CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 février 2025

.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 } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3A013CA3 { font-family:Arial; color:#424242 } .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 } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB6A7F5BF { width:17.54pt; display:inline-block } .s235C1871 { width:137.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; 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 } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF TOSUN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 60220/16 and 83 others)               JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 February 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tosun and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Jovan Ilievski , President ,   Péter Paczolay,   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 concerning Article   6 §   1 of the Convention to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the time, 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 the remainder of the applications inadmissible; the parties’ observations; the comments submitted by Volunteer Jurists Association, which was granted leave by the President of the Section to intervene as a third party in the proceedings (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court); the decision to dismiss the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee; Having deliberated in private on 21   January 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The present applications concern the lack of access to a court for the applicants in relation to the premature and allegedly arbitrary termination of their terms of office at the Court of Cassation following the entry into force of Law no. 6723. The applicants complained of a violation of their right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 2.     At the material time the applicants were judges, sitting as members of the Court of Cassation. 3.     On 1   July 2016 the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye adopted Law no.   6723, providing amendments in certain laws in order to modify the number of the chambers and that of the members therein of the Supreme Administrative Court and of the Court of Cassation in view of the establishment of a three-tier judicial system with the creation of appeal courts. Article   22 of this Law, which entered into force upon its publication in the Official Gazette on 23 July 2016, inserted a provisional Article 15 into Law   no.   2797 on the Court of Cassation. This provision terminated the terms of office of all members of this high court, except for the first president, the chief public prosecutor, the first vice president, the deputy chief public prosecutor, and the Chamber presidents. The applicants were among the members whose terms of office ended by this Law (for the context of the adoption of this Law and its content, see Sözen v. Türkiye , no.   73532/16, §§   5 ‑ 11, 9   April 2024). 4.     On 25   July 2016 the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (“the HSYK”) appointed new members to the Court of Cassation from among those whose terms of office had been terminated by Law no. 6723. As the applicants in the present case were not among those reappointed, they were reassigned as judges to various other courts. 5 .     Only the applicants in applications nos. 75489/16, 7274/17, 9049/17, 12988/17 and 68754/17 lodged individual applications with the Constitutional Court, citing their right of access to a court in order to contest the termination by Law no. 6723 of their terms of office at the Court of Cassation. The Constitutional Court dismissed the individual application of the applicant in application no. 7274/17 for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because he had not applied to the commission for the review of measures taken in connection with the state of emergency (for the background to the creation of the commission, see Köksal v. Turkey (dec.), no.   70478/16, §   16, 6 June 2017). Furthermore, the Constitutional Court examined the individual applications of the applicants in applications nos.   75489/16, 9049/17 and 12988/17 on 2 November 2021, 5 October 2023 and 21   June 2023 respectively on the basis of the right to a fair trial and, finding it evident that there had been no violation of that right, declared them inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. When the observations in the present case were submitted, the Constitutional Court had not yet examined the individual application of the applicant in application no.   68754/17. 6.     The other applicants did not lodge individual applications with the Constitutional Court, arguing that it did not have the constitutional jurisdiction to examine legal provisions within the framework of individual applications. 7.     In a judgment delivered on 10 December 2020 in a different case, concerning the constitutionality of Law no. 6723, the plenary assembly of the Constitutional Court rejected the request to declare void provisional Article   15 of Law no. 2797 on the Court of Cassation, inserted by Article   22 of Law no. 6723. It referred to the reasons given in the same judgment for rejecting a request to declare void similar provisions in Article 27 of Law no.   2575 providing for the termination of the terms of office of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court (see for a summary of that judgment Sözen , cited above, §§   27-28). THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 8.     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 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 9.     The applicants complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that they had been denied access to a court in order to contest the premature and allegedly arbitrary termination of their terms of office at the Court of Cassation by the entry into force of Law no. 6723. Admissibility Objection regarding compatibility ratione materiae 10.     The Government disputed the applicability of Article 6 in the present case, alleging that the applicants’ complaint was incompatible ratione   materiae with the provisions of the Convention. They contended that the applicants did not have a “civil right” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. They further argued that the lack of access to a court was justified in view of the conditions set out in Vilho Eskelinen and Others v.   Finland ( [GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR   2007-II). 11.     In this connection, the Government stated that the applicants’ mandates inherently involved the exercise of powers conferred by public law and duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the State. They added that, following the enactment of Law no. 6723, the national authorities had entirely reformed the judicial system by introducing regional courts of appeal. They thus argued that, in view of such a major reform, the exclusion of access to a court in order to challenge the premature termination of the applicants’ terms of office as members of the Court of Cassation was justified in accordance with the Eskelinen principles. 12.     The Court reiterates the general principles set out in Sözen v.   Türkiye , (no.   73532/16, §§   39-44, 9   April 2024) regarding the applicability of Article   6 of the Convention, particularly in cases concerning the premature termination of a judge’s term of office. 13 .     In determining whether there was a genuine and serious dispute over a right the Court observes that the Turkish Constitution does not explicitly specify a term of office for members of the Court of Cassation, and nor did Law no. 2797 on the Court of Cassation prior to the enactment of Law no.   6723, which set the term of office for members of the Court of Cassation at twelve years (by inserting new paragraphs into Article 29 of Law no.   2797). It further observes that under Law no. 2797 the term of office of a member of the Court of Cassation could only be terminated before retirement age as a disciplinary sanction in the form of an invitation to resign (see Articles   19 and   43 of Law no. 2797). 14.     The Court notes in addition that the Constitutional Court, in a judgment of 10 November 2022, had acknowledged in a similar case concerning members of the Supreme Administrative Court, that these judges had a constitutional right not to have their terms of office terminated arbitrarily, having regard in particular to the principles of the independence of the courts and the rule of law on which the Constitution was based (for that Constitutional Court judgment, see Sözen , cited above, §§ 16-18). The Court sees no reason to believe that the Constitutional Court’s finding that members of the Supreme Administrative Court had a right not to have their terms of office terminated arbitrarily would not also apply to members of the Court of Cassation (see, mutatis mutandis , Sözen , cited above, §§ 45-49). Accordingly, there was a genuine and serious dispute over a right – namely, the right of the applicants not to have their terms of office as members of the Court of Cassation arbitrarily terminated. Furthermore, the applicants could claim that right on arguable grounds under domestic law (see, mutatis mutandis , Sözen, cited above, §   54). 15.     As to the civil character of that right under Article 6 of the Convention, the Court considers it necessary, having regard to the first condition of the Vilho Eskelinen test, to determine whether before the enactment of the impugned Law the applicants had had access to a court under domestic law ( see Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, §§ 115-16, 23   June 2016, and Sözen , cited above, § 56). It notes that under the legislation in force prior to the amendments introduced by Law no. 6723, the terms of office of members of the Court of Cassation could be terminated in the event of a disciplinary sanction imposed by the High Disciplinary Board of the Court of Cassation in the form of an invitation to resign (see paragraph 13 above). It further observes that pursuant to Articles 17 and 43 of Law no. 2797, the decisions of the High Disciplinary Board are subject to review before the board of presidents (ibid.), as Article 17 provides that the latter board is the last remedy against the decisions of the High Disciplinary Board. 16.     The Court does not consider it necessary to decide whether, in these circumstances, the relevant domestic law, as it stood prior to the enactment of Law no. 6723, excluded access to a “court” in the event of the premature termination of the term of office of a member of the Court of Cassation and whether the first condition of the Vilho Eskelinen test has thus been met. In any event, there are grounds on which to rule that the second condition of the Vilho Eskelinen test –   that the exclusion of the applicants from having access to a court was justified on objective grounds as being in the State’s interest   – has not been satisfied (compare also Kartal v. Türkiye , no. 54699/14, §   74, 26   March 2024, and Gumenyuk and Others v. Ukraine, no. 11423/19, §   64, 22   July 2021). 17.     In this respect, the Court recalls that members of the judiciary should enjoy protection from arbitrariness on the part of the legislative and executive powers, and only oversight by an independent judicial body of a measure such as removal from office is able to render such protection effective (compare also Kartal , cited above, § 82). In the instant case, the Court considers that the exclusion of the applicants from access to court, a fundamental safeguard for the protection of an arguable civil right closely connected with the protection of judicial independence, would in fact undermine the interest of a State governed by the rule of law, and that the second criterion of the Vilho Eskelinen test was thus not satisfied. It also reiterates its finding in the above ‑ cited Kartal case concerning judicial reforms performed under similar, if not identical, circumstances ( ibid ., §   83). 18 .     Consequently, the Court considers that the Government’s objection of the complaint’s incompatibility ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention must be dismissed and that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable under its civil head. Objection regarding non-exhaustion of domestic remedies 19.     The Government argued that only five of the present applicants (the applicants in applications nos. 75489/16, 7274/17, 9049/17, 12988/17 and 68754/17) had lodged individual applications with the Constitutional Court in respect of the termination of their terms of office by Law no. 6723. They submitted that if a legislative act violated fundamental rights, an individual application should be lodged to challenge its implementation. Referring to three Constitutional Court judgments from 2018 and 2019 in which that court had found that complaints stemming from legal provisions were admissible, the Government argued that an individual application to the Constitutional Court was an effective remedy that should have been pursued by the other applicants in the present case. The Government further contended that applications nos. 75489/16, 9049/17, 12988/17 and 68754/17 should likewise be declared inadmissible, because the applicants had lodged their applications with the Court while their individual applications were still pending before the Constitutional Court. They also argued that application no.   7274/17 should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies on the basis that the Constitutional Court had held that the applicant had failed to apply to the commission for the review of measures taken in connection with the state of emergency. The Government further submitted that even if the termination of that applicant’s term of office did not fall within the scope of the commission’s powers of review, the application should, in any event, be declared inadmissible on the same grounds because the applicant should have requested the rectification of a factual error in the Constitutional Court’s judgment. 20.     The applicants contested the Government’s arguments, contending that individual applications could not be lodged with the Constitutional Court to challenge laws. Some of the applicants argued that the remedy of an individual application had proved ineffective. In support of that argument, several applicants cited, in their observations, a judgment delivered by the Constitutional Court on 11 June 2020, in which it had dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an individual application by a former member of the Court of Cassation, who had complained about the premature termination of his term of office following the enactment of Law no. 6723. Several applicants further maintained that, in any event, the remedy of an individual application had proved ineffective, especially given the time that had elapsed between the date on which their individual applications had been lodged with the Constitutional Court and the date on which that court had delivered its decision, which in some cases amounted to seven years. 21.     The Court reiterates that the only remedies that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention requires to be exhausted are those that relate to the breaches alleged and at the same time are available and sufficient (see Paksas v.   Lithuania [GC], no. 34932/04, § 75, ECHR 2011 (extracts)) and that there is no obligation to have recourse to remedies that are inadequate or ineffective (see Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos.   17153/11 and 29 others, § 73, 25   March 2014). 22.     The Court further reiterates that the availability of any such remedy must be sufficiently certain in law and in practice ( see Vernillo v.   France , 20   February 1991, § 27, Series A no. 198 ). The remedy’s basis in domestic law must therefore be clear ( compare Norbert Sikorski v.   Poland , no.   17599/05, § 117, 22 October 2009; Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no.   75529/01, §§ 110-12, ECHR 2006-VII; and Scavuzzo-Hager and Others v.   Switzerland (dec.), no. 41773/98, 30 November 2004), and it must be capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints and of offering reasonable prospects of success ( compare Scoppola v. Italy (no.   2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 71, 17 September 2009 ; Karácsony and Others v.   Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, §§ 75-82, 17   May 2016; Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no.   2) [GC], no. 14305/17, §   205, 22   December 2020; and Magyar Keresztény Mennonita Egyház and Others v.   Hungary , nos. 70945/11 and 8 others, § 50, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). 23.     The development and availability of a remedy said to exist, including its scope and application, must be clearly set out and confirmed or complemented by practice or case-law ( see Mikolajová v.   Slovakia , no.   4479/03, § 34, 18 January 2011 ). The decisions cited should in principle have been delivered before the application was lodged ( Dimitar Yanakiev v.   Bulgaria (no. 2) , no. 50346/07, §§ 53 and 61, 31 March 2016, and Norbert Sikorski , cited above, § 115 ), and be relevant to the case at hand ( Sakhnovskiy v.   Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, §§ 43-44, 2   November 2010 ). 24.     In particular, in a legal system providing constitutional protection for fundamental rights, it is incumbent on the aggrieved individual to test the extent of that protection and to allow the domestic courts to develop those rights by way of interpretation ( see Vučković and Others , cited above, §   84, and A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 142, ECHR 2010). But where a suggested remedy did not in fact offer reasonable prospects of success, for example in the light of settled domestic case-law, the fact that the applicant did not use it is no bar to admissibility ( compare Carson and Others v.   the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 58, ECHR 2010, and Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium , 20 November 1995, §   27, Series A no. 332). 25.     The Court takes note of the Constitutional Court’s judgments of 2018 and 2019 referred to by the Government, in which that court accepted its jurisdiction to examine measures stemming from legal provisions concerning various issues, when the case concerned the implementation of the provision in question. However, in a judgment of 11 June 2020 (application no.   2019/172), referred to by some of the applicants, the Constitutional Court explicitly declared its lack of jurisdiction to examine an identical complaint regarding the lack of access to a court in order to challenge the termination of the terms of office of Court of Cassation judges following the entry into force of Law no. 6723. The Court further notes that in its judgment of 10   November 2022 the Constitutional Court acknowledged its jurisdiction to examine an individual application concerning lack of access to a court in the context of the ex lege premature termination of the term of office of a member of the Supreme Administrative Court, in a case in which the circumstances were comparable to those in the present case ( see Sözen , cited above, §   17). Thus, following the latter judgment, the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction to examine the applicants’ complaints in the present case was established with legal certainty. It appears that it was for that reason that the Constitutional Court was able to examine on the merits the individual applications lodged by the applicants in applications nos. 9049/17 and 12988/17 in its judgments of 5   October 2023 and 21   June 2023 respectively (see paragraph 5 above). 26.     However, at the relevant time when the present applications were lodged (between 6 October 2016 and 23 January 2017), the Constitutional Court had not yet delivered a judgment in which it had accepted its jurisdiction to examine issues arising directly from legal provisions. 27.     The Court finds that in the light of the case-law of the Constitutional Court as it stood at the time the present applications were lodged with the Court, individual applications to the Constitutional Court made by the applicants would not have offered any reasonable prospects of success. Having regard to the fact that the case-law of the Constitutional Court confirming its jurisdiction ratione materiae to examine similar complaints did not emerge until many years later, the Court finds that the Government have not shown that the domestic practice was sufficiently consolidated, or that domestic case-law showing that this remedy had been successfully used in comparable circumstances even existed at the time when the applicants applied to the Court (see, mutatis mutandis , Dimitar Yanakiev , cited above, §   61). 28.     As for the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion concerning application no. 7274/17 (see paragraph 18 above) with reference to the Constitutional Court’s finding that the applicant had failed to apply to the commission for the review of measures taken in connection with the state of emergency, the Court reiterates that that commission was responsible for reviewing measures taken under legislative decrees passed during the state of emergency (see Çatal v. Turkey (dec.), no. 2873/17, § 20, 7   March 2017). However, in the instant case the applicant complained of a measure taken by Law no. 6723, which was enacted on 1 July 2016, that is, before the state of emergency had been declared in the aftermath of the attempted coup of 15   July 2016. The Government did not explain how that measure could come within the scope of the commission’s duties or powers. They further implied that the above-mentioned Constitutional Court judgment might have been based on a factual error since they considered that the applicant should have submitted a request to the Constitutional Court for rectification of a factual error in its judgment. In this connection, the Court reiterates that a request for rectification based on a factual error is a discretionary or extraordinary remedy that does not need to be pursued for exhaustion purposes following a final decision ( compare Korzeniak v. Poland , no. 56134/08, § 39, 10   January 2017, and Çınar v. Turkey (dec.), no. 28602/95, 13   November 2003). 29.     Consequently, the Court does not consider that the applicants in the present case were required to have pursued the remedy of an individual application to the Constitutional Court at the time when they lodged their applications with the Court. Accordingly, this objection must also be dismissed. 30.     The Court notes 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. Merits The parties’ submissions 31.     The applicants argued that they had been denied access to a court regarding the termination of their terms of office under Law no. 6723 which in their view had not pursued a legitimate aim. 32.     The Government argued that there had been no violation of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. They stated that Law no. 6723, which had terminated the applicants’ terms of office, had been part of a major judicial reform aimed at upholding the rule of law and boosting public confidence by creating a three-tier judicial system with regional courts of appeal. They added that the Law was a justified an exception to the rules on judicial tenure and had not targeted individuals on the basis of their views or actions. 33.     The Government further argued that Law no. 6723 respected the acquired rights of the affected individuals and was proportionate. It had terminated the terms of office of all members of the highest courts but had maintained their rank and salary and respected the judges’ rights under Article   139 of the Constitution. The Government submitted that the independent HSYK had elected new members to the Court of Cassation from among those whose terms of office had been terminated by the new Law and that the Turkish Constitution guaranteed judicial irremovability, but not the duration of the tenure. 34.     Lastly, the Government noted that some members of the highest courts whose terms of office had been terminated by Law no. 6723 had been convicted for membership of the FETÖ/PDY organisation. The Court’s assessment 35.     The general principles concerning the right of access to a court have been summarised in Zubac v. Croatia ([GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-79, 5   April 2018) and in Sözen (cited above, §§   69-70). 36.     In Sözen (cited above, §§ 71-78), the circumstances of which were similar to those in the present case, the Court held that the applicant’s lack of access to the domestic courts, to have examined the genuine and serious dispute over his arguable right not to have his term of office terminated arbitrarily, had not been justified. It found that the respondent State had impaired the very essence of the applicant’s right of access to a court on account of the lack of judicial review (ibid., §   78). 37.     The Court perceives no grounds to depart from that conclusion in the present case. 38.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 39.     The applicants claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. 40.     With regard to pecuniary damage, they submitted that as a result of the impugned measure, they had lost part of their salary or retirement pensions and certain pecuniary advantages (in particular public housing, health insurance, banking advantages based on salary, and exemptions from certain public fees). 41.     In respect of non-pecuniary damage, they submitted that they had suffered distress as a result of the actions taken against them. They claimed the amounts indicated in the appended table. 42.     With regard to costs and expenses, they claimed various amounts specified in the appended table, submitting the supporting documents indicated therein. 43.     The Government contended that the applicants’ claims in respect of pecuniary damage were unsubstantiated, in addition to being unrelated to the subject matter of the instant case. They further submitted that there was no causal link between the applicants’ claims in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage on the one hand and the alleged violation on the other. They also argued that the applicants’ claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage were unsubstantiated and excessive and did not correspond to the amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases. Lastly, the Government contended that the applicants had failed to submit valid or convincing documents in support of their claims for costs and expenses. 44.     The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. However, it awards each applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 45.     In respect of costs and expenses, having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants who submitted supporting documents (see the appended table) the amounts indicated in that table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, and dismisses the remainder of the claims. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i)   EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii)   the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the indicated amounts 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’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 February 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Dorothee von Arnim   Jovan Ilievski   Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of cases:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth Place of Residence Represented by Claim for non-pecuniary damage (EUR) Claim for lawyers’ fees (EUR) and supporting documents where applicable Claim for other costs and expenses (EUR) and supporting documents where applicable Amount awarded for lawyers’ fees and other costs and expenses (EUR) 1. 60220/16 Tosun v. Türkiye 06/10/2016 Yılmaz TOSUN 04/08/1963 Ankara Serra YAĞMUR ERGÜÇ 3,000,000 2,000 Legal services agreement - 2,500 jointly awarded for lawyer’s fees in 2   applications as the same lawyer represented 1   other applicant (70633/16) 2. 62313/16 Akın v. Türkiye 25/10/2016 Ali AKIN 01/11/1968 Kayseri Mehmet ÖNCÜ (not lawyer) 50,000 1,500 Invoice drawn up by the representative 5 Postage fees to the Court 7,164 jointly awarded for total costs and representative’s fees in 12   applications as the same representative represented 11   other applicants (66373/16, 3555/17, 4307/17, 5877/17, 5886/17, 6430/17, 7274/17, 8123/17, 9049/17, 12988/17, 22007/17) 3. 66296/16 Kiriş v. Türkiye 24/10/2016 Ahmet KİRİŞ 16/02/1965 Ankara Kadir ÖZTÜRK (not lawyer) 100,000 3,000 Legal services agreement 128 2,000 4. 66373/16 Mermerci v. Türkiye 24/10/2016 Sefa MERMERCİ 11/02/1965 Ankara Mehmet ÖNCÜ (not lawyer) 50,000 1,500 Invoice drawn up by the representative 14 Postage fees to the Court 7,164 jointly awarded for total costs and representative’s fees in 12   applications as the same representative represented 11   other applicants (62313/16, 3555/17, 4307/17, 5877/17, 5886/17, 6430/17, 7274/17, 8123/17, 9049/17, 12988/17, 22007/17) 5. 69446/16 Demir v. Türkiye 14/11/2016 Coşkun DEMİR 15/12/1958 Ankara İsmail Safa AKKUŞ 1,000,000 1,810 Legal services agreement - 2,310 jointly awarded for lawyer’s fees in 2   applications as the same lawyer represented 1   other applicant (28775/17) 6. 70457/16 Aydın v. Türkiye 09/11/2016 Ferudun AYDIN 01/01/1967 Ankara Ebubekir ELMALI 200,000 - - - 7. 70633/16 Güleç v. Türkiye 27/10/2016 Nuri GÜLEÇ 01/01/1969 Ankara Serra YAĞMUR ERGÜÇ 3,000,000 2,000 Legal services agreement - 2,500 jointly awarded for lawyer’s fees in 2   applications as the same lawyer represented 1   other applicant (60220/16) 8. 70911/16 İnceoğlu v. Türkiye 24/11/2016 İsmail İNCEOĞLU 15/09/1965 Ankara Melih İNCEOĞLU 300,000 1,550 Legal services agreement and invoice drawn up by the lawyer   - 1,550 9. 70922/16 Budak v. Türkiye 14/11/2016 Mesut BUDAK 25/07/1969 Ankara (rep. address) Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 10. 70931/16 Sarıömeroğlu v. Türkiye 14/11/2016 Hüseyin SARIÖMEROĞLU 10/11/1967 Konya Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 11. 71837/16 Memiş v. Türkiye 02/11/2016 Yusuf MEMİŞ 01/06/1966 Istanbul Esad MEMİŞ 500,000 - - - 12. 72143/16 Ataman v. Türkiye 21/11/2016 İbrahim Tufan ATAMAN 29/07/1968 Ankara Beyza Esma TUNA 1,000,000 1,810 Legal services agreement and invoice drawn up by the lawyer - 1,810 13. 72171/16 Gürtekin v. Türkiye 14/11/2016 Eray GÜRTEKİN 06/05/1968 Kırıkkale Hüseyin AYGÜN 23,040,000 2,000 1,000 - 14. 72172/16 Karayol v. Türkiye 17/11/2016 Muharrem KARAYOL 05/09/1968 Istanbul Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 15. 72213/16 Doğan v. Türkiye 10/11/2016 Ahmet Turan DOĞAN 03/02/1967 Sivas Ömer Faruk DOĞAN (not lawyer) 400,000 - - - 16. 72220/16 Meran v. Türkiye 22/11/2016 Necati MERAN 17/05/1966 İzmir Öztürk UFUK 400,000 909 Invoice drawn up by the lawyer 69 Invoice for translation drawn up by translator 978 17. 72471/16 Sönmez v. Türkiye 14/11/2016 Salih SÖNMEZ 20/10/1964 Kırıkkale Gökhan GÜNAYDIN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 18. 72815/16 Emiroğlu v. Türkiye 08/11/2016 Turgut EMİROĞLU 02/10/1965 Istanbul Cengiz VAROL 500,000 - - - 19. 73667/16 İşlek v. Türkiye 14/11/2016 Kemalettin İŞLEK 01/01/1969 Tunceli Hüseyin AYGÜN 100,000 2,000 1,000 - 20. 74405/16 Sarıçam v. Türkiye 14/11/2016 Mustafa SARIÇAM 06/03/1965 Ereğli Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 21. 75251/16 Kulaç v. Türkiye 14/11/2016 Hüseyin KULAÇ 29/08/1966 Istanbul Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 22. 75477/16 Kır v. Türkiye 17/11/2016 İbrahim KIR 10/10/1964 Ankara Emir Han KIR 200,000 - 1,000 - 23. 75483/16 Kaya v. Türkiye 22/11/2016 Hacı Osman KAYA 10/08/1965 Ankara Kübra KAYA 300,000 1,550 Legal services agreement and invoice drawn up by the lawyer 157 Receipt for translation drawn up and signed by translator (40) and invoice for postage fees to the Court drawn up by the postal service (117) 1,707 24. 75489/16 Yağcı v. Türkiye 23/11/2016 Ali YAĞCI 20/06/1967 Ankara Musa YAĞCI 10,000,000 5,000 2,500 - 25. 75787/16 Dogan v. Türkiye 14/11/2016 İrfan DOĞAN 20/10/1967 Ankara Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 26. 75788/16 Uğur v. Türkiye 14/11/2016 Hüsamettin UĞUR 01/01/1965 Ankara Gökhan GÜNAYDIN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 27. 75789/16 Şahin v. Türkiye 14/11/2016 Ali ŞAHİN 11/05/1963 Kırıkkale Gökhan GÜNAYDIN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 28. 75790/16 Asan v. Türkiye 14/11/2016 İdris ASAN 28/12/1964 Konya Gökhan GÜNAYDIN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 29. 75791/16 Seyhan v. Türkiye 14/11/2016 Edat Yücel SEYHAN 09/10/1969 Ankara Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 30. 75793/16 Kılıç v. Türkiye 14/11/2016 Mustafa KILIÇ 20/09/1960 Konya Murat Esat KILIÇ 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 31. 75799/16 Altınöz v. Türkiye 14/11/2016 Dursun ALTINÖZ 09/08/1969 Ankara Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 32. 76041/16 Uslu v. Türkiye 11/11/2016 Mehmet USLU 15/02/1959 Ankara Merve Nur YALÇIN 200,000 10,000 Legal services agreement 100 2,000 33. 79124/16 Köksal v. Türkiye 05/12/2016 Süleyman KÖKSAL 20/11/1963 Kırıkkale Ali Aydın AKPINAR 1,000,000 - - - 34. 79441/16 Şen v. Türkiye 13/12/2016 Çetin ŞEN 31/08/1965 Ankara Süeda Esma ŞEN KARA 300,000 - - - 35. 488/17 Memiş v. Türkiye 17/11/2016 Yahya MEMİŞ 12/10/1965 Istanbul Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 36. 875/17 Arı v. Türkiye 11/11/2016 Mehmet ARI 15/10/1965 Kırıkkale Arzu Şeyma ARI 200,000 - 66 Receipt for translation drawn up and signed by translator 66 37. 1479/17 Çolak v. Türkiye 14/12/2016 Hüseyin ÇOLAK 01/01/1965 Ankara Raziye AKTAŞ 1,000,000 1,500 Legal services agreement 200 1,500 38. 3555/17 Boşgelmez v. Türkiye 14/12/2016 Aydın BOŞGELMEZ 24/10/1966 Ankara Mehmet ÖNCÜ (not lawyer) 50,000 1,500 Invoice drawn up by the representative 10 Invoice drawn up by postal service for postage fees to the Court 7,164 jointly awarded for total costs and representative’s fees in 12   applications as the same representative represented 11   other applicants (62313/16, 66373/16, 4307/17, 5877/17, 5886/17, 6430/17, 7274/17, 8123/17, 9049/17, 12988/17, 22007/17) 39. 3891/17 Karanfil v. Türkiye 10/12/2016 Vecdi KARANFİL 28/05/1969 Sakarya Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 40. 4296/17 Köseoğlu v. Türkiye 08/12/2016 Bilal KÖSEOĞLU 06/07/1966 Istanbul Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 41. 4307/17 Tunç v. Türkiye 22/12/2016 Mehmet Kasım TUNÇ 01/05/1960 Ankara Mehmet ÖNCÜ (not lawyer) 50,000 1,500 Invoice drawn up by the representative 13 Postage fees to the Court 7,164 jointly awarded for total costs and representative’s fees in 12   applications as the same representative represented 11   other applicants (62313/16, 66373/16, 3555/17, 5877/17, 5886/17, 6430/17, 7274/17, 8123/17, 9049/17, 12988/17, 22007/17) 42. 4679/17 Kaya v. Türkiye 12/12/2016 Ali KAYA 22/06/1967 Ankara Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 43. 5394/17 Borazan v. Türkiye 29/12/2016 Ömür BORAZAN 13/05/1964 Ankara Sümeyra Betül BABACAN ALKAN 1,000,000   3,500 - 44. 5463/17 Saylak v. Türkiye 17/11/2016 Esabil SAYLAK 05/06/1967 Ankara Rana SAYLAK 3,000,000 3,000 - - 45. 5877/17 Dere v. Türkiye 26/12/2016 Nazmi DERE 01/09/1965 Eskişehir Mehmet ÖNCÜ (not lawyer) 50,000 1,500 Invoice drawn up by the representative 10 Postage fees to the Court 7,164 jointly awarded for total costs and representative’s fees in 12   applications as the same representative represented 11   other applicants (62313/16, 66373/16, 3555/17, 4307/17, 5886/17, 6430/17, 7274/17, 8123/17, 9049/17, 12988/17, 22007/17) 46. 5886/17 Atalay v. Türkiye 27/12/2016 Selahittin ATALAY 20/12/1954 İzmir Mehmet ÖNCÜ (not lawyer) 50,000 1,500 Invoice drawn up by the representative 6 Postage fees to the Court 7,164 jointly awarded for total costs and representative’s fees in 12   applications as the same representative represented 11   other applicants (62313/16, 66373/16, 3555/17, 4307/17, 5877/17, 6430/17, 7274/17, 8123/17, 9049/17, 12988/17, 22007/17)   47. 6301/17 Kamacı v. Türkiye 16/12/2016 Mahmut KAMACI 02/04/1958 Ankara   Atilla KART 40,000 - - - 48. 6323/17 Cevher v. Türkiye 10/12/2016 Dursun Murat CEVHER 24/10/1963 Kırıkkale Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 49. 6354/17 Kundakçı v. Türkiye 16/12/2016 Mesut KUNDAKÇI 03/01/1969 Kırıkkale Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 50. 6359/17 Ekinci v. Türkiye 10/12/2016 Mehmet Vehip EKİNCİ 18/07/1963 Kırıkkale Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 51. 6363/17 Karadavut v. Türkiye 19/12/2016 Ahmet KARADAVUT 01/12/1957 Ankara Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 52. 6430/17 Eryılmaz v. Türkiye 26/12/2016 Ali ERYILMAZ 27/02/1962 Ankara Mehmet ÖNCÜ (not lawyer) 50,000 1,500 Invoice drawn up by the representative 8 Postage fees to the Court 7,164 jointly awarded for total costs and representative’s fees in 12   applications as the same representative represented 11   other applicants (62313/16, 66373/16, 3555/17, 4307/17, 5877/17, 5886/17, 7274/17, 8123/17, 9049/17, 12988/17, 22007/17) 53. 6441/17 Bekler v. Türkiye 29/12/2016 Arif BEKLER 20/12/1968 Ankara Adem KAPLAN 200,000 - - - 54. 7274/17 Şahin v. Türkiye 04/01/2017 İlyas ŞAHİN 15/03/1966 Adapazarı Mehmet ÖNCÜ (not lawyer) 50,000 1,500 Invoice drawn up by the representative 63 Postage fees to the Court 7,164 jointly awarded for total costs and representative’s fees in 12   applications as the same representative represented 11   other applicants (62313/16, 66373/16, 3555/17, 4307/17, 5877/17, 5886/17, 6430/17, 8123/17, 9049/17, 12988/17, 22007/17)     55. 7280/17 Ramazan v. Türkiye 10/12/2016 Bayrak RAMAZAN 08/04/1965 Istanbul Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 56. 8123/17 Altan v. Türkiye 12/12/2016 İlyas ALTAN 01/01/1962 Ankara Mehmet ÖNCÜ (not lawyer) 50,000 1,500 Invoice drawn up by the representative 8 Postage fees to the Court 7,164 jointly awarded for total costs and representative’s fees in 12   applications as the same representative represented 11   other applicants (62313/16, 66373/16, 3555/17, 4307/17, 5877/17, 5886/17, 6430/17, 7274/17, 9049/17, 12988/17, 22007/17) 57. 8124/17 Özaykut v. Türkiye 16/12/2016 Salih ÖZAYKUT 01/01/1969 Ankara Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 58. 8479/17 Özdemir v. Türkiye 28/12/2016 Muzaffer ÖZDEMİR 01/06/1968 Istanbul Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 59. 8486/17 Taşkın v. Türkiye 28/12/2016 Ahmet TAŞKIN 26/01/1965 Ankara Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 60. 9049/17 Akarsu v. Türkiye 19/01/2017 Mustafa AKARSU 01/06/1969 Ankara Mehmet ÖNCÜ (not lawyer) 50,000 1,500 Invoice drawn up by the representative 15 Postage fees to the Court 7,164 jointly awarded for total costs and representative’s fees in 12   applications as the same representative represented 11   other applicants (62313/16, 66373/16, 3555/17, 4307/17, 5877/17, 5886/17, 6430/17, 7274/17, 8123/17, 12988/17, 22007/17) 61. 10426/17 Babacan v. Türkiye 29/12/2016 Hüseyin Güngör BABACAN 27/01/1966 Konya Yücel ALKAN 1,000,000 - 9,200 - 62. 10440/17 Kıvrıl v. Türkiye 29/12/2016 Halit KIVRIL 15/09/1968 İzmir Sümeyra Betül BABACAN ALKAN 1,000,000 - 5,800 - 63. 12064/17 Ural v. Türkiye 06/12/2016 Sami Sezai URAL 01/04/1968 Istanbul Melike Büşra URAL 50,000 1,710 Legal services agreement - 1,710 64. 12988/17 Karagöl v. Türkiye 13/01/2017 Hüseyin KARAGÖL 30/07/1964 Sakarya Mehmet ÖNCÜ (not lawyer) 50,000 1,500 Invoice drawn up by the representative 7 Postage fees to the Court 7,164 jointly awarded for total costs and representative’s fees in 12   applications as the same representative represented 11   other applicants (62313/16, 66373/16, 3555/17, 4307/17, 5877/17, 5886/17, 6430/17, 7274/17, 8123/17, 9049/17, 22007/17) 65. 13298/17 Demirezici v. Türkiye 21/01/2017 Mehmet Ali DEMİREZİCİ 01/01/1966 Ankara Süeda Esma ŞEN KARA 300,000 - - - 66. 14181/17 Torlak v. Türkiye 28/12/2016 Hakkı TORLAK 27/11/1966 Uşak Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 67. 15261/17 Sarioglu v. Türkiye 29/12/2016 Refik SARIOĞLU 06/03/1967 Bursa Ebubekir RENK 50,000 1,110 - - 68. 16118/17 Güney v. Türkiye 09/01/2017 Muhammet GÜNEY 15/06/1968 Ankara Ayhan DOĞAN 400,000 - - - 69. 16139/17 Doğan v. Türkiye 16/01/2017 Ayhan DOĞAN 02/09/1966 ANKARA Muhammet GÜNEY 500,000 - - - 70. 16149/17 Ergün v. Türkiye 04/01/2017 İsmail ERGÜN 01/01/1966 Ankara Ömer Faruk ERGÜN 1,000,000 5,000 Legal services agreement 200 2,000 71. 17266/17 Köse v. Türkiye 18/01/2017 İsmail KÖSE 02/02/1956 Ankara Musab KÖSE 1,000,000 5,000 - - 72. 19268/17 Karadağ v. Türkiye 01/12/2016 Muzaffer KARADAĞ 12/10/1965 Ankara Hüseyin AYGÜN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 73. 19603/17 Yıldırım v. Türkiye 23/01/2017 Hüseyin YILDIRIM 15/09/1963 Ankara Erkam YILDIRIM 1,000,000 5,000 - - 74. 19634/17 Baydilli v. Türkiye 17/01/2017 Mustafa Haluk BAYDİLLİ 10/03/1969 Mersin Murat Esat KILIÇ 250,000 20,000 - - 75. 19669/17 Karadağ v. Türkiye 16/01/2017 Bilal KARADAĞ 23/10/1967 Keskin Öykü Didem AYDIN 100,000 5,000 Legal services agreement - 2,000 76. 22003/17 Erdoğan v. Türkiye 19/12/2016 Mustafa ERDOĞAN 16/11/1968 Antalya Gökhan GÜNAYDIN 1,000,000 2,000 1,000 - 77. 22007/17 Çakır v. Türkiye 11/01/2017 Resul ÇAKIR 13/08/1967 Siegen Mehmet ÖNCÜ (not lawyer) 50,000 1,500 Invoice drawn up by the representative 5 Postage fees to the Court 7,164 jointly awarded for total costs and representative’s fees in 12   applications as the same representative represented 11   other applicants (62313/16, 66373/16, 3555/17, 4307/17, 5877/17, 5886/17, 6430/17, 7274/17, 8123/17, 9049/17, 12988/17, 22007/17) 78. 28775/17 Akkuş v. Türkiye 19/01/2017 Mustafa AKKUŞ 13/06/1964 Ankara İsmail Safa AKKUŞ 1,000,000 1,810 Legal services agreement - 2,310 jointly awarded for representative’s fees in 2   applications as the same lawyer represented 1   other applicant (69446/16) 79. 68754/17 Çelik v. Türkiye 19/01/2017 Salih ÇELİK 28/05/1966 Ankara   50,000 376 Legal services agreement for proceedings before the Constitutional Court 239 Postage fees to the Court (166), application fee to the Constitutional Court (73) 615 80. 72205/17 Kurt v. Türkiye 29/12/2016 İbrahim KURT 12/10/1966 Ankara Yücel ALKAN 1,000,000 - 3,500 - 81. 80145/17 Yıldız v. Türkiye 17/11/2016 Ali YILDIZ 01/12/1965 Ankara Handan CAN 10,000,000 5,000 2,500 - 82. 80153/17 Erdoğan v. Türkiye 21/01/2017 Zekeriya ERDOĞAN 16/01/1966 Ankara Handan CAN 10,000,000 5,000 22,500 - 83. 80164/17 Özer v. Türkiye 17/11/2016 Cumhur ÖZER 02/09/1969 Ankara Handan CAN 10,000,000 5,000 22,500 - 84. 80168/17 Altınışık v. Türkiye 15/11/2016 Kadir ALTINIŞIK 01/01/1968 Konya Handan CAN 10,000,000 5,000 22,500 -   ,