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 } .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 } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF KESLER AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 18809/18 and 171 others)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 3 December 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kesler 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 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 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. 4 .     On 1 October 2023 the applicant in application no. 18710/20, Mr Uğur Uzuntaş, died and his spouse, Ms Sümeyra Uzuntaş, indicated that she wished to pursue the application. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. PRELIMINARY ISsUE: LOCUS STANDI AS REGARDS APPLICATION No. 18710/20 6.     The Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which an applicant has died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken into account statements by the applicant’s heirs or by close family members expressing their wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see Tripcovici v.   Montenegro , no.   80104/13, § 28, 7 November 2017, with further references). 7.     The Court notes at the outset that unlike the applicants in cases where the applicant died during the domestic proceedings and the application was lodged by his heirs after the victim’s death, the late applicant died during the proceedings before the Court (see Ergezen v. Turkey , no. 73359/10, §   28, 8   April 2014 and the case-law cited therein). In accordance with its case-law and having regard to the subject matter of the present case, it considers that the spouse of applicant in application no. 18710/20 has a legitimate interest in maintaining the application in the name of the deceased and therefore has standing to proceed in the late applicant’s stead (see Ergezen , cited above, §   30 and, mutatis mutandis , Göktaş v. Turkey , no. 66446/01, §   19, 29   November 2007). For reasons of convenience, however, the Court will continue to refer to Mr Uzuntaş as the “applicant” (see, for example, Dalban v.   Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 8.     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. 9.     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. 10.     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. 11.     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 ‑ 195), 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. 12.     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). 13.     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 14.     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 15.     The applicants, except for the applicant in application no. 30276/19, 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. 16.     The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive. 17.     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 applicant in application no. 30276/19, 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; Holds , in respect of application no. 18710/20, that the late applicant’s spouse has standing to continue the proceedings in his stead; 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 (that is, in application no. 18710/20 the spouse of the applicant), with the exception of the applicant in application no.   30276/19, 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 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. 18809/18 Kesler v. Türkiye 03/04/2018 Mehmet Furkan KESLER 1993 Istanbul Turkish Elvan BAĞ CANBAZ 2. 22272/18 Köksal v. Türkiye 04/05/2018 Cihangir KÖKSAL 1969 SEE REP. ADDRESS Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 3. 25383/18 Akbayrak v. Türkiye 21/05/2018 Tuncay AKBAYRAK 1983 SEE REP. ADDRESS Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 4. 26429/18 Demir v. Türkiye 29/05/2018 Şeref DEMİR 1972 Istanbul Turkish Emre KOZANDAĞI 5. 33468/18 Aktaşoğlu v. Türkiye 02/07/2018 Ali AKTAŞOĞLU 1973 Istanbul Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ 6. 35183/18 Tiryaki v. Türkiye 13/07/2018 Emin TİRYAK İ 1982 Çankırı Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 7. 38501/18 Karataş v. Türkiye 27/07/2018 Ali KARATAŞ 1978 Ankara Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ 8. 38775/18 Akbulut v. Türkiye 27/07/2018 Ayhan AKBULUT 1978 Ankara Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ 9. 38848/18 Şenel v. Türkiye 07/08/2018 Kemal ŞENEL 1969 Ankara Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 10. 38853/18 Benek v. Türkiye 07/08/2018 Tayyip BENEK 1988 Siirt Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 11. 11885/19 Benli v. Türkiye 26/02/2019 Musa BENLİ 1984 Ankara Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 12. 16700/19 Fırtına v. Türkiye 14/03/2019 Metin FIRTINA 1976 Ankara Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ 13. 18495/19 Ablak v. Türkiye 22/03/2019 Mustafa ABLAK 1985 Ankara Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ 14. 18762/19 Öztürk v. Türkiye 27/03/2019 Meriye ÖZTÜRK 1971 Samsun Turkish İnan UZUN 15. 20728/19 Kılıç v. Türkiye 02/04/2019 Mustafa KILIÇ 1984 Kocaeli Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ 16. 20738/19 Kaya v. Türkiye 02/04/2019 Mustafa KAYA 1972 Kocaeli Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ 17. 21904/19 Bozdemir v. Türkiye 08/04/2019 Sadık BOZDEMİR 1971 Ankara Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ 18. 21975/19 Demir v. Türkiye 15/04/2019 Ali DEMİR 1983 SEE REP. ADDRESS Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ 19. 22078/19 Örnek v. Türkiye 15/04/2019 Adem ÖRNEK 1977 Erzincan Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ 20. 22126/19 Kahveci v. Türkiye 15/04/2019 Nihal KAHVECİ 1980 Kocaeli Turkish Aydın KAHVECİ 1981 Kocaeli Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ 21. 22778/19 Mendeş v. Türkiye 24/04/2019 Mustafa MENDEŞ 1979 SEE REP. ADDRESS Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 22. 24855/19 Kahveci v. Türkiye 25/04/2019 Faruk KAHVECİ 1980 Kocaeli Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ 23. 25525/19 Kızıldere v. Türkiye 08/05/2019 Halil İbrahim KIZILDERE 1971 Ankara Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 24. 25722/19 Ercan v. Türkiye 02/05/2019 Ali ERCAN 1976 Kocaeli Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ 25. 26315/19 Ağpak v. Türkiye 08/05/2019 Ali İhsan AĞPAK 1992 Turkish Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ 26. 26928/19 Karabudak v. Türkiye 09/05/2019 Veis KARABUDAK 1981 Hatay Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ 27. 27026/19 Turhan v. Türkiye 08/05/2019 Fatih TURHAN 1989 Ankara Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 28. 27965/19 Demirdiş v. Türkiye 13/05/2019 Nuğman DEMİRDİŞ 1971 Ankara Turkish Burhan DEMİRCİ 29. 27968/19 Doğan v. Türkiye 14/05/2019 Halil DOĞAN 1984 Ankara Turkish Hanifi BAYRI 30. 29374/19 Öner v. Türkiye 10/05/2019 Murat ÖNER 1982 SEE REP. ADDRESS Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 31. 29601/19 Ak v. Türkiye 09/05/2019 Oğuz AK 1978 SEE REP. ADDRESS Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 32. 30276/19 Çiçekçi v. Türkiye 16/05/2019 İsmail ÇİÇEKÇİ 1973 SEE REP. ADDRESS Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 33. 30518/19 Özçam v. Türkiye 24/05/2019 Muzaffer ÖZÇAM 1977 Kocaeli Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ 34. 32902/19 Çırak v. Türkiye 23/05/2019 Nihat ÇIRAK 1975 Afyonkarahisar Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 35. 33160/19 Çelik v. Türkiye 12/06/2019 Halil İbrahim ÇELİK 1985 Ankara Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 36. 33181/19 Ermiş v. Türkiye 12/06/2019 Mustafa ERMİŞ 1978 Amasya Turkish Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ 37. 33197/19 Taşkan v. Türkiye 12/06/2019 Hamza TAŞKAN 1986 Ankara Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 38. 33221/19 Altun v. Türkiye 12/06/2019 Recep ALTUN 1988 Kastamonu Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 39. 33251/19 Duran v. Türkiye 11/06/2019 Ali Rıza DURAN 1979 Kocaeli Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ 40. 35087/19 Güldüren v. Türkiye 28/06/2019 Resul GÜLDÜREN 1988 SEE REP. ADDRESS Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 41. 35370/19 Tetik v. Türkiye 10/06/2019 Şinasi Sedat TETİK 1976 Ankara Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 42. 37579/19 Demirel v. Türkiye 04/07/2019 Tekin DEMİREL 1969 Samsun Turkish İnan UZUN 43. 38036/19 Öner v. Türkiye 28/06/2019 Ahmet ÖNER 1984 Samsun Turkish İnan UZUN 44. 40046/19 Akgül v. Türkiye 19/07/2019 Hakan AKGÜL 1989 SEE REP. ADDRESS Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 45. 40215/19 Yerlikaya v. Türkiye 17/07/2019 Yüksel YERLİKAYA 1974 Aydın Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 46. 41297/19 Uysal v. Türkiye 25/07/2019 Alpaslan UYSAL 1989 Kocaeli Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ 47. 42519/19 Güney v. Türkiye 06/08/2019 Hayri GÜNEY 1967 Ankara Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 48. 42530/19 Elmacı v. Türkiye 01/08/2019 Hüseyin ELMACI 1987 Burdur Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 49. 42701/19 Kan v. Türkiye 02/08/2019 Hasan KAN 1983 Erzurum Turkish Muhammet ÜSTÜN 50. 43484/19 Canbay v. Türkiye 05/08/2019 Fuat CANBAY 1981 Kocaeli Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ 51. 47671/19 Erol v. Türkiye 04/09/2019 Adem EROL 1988 Kırıkkale Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ 52. 49457/19 Kara v. Türkiye 05/09/2019 Ferit KARA 1980 Gaziantep Turkish Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN 53. 51539/19 Türkmen v. Türkiye 20/09/2019 Mahmut TÜRKMEN 1971 Ankara Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 54. 55078/19 Göksu v. Türkiye 03/10/2019 Bedir GÖKSU 1965 Kocaeli Turkish Elvan BAĞ CANBAZ 55. 56066/19 Durmuş v. Türkiye 09/10/2019 Edip DURMUŞ 1977 Ankara Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ 56. 56302/19 Polat v. Türkiye 03/10/2019 Selma POLAT 1989 Ankara Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ 57. 56374/19 Kahveci v. Türkiye 11/10/2019 Merve KAHVECİ 1989 Gebze Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ 58. 57931/19 Dursun v. Türkiye 15/10/2019 Selim DURSUN 1978 İzmir Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 59. 61585/19 Menteş v. Türkiye 11/11/2019 Furkan MENTEŞ 1996 Denizli Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ 60. 61591/19 Öztürk v. Türkiye 14/11/2019 Metin Yıldıray ÖZTÜRK 1983 SEE REP. ADDRESS Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ 61. 61926/19 Güneş v. Türkiye 18/11/2019 Müjdat GÜNEŞ 1981 Istanbul Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ 62. 266/20 Topal v. Türkiye 18/12/2019 Adnan TOPAL 1966 İzmir Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 63. 1102/20 Yaman v. Türkiye 13/12/2019 Ahmet YAMAN 1984 Kayseri Turkish Özcan AKINCI 64. 1169/20 Tokgöz v. Türkiye 23/12/2019 Orhan TOKGÖZ 1976 Diyarbakır Turkish Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN 65. 2653/20 Başar v. Türkiye 18/12/2019 Musa Fatih BAŞAR 1977 İzmir Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 66. 2907/20 Gilik v. Türkiye 16/12/2019 Ali GİLİK 1977 Adana Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ 67. 3394/20 Dulkadir v. Türkiye 31/12/2019 Ulaş DULKADİR 1983 Ankara Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ 68. 3550/20 Demir v. Türkiye 26/12/2019 Ümit DEMİR 1980 Samsun Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 69. 3648/20 Altunay v. Türkiye 10/01/2020 Eda ALTUNAY 1991 Samsun Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ 70. 4180/20 Yinanç v. Türkiye 30/12/2019 Mevlüt YİNANÇ 1981 Bursa Turkish Elvan BAĞ CANBAZ 71. 6632/20 Kocaeli v. Türkiye 17/01/2020 Carullah KOCAELİ 1974 Ankara Turkish Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ 72. 6644/20 Söğütlü v. Türkiye 17/01/2020 Zafer SÖĞÜTLÜ 1966 Ankara Turkish Burhan DEMİRCİ 73. 6983/20 Köse v. Türkiye 10/01/2020 Mustafa KÖSE 1977 Kayseri Turkish Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN 74. 7368/20 Bediz v. Türkiye 23/01/2020 Burhan BEDİZ 1979 İzmir Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 75. 10484/20 Çalımlı v. Türkiye 12/02/2020 Niyazi ÇALIMLI 1977 Ankara Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 76. 10695/20 Karacif v. Türkiye 10/02/2020 Mehmet KARACİF 1982 Ankara Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ 77. 10894/20 Karagöl v. Türkiye 07/02/2020 Zeynep KARAGÖL 1992 İzmir Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 78. 12068/20 Öner v. Türkiye 20/02/2020 Ragibe ÖNER 1989 Çorum Turkish İnan UZUN 79. 13105/20 İnce v. Türkiye 02/03/2020 Mehmet İNCE 1981 Kayseri Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 80. 13266/20 Aslan v. Türkiye 09/03/2020 Ahmet ASLAN 1968 Istanbul Turkish Hanifi BAYRI 81. 13794/20 Nuhbaşa v. Türkiye 26/02/2020 Hasan NUHBAŞA 1972 Erzurum Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 82. 14917/20 Çakır v. Türkiye 06/03/2020 Sultan ÇAKIR 1989 Ankara Turkish Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ 83. 15190/20 Kaymak v. Türkiye 05/03/2020 Mustafa KAYMAK 1976 Ankara Turkish Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ 84. 15690/20 Demir v. Türkiye 16/03/2020 Fatma DEMİR 1993 Ankara Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ 85. 15844/20 Türker v. Türkiye 13/03/2020 Tarık TÜRKER 1970 Kırıkkale Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ 86. 15862/20 Tatar v. Türkiye 13/03/2020 Sercan TATAR 1991 Kocaeli Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ 87. 16986/20 Çevirgen v. Türkiye 30/03/2020 Sevinç ÇEVİRGEN 1978 Bolu Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ 88. 18710/20 Uzuntaş v. Türkiye 17/04/2020 Uğur UZUNTAŞ 1976 Ankara Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ 89. 19895/20 Demir v. Türkiye 07/04/2020 Hüseyin DEMİR 1980 Ankara Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ 90. 20161/20 Kelebek v. Türkiye 15/05/2020 Ayhan KELEBEK 1965 Ankara Turkish Burhan DEMİRCİ 91. 20182/20 Kılınç v. Türkiye 15/05/2020 Ramazan KILINÇ 1980 Ankara Turkish Burhan DEMİRCİ 92. 20224/20 Akkurt v. Türkiye 15/05/2020 Aytekin AKKURT 1976 Ankara Turkish Burhan DEMİRCİ 93. 20248/20 Eralp v. Türkiye 12/05/2020 Ahmet ERALP 1964 Bolu Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ 94. 21070/20 Aslan v. Türkiye 12/05/2020 Muammer ASLAN 1966 Çankırı Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 95. 21071/20 Ata v. Türkiye 12/05/2020 Abdulhamit ATA 1971 Ankara Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 96. 21072/20 Kazel v. Türkiye 12/05/2020 Hakkı KAZEL 1992 Kırıkkale Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 97. 21074/20 Özbilen v. Türkiye 12/05/2020 İbrahim Halil ÖZBİLEN 1977 Eskişehir Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 98. 21076/20 Korkmaz v. Türkiye 12/05/2020 İbrahim KORKMAZ 1989 Eskişehir Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 99. 21203/20 Kazkondu v. Türkiye 12/05/2020 Vedat KAZKONDU 1980 Ankara Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 100. 21205/20 Sevgi v. Türkiye 04/05/2020 Fatih SEVGİ 1986 Atakum / SAMSUN Turkish İnan UZUN 101. 21207/20 Asan v. Türkiye 12/05/2020 Önder ASAN 1975 Balıkesir Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 102. 22918/20 Charyyev v. Türkiye 21/05/2020 Kerim CHARYYEV 1993 Samsun Turkmen İnan UZUN 103. 22922/20 Özkarslı v. Türkiye 21/05/2020 Ayşegül ÖZKARSLI 1988 Samsun Turkish İnan UZUN 104. 22960/20 Özel v. Türkiye 21/05/2020 Hacı ÖZEL 1988 Samsun Turkish İnan UZUN 105. 23127/20 Ergin v. Türkiye 21/05/2020 Ömer ERGİN 1975 Samsun Turkish İnan UZUN 106. 23604/20 Daniş v. Türkiye 14/05/2020 Burhan DANİŞ 1984 Gaziosmanpaşa - Istanbul Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ 107. 23711/20 Kaya v. Türkiye 14/05/2020 Burakhan KAYA 1989 Ankara Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ 108. 23731/20 Erçelik v. Türkiye 03/06/2020 Abdullah ERÇELİK 1965 Ankara Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ 109. 24837/20 Özkarslı v. Türkiye 10/06/2020 Gökhan ÖZKARSLI 1987 Samsun Turkish İnan UZUN 110. 25505/20 Türkmen v. Türkiye 05/06/2020 Kağan TÜRKMEN 1978 Istanbul Turkish Elvan BAĞ CANBAZ 111. 26406/20 Ordu v. Türkiye 05/06/2020 Adem ORDU 1952 Manisa Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 112. 26547/20 Sekban v. Türkiye 15/06/2020 Muhammet Serdar SEKBAN 1963 İzmir Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 113. 28796/20 Demirci v. Türkiye 30/06/2020 Rauf DEMİRCİ 1977 Burhaniye Turkish Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ 114. 29033/20 Cansever v. Türkiye 30/06/2020 Coşkun CANSEVER 1974 Ankara Turkish Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ 115. 29171/20 Yenilmez v. Türkiye 30/06/2020 Murat YENİLMEZ 1987 Denizli Turkish Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ 116. 29182/20 Dursun v. Türkiye 01/07/2020 Raşit DURSUN 1974 İzmir Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 117. 29194/20 İçel v. Türkiye 01/07/2020 Mehmet İÇEL 1968 İzmir Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 118. 29405/20 Öztürk v. Türkiye 26/06/2020 Güler ÖZTÜRK 1968 İzmir Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 119. 29860/20 Gökçe v. Türkiye 30/06/2020 Kemal GÖKÇE 1982 Ankara Turkish Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ 120. 30171/20 Koç v. Türkiye 06/07/2020 Abdulkerim KOÇ 1986 Nevşehir Turkish Özcan AKINCI 121. 30178/20 Ünsal v. Türkiye 06/07/2020 Abdülkerim ÜNSAL 1969 Ankara Turkish Özcan AKINCI 122. 30622/20 Aydın v. Türkiye 03/07/2020 Adem AYDIN 1986 Ankara Turkish Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ 123. 31303/20 Demirhisar v. Türkiye 21/07/2020 Cemal İbrahim DEMİRHİSAR 1950 Istanbul Turkish Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ 124. 31308/20 Cengiz v. Türkiye 21/07/2020 Şahin CENGİZ 1961 Ankara Turkish Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ 125. 31479/20 Keskin v. Türkiye 09/07/2020 Hasan KESKİN 1973 Nevşehir Turkish Özcan AKINCI 126. 34082/20 Yıldız v. Türkiye 05/08/2020 Nurhayat YILDIZ 1989 Tokat Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ 127. 34498/20 Adanalı v. Türkiye 10/07/2020 Mehmet ADANALI 1984 Nevşehir Turkish Özcan AKINCI 128. 34524/20 Karcı v. Türkiye 14/07/2020 Şeyma KARCI 1994 Ankara Turkish Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ 129. 34814/20 Günen v. Türkiye 14/07/2020 Tekin GÜNEN 1964 Kırşehir Turkish Özcan AKINCI 130. 35944/20 Sertel v. Türkiye 05/08/2020 Ertuğrul SERTEL 1992 Hatay Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ 131. 36213/20 Güleç v. Türkiye 11/08/2020 Fatma GÜLEÇ 1988 Samsun Turkish İnan UZUN 132. 36321/20 Laçin v. Türkiye 06/08/2020 Eşref LAÇİN 1978 İzmir Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 133. 36379/20 Karakoç v. Türkiye 06/08/2020 Nermin KARAKOÇ 1983 Elazığ Turkish Özcan AKINCI 134. 36563/20 Aydemir v. Türkiye 12/08/2020 Osman AYDEMİR 1980 Ankara Turkish Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ 135. 36948/20 Ağaç v. Türkiye 21/08/2020 Ali AĞAÇ 1973 Balıkesir Turkish Burhan DEMİRCİ 136. 37332/20 Duman v. Türkiye 21/08/2020 Ali DUMAN 1977 Ankara Turkish Burhan DEMİRCİ 137. 37695/20 Ödemiş v. Türkiye 12/08/2020 Mikail ÖDEMİŞ 1976 İzmir Turkish Muhammet ÜSTÜN 138. 37732/20 Demir v. Türkiye 18/08/2020 Sami DEMİR 1990 Ankara Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ 139. 37774/20 Öğe v. Türkiye 02/06/2020 İbrahim ÖĞE 1987 Adana Turkish Özcan AKINCI 140. 37964/20 Kanberoğlu v. Türkiye 24/08/2020 Murat KANBEROĞLU 1985 SEE REP. ADDRESS Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN 141. 38129/20 Şahin v. Türkiye 19/08/2020 Betül ŞAHİN 1978 İzmir Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 142. 38335/20 Er v. Türkiye 19/08/2020 Hümeyra ER 1980 Manisa Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 143. 38349/20 Selçuk v. Türkiye 19/08/2020 Erdal SELÇUK 1980 İzmir Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 144. 39191/20 Yıldız v. Türkiye 25/08/2020 Nizamettin YILDIZ 1991 Istanbul Sancaktepe Turkish Hanifi BAYRI 145. 39211/20 Karaarslan v. Türkiye 25/08/2020 Ahmet KARAARSLAN 1985 Boğazlıyan Turkish Hanifi BAYRI 146. 40132/20 Karaca v. Türkiye 20/08/2020 Yusuf KARACA 1982 Istanbul Turkish İnan UZUN 147. 40357/20 Açıkgöz v. Türkiye 28/08/2020 Ali AÇIKGÖZ 1994 Afyonkarahisar Turkish Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ 148. 41159/20 Kurt v. Türkiye 25/08/2020 Zeliha KURT 1992 Hatay Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ 149. 41960/20 Konca v. Türkiye 28/08/2020 Aziz KONCA 1960 Hatay Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ 150. 42732/20 Ünsal v. Türkiye 08/09/2020 Mehmet Taha ÜNSAL 1989 Ankara Turkish Özcan AKINCI 151. 43536/20 Yekeler v. Türkiye 22/09/2020 İbrahim YEKELER 1986 Ankara Turkish Burhan DEMİRCİ 152. 44302/20 Şimşek v. Türkiye 25/09/2020 Seyhan ŞİMŞEK 1989 Samsun Turkish İnan UZUN 153. 44595/20 Ünal v. Türkiye 09/09/2020 Kemal ÜNAL 1984 Kocaeli Turkish Elvan BAĞ CANBAZ 154. 45114/20 Çınar v. Türkiye 22/09/2020 Serdar ÇINAR 1980 Izmir Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 155. 45244/20 Yıldız v. Türkiye 09/09/2020 Fatih YILDIZ 1979 Kocaeli Turkish Elvan BAĞ CANBAZ 156. 46007/20 Okyay v. Türkiye 06/10/2020 İsmet OKYAY 1979 İzmir Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL 157. 46422/20 Altun v. Türkiye 08/10/2020 Abdulkerim ALTUN 1975 Mardin Turkish Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN 158. 47620/20 Yanık v. Türkiye 23/10/2020 Ferhat YANIK 1991 Istanbul Turkish Burhan DEMİRCİ 159. 49570/20 Gelen v. Türkiye 27/10/2020 Muharrem GELEN 1987 Hatay Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ 160. 49924/20 Gümüş v. Türkiye 28/10/2020 İsmail GÜMÜŞ 1980 Diyarbakır Turkish Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN 161. 51006/20 Şimşek v. Türkiye 11/11/2020 Abdullah ŞİMŞEK 1979 Konya Turkish Özcan AKINCI 162. 54321/20 Demir v. Türkiye 30/10/2020 Bekir DEMİR 1990 Mersin Turkish Özcan AKINCI 163. 10056/21 Sarı v. Türkiye 12/02/2021 Sebahattin SARI 1971 Ankara Turkish Muhammet ÜSTÜN 164. 11657/21 Ünal v. Türkiye 15/02/2021 Yiğit ÜNAL 1973 Hatay Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ 165. 11790/21 Kaya v. Türkiye 15/02/2021 Oktay KAYA 1979 Istanbul Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ 166. 12139/21 Akçay v. Türkiye 25/02/2021 Kasım AKÇAY 1981 Kayseri Turkish Özcan AKINCI 167. 12547/21 Aytaş v. Türkiye 15/02/2021 İdris AYTAŞ 1976 Hatay Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ 168. 18490/21 Maylıba v. Türkiye 01/04/2021 Halil MAYLIBA 1969 Eskişehir Turkish Hanifi BAYRI 169. 18510/21 Kahraman v. Türkiye 23/03/2021 Murat KAHRAMAN 1977 Zonguldak Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ 170. 20837/21 Açıkgöz v. Türkiye 06/04/2021 Hasan AÇIKGÖZ 1980 Kocaeli Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ 171. 21697/21 Salman v. Türkiye 13/04/2021 Nurullah SALMAN 1984 Mardin Turkish Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN 172. 24047/21 Karasoy v. Türkiye 28/04/2021 Hakan KARASOY 1981 Hatay Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ