CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 12 novembre 2024

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF KESKIN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 36994/17 and 130 others)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 12 November 2024         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Keskin and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Pauliine Koskelo , President ,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Frédéric Krenc , 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”), 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, the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the lawfulness of detention and the absence of a remedy to obtain compensation to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their then Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, former 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 15 October 2024, 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 being affiliated with the FETÖ/PDY based on witness statements, or 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, in some of the applications, 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, in particular, their initial 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 CCP, 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, 3 March 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 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, when ordering the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention, the magistrate’s courts sought to justify their decisions by making a general reference to Article 100 of the CCP and the potential sentence, as well as to “the evidence in the file”. However, in doing so, they simply cited the wording of the provision in question, without actually specifying what the evidence in question entailed and why it constituted a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question. The Court refers in this connection to its findings in the judgment of Baş (cited above, §§   190 ‑ 95), according to which the vague and general references to the wording of Article 100 of the CCP and to the evidence in the file cannot be regarded as sufficient to justify the “reasonableness” of the suspicion on which the applicants’ detention was supposed to have been based, in the absence either of a specific assessment of the individual items of evidence in the file, or of any information available in the file at the material time that could have justified the suspicion against the applicants, or of any other kinds of verifiable material or facts. 9.     The Court further notes that the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention orders were mainly 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 alone 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 also notes that as regards some of the applicants, the Government have referred to the existence of witness statements justifying the measures in question. It observes, however, that there are no statements in the case files referring to concrete and specific facts that may have given rise to a reasonable suspicion against the applicants concerned at the material time. 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). 10.     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 argued in their observations, that the fact that the applicants were not members of the judiciary had any bearing on the conclusion reached. It finally 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 11.     As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and   5 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 12.     The applicants, except for the applicants in application nos. 71046/17, 4083/18, 12241/18, 18301/18, 22189/18, 45562/18, 50312/18, 27657/19, 30378/19, 35096/19 and 35290/19, 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. 13.     The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive. 14.     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. 71046/17, 4083/18, 12241/18, 18301/18, 22189/18, 45562/18, 50312/18, 27657/19, 30378/19, 35096/19 and 35290/19 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. 71046/17, 4083/18, 12241/18, 18301/18, 22189/18, 45562/18, 50312/18, 27657/19, 30378/19, 35096/19 and 35290/19, 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 November 2024, 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. 36994/17 Keskin v. Türkiye 30/03/2017 Mehmet KESKİN 1982 Kocaeli Turkish Timur ŞAHİN 2. 45108/17 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 01/06/2017 Adem YILMAZ 1968 Istanbul Turkish   3. 54634/17 Öğünlü v. Türkiye 21/06/2017 Bilal ÖĞÜNLÜ 1979 Ankara Turkish   4. 59619/17 Acar v. Türkiye 15/05/2017 Serpil ACAR 1978 Tekirdağ Turkish Dilara YILMAZ 5. 69561/17 Akbulut v. Türkiye 24/08/2017 Ahmet Müjdat AKBULUT 1983 Manisa Turkish Akerke ABDYKALYKOVA ONAT 6. 71046/17 Kartal v. Türkiye 28/08/2017 Eyüp Sabri KARTAL 1965 İzmir Turkish Necip Fazıl YILDIZ 7. 2714/18 Aslan v. Türkiye 19/12/2017 İbrahim Halil ASLAN 1984 Şanlıurfa Turkish   8. 4083/18 İstemil v. Türkiye 01/12/2017 Hasan İSTEMİL 1988 Ankara Turkish   9. 4699/18 Taşdemir v. Türkiye 13/07/2017 Reşit TAŞDEMİR 1970 Sakarya Turkish Ahmet EROL 10. 11324/18 Yassıkaya v. Türkiye 20/02/2018 Mekke YASSIKAYA 1975 Denizli Turkish Dilara YILMAZ 11. 11327/18 Özkan v. Türkiye 20/02/2018 Mehmet Ali ÖZKAN 1960 Denizli Turkish Dilara YILMAZ 12. 11898/18 Dinç v. Türkiye 22/02/2018 Mustafa DİNÇ 1980 Konya Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 13. 11982/18 Avcı v. Türkiye 05/03/2018 Servet AVCI 1986 Erzurum Turkish Ömer Faruk YILDIRIM 14. 12166/18 Aktürk v. Türkiye 19/02/2018 Hüseyin AKTÜRK 1983 Denizli Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 15. 12241/18 Aycıl v. Türkiye 22/02/2018 Sultan AYCIL 1991 Istanbul Turkish Recep SEYHAN 16. 12575/18 Saracoğlu v. Türkiye 02/03/2018 Fatih SARACOĞLU 1978 Ankara Turkish Ali ALAGÖZ 17. 14825/18 Doğan v. Türkiye 08/02/2018 Ömer DOĞAN 1973 Tekirdağ Turkish Mehmet Ertürk ERDEVİR 18. 16112/18 Balcı v. Türkiye 14/03/2018 İbrahim BALCI 1981 Konya Turkish Güliz Rabia TEKİN 19. 16970/18 Balcan v. Türkiye 16/03/2018 Fatih BALCAN 1977 Ankara Turkish Tuğba Nur KIYMAZ 20. 17744/18 Bilgin v. Türkiye 16/02/2018 Zeynel BİLGİN 1976 Trabzon Turkish Şeyma ALKAN 21. 18195/18 Oğuz v. Türkiye 15/03/2018 Arap OĞUZ 1990 Elazığ Turkish Mehmet EKİNOĞLU 22. 18301/18 Öztürk v. Türkiye 19/02/2018 Bekir ÖZTÜRK 1981 Osmaniye Turkish   23. 19706/18 Uryan v. Türkiye 16/04/2018 Yıldırım URYAN 1974 Ankara Turkish Ulviye TURĞUT 24. 22037/18 Güngör v. Türkiye 30/04/2018 Hüseyin Zekeriya GÜNGÖR 1982 İzmir Turkish Oğuzhan BOSTANOĞLU 25. 22189/18 Arıdal v. Türkiye 24/04/2018 Bayram ARIDAL 1970 İzmir Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 26. 23234/18 Bekci v. Türkiye 03/05/2018 Volkan BEKCİ 1977 Istanbul Turkish Dilara YILMAZ 27. 24684/18 Özkan v. Türkiye 15/05/2018 Niyazi ÖZKAN 1978 Ankara Turkish   28. 28009/18 Arslan v. Türkiye 06/06/2018 İbrahim ARSLAN 1983 Tekirdağ Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 29. 30478/18 Acar v. Türkiye 19/06/2018 Mevlüt ACAR 1976 Isparta Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 30. 32413/18 Aydın v. Türkiye 20/06/2018 Ahmet AYDIN 1983 Kars Turkish Havva AYDIN 31. 33866/18 Ünlü v. Türkiye 05/07/2018 Mahmut Salih ÜNLÜ 1978 Ankara Turkish   32. 35667/18 Erdoğan v. Türkiye 09/07/2018 Kamil ERDOĞAN 1986 Manisa Turkish Abdullah TOMUR 33. 36239/18 Kablan v. Türkiye 21/07/2018 Yaşar KABLAN 1975 Ankara Turkish Üsame İNAN 34. 37279/18 Selimler v. Türkiye 26/07/2018 Veysel SELİMLER 1963 Osmaniye Turkish Mehmet ÜNLÜ 35. 37434/18 Özdemir v. Türkiye 26/07/2018 Melih Emre ÖZDEMİR 1995 Erzincan Turkish   36. 43243/18 Özdemir v. Türkiye 06/09/2018 Yüksel ÖZDEMİR 1976 Mardin Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 37. 44785/18 Taş v. Türkiye 13/09/2018 Mehmet Emin TAŞ 1982 Şanlıurfa Turkish   38. 45457/18 Şener v. Türkiye 17/09/2018 Metin ŞENER 1974 Ankara Turkish Hayrettin KESKİNSOY 39. 45562/18 Şahin v. Türkiye 03/09/2018 Servet ŞAHİN 1980 Gaziantep Turkish   40. 46263/18 İçtin v. Türkiye 03/09/2018 Mustafa İÇTİN 1973 Osmaniye Turkish Şeyma ALKAN 41. 46359/18 Bulut v. Türkiye 12/09/2018 Necip BULUT 1971 İzmir Turkish Tuba Nur BULUT 42. 48501/18 Özmen v. Türkiye 02/10/2018 İzzet ÖZMEN 1974 Bursa Turkish Ebubekir RENK 43. 50312/18 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 16/10/2018 Abdullah YILMAZ 1987 Netphen Turkish   44. 55620/18 Şimşek v. Türkiye 04/10/2018 Ömer ŞİMŞEK 1988 Istanbul Turkish   45. 57674/18 Taşkıran v. Türkiye 15/11/2018 Taşkın TAŞKIRAN 1984 Istanbul Turkish Özlem TATAR 46. 3227/19 Çelik v. Türkiye 25/12/2018 Satı ÇELİK 1984 Ankara Turkish Şeyma MISIRLIOĞLU 47. 4584/19 Taştekin v. Türkiye 03/12/2018 Muhtesim TAŞTEKİN 1979 İzmir Turkish Emrah BARAN 48. 5415/19 Yazar v. Türkiye 28/11/2018 Yusuf YAZAR 1972 Osmaniye Turkish   49. 8329/19 Atasoy (Çetin) v. Türkiye 29/01/2019 Serap ATASOY (ÇETİN) 1977 Tokat Turkish Saniye EVĞÜN 50. 9501/19 Ay v. Türkiye 08/02/2019 Barış AY 1991 Akhisar - Manisa Turkish Levent KOCAMAN 51. 13124/19 Altuntop v. Türkiye 22/02/2019 Halit ALTUNTOP 1979 Kocaeli Turkish   52. 15777/19 Akdeniz v. Türkiye 26/02/2019 Buket AKDENİZ 1989 Amasya Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ 53. 16138/19 Aşula v. Türkiye 28/02/2019 Özgür AŞULA 1979 Istanbul Turkish   54. 16205/19 Karakuş v. Türkiye 13/03/2019 Fatih KARAKUŞ 1975 Hatay Turkish   55. 17039/19 Kar v. Türkiye 07/03/2019 Bekir KAR 1987 Ankara Turkish   56. 17088/19 Köylü v. Türkiye 07/03/2019 Mustafa KÖYLÜ 1986 Kırşehir Turkish   57. 18851/19 Gülbaş v. Türkiye 09/01/2019 Cüneyt GÜLBAŞ 1976 Istanbul Turkish   58. 18859/19 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 26/03/2019 Ramazan YILMAZ 1989 Istanbul Turkish Nimet ÖZDEMİR CAN 59. 19037/19 Akdeniz v. Türkiye 25/03/2019 İsmail AKDENİZ 1983 Erzurum Turkish Nurefşan İRDEMEZ 60. 19113/19 Güder v. Türkiye 22/03/2019 Suat GÜDER 1984 Ankara Turkish Mehmet Arif YALÇINKAYA 61. 19129/19 Çınar v. Türkiye 29/03/2019 İbrahim ÇINAR 1970 Samsun Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ 62. 19146/19 Yurdakul v. Türkiye 02/04/2019 İbrahim YURDAKUL 1965 Istanbul Turkish   63. 19174/19 Usta v. Türkiye 28/03/2019 Ayhan USTA 1975 Tokat Turkish   64. 19507/19 Türkmenoğlu v. Türkiye 11/03/2019 İbrahim TÜRKMENOĞLU 1978 Afyonkarahisar Turkish Halil İbrahim KEBEŞOĞLU 65. 19672/19 Şanlı v. Türkiye 27/03/2019 Sedat ŞANLI 1985 Osmaniye Turkish Mehmet Fatih ARSLAN 66. 19814/19 Burkay v. Türkiye 28/03/2019 İbrahim Halil BURKAY 1983 Gaziantep Turkish Çağrı Seyfettin GÖKDEMİR 67. 19861/19 Kart v. Türkiye 02/04/2019 İslam KART 1979 Eskişehir Turkish   68. 19865/19 Pehlivan v. Türkiye 01/04/2019 Mahmut PEHLİVAN 1973 İzmir Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 69. 20314/19 Çevik v. Türkiye 20/03/2019 Metin ÇEVİK 1977 İzmir Turkish Bahadır Gökhan KAYA 70. 21219/19 Coşkun v. Türkiye 19/03/2019 Süleyman COŞKUN 1980 Nurtingen Turkish Metehan USLUEROL 71. 21246/19 Erbay v. Türkiye 29/03/2019 Şükür ERBAY 1990 Trabzon Turkish Vahdeddin VARLI 72. 21560/19 Barıt v. Türkiye 08/04/2019 Necmettin BARIT 1988 Elazığ Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 73. 21578/19 Erbaş v. Türkiye 05/04/2019 Mustafa ERBAŞ 1973 Ankara Turkish   74. 21702/19 Duman v. Türkiye 04/04/2019 Ali İhsan DUMAN 1986 İzmir Turkish Merve Vildan DUMAN 75. 21900/19 Çavdar v. Türkiye 18/04/2019 Durmuş ÇAVDAR 1974 Tokat Turkish   76. 21907/19 Balcı v. Türkiye 08/04/2019 Zafer BALCI 1971 Yalova Turkish Enes Malik KILIÇ 77. 21954/19 Bircan v. Türkiye 12/04/2019 Mustafa BİRCAN 1973 Tokat Turkish Lale KARADAŞ 78. 21956/19 Kabadayı v. Türkiye 19/04/2019 Enes KABADAYI 1993 Balıkesir Turkish   79. 22387/19 Birgin v. Türkiye 15/04/2019 Beytullah BİRGİN 1986 Aksaray Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ 80. 23055/19 Durmaz v. Türkiye 16/04/2019 Musa DURMAZ 1994 Yozgat Turkish Mehmet Ali BULUT 81. 23952/19 Aslan v. Türkiye 26/03/2019 Engin ASLAN 1977 Çorum Turkish Ramazan GÜLTEKİN 82. 24306/19 Alpay v. Türkiye 09/04/2019 Zafer ALPAY 1975 Istanbul Turkish Şefik KARAKIŞ 83. 24618/19 Çelik v. Türkiye 24/04/2018 İlham ÇELİK 1986 Kocaeli Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 84. 24912/19 Yetkin v. Türkiye 04/04/2019 Ertuğrul YETKİN 1974 Adana Turkish   85. 24971/19 Alioğlu v. Türkiye 20/04/2019 Burhan ALİOĞLU 1988 Istanbul Turkish İrfan ALİOĞLU 86. 25006/19 Taşdelen v. Türkiye 22/04/2019 Ali Osman TAŞDELEN 1984 Yozgat Turkish İlyas ERDOĞAN 87. 25146/19 Er v. Türkiye 22/04/2019 Cazip ER 1977 Adana Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 88. 25442/19 Keskinoğlu v. Türkiye 30/04/2019 Cevdet KESKİNOĞLU 1978 Samsun Turkish Metin ATEŞOĞLU 89. 25829/19 Taylan v. Türkiye 25/04/2019 Arif TAYLAN 1978 Konya Turkish   90. 27028/19 Yelkovan v. Türkiye 19/04/2019 Murat YELKOVAN 1976 Kocaeli Turkish Mesut Can TARIM 91. 27095/19 Yasinoğlu v. Türkiye 03/05/2019 Erdal YASİNOĞLU 1985 İzmir Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 92. 27143/19 Demir v. Türkiye 29/04/2019 İsmail DEMİR 1990 Gaziantep Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 93. 27495/19 Batçık v. Türkiye 17/05/2019 Gökhan BATÇIK 1988 Molnlycke Turkish   94. 27657/19 Şalış v. Türkiye 30/04/2019 Hüseyin ŞALIŞ 1979 Wylie Turkish   95. 27661/19 Aykaç v. Türkiye 03/05/2019 Osman AYKAÇ 1969 Ankara Turkish   96. 29324/19 İğde v. Türkiye 09/05/2019 Uğur İĞDE 1976 Kayseri Turkish Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ 97. 29325/19 Bildirici v. Türkiye 10/05/2019 Hüseyin BİLDİRİCİ 1967 Balıkesir Turkish   98. 29672/19 Yazar v. Türkiye 10/05/2019 Gültekin YAZAR 1970 Zonguldak Turkish Songül YAZAR 99. 30010/19 Boyacıoğlu v. Türkiye 26/04/2019 Erol BOYACIOĞLU 1993 Kars Turkish Fatma BABAYİĞİT 100. 30226/19 Hacımüftüoğlu v. Türkiye 02/05/2019 Semih HACIMÜFTÜOĞLU 1976 Trabzon Turkish   101. 30323/19 Karaosmanoğlu v. Türkiye 20/05/2019 Fatih KARAOSMANOĞLU 1964 Ankara Turkish Feyza Banu KARAOSMANOĞLU 102. 30357/19 Güzel v. Türkiye 02/05/2019 Armağan Süleyman GÜZEL 1989 Manisa Turkish Zümrüt ŞAHİN 103. 30378/19 Usluer v. Türkiye 14/05/2019 Yunus USLUER 1971 Kocaeli Turkish Hakki ARDA 104. 30386/19 Koç v. Türkiye 16/05/2019 Ayhan KOÇ 1981 Ankara Turkish   105. 30440/19 Gümüş v. Türkiye 21/05/2019 Sefer GÜMÜŞ 1975 Mersin Turkish Zafer ÖZER 106. 30473/19 Çevik v. Türkiye 10/05/2019 Ali ÇEVİK 1980 Sinop Turkish   107. 30529/19 Akkaş v. Türkiye 22/05/2019 İsmet AKKAŞ 1974 Kayseri Turkish Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN 108. 30653/19 Kocatekin v. Türkiye 17/05/2019 Sevgi KOCATEKİN 1977 Kocaeli Turkish Elvan BAĞ CANBAZ 109. 30703/19 Şimşek v. Türkiye 22/05/2019 İmdat ŞİMŞEK 1990 Bitlis Turkish Gözde DEMİRBAŞ 110. 31079/19 Öztürk v. Türkiye 22/05/2019 Mustafa ÖZTÜRK 1964 Tokat Turkish   111. 32627/19 Toptaş v. Türkiye 17/05/2019 Bilge Kağan TOPTAŞ (formerly Bilge Kaan TOPTAŞ) 1994 Mersin Turkish Ali AVCI 112. 33114/19 Menzilci v. Türkiye 22/05/2019 Semih MENZİLCİ 1969 Aydın Turkish Esra Nur AKYOL 113. 33395/19 Arapoğlu v. Türkiye 21/05/2019 Miktat ARAPOĞLU 1980 Yozgat Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 114. 33465/19 Ulusal v. Türkiye 11/06/2019 Murat ULUSAL 1988 Ankara Turkish   115. 33950/19 Can v. Türkiye 22/06/2019 Hasan Basri CAN 1965 Afyonkarahisar Turkish Naciye CAN 116. 34017/19 Uyar v. Türkiye 14/06/2019 Ramazan UYAR 1977 İzmir Turkish   117. 35042/19 Uğur v. Türkiye 01/07/2019 Murat UĞUR 1976 Bolu Turkish Said İsmail TÜRKOĞLU 118. 35050/19 Çelik v. Türkiye 01/07/2019 Seyit ÇELİK 1983 Aksaray Turkish Şeyma MISIRLIOĞLU 119. 35096/19 Ekici v. Türkiye 28/06/2019 Abdurrahman EKİCİ 1981 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Funda Nur GÜNAYDIN 120. 35149/19 Atik v. Türkiye 28/06/2019 Bahadır ATİK 1983 Ankara Turkish   121. 35290/19 Aydın v. Türkiye 14/06/2019 Muhammed AYDIN 1987 Bartın Turkish   122. 35443/19 Kaya v. Türkiye 13/06/2019 Ömür KAYA 1976 Çorum Turkish Özlem TATAR 123. 35644/19 Sarıboğa v. Türkiye 20/06/2019 Bahtiyar SARIBOĞA 1975 Samsun Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 124. 35831/19 Zengin v. Türkiye 28/05/2019 Cevdet ZENGİN 1976 İzmir Turkish   125. 33292/20 Güler v. Türkiye 17/07/2020 Ahmet GÜLER 1974 Bolu Turkish Merve Vildan DUMAN 126. 54377/20 Karapınar v. Türkiye 24/11/2020 Osman KARAPINAR 1983 Malatya Turkish   127. 55414/20 Sevim v. Türkiye 26/11/2020 Necip Ercüment SEVİM 1977 Antalya Turkish İshak IŞIK 128. 55442/20 Koyuncu v. Türkiye 26/11/2020 Emre KOYUNCU 1987 Muğla Turkish İshak IŞIK 129. 1752/21 Şen v. Türkiye 11/12/2020 Erdal ŞEN 1973 Sakarya Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 130. 21411/21 Ceyhan v. Türkiye 12/02/2021 İlyas CEYHAN 1981 Bursa Turkish Beyza CEYHAN 131. 45686/21 Tanrıverdi v. Türkiye 08/09/2021 Kamil TANRIVERDİ 1994 Bolu Turkish Muhammed Selim TÜRKOĞLU