CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 7 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9A659E2E { width:118.41pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 6756/19 Erkan YILMAZ against Türkiye and 8 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 May 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Gediminas Sagatys , President ,   Stéphane Pisani,   Juha Lavapuro , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants’ complaints under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the electronic recording and storage of their private correspondence in the National Judicial Network System (UYAP) by the authorities during the applicants’ detention, were communicated to the Turkish Government (“the   Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letters. By letters, sent by registered post on various dates, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations   had expired on 8 March 2023 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. However, no response has been received. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications. Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 28 May 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Gediminas Sagatys   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 6756/19 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 18/01/2019 Erkan YILMAZ 1981 Osmaniye Turkish   2. 35106/19 Kılıç v. Türkiye 30/04/2019 Şaban KILIÇ 1968 Osmaniye Turkish   3. 8622/20 Önce v. Türkiye 21/01/2020 Alper ÖNCE 1970 Osmaniye Turkish   4. 12843/20 Söyler v. Türkiye 17/02/2020 Nazım SÖYLER 1975 Osmaniye Turkish Günay SÖYLER 5. 16985/20 Sönmez v. Türkiye 27/03/2020 Emre SÖNMEZ 1990 Osmaniye Turkish Tamer DEMİRCİ 6. 33875/20 İnce v. Türkiye 13/07/2020 Bülent İNCE 1977 Osmaniye Turkish   7. 41634/20 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 28/08/2020 Erkan YILMAZ 1986 Antalya Turkish İdris TAŞKIN 8. 51481/20 Tuskan v. Türkiye 05/11/2020 Mehmet TUSKAN 1968 Adana Turkish Sevgi TUSKAN 9. 26676/21 Kütükoğlu v. Türkiye 05/05/2021 Bekir KÜTÜKOĞLU 1967 Konya Turkish