CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 3 décembre 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 } .s31408353 { font-family:Arial; color:#ff33cc } .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 } .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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF SERT AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 15659/20 and 206 others)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 3 December 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sert and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Pauliine Koskelo , President ,   Jovan Ilievski,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by 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 Turkey, 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 12 November 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 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 , 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.   17398/20, 21419/20, 32063/20, 39043/20, 41885/20, 47622/20, 51256/20, 51814/20, 41/21, 1386/21, 1969/21, 2000/21, 3082/21, 3454/21, 37266/21 and 39745/21, 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. 17398/20, 21419/20, 32063/20, 39043/20, 41885/20, 47622/20, 51256/20, 51814/20, 41/21, 1386/21, 1969/21, 2000/21, 3082/21, 3454/21, 37266/21 and 39745/21, 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 applicant, with the exception of the applicants in applications nos. 17398/20, 21419/20, 32063/20, 39043/20, 41885/20, 47622/20, 51256/20, 51814/20, 41/21, 1386/21, 1969/21, 2000/21, 3082/21, 3454/21, 37266/21 and 39745/21, 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 3 December 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. 15659/20 Sert v. Türkiye 12/03/2020 İzzetdin SERT 1986 Aydın Turkish Turgay KALE 2. 16027/20 Ateş v. Türkiye 20/03/2020 Kenan ATEŞ 1971 Konya Turkish   3. 16033/20 Demirci v. Türkiye 18/03/2020 Mehmet DEMİRCİ 1978 Hatay Turkish Ali Berk SABANOGLU 4. 16045/20 Ateş v. Türkiye 18/03/2020 Ramazan ATEŞ 1990 İzmir Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 5. 16046/20 Cebesoy v. Türkiye 20/03/2020 Halil CEBESOY 1971 Manisa Turkish   6. 16061/20 Karakuş v. Türkiye 16/03/2020 Özcan KARAKUŞ 1974 Konya Turkish İlyas KARATAŞ 7. 16110/20 Kiremit v. Türkiye 20/03/2020 Ahmet KİREMİT 1990 Aksaray Turkish Akerke ABDYKALYKOVA ONAT 8. 16180/20 Yuvarlak v. Türkiye 19/03/2020 İlhan YUVARLAK 1977 İstanbul Turkish Yeliz HANOĞLU 9. 16384/20 Topdemir v. Türkiye 17/03/2020 Mehmet TOPDEMİR 1980 Ankara Turkish Hacer TOPDEMİR 10. 16392/20 Uyanık v. Türkiye 26/03/2020 Mustafa UYANIK 1974 Mersin Turkish Akil SIRKINTI 11. 16442/20 Tekin v. Türkiye 20/03/2020 Mustafa TEKİN 1982 Konya Turkish Leyla MESUTOĞLU 12. 16447/20 Doğan v. Türkiye 19/03/2020 Tuncay DOĞAN 1975 Ankara Turkish Mustafa SOYLU 13. 16487/20 Alemdar v. Türkiye 27/03/2020 Ender ALEMDAR 1975 Zonguldak Turkish Erdi KOSTİK 14. 16566/20 Telo v. Türkiye 13/03/2020 Cihat TELO 1982 Kocaeli Turkish Şule Şükran TELO 15. 16573/20 Keskin v. Türkiye 13/03/2020 Yener KESKİN 1982 Kayseri Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 16. 16781/20 Kiremit v. Türkiye 26/03/2020 Zehra KİREMİT 1991 Aksaray Turkish Akerke ABDYKALYKOVA ONAT 17. 16843/20 Kenru v. Türkiye 26/03/2020 Cumali KENRU 1981 Adana Turkish Akil SIRKINTI 18. 16844/20 Alpay v. Türkiye 26/03/2020 Ekrem ALPAY 1972 Ankara Turkish   19. 16852/20 Özcan v. Türkiye 16/03/2020 Mehmet Ali ÖZCAN 1969 Konya Turkish İhsan MAKAS 20. 16862/20 Aslan v. Türkiye 23/03/2020 Tunçay ASLAN 1969 Bursa Turkish   21. 16904/20 Balık v. Türkiye 09/04/2020 Onur BALIK 1992 Kocaeli Turkish Davut UĞUR 22. 16912/20 Sevinç v. Türkiye 27/03/2020 Bılal SEVİNÇ 1972 Ankara Turkish   23. 16946/20 Karadayi v. Türkiye 02/04/2020 Halil KARADAYI 1990 Balıkesir Turkish Huseyin KARADAYI 24. 16947/20 Buldu v. Türkiye 19/03/2020 Furkan BULDU 1985 Antalya Turkish   25. 17015/20 Ak v. Türkiye 14/04/2020 Aydın AK 1975 Kütahya Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 26. 17398/20 Aygün v. Türkiye 09/04/2020 Maruf AYGÜN 1994 Batman Turkish   27. 17441/20 Akyol v. Türkiye 03/04/2020 Aytaç AKYOL 1980 Kırşehir Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ 28. 17478/20 Bozdağ v. Türkiye 03/04/2020 Veysel BOZDAĞ 1981 Denizli Turkish Enes Malik KILIÇ 29. 17693/20 Horozcu v. Türkiye 03/04/2020 Ali HOROZCU 1974 Burdur Turkish Zülal BÜKER 30. 17919/20 Demir v. Türkiye 13/04/2020 Fatih DEMİR 1975 Giresun Turkish Levent MAZILIGÜNEY 31. 17968/20 Keskin v. Türkiye 17/04/2020 Ali KESKİN 1975 Trabzon Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 32. 18743/20 Yükler v. Türkiye 21/04/2020 Murat YÜKLER 1987 Kilis Turkish   33. 19024/20 Sağlık v. Türkiye 22/04/2020 Ahmet Faruk SAĞLIK 1989 Samsun Turkish Muhammed Nuh POLAT 34. 19145/20 Orhan v. Türkiye 07/05/2020 Yalçın ORHAN 1967 İzmir Turkish Mustafa ORHAN 35. 19180/20 Adem v. Türkiye 06/05/2020 Muzaffer ADEM 1963 Aydın Turkish   36. 20046/20 Gülenç v. Türkiye 19/03/2020 Murat GÜLENÇ 1979 Manisa Turkish Gönül GÜLENÇ 37. 20426/20 Altun v. Türkiye 30/04/2020 Sadullah ALTUN 1972 İstanbul Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 38. 20843/20 İlter v. Türkiye 30/04/2020 Ramazan İLTER 1990 İstanbul Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 39. 20850/20 Gözütok v. Türkiye 12/05/2020 Mevlüt GÖZÜTOK 1981 Yalova Turkish Hülya GÖZÜTOK 40. 20990/20 Tezcan v. Türkiye 28/04/2020 Ertan TEZCAN 1974 Konya Turkish Sema TEZCAN 41. 21194/20 Lafcı v. Türkiye 06/05/2020 Burak LAFCI 1991 Mersin Turkish Halime LAFCI 42. 21320/20 Tekin v. Türkiye 08/04/2020 Ali TEKİN 1984 Isparta Turkish Muhammed Talha YILMAZ 43. 21419/20 Öztürk v. Türkiye 05/05/2020 Mehmet ÖZTÜRK 1982 Bursa Turkish Filiz SELVİ ÖZTÜRK 44. 21462/20 Koçoğlu v. Türkiye 29/04/2020 Muammer Mecid KOÇOĞLU 1989 Balıkesir Turkish Hilal BALIKÇI 45. 21730/20 Aktunç v. Türkiye 27/04/2020 Arslan AKTUNÇ 1980 Konya Turkish Samet YILMAZ 46. 21770/20 Adiyeke v. Türkiye 11/05/2020 Ümran ADİYEKE 1992 Siirt Turkish Mehmet SATICI 47. 22976/20 Ateş v. Türkiye 21/05/2020 Ramazan ATEŞ 1982 Afyonkarahisar Turkish Ali ATEŞ 48. 23035/20 Taşcı v. Türkiye 08/06/2020 Faruk Aydın TAŞCI 1983 İzmir Turkish   49. 23055/20 Şaşmaz v. Türkiye 22/05/2020 Yusuf ŞAŞMAZ 1988 İstanbul Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 50. 23075/20 Demir v. Türkiye 22/05/2020 Osman DEMİR 1976 Bursa Turkish   51. 23153/20 Özkan v. Türkiye 08/05/2020 Murat ÖZKAN 1975 Bolu Turkish Fatma ÖZTÜRK 52. 23317/20 Meydan v. Türkiye 13/05/2020 Muzaffer MEYDAN 1981 Balıkesir Turkish Hakan EFE 53. 23361/20 Ayva v. Türkiye 27/05/2020 Ali AYVA 1973 Ankara Turkish   54. 23687/20 Baysal v. Türkiye 13/05/2020 Ali İhsan BAYSAL 1965 Balıkesir Turkish Mustafa ÇABAS 55. 23691/20 Yumurtacı v. Türkiye 15/05/2020 Murat YUMURTACI 1976 Karabük Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 56. 23894/20 Dal v. Türkiye 27/05/2020 Adem DAL 1990 Erzincan Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 57. 24024/20 Ataş v. Türkiye 29/05/2020 Aşkın ATAŞ 1983 Sivas Turkish Muhammed Mustafa GÜRSOY 58. 24050/20 Gökalp v. Türkiye 03/06/2020 Halim GÖKALP 1986 Ankara Turkish   59. 24103/20 Çiçek v. Türkiye 29/05/2020 Mustafa ÇİÇEK 1980 Samsun Turkish Tahir EREN 60. 24275/20 Adıgüzel v. Türkiye 01/06/2020 Remzi ADIGÜZEL 1973 İstanbul Turkish Fikret ADIGÜZEL 61. 24405/20 Yorulmaz v. Türkiye 15/05/2020 Tümay YORULMAZ 1982 Eskişehir Turkish   62. 24639/20 Baydovan v. Türkiye 10/06/2020 Mustafa BAYDOVAN 1992 Mersin Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ 63. 24659/20 Arslan v. Türkiye 21/05/2020 Metin ARSLAN 1976 Eskisehir Turkish Ulviye Özge CAZ ÖZKAYA 64. 24843/20 Atlar v. Türkiye 10/06/2020 Yusuf ATLAR 1983 Hatay Turkish   65. 25219/20 Ulaş v. Türkiye 05/06/2020 İdris ULAŞ 1984 Ankara Turkish   66. 25520/20 Tercan v. Türkiye 05/06/2020 Muhittin TERCAN 1983 Bursa Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 67. 25546/20 Akbaba v. Türkiye 24/06/2020 Mahmut Temur AKBABA 1989 Aydın Turkish   68. 25785/20 Kılıç v. Türkiye 19/06/2020 Yavuz KILIÇ 1984 Aydın Turkish Ömer Faruk YILDIRIM 69. 26804/20 Karabacak v. Türkiye 09/06/2020 Ensar KARABACAK 1966 Balıkesir Turkish Burcu HAS 70. 26836/20 Güngör v. Türkiye 11/06/2020 Faruk GÜNGÖR 1979 Aksaray Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 71. 26901/20 Kardaş v. Türkiye 11/06/2020 Ömer KARDAŞ 1974 Erzurum Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 72. 27091/20 Gültekin v. Türkiye 24/06/2020 Abdurrezzak GÜLTEKİN 1989 Aydın Turkish Funda GÜLTEKİN 73. 27142/20 Batmaz v. Türkiye 18/06/2020 Gonca BATMAZ 1977 Kütahya Turkish Ayten İZMIRLİ 74. 27268/20 Kaya v. Türkiye 19/06/2020 Alican KAYA 1990 Balıkesir Turkish Burcu HAS 75. 27271/20 Yavuz v. Türkiye 12/06/2020 Bilal YAVUZ 1989 Ankara Turkish Hakan EFE 76. 27404/20 Özcan v. Türkiye 05/06/2020 Hasan ÖZCAN 1975 İzmir Turkish Yunus Cevher KAVÇAKAR 77. 27911/20 Sözen v. Türkiye 01/07/2020 Yaşar SÖZEN 1980 Samsun Turkish Tolga UÇAR 78. 28026/20 Yalçın v. Türkiye 19/06/2020 Osman YALÇIN 1979 İstanbul Turkish Sümeyye Sema COŞAN 79. 28357/20 Şenocak v. Türkiye 10/06/2020 Fevzi Cem ŞENOCAK 1972 Samsun Turkish   80. 28890/20 Çevik v. Türkiye 01/07/2020 Murat ÇEVİK 1977 Kayseri Turkish Beytullah ÖZTÜRK 81. 28936/20 Kavçakar v. Türkiye 10/06/2020 Emre KAVÇAKAR 1990 Burdur Turkish Yunus Cevher KAVÇAKAR 82. 29075/20 Uğur v. Türkiye 23/06/2020 Bekir UĞUR 1988 Konya Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 83. 29970/20 Kenben v. Türkiye 25/06/2020 Osman KENBEN 1992 İstanbul Turkish Hurşit KENBEN 84. 30009/20 Özen v. Türkiye 08/07/2020 Mehmet ÖZEN 1975 Konya Turkish Sefanur BOZGÖZ 85. 30118/20 Polat v. Türkiye 23/06/2020 Ahmet POLAT 1980 İzmir Turkish Nurullah TEKİN 86. 30681/20 Ançaza v. Türkiye 08/07/2020 Halil İbrahim ANÇAZA 1969 Kocaeli Turkish Enes Malik KILIÇ 87. 31092/20 Çalışkan v. Türkiye 03/07/2020 Mehmet ÇALIŞKAN 1976 İzmir Turkish Özlem SUZAN 88. 31315/20 Polat v. Türkiye 06/07/2020 Yusuf POLAT 1971 Ankara Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 89. 31502/20 Çakmak v. Türkiye 09/07/2020 Abdulbaki ÇAKMAK 1987 Ankara Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ 90. 31504/20 Bulcun v. Türkiye 14/07/2020 Tamer BULCUN 1976 Kırıkkale Turkish Muhammet Uğur DEMİRKAN 91. 32063/20 Kazan v. Türkiye 27/07/2020 Zübeyir KAZAN 1995 İstanbul Turkish   92. 32952/20 Artantaş v. Türkiye 24/07/2020 Yasemin ARTANTAŞ 1990 İstanbul Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 93. 33282/20 Kavak v. Türkiye 23/07/2020 İsmail KAVAK 1983 İstanbul Turkish Nurullah YILDIRIM 94. 33405/20 İncebacak v. Türkiye 21/07/2020 Elif İNCEBACAK 1988 Çankırı Turkish Feyzullah ALTAŞ 95. 33601/20 Esgiyer v. Türkiye 17/06/2020 Hacı Mustafa ESGİYER 1981 Basselland Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 96. 33767/20 Altuntaş v. Türkiye 22/07/2020 Abdullah ALTUNTAŞ 1985 Ankara Turkish İsmail ALTUNTAŞ 97. 33856/20 Abbas v. Türkiye 29/07/2020 Ersin ABBAS 1993 Tokat Turkish Seher YETİSGEN 98. 34393/20 Çetin v. Türkiye 14/07/2020 Nurullah ÇETİN 1976 Kayseri Turkish Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ 99. 34693/20 Zengin v. Türkiye 16/07/2020 Yasin ZENGİN 1990 Elazığ Turkish Elif Süeda ÖZDEMİR 100. 34765/20 Doğanay v. Türkiye 17/07/2020 Ali DOĞANAY 1975 Konya Turkish   101. 34783/20 Bedir v. Türkiye 17/07/2020 Mehmet BEDİR 1967 Çorum Turkish   102. 34904/20 Çelik v. Türkiye 07/07/2020 Saniye ÇELİK 1975 Konya Turkish Leyla MESUTOĞLU 103. 35674/20 Çakmak v. Türkiye 29/07/2020 Fatih ÇAKMAK 1991 Mersin Turkish Merve Vildan DUMAN 104. 35719/20 Karaçalıoğlu v. Türkiye 08/07/2020 Hulusi KARAÇALIOĞLU 1967 Ankara Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 105. 35753/20 Işık v. Türkiye 04/08/2020 Mehmet IŞIK 1985 Adıyaman Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 106. 35889/20 Öngün v. Türkiye 08/07/2020 Mustafa ÖNGÜN 1980 Trabzon Turkish   107. 36161/20 Pınar v. Türkiye 29/07/2020 Hasan Hüseyin PINAR 1977 Manisa Turkish Akkız KARDEŞLER 108. 38352/20 Akkuş v. Türkiye 17/08/2020 Yıldırım AKKUŞ 1974 Bursa Turkish Ebubekir RENK 109. 38459/20 Yildiz v. Türkiye 12/08/2020 İsa YILDIZ 1978 Adana Turkish Belma KAYRAN 110. 39043/20 Büyüköz v. Türkiye 18/08/2020 Muammer BÜYÜKÖZ 1990 Yozgat Turkish Yakup ŞAHİN 111. 39961/20 Bal v. Türkiye 25/08/2020 Mehmet BAL 1964 Bursa Turkish   112. 41545/20 Taşboğaz v. Türkiye 01/09/2020 Eyüp TAŞBOĞAZ 1978 İstanbul Turkish Burak ÇAĞ 113. 41551/20 Acar v. Türkiye 28/08/2020 Kamil ACAR 1964 Uşak Turkish Halil ÇETİN 114. 41885/20 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 19/08/2020 Ferhat YILMAZ 1981 Giresun Turkish Murat YILMAZ 115. 42199/20 Kaya v. Türkiye 03/09/2020 Rıdvan KAYA 1993 Antalya Turkish Nurgül YAYMAN YILMAZ 116. 43040/20 Taymaz v. Türkiye 15/09/2020 Seyit Ahmet TAYMAZ 1974 Ankara Turkish Bekir DÖNMEZ 117. 43099/20 Kurşun v. Türkiye 10/09/2020 Günal KURŞUN 1975 Ankara Turkish Özlem YILDIZ 118. 43205/20 Tuşan v. Türkiye 18/09/2020 Zülfükar TUŞAN 1985 Hatay Turkish Esma TUŞAN 119. 43230/20 Aydın v. Türkiye 15/09/2020 Bekir AYDIN 1975 Konya Turkish Güliz Rabia TEKİN 120. 43239/20 Şimşek v. Türkiye 11/09/2020 Nejdet ŞİMŞEK 1973 Sivas Turkish Büşra KURT KÜÇÜK 121. 43660/20 Güneri v. Türkiye 24/09/2020 Erol GÜNERI 1985 Balıkesir Turkish   122. 43990/20 Likoğlu v. Türkiye 16/09/2020 Fatih LİKOĞLU 1979 Afyonkarahisar Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 123. 44002/20 Polat v. Türkiye 15/09/2020 Bünyamin POLAT 1980 Eskişehir Turkish Hüseyin Mahir ERDOĞMUŞ 124. 44088/20 Yüksel v. Türkiye 03/09/2020 Mehmet YÜKSEL 1987 Gaziantep Turkish Murat İLHAN 125. 44928/20 Kara v. Türkiye 21/09/2020 Ender KARA 1974 Manisa Turkish Asım Burak GÜNEŞ 126. 45251/20 Yiğit v. Türkiye 02/10/2020 İrfan YİĞİT 1978 Balıkesir Turkish Vildan YİĞİT 127. 45836/20 Dokuz v. Türkiye 30/09/2020 Abdullah DOKUZ 1987 Niğde Turkish Rabiye DOKUZ 128. 46468/20 Can v. Türkiye 08/10/2020 Turan CAN 1982 Düzce Turkish Coşkun TAŞKIN 129. 46879/20 Çoban v. Türkiye 08/10/2020 Fatih ÇOBAN 1982 Aydın Turkish İshak IŞIK 130. 47307/20 Kör v. Türkiye 14/10/2020 Hüseyin KÖR 1991 Çorum Turkish Kazım DEMİR 131. 47348/20 Polat v. Türkiye 13/10/2020 Sedat POLAT 1975 Adana Turkish Akil SIRKINTI 132. 47378/20 Kanat v. Türkiye 12/10/2020 Orhan KANAT 1971 Kütahya Turkish Memnune Melike AKYILDIZ 133. 47622/20 Şenyurt v. Türkiye 22/10/2020 Şenol ŞENYURT 1984 İstanbul Turkish   134. 47812/20 Gülek v. Türkiye 16/10/2020 Gökay Ersel GÜLEK 1974 İstanbul Turkish Şahin BULUT 135. 47814/20 Kurt v. Türkiye 19/10/2020 Ali KURT 1973 Sivas Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 136. 48952/20 Emeç v. Türkiye 28/08/2020 Hüseyin EMEÇ 1988 Hatay Turkish   137. 48982/20 Kanak v. Türkiye 20/10/2020 Süleyman KANAK 1976 Mersin Turkish Burcu HAS 138. 49075/20 Toruk v. Türkiye 27/10/2020 Mevlüt TORUK 1959 Bolu Turkish Hamdi Kenan SEVİNÇ 139. 50616/20 Akan v. Türkiye 23/10/2020 İsmail Deniz AKAN 1990 Samsun Turkish   140. 50844/20 Abanoz v. Türkiye 05/11/2020 Celal ABANOZ 1992 Trabzon Turkish Orçun MUŞLU 141. 51010/20 Şahin v. Türkiye 02/11/2020 Seyfullah ŞAHİN 1990 Yozgat Turkish Hülya ŞAHİN 142. 51256/20 Çelen v. Türkiye 04/11/2020 Bilal ÇELEN 1990 İstanbul Turkish Emrullah POLAT 143. 51444/20 Oruç v. Türkiye 04/11/2020 Özkan ORUÇ 1975 İzmir Turkish Safiye YILMAZ 144. 51510/20 Keklik v. Türkiye 05/11/2020 Ömür KEKLİK 1985 Malatya Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 145. 51814/20 Tutal v. Türkiye 09/11/2020 Cahit TUTAL 1980 Konya Turkish   146. 51915/20 Uçar v. Türkiye 17/09/2020 Fikret UÇAR 1981 Kayseri Turkish   147. 52181/20 Özsarı v. Türkiye 24/06/2020 İbrahim ÖZSARI 1992 Karabük Turkish   148. 52221/20 Duran v. Türkiye 09/11/2020 İsmet DURAN 1967 Konya Turkish Leyla MESUTOĞLU 149. 52331/20 Kara v. Türkiye 26/10/2020 Fikret KARA 1975 Kırıkkale Turkish   150. 52597/20 Çınar v. Türkiye 16/11/2020 Kadir ÇINAR 1978 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 151. 52743/20 Yalçın v. Türkiye 17/11/2020 Mustafa YALÇIN 1980 Zonguldak Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 152. 52952/20 Bal v. Türkiye 21/07/2020 Ahmet BAL 1973 Konya Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ 153. 53047/20 Erdoğdu v. Türkiye 27/11/2020 Necmi ERDOĞDU 1973 Adana Turkish Safiyye Nur SABUNCU KARAKURT 154. 53162/20 İncebacak v. Türkiye 08/07/2020 Yüksel İNCEBACAK 1988 Kastamonu Turkish Feyzullah ALTAŞ 155. 54849/20 Önce v. Türkiye 15/10/2020 Kemal ÖNCE 1978 Adana Turkish   156. 55290/20 Çiftçi v. Türkiye 30/11/2020 Turgay ÇİFTÇİ 1974 Kocaeli Turkish Enes Malik KILIÇ 157. 55510/20 Gün v. Türkiye 24/11/2020 Ramazan GÜN 1985 Konya Turkish Leyla MESUTOĞLU 158. 41/21 Pakır v. Türkiye 03/12/2020 Abdullah PAKIR 1971 Konya Turkish   159. 1202/21 Ciğerci v. Türkiye 18/12/2020 Zafer CİĞERCİ 1979 Kayseri Turkish   160. 1386/21 Aydemir v. Türkiye 26/11/2020 Gültekin AYDEMİR 1981 İstanbul Turkish   161. 1622/21 Atasever v. Türkiye 22/12/2020 Ramazan ATASEVER 1992 Bursa Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 162. 1916/21 Gündüz v. Türkiye 21/12/2020 İbrahim GÜNDÜZ 1984 Kocaeli Turkish Enes Malik KILIÇ 163. 1969/21 Karaduman v. Türkiye 22/12/2020 Levent KARADUMAN 1974 İstanbul Turkish   164. 2000/21 Bat v. Türkiye 10/12/2020 Suphi BAT 1973 İstanbul Turkish   165. 2344/21 Durmaz v. Türkiye 25/12/2020 Cüneyt DURMAZ 1978 Ankara Turkish   166. 2526/21 Mirici v. Türkiye 24/12/2020 Şahin MİRİCİ 1958 Mersin Turkish   167. 3082/21 Bozkurt v. Türkiye 30/12/2020 Hüseyin BOZKURT 1989 Mersin Turkish Adnan ZEYBEK 168. 3107/21 Tokatlı v. Türkiye 16/12/2020 Mehmet TOKATLI 1978 Ankara Turkish   169. 3196/21 Kaya v. Türkiye 08/12/2020 Hasan KAYA 1978 İstanbul Turkish   170. 3454/21 Bozkurt v. Türkiye 28/12/2020 Selçuk BOZKURT 1986 İstanbul Turkish   171. 3606/21 Kodal v. Türkiye 23/12/2020 Ahmet KODAL 1989 Ordu Turkish Hamide Nur ALKAÇ 172. 3867/21 Gökmen v. Türkiye 30/12/2020 Bilgin GÖKMEN 1971 Ankara Turkish Zeynep Sena GÖKMEN 173. 3891/21 Bozkurt v. Türkiye 31/12/2020 Mustafa BOZKURT 1974 İzmir Turkish Ahmet Selim BURAK 174. 4313/21 Hacımustafaoğlu v. Türkiye 30/12/2020 Hasan HACIMUSTAFAOĞLU 1981 Bartin Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 175. 6002/21 Şahin v. Türkiye 07/01/2021 İzzet ŞAHİN 1977 Kocaeli Turkish İrem TATLIDEDE 176. 6115/21 Yoldaş v. Türkiye 25/08/2020 Hamit YOLDAŞ Giresun Turkish   177. 7448/21 Salbaş v. Türkiye 28/01/2021 Hasan SALBAŞ 1988 Bolu Turkish Said İsmail TÜRKOĞLU 178. 7862/21 Özcan v. Türkiye 28/01/2021 Faruk ÖZCAN 1980 Hakkari Turkish Seyhan DEMİR 179. 8613/21 Şahin v. Türkiye 26/01/2020 Gül Ahmet ŞAHİN 1975 Ankara Turkish Mustafa SOYLU 180. 8879/21 Buğdaylıgil v. Türkiye 02/02/2021 Himmet BUĞDAYLIGIL 1960 İzmir Turkish Seçkin KESKİN 181. 9312/21 Kırtay v. Türkiye 09/12/2020 Cuma Gökhan KIRTAY 1991 Mersin Turkish Abdullah KIRTAY 182. 9428/21 Çakmak v. Türkiye 21/01/2021 Dursun ÇAKMAK 1978 Konya Turkish Şeyma ALKAN 183. 9763/21 Dal v. Türkiye 11/02/2021 Mustafa DAL 1979 İzmir Turkish Halil ÇETİN 184. 9942/21 Ağaçdan v. Türkiye 03/12/2020 Ebubekir AĞAÇDAN 1992 Ankara Turkish Naciye Refia ÇOKER 185. 11322/21 Çalış v. Türkiye 04/12/2020 Hamit ÇALIŞ 1973 Uşak Turkish Burcu HAS 186. 12213/21 Canbolat v. Türkiye 11/02/2021 Hasan CANBOLAT 1971 Kayseri Turkish Hasan Hüseyin GEZGİN 187. 12500/21 Kaya v. Türkiye 09/01/2021 Aydın KAYA 1980 Ankara Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 188. 12986/21 Orhan v. Türkiye 04/03/2021 Hüseyin ORHAN 1967 Düzce Turkish Derya ORHAN 189. 13843/21 Çatkaya v. Türkiye 23/02/2021 Remzi ÇATKAYA 1985 Kars Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 190. 14559/21 Topcan v. Türkiye 04/03/2021 Cafer TOPCAN 1968 Aydın Turkish Orçun MUŞLU 191. 14583/21 Genç v. Türkiye 03/03/2021 Abdullah GENÇ 1992 Kırıkkale Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 192. 14885/21 Kaya v. Türkiye 08/07/2020 Orhan KAYA 1976 Rize Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 193. 16689/21 Acar v. Türkiye 10/03/2021 İsmail ACAR 1971 Balçova Turkish   194. 18714/21 Doğan v. Türkiye 25/03/2021 Şerafettin DOĞAN 1983 İstanbul Turkish Sümeyye Sema COŞAN 195. 19144/21 İnci v. Türkiye 01/04/2021 Ahmet İNCİ 1990 Adıyaman Turkish Gülnihal YILMAZ 196. 21770/21 Gündoğdu v. Türkiye 05/04/2021 Mustafa GÜNDOĞDU 1980 Manisa Turkish Fatma BABAYİĞİT 197. 22115/21 Çete v. Türkiye 16/04/2021 Mehmet ÇETE 1975 İzmir Turkish   198. 24675/21 Uyanık v. Türkiye 07/05/2021 İbrahim Emre UYANIK 1984 Bursa Turkish   199. 26131/21 Demir v. Türkiye 22/04/2021 Şinasi DEMİR 1978 Zonguldak Turkish   200. 36015/21 Yalçın v. Türkiye 02/07/2021 Rahmetullah YALÇIN 1975 Antalya Turkish Serra YAĞMUR ERGÜÇ 201. 36762/21 Çandik v. Türkiye 07/07/2021 Yasin ÇANDİK 1976 ALTINDAG / ANKARA Turkish Muhammed Mustafa GÜRSOY 202. 37266/21 Karakoç v. Türkiye 13/07/2021 Hasan KARAKOÇ 1973 Kırıkkale Turkish   203. 38533/21 Karapınar v. Türkiye 01/07/2021 Kürşat Turan KARAPINAR 1989 İstanbul Turkish Emre AKARYILDIZ 204. 38710/21 Ersöyleyen v. Türkiye 24/06/2021 Zekeriya ERSÖYLEYEN 1990 Kayseri Turkish Ayşe AYAZMA 205. 39726/21 Pehlivan v. Türkiye 04/08/2021 Zafer PEHLİVAN 1970 Kırşehir Turkish Ayşenur Banu PEHLİVAN 206. 39745/21 Adam v. Türkiye 16/07/2021 Abdülmecit ADAM 1987 Gaziantep Turkish Bülent Seçkin DÜZTAŞ 207. 43989/21 Baktır v. Türkiye 09/08/2021 Ahmet Beyhan BAKTIR 1988 Kayseri Turkish