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 } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE385E089 { height:74.95pt }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF MANAV AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 56211/19 and 127 others)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 12 November 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Manav 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, 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 , cited above, §§   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, 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 applications nos.   59379/19, 60694/19, 63017/19, 63900/19, 64491/19, 65131/19, 503/20, 640/20, 2467/20, 3406/20, 5612/20, 5974/20, 7453/20 and 12837/20, 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, 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 applications nos. 59379/19, 60694/19, 63017/19, 63900/19, 64491/19, 65131/19, 503/20, 640/20, 2467/20, 3406/20, 5612/20, 5974/20, 7453/20 and 12837/20, 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 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 applications nos. 59379/19, 60694/19, 63017/19, 63900/19, 64491/19, 65131/19, 503/20, 640/20, 2467/20, 3406/20, 5612/20, 5974/20, 7453/20 and 12837/20, 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 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. 56211/19 Manav v. Türkiye 02/10/2019 Enes MANAV 1992 Konya Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 2. 56255/19 Polat v. Türkiye 01/10/2019 Yusuf POLAT 1985 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 3. 56429/19 Kahya v. Türkiye 08/10/2019 Ahmet KAHYA 1987 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 4. 56516/19 Aydın v. Türkiye 16/10/2019 İrfan AYDIN 1988 Ankara Turkish   5. 56639/19 Demirci v. Türkiye 15/10/2019 Coşgun DEMİRCİ 1986 Kayseri Turkish Safiye YILMAZ 6. 56701/19 Yiğit v. Türkiye 17/10/2019 Mehmet YİĞİT 1975 Kocaeli Turkish   7. 56973/19 Üstün v. Türkiye 10/10/2019 Murat ÜSTÜN 1974 Çorum Turkish Gaye Vuslat ÜSTÜN 8. 57477/19 Kılıç v. Türkiye 31/10/2019 Bayram KILIÇ 1966 Izmir Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 9. 57733/19 İlerde v. Türkiye 04/10/2019 Ahmet İLERDE 1983 Kars Turkish Ahmet KIRTEPE 10. 57954/19 Demiroğlu v. Türkiye 18/10/2019 Abbas DEMİROĞLU 1987 Elazığ Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 11. 58352/19 Öztürk v. Türkiye 30/10/2019 İbrahim ÖZTÜRK 1984 Kocaeli Turkish   12. 58611/19 Aksu v. Türkiye 07/11/2019 Latif AKSU 1967 İzmir Turkish   13. 58781/19 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 25/10/2019 Mehmet YILMAZ 1975 Gaziantep Turkish   14. 58851/19 Karaaslan v. Türkiye 24/10/2019 Hasan KARAASLAN 1973 Trabzon Turkish   15. 58963/19 Köseoğlu v. Türkiye 31/10/2019 Abdulhamit KÖSEOĞLU 1991 Samsun Turkish   16. 59379/19 Kaya v. Türkiye 01/11/2019 Abdulmelik KAYA 1992 Ağrı Turkish   17. 59512/19 Düzgün v. Türkiye 08/11/2019 Muzaffer DÜZGÜN 1972 Zonguldak Turkish Erdi KOSTIK 18. 59544/19 Aktürk v. Türkiye 06/11/2019 Ramazan AKTÜRK 1983 Karabük Turkish Ahmet ÖZDİN 19. 59740/19 Aydemir v. Türkiye 06/11/2019 Murat AYDEMİR 1982 Zonguldak Turkish Mustafa YELBEY 20. 59756/19 Daşdemir v. Türkiye 05/11/2019 Fatih DAŞDEMİR 1966 Manisa Turkish Oğuzhan DAŞDEMİR 21. 59874/19 Kef v. Türkiye 05/11/2019 Akif KEF 1969 Tekirdağ Turkish Dilara YILMAZ 22. 60692/19 Ayhan v. Türkiye 05/11/2019 Doğan AYHAN 1988 Bursa Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 23. 60694/19 Yıldırım v. Türkiye 12/11/2019 Ramazan YILDIRIM 1983 Ordu Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 24. 60999/19 Kuş v. Türkiye 14/11/2019 Bahadır KUŞ 1977 Ankara Turkish Ahmet ÖZDİN 25. 61139/19 Atlı v. Türkiye 18/11/2019 Davut ATLI 1974 Ordu Turkish   26. 61159/19 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 11/11/2019 Kenan YILMAZ 1975 Tekirdağ Turkish Çiğdem YILMAZ 27. 61764/19 Akkoyunlu v. Türkiye 14/11/2019 Selma AKKOYUNLU 1991 Izmir Turkish Ferhan ŞİMŞEK 28. 61855/19 Avcı v. Türkiye 13/11/2019 Fikret AVCI 1973 ORDU Turkish Samet YILMAZ 29. 61862/19 Özbek v. Türkiye 22/10/2019 Harun ÖZBEK 1976 Adana Turkish Ayşenur Banu PEHLİVAN 30. 61865/19 Evmez v. Türkiye 15/11/2019 İbrahim EVMEZ 1993 Trabzon Turkish Güliz Rabia TEKİN 31. 62022/19 Yazıcı v. Türkiye 30/10/2019 Hüseyin YAZICI 1968 İzmir Turkish Fatima Büşra KAFTAN 32. 62321/19 Ünüvar v. Türkiye 22/11/2019 Ercan ÜNÜVAR 1975 Aksaray Turkish İsmail ÇALIŞKAN 33. 62942/19 Ulus v. Türkiye 27/11/2019 Ramazan ULUS 1988 Konya Turkish Mehmet MİRZA 34. 63017/19 Ala v. Türkiye 20/11/2019 Mehmet Afif ALA 1980 İstanbul Turkish   35. 63027/19 Arslan v. Türkiye 18/11/2019 Abdullah ARSLAN 1994 Rize Turkish Safiyye Nur SABUNCU KARAKURT 36. 63518/19 Temür v. Türkiye 26/11/2019 Mustafa TEMÜR 1991 Ankara Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ 37. 63895/19 Şimşek v. Türkiye 27/11/2019 Mehmet ŞİMŞEK 1985 Adana Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 38. 63900/19 Karakoç v. Türkiye 27/11/2019 Yakup KARAKOÇ 1985 Empfingen Turkish Ahmet KÖROĞLU 39. 64491/19 Bulut v. Türkiye 27/11/2019 Ahmet BULUT 1980 Osmaniye Turkish   40. 64705/19 Şahin v. Türkiye 29/11/2019 Şenol ŞAHİN 1975 Hatay Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ 41. 64777/19 Çetinkaya v. Türkiye 03/12/2019 Kenan ÇETİNKAYA 1987 Tokat Turkish   42. 64922/19 Kızılkaya v. Türkiye 27/11/2019 İdris KIZILKAYA 1977 Osmaniye Turkish Erdal ÇELİK 43. 65131/19 Şahin v. Türkiye 22/11/2019 Gürhan ŞAHİN 1983 Aydın Turkish Ahmet Buğra YEŞİLDENİZ 44. 2/20 Altıntaş v. Türkiye 08/11/2019 Mehmet Ali ALTINTAŞ 1972 Edirne Turkish Ahmet Can DEMİRCİ 45. 290/20 Danacı v. Türkiye 10/12/2019 Ali DANACI 1981 Balıkesir Turkish Muhammed Talha YILMAZ 46. 386/20 Azgün v. Türkiye 18/12/2019 Hüseyin AZGÜN 1988 Erzurum Turkish   47. 503/20 Çıtanak v. Türkiye 10/12/2019 Nimet ÇITANAK 1989 Elazığ Turkish   48. 640/20 Akyüz v. Türkiye 19/12/2019 Erkan AKYÜZ 1983 Van Turkish   49. 1383/20 Yılmazer v. Türkiye 17/12/2019 Turan YILMAZER 1974 Manisa Turkish   50. 1575/20 Doğan v. Türkiye 19/12/2019 Oğuzhan DOĞAN 1984 Aksaray Turkish   51. 1950/20 Zincirkıran v. Türkiye 18/12/2019 Erdinç ZİNCİRKIRAN 1975 Adana Turkish   52. 2135/20 Aktürk v. Türkiye 26/12/2019 Osman AKTÜRK 1976 Yozgat Turkish Havva Züleyha ARSLAN 53. 2239/20 Al v. Türkiye 19/12/2019 Ali AL 1990 Ankara Turkish Ahmet Alp AYTAÇ 54. 2456/20 Gülbahar v. Türkiye 25/12/2019 Uğur GÜLBAHAR 1988 Bursa Turkish   55. 2467/20 Saygın v. Türkiye 26/12/2019 Üzeyir SAYGIN 1974 Kayseri Turkish Celal SAYGIN 56. 2525/20 Akdoğan v. Türkiye 27/12/2019 Mustafa AKDOĞAN 1975 Amasya Turkish Ekrem KAYA 57. 2599/20 Toprak v. Türkiye 12/12/2019 Mehmet TOPRAK 1983 Ankara Turkish İhsan MAKAS 58. 2939/20 Öztürk v. Türkiye 26/12/2019 Orhan ÖZTÜRK 1981 Konya Turkish Güliz Rabia TEKIN 59. 3039/20 Öztoprak v. Türkiye 30/12/2019 Mustafa ÖZTOPRAK 1982 Ankara Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 60. 3176/20 Topuz v. Türkiye 31/12/2019 Fatih TOPUZ 1978 Çorum Turkish Ersan CANSEVER 61. 3390/20 Nefesli v. Türkiye 31/12/2019 Hakan NEFESLİ 1987 Çorum Turkish Havva Züleyha ARSLAN 62. 3405/20 Gün v. Türkiye 31/12/2019 Halil GÜN 1973 Konya Turkish Mefaret GÜN 63. 3406/20 Atalay v. Türkiye 31/12/2019 Şakir ATALAY 1971 Kırıkkale Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 64. 3681/20 Kanat v. Türkiye 02/01/2020 Adem KANAT 1990 Osmaniye Turkish Mehmet Fatih ARSLAN 65. 4135/20 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 02/01/2020 Erdi YILMAZ 1988 Tekirdağ Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 66. 4170/20 Gürpınar v. Türkiye 02/01/2020 Hacı Murat GÜRPINAR 1977 Tokat Turkish Cemalettin ÖZER 67. 4202/20 Börk v. Türkiye 07/01/2020 Hasan BÖRK 1984 Ankara Turkish Abdullah AVCI 68. 4403/20 Öztaş v. Türkiye 07/01/2020 Sinan ÖZTAŞ 1989 Çorum Turkish Nevzat AKBİLEK 69. 4405/20 Hakkıoğlu v. Türkiye 08/01/2020 Mustafa HAKKIOĞLU 1977 Zonguldak Turkish Merve Vildan DUMAN 70. 4408/20 Çelik v. Türkiye 08/01/2020 Nurettin ÇELİK 1972 Yozgat Turkish Ahmet ÖZDİN 71. 4436/20 Özkay v. Türkiye 08/01/2020 Bahaettin ÖZKAY 1974 Samsun Turkish Ali Berk SABANOĞLU 72. 5138/20 Arslan v. Türkiye 10/01/2020 Yakup ARSLAN 1973 Istanbul Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 73. 5458/20 Çavdar v. Türkiye 09/01/2020 Selim ÇAVDAR 1990 Afyonkarahisar Turkish Akerke ABDYKALYKOVA ONAT 74. 5503/20 Dündar v. Türkiye 09/01/2020 Bilal DÜNDAR 1982 Burdur Turkish İlyas DÜNDAR 75. 5598/20 Özlü v. Türkiye 15/01/2020 Abuzer Serdar ÖZLÜ 1966 Isparta Turkish Ali AVCI 76. 5612/20 İslam v. Türkiye 21/01/2020 Şimşek İSLAM 1970 Izmir Turkish   77. 5769/20 Türkhan v. Türkiye 19/11/2019 Halil TÜRKHAN 1970 Istanbul Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 78. 5778/20 Aktaş v. Türkiye 24/10/2019 Osman AKTAŞ 1978 Yalova Turkish Metehan USLUEROL 79. 5974/20 Taş v. Türkiye 22/01/2020 Ali TAŞ 1975 İzmir Turkish   80. 6055/20 M.A.A. v. Türkiye 14/01/2020 Mustafa Ali AKÇA 1986 Manisa Turkish   81. 6352/20 Kuşca v. Türkiye 06/01/2020 Salih KUŞCA 1975 Hatay Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ 82. 6566/20 Tat v. Türkiye 26/12/2019 Celal TAT 1974 Erzincan Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 83. 7112/20 Delice v. Türkiye 09/01/2020 Murat DELİCE 1974 Kırıkkale Turkish   84. 7453/20 Uçkun v. Türkiye 20/01/2020 Yasin UÇKUN 1988 Aksaray Turkish Tuncer UÇKUN 85. 7480/20 Orhanlı v. Türkiye 15/01/2020 Atnan ORHANLI 1964 Kırşehir Turkish Mehmet Arif YALÇINKAYA 86. 7545/20 Kaplan v. Türkiye 29/01/2020 İsmet KAPLAN 1966 Erbach Turkish   87. 7705/20 Kaynar v. Türkiye 24/01/2020 İsmail KAYNAR 1973 BURDUR Turkish Zülal BÜKER 88. 7826/20 Temiz v. Türkiye 17/01/2020 Güngör TEMİZ 1989 Samsun Turkish Tahir EREN 89. 7932/20 Demirhan v. Türkiye 10/01/2020 Mesut DEMİRHAN 1990 Ankara Turkish   90. 7960/20 Küçükkılınç v. Türkiye 22/01/2020 İrfan KÜÇÜKKILINÇ 1986 Samsun Turkish Tahir EREN 91. 9257/20 Demir v. Türkiye 30/01/2020 Hüseyin DEMİR 1979 Istanbul Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 92. 9462/20 Çayıroğlu v. Türkiye 05/02/2020 Ferhat ÇAYIROĞLU 1986 Çorum Turkish Seyhan ÇAYIROĞLU 93. 9999/20 Sunar v. Türkiye 31/01/2020 Muharrem SUNAR 1977 Istanbul Turkish   94. 10100/20 Bilgin v. Türkiye 03/02/2020 Necdet BİLGİN 1965 Manisa Turkish Nevzat AKBİLEK 95. 10748/20 Toprak v. Türkiye 07/02/2020 Alper TOPRAK 1976 Aksaray Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 96. 10913/20 Arabacı v. Türkiye 11/02/2020 İbrahim ARABACI 1979 Manisa Turkish   97. 11252/20 Kahriman v. Türkiye 17/02/2020 Mustafa KAHRİMAN 1983 Konya Turkish Furkan AYDIN 98. 11347/20 Günarslan v. Türkiye 13/02/2020 Ersin GÜNARSLAN 1978 Kayseri Turkish   99. 11371/20 Avan v. Türkiye 12/02/2020 Yasin AVAN 1984 Aksaray Turkish Mustafa YÖN 100. 11450/20 Keleş v. Türkiye 14/02/2020 Özcan KELEŞ 1970 Aksaray Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 101. 11482/20 Öztürk v. Türkiye 14/02/2020 Kadir ÖZTÜRK 1992 Samsun Turkish   102. 11493/20 Bozkurt v. Türkiye 14/02/2020 Hamdi BOZKURT 1971 Kayseri Turkish   103. 12003/20 Taşdelen v. Türkiye 12/02/2020 Ahmet Adnan TAŞDELEN 1982 Gaziantep Turkish Derya TAŞDELEN 104. 12232/20 Akbaba v. Türkiye 13/02/2020 Erhan AKBABA 1980 Ankara Turkish   105. 12631/20 Yolcu v. Türkiye 20/02/2020 Ali YOLCU 1984 Balıkesir Turkish Fatih ŞAHİNLER 106. 12694/20 Türkoğlu v. Türkiye 26/02/2020 Ali TÜRKOĞLU 1975 Ankara Turkish   107. 12779/20 Kılıçarslan v. Türkiye 26/02/2020 Ferat KILIÇARSLAN 1967 Konya Turkish Hanife Ruveyda KILINÇ 108. 12812/20 Karazeybek v. Türkiye 27/02/2020 Halil İbrahim KARAZEYBEK 1967 İzmir Turkish   109. 12837/20 Canöz v. Türkiye 03/03/2020 Alparslan CANÖZ 1975 Ankara Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 110. 13036/20 Ergun v. Türkiye 05/02/2020 Mehmet ERGUN 1987 İzmir Turkish Furkan AYDIN 111. 13045/20 Temel v. Türkiye 08/01/2020 Bülent TEMEL 1987 Konya Turkish Güliz Rabia TEKİN 112. 13273/20 Bayraktar v. Türkiye 25/02/2020 İbrahim BAYRAKTAR 1988 Eskişehir Turkish Cemalettin ÖZER 113. 13436/20 Bayraktaroğlu v. Türkiye 22/01/2020 Hakan BAYRAKTAROĞLU 1975 Antalya Turkish Hatice BAYRAKTAROĞLU 114. 13598/20 Ergin v. Türkiye 30/01/2020 Mehmet ERGİN 1965 Eskişehir Turkish Emine AYTEKİN 115. 13767/20 Kocadiz v. Türkiye 28/02/2020 Tahir KOCADİZ 1971 Konya Turkish Fuat ÖZGÜL 116. 14442/20 Oruç v. Türkiye 08/11/2019 Mehmet ORUÇ 1983 Manisa Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 117. 14788/20 Ekmekçi v. Türkiye 07/02/2020 Adem EKMEKÇİ 1986 Westerwaldkreis Turkish Leyla MESUTOĞLU 118. 14789/20 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 14/02/2020 Tuncay YILMAZ 1974 Samsun Turkish Ömer Faruk KESKİN 119. 14804/20 Öktem v. Türkiye 06/03/2020 Sefa ÖKTEM 1973 Bursa Turkish   120. 14832/20 Atıcı v. Türkiye 03/03/2020 Hasan ATICI 1962 Nevşehir Turkish Ebru EKİCİ 121. 14838/20 Çinar v. Türkiye 04/03/2020 Nüsret ÇINAR 1985 Samsun Turkish İlayda Emine SAROĞLU 122. 14839/20 Ceylan v. Türkiye 28/02/2020 Mehmet CEYLAN 1975 Şanlıurfa Turkish   123. 14930/20 Civan v. Türkiye 06/03/2020 Abdülkadir CİVAN 1977 Izmir Turkish Çetin BİNGÖLBALI 124. 14940/20 Akkuş v. Türkiye 11/03/2020 Abdullah AKKUŞ 1988 Samsun Turkish   125. 14946/20 Alboga v. Türkiye 11/03/2020 Beytullah ALBOGA 1988 Adana Turkish Saadet ALBOGA 126. 15018/20 Vuruşkan v. Türkiye 16/03/2020 Yunus VURUŞKAN 1989 Çorum Turkish Neda BUYRUKÇU 127. 15029/20 Aktaş v. Türkiye 26/02/2020 Murat AKTAŞ 1984 Bolu Turkish Muhammed Selim TÜRKOĞLU 128. 15079/20 Berber v. Türkiye 28/02/2020 Abdullah BERBER 1988 Adana Turkish Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ