye Oğuzhan ÇAM Awarded 142. 23882/18 Hallaçoğlu v. Türkiye Ruhi HALLAÇOĞLU Awarded 143. 23885/18 Ünal v. Türkiye Mehmet Akif ÜNAL Awarded 144. 23897/18 Tunç v. Türkiye İbrahim Can TUNÇ Awarded 145. 24212/18 Kahraman v. Türkiye Abdullah KAHRAMAN Awarded 146. 24232/18 Özgül v. Türkiye Abdulkadir Ceylani ÖZGÜL Awarded 147. 24719/18 Demir v. Türkiye Enes DEMİR Awarded 148. 24861/18 Konak v. Türkiye Gökhan KONAK Awarded 149. 24894/18 Köylü v. Türkiye Ahmet Mutlu KÖYLÜ Awarded 150. 25234/18 Yüksel v. Türkiye Ömer YÜKSEL Awarded 151. 25292/18 Gökçegöz v. Türkiye Fazlı GÖKÇEGÖZ Awarded 152. 25294/18 Demirci v. Türkiye Erdoğan DEMİRCİ Awarded 153. 25353/18 Solak v. Türkiye Hasan SOLAK Awarded 154. 25901/18 Karakaya v. Türkiye Mehmet KARAKAYA Awarded 155. 26019/18 Şen v. Türkiye Muhammet Ali ŞEN Not awarded 156. 26335/18 Vural v. Türkiye Yesari VURAL Awarded 157. 26339/18 Hayal v. Türkiye Fatih HAYAL Awarded 158. 26355/18 Bilici v. Türkiye Yakup BİLİCİ Awarded 159. 26586/18 Öz v. Türkiye Süleyman ÖZ Awarded 160. 26914/18 Taşar v. Türkiye Hasan TAŞAR Awarded 161. 27017/18 Çınar v. Türkiye Yakup ÇINAR Awarded 162. 27025/18 Diler v. Türkiye Metin DİLER Not awarded 163. 27053/18 Akkaşoğlu v. Türkiye Selim AKKAŞOĞLU Awarded 164. 27056/18 Aslan v. Türkiye Ahmet ASLAN Awarded 165. 27062/18 Uyğun v. Türkiye Serkan UYĞUN Awarded 166. 27074/18 Olur v. Türkiye Murat OLUR Awarded 167. 27123/18 Koçak v. Türkiye Ersin KOÇAK Awarded 168. 27220/18 Tufan v. Türkiye Mürşit TUFAN Awarded 169. 27723/18 Aksoy v. Türkiye Murat AKSOY Awarded 170. 27766/18 Aydın v. Türkiye Mustafa Suat AYDIN Awarded 171. 27827/18 Can v. Türkiye Kadir CAN Awarded 172. 27895/18 Arslan v. Türkiye Muhsin ARSLAN Awarded 173. 28584/18 Kantaş v. Türkiye Recep KANTAŞ Awarded 174. 28595/18 Akpınar v. Türkiye Mustafa AKPINAR Awarded 175. 28613/18 Alıcı v. Türkiye Lütfi ALICI Awarded 176. 28734/18 Akçin v. Türkiye Osman AKÇİN Awarded 177. 29382/18 Çolak v. Türkiye Eyüp ÇOLAK Awarded 178. 29399/18 Kaba v. Türkiye Ufuk KABA Awarded 179. 29593/18 Yücel v. Türkiye Metin YÜCEL Awarded 180. 29766/18 Akdoğan v. Türkiye Seyit Ahmet AKDOĞAN Awarded 181. 30463/18 Sayhan v. Türkiye Çağlar SAYHAN Awarded 182. 30500/18 Kurnaz v. Türkiye Veli KURNAZ Awarded 183. 30504/18 Yaprak v. Türkiye Ahmet YAPRAK Awarded 184. 30507/18 Saribay v. Türkiye Huseyin SARİBAY Awarded 185. 36939/18 Kunt v. Türkiye Emre KUNT Not awarded 186. 37745/18 Balkaş v. Türkiye Serdar Resul BALKAŞ Awarded 187. 39195/18 Çevik v. Türkiye Abdullah ÇEVİK Awarded 188. 39434/18 Kuş v. Türkiye Metin KUŞ Not awarded 189. 39460/18 Demirhan v. Türkiye Kadir DEMİRHAN Awarded 190. 39519/18 Kocabaş v. Türkiye Timur KOCABAŞ Awarded 191. 39678/18 Duysak v. Türkiye Raşit DUYSAK Awarded 192. 39710/18 Özdemir v. Türkiye Veysel ÖZDEMİR Awarded 193. 39764/18 Güler v. Türkiye Hakan GÜLER Awarded 194. 39844/18 Yakar v. Türkiye Tamer YAKAR Awarded 195. 40324/18 Erdoğan v. Türkiye Yunus ERDOĞAN Awarded 196. 40525/18 Koçyiğit v. Türkiye Mustafa KOÇYİĞİT Awarded 197. 40601/18 Şahpaz v. Türkiye İsmail ŞAHPAZ Awarded 198. 40844/18 Metin v. Türkiye Selahaddin METİN Awarded 199. 41593/18 Gültekin v. Türkiye Adem GÜLTEKİN Awarded 200. 42247/18 Sevinç v. Türkiye Hüseyin SEVİNÇ Awarded 201. 42591/18 Demir v. Türkiye Mehmet DEMİR Awarded 202. 42673/18 Kural v. Türkiye Suat KURAL Awarded 203. 42857/18 Dilcioğlu v. Türkiye Metin DİLCİOĞLU Awarded 204. 42872/18 Gülten v. Türkiye Mesut GÜLTEN Awarded 205. 42887/18 Köroğlu v. Türkiye Mehmet KÖROĞLU Awarded 206. 43671/18 Ceran v. Türkiye Yavuz CERAN Awarded 207. 43712/18 Durdu v. Türkiye Aydın DURDU Awarded 208. 43979/18 Küçük v. Türkiye Mürsel KÜÇÜK Awarded 209. 44657/18 Tokyay v. Türkiye Mehmet Zafer TOKYAY Awarded 210. 44761/18 Olcabay v. Türkiye Doğan OLCABAY Awarded 211. 44807/18 Demir v. Türkiye Bilal DEMİR Awarded 212. 44960/18 Keleş v. Türkiye Murat KELEŞ Awarded 213. 45545/18 Şahin v. Türkiye İlker ŞAHİN Awarded 214. 46168/18 Altundal v. Türkiye Zeki Osman ALTUNDAL Awarded 215. 47328/18 Yıldız v. Türkiye Hakan Şinasi YILDIZ Awarded 216. 48106/18 Çelik v. Türkiye Ahmet ÇELİK Awarded 217. 48214/18 Üzümcü v. Türkiye Ercan ÜZÜMCÜ Awarded 218. 48726/18 Tuğberk v. Türkiye Murat TUĞBERK Awarded 219. 48731/18 Kervancıoğlu v. Türkiye Mahmut KERVANCIOĞLU Awarded 220. 48917/18 Ürnez v. Türkiye Hüseyin ÜRNEZ Awarded 221. 49399/18 Kansız v. Türkiye Cihan KANSIZ Awarded 222. 49835/18 Akbulut v. Türkiye Murat AKBULUT Awarded 223. 49840/18 Ateş v. Türkiye Aziz ATEŞ Awarded 224. 49848/18 Şanlı v. Türkiye Savaş ŞANLI Awarded 225. 49849/18 Kandemir v. Türkiye Halit KANDEMİR Awarded 226. 50974/18 Tekten v. Türkiye Murat Tuncay TEKTEN Awarded 227. 52160/18 Şimşek v. Türkiye Ferhat Fevzi ŞİMŞEK Awarded 228. 52386/18 Kafes v. Türkiye Cemil KAFES Awarded 229. 52502/18 Fidan v. Türkiye Hüseyin FİDAN Awarded 230. 52966/18 Çabuk v. Türkiye Mustafa ÇABUK Awarded 231. 53385/18 Körsulu v. Türkiye Erdal KÖRSULU Awarded 232. 53443/18 Çelik v. Türkiye Suat ÇELİK Awarded 233. 53772/18 Tetik v. Türkiye Nedim TETİK Awarded 234. 54954/18 Karaduman v. Türkiye Murat KARADUMAN Awarded 235. 57185/18 Karhan v. Türkiye Muhammet KARHAN Awarded 236. 57929/18 Eroğlu v. Türkiye Ünal EROĞLU Awarded 237. 58133/18 Bağcı v. Türkiye Mustafa BAĞCI Awarded 238. 58217/18 Kara v. Türkiye Hüseyin KARA Awarded 239. 58232/18 Gedemenli v. Türkiye Sait GEDEMENLİ Awarded 240. 58254/18 Yaşa v. Türkiye Yaşar YAŞA Awarded 241. 58577/18 Aydın v. Türkiye İsmail AYDIN Awarded 242. 58911/18 Şahin v. Türkiye Köksal ŞAHİN Awarded 243. 59028/18 Özturk v. Türkiye Hamza ÖZTÜRK Awarded 244. 59384/18 Çakar v. Türkiye Zafer ÇAKAR Awarded 245. 525/19 Zor v. Türkiye Cüneyt ZOR Awarded 246. 1200/19 Silahşör v. Türkiye Şaban SİLAHŞÖR Awarded 247. 1686/19 Şahin v. Türkiye Halil İbrahim ŞAHİN Not awarded 248. 1933/19 Yılmaz v. Türkiye Tarık YILMAZ Awarded 249. 2196/19 Sağlam v. Türkiye Levent SAĞLAM Awarded 250. 2735/19 Sezer v. Türkiye Yasir SEZER Awarded 251. 2762/19 Torunler v. Türkiye Çağlar TORUNLER Awarded 252. 3441/19 Pala v. Türkiye Fahrettin PALA Awarded 253. 3452/19 Yücel v. Türkiye Murat YÜCEL Awarded 254. 3459/19 Ülkemen v. Türkiye Sinan ÜLKEMEN Awarded 255. 3770/19 Kayacan v. Türkiye Fevzi KAYACAN Awarded 256. 4299/19 Bülbül v. Türkiye Halil BÜLBÜL Awarded 257. 4357/19 Çelebi v. Türkiye Bekir ÇELEBİ Awarded 258. 4405/19 Koçak v. Türkiye Fatih KOÇAK Awarded 259. 4918/19 Şimşek v. Türkiye Doğan Özgür ŞİMŞEK Awarded 260. 4991/19 İstek v. Türkiye Hakan İSTEK Awarded 261. 5135/19 Topuz v. Türkiye Ayhan TOPUZ Awarded 262. 5418/19 Körpe v. Türkiye Erol KÖRPE Awarded 263. 5494/19 Bulut v. Türkiye Burhanettin BULUT Awarded 264. 5498/19 Ekinci v. Türkiye Yasin EKİNCİ Awarded 265. 5713/19 Açıkgöz v. Türkiye Seyfettin AÇIKGÖZ Awarded 266. 6468/19 Özduran v. Türkiye Hasan ÖZDURAN Awarded 267. 7254/19 Özcel v. Türkiye Ali ÖZCEL Awarded 268. 7281/19 Uysal v. Türkiye Bakıt UYSAL Awarded 269. 7302/19 Türkmen v. Türkiye İbrahim TÜRKMEN Awarded 270. 7442/19 Kuş v. Türkiye Davut Murat KUŞ Awarded 271. 7480/19 Toprak v. Türkiye İlhan TOPRAK Awarded 272. 8720/19 Sekmen v. Türkiye Bünyamin SEKMEN Awarded 273. 9324/19 Bartan v. Türkiye Nihat Murat BARTAN Awarded 274. 9355/19 Barin v. Türkiye Mehmet Ali BARİN Awarded 275. 9466/19 Usta v. Türkiye Mehmet USTA Awarded 276. 9704/19 Gerez v. Türkiye Salih Mesut GEREZ Awarded 277. 9818/19 Sağdıç v. Türkiye Yasin SAĞDIÇ Awarded 278. 10535/19 Yaslan v. Türkiye Barış YASLAN Awarded 279. 10593/19 Topal v. Türkiye Yasemin TOPAL Awarded 280. 10619/19 Asan v. Türkiye Enes ASAN Not awarded 281. 10954/19 Erdin v. Türkiye Cevat ERDİN Awarded 282. 11075/19 Varsın v. Türkiye Murat VARSIN Awarded 283. 18561/19 Ulusoy v. Türkiye Fatih ULUSOY Awarded 284. 22762/19 Kaya v. Türkiye Osman KAYA Awarded