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 } .s89D26081 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s9BE67598 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-spacing:1.5pt } .s64B063F8 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding:0.38pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF MECİT AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 69884/17 and 81 others)             JUDGMENT This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 27 May 2025 STRASBOURG 12 December 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mecit 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 eighty-two 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 alleged lack of reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of an offence, the alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons when ordering and extending the pre-trial detention, the length of pre-trial detention and the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the lawfulness of detention 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 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 (for further background information see Akgün v. Turkey , no. 19699/18, §§ 3-9 and §§ 106-07, 20 July 2021). 2 .     On various dates, the applicants were arrested and placed in pre-trial detention, mainly on suspicion of membership of the FETÖ/PDY, an offence punishable under Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see Baş v.   Turkey , no.   66448/17, § 58, 3 March 2020 ). The detention orders relied principally on the nature of the alleged offence, the state of the evidence and the potential sentence. It was also noted that investigations into the coup attempt were being conducted across the country, that statements had not yet been taken from all the suspects and that the alleged offence was among the “catalogue” offences listed in Article   100   §   3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) (for the text of Article 100 of the CCP, as relevant, see Baş , cited above, §   61). It appears from the initial detention orders and the documents available in the case files that the majority of the applicants were identified as users of the ByLock messaging system. Moreover, some of the applicants were suspected of financing the FETÖ/PDY in view of their use of accounts in Bank Asya –   a bank allegedly linked to FETÖ/PDY –, possession of pro-FETÖ/PDY publications and/or United States one-dollar bills with an “F” serial number (denoting the initial of the forename “Fetullah”), and/or their employment by and/or memberships in FETÖ/PDY-affiliated institutions and organisations. The challenges brought by the applicants against their detention, including by reason of the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion of having committed the offence imputed to them, were dismissed, including by the Constitutional Court. 3.     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. It appears that, for the most part, the criminal proceedings are still pending before appeal courts or the Constitutional Court. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 4.     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 5.     The applicants complained that there had been no specific evidence   giving rise to a reasonable suspicion, within the meaning of Article   5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, that they had committed a criminal offence necessitating pre-trial detention. 6.     The Government urged the Court to declare this complaint inadmissible in respect of the applicants who had not made use of the compensatory remedy under Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or whose compensation claims were still pending. They further asked the Court to declare the applications inadmissible for abuse of the right of application to the extent that the applicants had not informed the Court of the developments in their cases following the lodging of their applications. 7.     The Court notes that similar objections have   already been dismissed in other cases against Türkiye (see, for instance, Baş v. Turkey, no.   66448/17 , §§   118-21, 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 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. 8.     The Court notes that the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention was based on information indicating their use of the ByLock messaging system, banking activities considered as financing the FETÖ/PDY, subscriptions to certain pro-FETÖ/PDY publications, having in their possessions United States one ‑ dollar bills with an “F” serial number, and/or their employment by and/or memberships in FETÖ/PDY-affiliated institutions and organisations. To the extent that the detention orders have taken into account the applicants’ alleged use of the ByLock messaging system, the Court notes that it has already found that the use of ByLock was not of a nature to constitute “reasonable suspicion” within the meaning of Article   5   §   1   (c) in respect of the offence attributed to the applicants (see Akgün v. Turkey , no.   19699/18, §§ 151-85, 20   July 2021, and Taner Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 2) , no.   208/18, §§   102-03 and 106-09, 31 May 2022 ). The Court further considers, as relevant, that the other acts imputed to the applicants (see paragraph 2 above) were merely circumstantial elements which, in the absence of any other information capable of justifying the suspicions in question, benefited from the presumption of legality and cannot reasonably be regarded as constituting a body of evidence demonstrating the applicants’ membership of a terrorist organisation (compare Taner Kılıç , cited above, §§ 104-05 and the cases cited therein). 9.     Since the Government have not provided any other indications, “facts” or “information” capable of satisfying it that the applicants were “reasonably suspected”, at the time of their initial detention, of having committed the alleged offence, the Court finds that the requirements of   Article   5   §   1   (c)   regarding the “reasonableness” of a suspicion justifying detention have not been satisfied (see Baş , cited above, §   195, and Taner Kılıç , cited above, §§ 114-16). At this juncture, it cannot be maintained, as the Government did, that the mere fact that the applicants were not members of the judiciary had any bearing on the conclusion reached. It moreover considers that 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 §§   196 ‑ 201). It therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER COMPLAINTS 10.     As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 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, except for the applicants in application nos. 6670/18, 7824/19, 9380/19 and 9462/19, 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, 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, save for the applicants in application nos.   6670/18, 7824/19, 9380/19 and 9462/19, 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 alleged lack of reasonable suspicion, at the time of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention, that they had committed an offence, admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of reasonable suspicion, at the time of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention, that they had committed an offence; 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 each of the applicants, save for the applicants in application nos. 6670/18, 7824/19, 9380/19 and 9462/19, 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 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 Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 69884/17 Mecit v. Türkiye 04/09/2017 Hamit MECİT 1972 Malatya Turkish Büşra KESER 2. 4625/18 Çevik v. Türkiye 13/07/2017 Hasan Hüseyin ÇEVİK 1973 Konya Turkish Mustafa DEMİR 3. 4697/18 Tarhan v. Türkiye 13/07/2017 Osman TARHAN 1980 Konya Turkish Mustafa DEMİR 4. 6670/18 Özkul v. Türkiye 09/01/2018 Salih ÖZKUL 1987 Ankara Turkish Abidin ŞAHİN 5. 9584/18 Yücedağ v. Türkiye 13/02/2018 Mesut YÜCEDAĞ 1989 Bursa Turkish Fatma ALBAYRAK 6. 9585/18 Aydoğmuş v. Türkiye 13/02/2018 Yasin AYDOĞMUŞ 1982 Ankara Turkish Fatma ALBAYRAK 7. 9586/18 Sıryol v. Türkiye 13/02/2018 Münevver SIRYOL 1985 Istanbul Turkish Fatma ALBAYRAK 8. 12124/18 Özcan v. Türkiye 06/03/2018 Abdurrahman ÖZCAN 1975 Istanbul Turkish Fatma ALBAYRAK 9. 12490/18 Mila v. Türkiye 02/03/2018 Mehmet MİLA 1983 Van Turkish Büşra KURT KÜÇÜK 10. 26360/18 Karakaya v. Türkiye 08/05/2018 Musa KARAKAYA 1979 Aydın Turkish Adem KAPLAN 11. 27004/18 Boran v. Türkiye 18/05/2018 Hasan Basri BORAN 1973 Adana Turkish Sinan TUMLUKOLÇU 12. 27075/18 Dursun v. Türkiye 18/05/2018 Yaşar DURSUN 1975 Çankırı Turkish Adem KAPLAN 13. 27086/18 Duran v. Türkiye 18/05/2018 Erdal DURAN 1976 Çankırı Turkish Adem KAPLAN 14. 29602/18 Öz v. Türkiye 11/06/2018 Mahmut ÖZ 1984 Kastamonu Turkish Fatma Zehra ÖZDİPİ 15. 30140/18 Bereket v. Türkiye 13/06/2018 Ömer BEREKET 1975 Gaziantep Turkish Fadıl ULUTAŞ 16. 40409/18 Öztürk v. Türkiye 06/08/2018 Celal ÖZTÜRK 1971 Sinop Turkish Bekir DEMİRCİOĞLU 17. 41513/18 Yontar v. Türkiye 17/08/2018 Şükrü YONTAR 1977 Tekirdağ Turkish Mehmet Ertürk ERDEVİR 18. 44762/18 Yarbı v. Türkiye 17/09/2018 Aydın YARBI 1972 Yalova Turkish Mehmet GÜL 19. 44766/18 Yalçın v. Türkiye 14/09/2018 Fatih YALÇIN 1976 Ankara Turkish Mehmet YALÇIN 20. 45472/18 Aydoğan v. Türkiye 07/09/2018 İbrahim AYDOĞAN 1974 Ankara Turkish Adem KAPLAN 21. 45473/18 Akmirza v. Türkiye 07/09/2018 Bekir AKMİRZA 1968 Kırşehir Turkish Adem KAPLAN 22. 45482/18 Gündüz v. Türkiye 07/09/2018 Murat GÜNDÜZ 1973 Ankara Turkish Adem KAPLAN 23. 47781/18 Tekdemir v. Türkiye 09/10/2018 Gazi TEKDEMİR 1964 Istanbul Turkish Kamile ÖZBULUT 24. 48351/18 Kırdağ v. Türkiye 09/10/2018 Hakan KIRDAĞ 1963 Ankara Turkish Adem KAPLAN 25. 49301/18 Talu v. Türkiye 09/10/2018 Emre TALU 1990 Sivas Turkish Şeyma MISIRLIOĞLU 26. 49903/18 Örsel v. Türkiye 03/10/2018 Yaşar ÖRSEL 1972 Kırşehir Turkish Lale KARADAŞ 27. 50798/18 Demir v. Türkiye 11/10/2018 Abdussamet DEMİR 1991 Ankara Turkish Adem KAPLAN 28. 50799/18 Kara v. Türkiye 11/10/2018 Harun KARA 1980 Isparta Turkish Adem KAPLAN 29. 51577/18 Özdemir v. Türkiye 15/10/2018 İsmet ÖZDEMİR 1974 Manisa Turkish İsmail GÜNEY 30. 51690/18 Geleken v. Türkiye 26/10/2018 Turgut GELEKEN 1973 İzmir Turkish Mevlüt Burak KAPTAN 31. 52456/18 Acar v. Türkiye 02/11/2018 Emre ACAR 1985 Kırıkkale Turkish Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ 32. 52523/18 Günal v. Türkiye 24/10/2018 Hüseyin GÜNAL 1971 Aksaray Turkish İhsan MAKAS 33. 52623/18 Bayram v. Türkiye 26/10/2018 Mehmet BAYRAM 1985 Tokat Turkish Emre AKARYILDIZ 34. 53261/18 Kemer v. Türkiye 09/11/2018 Selçuk KEMER 1967 Bartın Turkish Bekir DÖNMEZ 35. 53933/18 Kalpaklı v. Türkiye 22/10/2018 Fatma KALPAKLI 1991 Tekirdağ Turkish Mehmet Ertürk ERDEVİR 36. 54989/18 Yağız v. Türkiye 05/11/2018 İbrahim YAĞIZ 1971 Antalya Turkish Burhan AYDIN 37. 56023/18 Alakuş v. Türkiye 31/10/2018 Fatih ALAKUŞ 1970 Eskişehir Turkish Kurtuluş BAŞTİMAR 38. 56482/18 Asiltürk v. Türkiye 26/11/2018 Ramazan ASILTÜRK 1977 Bolu Turkish Adem DÜZGÜN 39. 57561/18 Demir v. Türkiye 02/11/2018 Osman DEMİR 1976 Ankara Turkish Demet YÜREKLİ KAYAALP 40. 58256/18 Kaleli v. Türkiye 21/11/2018 Nurullah KALELİ 1987 Konya Turkish Recep ALTUN 41. 58801/18 Karakaş v. Türkiye 21/11/2018 Mecit KARAKAŞ 1989 Eskişehir Turkish Adem KAPLAN 42. 59988/18 Acar v. Türkiye 07/12/2018 Mehmet ACAR 1974 Bursa Turkish Çiğdem DERDİYOK KUBULAN 43. 2366/19 Cildan v. Türkiye 03/12/2018 Halit CİLDAN 1969 Hatay Turkish Bilal ÇÖRTÜK 44. 2857/19 Öbekci v. Türkiye 03/01/2019 Yusuf ÖBEKCİ 1971 Ankara Turkish   45. 3026/19 Kulaksız v. Türkiye 21/12/2018 Muhammet Yusuf KULAKSIZ 1970 Istanbul Turkish Hasan Tahsin IŞILTAN 46. 3252/19 Yaprak v. Türkiye 25/12/2018 Amir YAPRAK Tokat Turkish Şeyma MISIRLIOĞLU 47. 3774/19 Turhan v. Türkiye 26/12/2018 Murat TURHAN 1984 Denizli Turkish Gülhis YÖRÜK 48. 3984/19 Dakeşoğlu v. Türkiye 09/01/2019 Ali İhsan DAKEŞOĞLU 1979 Rize Turkish   49. 4053/19 Seçkin v. Türkiye 28/12/2018 Ahmet SEÇKİN 1977 Ankara Turkish Adem KAPLAN 50. 4074/19 Deniz v. Türkiye 28/12/2018 Cengiz DENİZ 1973 Elazığ Turkish Adem KAPLAN 51. 4079/19 İnan v. Türkiye 28/12/2018 Burhan İNAN 1983 Ankara Turkish Adem KAPLAN 52. 4105/19 Doğan v. Türkiye 30/11/2018 Ramazan Fatih DOĞAN 1985 İzmir Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 53. 4240/19 Yelkesen v. Türkiye 07/01/2019 Mehmet Akif YELKESEN 1972 Hatay Turkish Erdoğan SARAÇ 54. 5539/19 Çoşkun v. Türkiye 07/01/2019 Ferhat COŞKUN 1981 Kayseri Turkish Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ 55. 5561/19 Gürşen v. Türkiye 31/12/2018 Cihan Murat GÜRŞEN 1980 Konya Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 56. 5900/19 Özdemir v. Türkiye 17/01/2019 Mikail ÖZDEMİR 1991 Trabzon Turkish Vahdeddin VARLI 57. 6189/19 Aygen v. Türkiye 17/12/2018 Ziya AYGEN 1974 Ankara Turkish Adem KAPLAN 58. 6193/19 Vurucu v. Türkiye 17/12/2018 İsmail VURUCU 1985 Ankara Turkish Adem KAPLAN 59. 6316/19 Reçber v. Türkiye 10/01/2019 Emre REÇBER 1986 Ankara Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 60. 6588/19 Kılıç v. Türkiye 23/01/2019 Hüseyin Gazi KILIÇ 1974 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Emre KOZANDAĞI 61. 6979/19 Akgül v. Türkiye 17/01/2019 Raşit AKGÜL 1962 Kırıkkale Turkish Hasan Hüseyin ERDOĞAN 62. 7100/19 Yıldız v. Türkiye 24/01/2019 Sezgin YILDIZ 1976 Manisa Turkish Ömer KÖSTEKÇİ 63. 7134/19 Asrı v. Türkiye 23/01/2019 Ekrem ASRI Antalya Turkish Yusuf Sait PEKGÖZ 64. 7269/19 Ejder v. Türkiye 24/01/2019 Ayşe EJDER 1964 Kars Turkish Özcan AKINCI 65. 7824/19 Düzgün v. Türkiye 28/01/2019 İsmail DÜZGÜN 1983 Antalya Turkish Emre ÖZDİKİCİERLER 66. 7996/19 Kaya v. Türkiye 24/01/2019 Mehmet KAYA 1988 Istanbul Turkish İrem TATLIDEDE 67. 8413/19 Atalay v. Türkiye 30/01/2019 Cemal ATALAY 1986 Bursa Turkish   68. 8990/19 Bal v. Türkiye 30/01/2019 Mustafa BAL 1972 Giresun Turkish Şükrü KOCUK 69. 9121/19 Asrı v. Türkiye 11/02/2019 İsa Samet ASRI 1996 Antalya Turkish Yusuf Sait PEKGÖZ 70. 9195/19 Kököz v. Türkiye 22/01/2019 Ramazan KÖKÖZ 1973 Manisa Turkish Asım Burak GÜNEŞ 71. 9332/19 Şenyayla v. Türkiye 06/02/2019 Zeki ŞENYAYLA 1974 Ankara Turkish Üsame İNAN 72. 9380/19 Irk v. Türkiye 25/01/2019 Mümtaz İRK 1980 Aksaray Turkish Emre KOZANDAĞI 73. 9446/19 Güneş v. Türkiye 09/02/2019 Cemal GÜNEŞ 1988 Antalya Turkish Yusuf Sait PEKGÖZ 74. 9452/19 Uzay v. Türkiye 31/01/2019 Sadettin UZAY 1972 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ 75. 9462/19 Öz v. Türkiye 15/01/2019 Ali ÖZ 1970 Konya Turkish Selda Devrim YILDIRIM 76. 9815/19 Güneş v. Türkiye 05/02/2019 Recep GÜNEŞ 1974 Siirt Turkish Hasan TOK 77. 9981/19 Yıldırım v. Türkiye 05/02/2019 Zeynel YILDIRIM 1980 Ankara Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 78. 10173/19 Taşkın v. Türkiye 07/02/2019 Ahmet TAŞKIN 1972 Antalya Turkish Yusuf Sait PEKGÖZ 79. 11313/19 Gürbüz v. Türkiye 20/02/2019 Ahmet GÜRBÜZ 1974 Elazığ Turkish Mehmet Sıddık KARAGÖZ 80. 11333/19 Hazin v. Türkiye 11/02/2019 Mesut HAZIN 1980 Kırşehir Turkish Lale KARADAŞ 81. 21352/19 Başyiğit v. Türkiye 16/04/2019 Mahmut BAŞYİĞİT 1970 Aydin Turkish Özlem SUZAN 82. 36350/19 Altıparmak v. Türkiye 01/07/2019 Ömer ALTIPARMAK 1975 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Necip Fazıl YILDIZ