CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 8 juillet 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s2716A1B8 { width:147.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s14FBDE83 { margin-left:23pt; padding-left:13pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s37D3B385 { margin-left:26.41pt; padding-left:13pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF TÜZEMEN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 66683/16 and 116 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 8 July 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tüzemen and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Tim Eicke , President ,   Jovan Ilievski,   Gediminas Sagatys , 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 the pre-trial detention and the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention 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 decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee; Having deliberated in private on 17 June 2025, 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 attempted coup d’état 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 attempted coup d’état (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 challenges brought by them against their detention were dismissed by the competent courts. 3.     On various dates in the course of the ensuing criminal investigations and trials, the competent judicial authorities ordered the applicants’ continued detention. 4 .     It appears from the information and documents in the case files that, when ordering and extending the applicants’ pre-trial detention, the competent judicial authorities relied on various evidential grounds, including but not limited to: using the Bylock messaging system; witness statements indicating ties with FETÖ/PDY; sharing social media posts or participating in protests in favour of FETÖ/PDY; possession of pro-FETÖ/PDY publications; having intensive telephone contact with FETÖ/PDY suspects; suspension or dismissal from office; working in, or being a member of, institutions having ties with the organisation in question or an organisation shut down by the state‑of‑emergency legislative decrees; financing the FETÖ/PDY in view of their use of accounts in Bank Asya – a bank allegedly linked to FETÖ/PDY –; enrolling their children in an educational institution allegedly affiliated with the FETÖ/PDY; participating in journeys abroad with FETÖ/PDY suspects; provision of financial support, the details and nature of which are not provided, to FETÖ/PDY or to institutions with ties to FETÖ/PDY; attending or holding meetings ( sohbet ) the dates, nature or characteristics of which are not specified; staying in FETÖ/PDY residences; having in their possessions United States one ‑ dollar bills with an “F” serial number; and carrying out various other activities on the orders of the organisation. 5.     It further appears from the case files that, in accordance with Articles   100 and 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”, for the text of these provisions see Kavala v. Turkey , no. 28749/18, §§   71-72, 10   December 2019), the competent judicial authorities justified their decisions to deprive the applicants of their liberty not only on the basis of the existence of reasonable suspicion, but also on the grounds of the nature and the severity of the alleged offence of membership of an armed terrorist organisation and the fact that that offence was among the “catalogue” offences listed in Article 100 § 3 of the CCP. Without making an individualised assessment, they also relied on the state of the evidence and the risk of the applicants absconding and tampering with evidence and considered that detention would be a proportionate measure in the circumstances. 6.     In the meantime, the applicants lodged one or more individual applications with the Constitutional Court in respect of the detention orders, complaining, inter alia , about the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence and the alleged lack of reasons to justify the decision to remand them in pre-trial detention, which were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court in summary fashion. 7.     According to the latest information provided by the parties, most of the applicants were convicted of membership of an armed terrorist organisation by the courts of first instance on the basis of evidence that was present at the time of their detention or that appeared at a later stage in the proceedings. It further appears that some of the criminal proceedings are still pending before the appellate courts or the Constitutional Court. 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 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 9.     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. 10.     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. 11.     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, 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. 12.     The Court 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, possession of certain pro-FETÖ/PDY publications, having in their possession United States one ‑ dollar bills with an “F” serial number, sharing social media posts or participating in protests in favour of FETÖ/PDY, having intensive telephone or other contact with FETÖ/PDY suspects, their suspension or dismissal from office, 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 ). Accordingly, in applications where the use of Bylock constituted the principal basis for the applicants’ detention, the Court finds that there was no reasonable suspicion, for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (c), that they had committed an offence. 13.     As regards the other evidentiary elements relied upon by the national courts where the use of Bylock was not the central or sole factor, the Court recalls its finding in Taner Kılıç (§§ 104-05, cited above), that acts such as subscribing to the organisation’s lawful publications, enrolling children in legally operating schools allegedly affiliated with the organisation, or holding an account with Bank Asya were merely circumstantial and, in the absence of further probative elements, could not reasonably give rise to a suspicion of having committed the alleged offence. The Court further emphasised that such acts enjoy a presumption of legality unless supported by additional elements such as concrete evidence of the suspect’s intentional engagement with an organisation’s criminal activities (§ 105). In the light of these considerations, the Court finds that the additional elements relied upon in the present applications for ordering the applicants’ detention, such as the possession of specific one-dollar bills, social media activity, protests, contacts with other suspects, employment/membership in affiliated entities or dismissal from public service, likewise fall within the scope of acts which do not, per se , give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the applicants were members of a terrorist organisation. These factors do not carry any greater evidentiary weight than the circumstantial elements previously examined by the Court. The Court thus considers, a fortiori , that the other acts imputed to the applicants allegedly demonstrating an “organisational connection” (see paragraph   4 above) cannot reasonably be construed as evidence of membership of a terrorist organisation in the absence of further information substantiating such suspicions (compare Taner Kılıç , cited above, §§   104-05 and the cases cited therein). 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 the detention orders do not refer to any statements setting out concrete and specific facts that may have given rise to a reasonable suspicion against the applicants concerned at the material time that they were members of a terrorist organisation. 14.     The Court further notes that, when ordering the applicants’ initial pre ‑ trial detention, the magistrates’ 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. 15.     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 (compare Baş , cited above, § 195, and Taner Kılıç , cited above, §§ 114-16). It finally considers that while the applicants were detained a short time after the attempted coup d’état – 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 16.     As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 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 17.     The applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos.   69572/17, 82344/17, 24217/19, 44360/19, 22579/21 and   51815/21, 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. 18.     The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive. 19.     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.   69572/17, 82344/17, 24217/19, 44360/19, 22579/21 and 51815/21, 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 of the applicants, save for the applicants in applications nos. 69572/17, 82344/17, 24217/19, 44360/19, 22579/21 and 51815/21 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’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 July 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Dorothee von Arnim   Tim Eicke   Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by   66683/16 Tüzemen v.   Türkiye 26/10/2016 Ahmet TÜZEMEN 1970 ANKARA Turkish Hasan Hüseyin ERDOĞAN   15015/17 Sarıkılıç v.   Türkiye 19/01/2017 Haydar SARIKILIÇ 1974 Kocaeli Turkish Betül Hamide CAN DEMİR   33945/17 Yıldırım v.   Türkiye 15/03/2017 Haydar YILDIRIM 1975 KOCAELİ Turkish İlyas TEKİN   34109/17 Acıyan v.   Türkiye 21/03/2017 Ahmetali ACIYAN 1977 Kocaeli Turkish Enes Malik KILIÇ   38334/17 Aydın v.   Türkiye 21/03/2017 Mustafa AYDIN 1972 Istanbul Turkish Ziya Metehan ARISOY   41278/17 Kökten v.   Türkiye 04/05/2017 Kadir KÖKTEN 1987 Istanbul Turkish Ziya Metehan ARISOY   41594/17 Ayvaz v.   Türkiye 12/05/2017 Mehmet AYVAZ 1988 ELAZIĞ Turkish Hilal YILMAZ PUSAT   41597/17 Maksutoğlu v.   Türkiye 19/05/2017 Ersin MAKSUTOĞLU 1985 Istanbul Turkish Hilal YILMAZ PUSAT   42217/17 Kumcu v.   Türkiye 03/03/2017 Erol KUMCU 1972 Manisa Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   42304/17 Bilici v.   Türkiye 21/04/2017 Necati BİLİCİ 1972 Malatya Turkish     42917/17 Yılmaz v.   Türkiye 06/06/2017 Seher YILMAZ 1972 Uşak Turkish Gülhis YÖRÜK   46997/17 Gümüş v.   Türkiye 27/02/2017 Adem GÜMÜŞ 1969 Denizli Turkish Furkan GÜLER   58068/17 Kaşkar v.   Türkiye 03/07/2017 Muhammet Emin KAŞKAR 1968 Çanakkale Turkish Sinem KURAL   61086/17 Ütkür v.   Türkiye 31/07/2017 Yasin ÜTKÜR 1990 Şanlıurfa Turkish Önder ÖZDERYOL   61973/17 Şahin v.   Türkiye 20/04/2017 Hıdır ŞAHİN 1957 Elazığ Turkish Bülent Seçkin DÜZTAŞ   62138/17 Şahin v.   Türkiye 26/04/2017 Ayhan ŞAHİN 1975 Antalya Turkish Teoman AYDOĞAN   62719/17 İlgen v.   Türkiye 27/01/2017 Kasım İLGEN 1981 Samsun Turkish Ümran TAŞ   62892/17 Çelenli v.   Türkiye 27/06/2017 Engin ÇELENLİ 1983 Karabük Turkish Muhammed Talha YILMAZ   63595/17 Uslu v.   Türkiye 01/06/2017 Hasan USLU 1976 Ankara Turkish Hasan TOK   63893/17 Baruğ v.   Türkiye 24/07/2017 Hasan Sami BARUĞ 1953 İzmir Turkish Mine ÖZTÜRK   66688/17 Yıldırım v.   Türkiye 24/01/2017 Fuat YILDIRIM 1977 Kocaeli Turkish Burhan DEMİRCİ   66791/17 Acar v.   Türkiye 17/08/2017 Murat ACAR 1971 Ankara Turkish Gülhis YÖRÜK   68719/17 Akcan v.   Türkiye 12/05/2017 Yakup AKCAN 1980 Aydın Turkish Büşra KURT KÜÇÜK   69571/17 Doğan v.   Türkiye 21/07/2017 Hakan DOĞAN 1979 Istanbul Turkish Dilara YILMAZ   69572/17 Avcı v.   Türkiye 09/08/2017 Gürcan AVCI 1984 Istanbul Turkish Salim Serdar YAĞCI   69826/17 Baştuğ v.   Türkiye 09/08/2017 Suna BAŞTUĞ 1978 Istanbul Turkish Dilara YILMAZ   69856/17 Aydoğdu v.   Türkiye 18/08/2017 Uğur AYDOĞDU 1974 Kırıkkale Turkish Dilara YILMAZ   69859/17 Aykan v.   Türkiye 18/08/2017 Ali AYKAN 1975 Kırıkkale Turkish Dilara YILMAZ   70500/17 Yardımcı v.   Türkiye 25/08/2017 Serkan YARDIMCI 1979 Ankara Turkish Dilara YILMAZ   72761/17 Şahin v.   Türkiye 26/09/2017 Ali Feyzullah ŞAHİN 1978 İzmir Turkish Hasan TOK   79057/17 Çırak v.   Türkiye 13/04/2017 Fatih Mehmet ÇIRAK 1976 Konya Turkish Elif KANDİLLİ   81692/17 Demir v.   Türkiye 16/11/2017 Şenol DEMİR 1975 Bolu Turkish Esra ACAR   81896/17 Kömüşcü v.   Türkiye 10/11/2017 Alparslan KÖMÜŞCÜ 1967 Kastamonu Turkish Harun ÇOKGÜNGÖR   82072/17 Genel v.   Türkiye 21/11/2017 Hayrettin GENEL 1974 Ankara Turkish Utku Coşkuner SAKARYA   82304/17 Uludağ v.   Türkiye 16/11/2017 Kültigin ULUDAĞ 1982 Ankara Turkish Nadir SEÇGİN   82315/17 Koç v.   Türkiye 17/11/2017 Kenan KOÇ 1983 Ankara Turkish Ebubekir DEMİÇ   82344/17 Babalı v.   Türkiye 29/11/2017 Tuncay BABALI 1973 Ankara Turkish Hakan YILDIRIM   84559/17 Soyaslan v.   Türkiye 15/11/2017 Yunus SOYASLAN 1974 Kırşehir Turkish Lale KARADAŞ   84629/17 Yiğit v.   Türkiye 23/11/2017 Deniz YİĞİT 1984 Kırıkkale Turkish Utku Coşkuner SAKARYA   14646/18 Doğangün v.   Türkiye 09/03/2018 Mustafa DOĞANGÜN 1981 Konya Turkish Cihat ÇITIR   26902/18 Şen v.   Türkiye 25/05/2018 Halil ŞEN 1974 Corum Turkish Adem KAPLAN   26903/18 Arslan v.   Türkiye 25/05/2018 Fettah ARSLAN 1972 Ankara Turkish Adem KAPLAN   27028/18 Fidan v.   Türkiye 31/05/2018 Hamdullah FİDAN 1964 Kırşehir Turkish Mehmet Sıddık KARAGÖZ   27050/18 Bölükbaşı v.   Türkiye 25/05/2018 Ednan BÖLÜKBAŞI 1973 Elazığ Turkish     27061/18 Ulusoy v.   Türkiye 18/05/2018 Ferhat ULUSOY 1968 Çankırı Turkish Adem KAPLAN   28604/18 Çepik v.   Türkiye 01/06/2018 Hüseyin ÇEPİK 1968 Ankara Turkish Adem KAPLAN   29590/18 Soylu v.   Türkiye 13/06/2018 Uğur SOYLU 1988 Kocaeli Turkish Burak KABLAN   30260/18 Akıncı v.   Türkiye 19/06/2018 Mustafa AKINCI 1973 Bursa Turkish Elif KARDEŞ   30529/18 Tanrıkulu v.   Türkiye 22/06/2018 Murat TANRIKULU 1985 Kütahya Turkish Mustafa SOYLU   32409/18 Esen v.   Türkiye 28/06/2018 Muhammet ESEN 1969 Düzce Turkish Levent MAZILIGÜNEY   39511/18 Üren v.   Türkiye 10/08/2018 Mehmet Cemil ÜREN 1972 Isparta Turkish Uğur ALTUN   39518/18 Keskin v.   Türkiye 10/08/2018 Beytullah KESKİN 1987 Ankara Turkish Tuğba Nur KIYMAZ   39719/18 Yıldırım v.   Türkiye 16/08/2018 Kahraman YILDIRIM 1982 Kocaeli Turkish Yasemin İŞLER   42811/18 Tuğ v.   Türkiye 27/08/2018 Şerafettin TUĞ 1963 İzmir Turkish Büşra Rahime CAN   45445/18 Akgün v.   Türkiye 07/09/2018 Yasin AKGÜN 1981 Ankara Turkish Adem KAPLAN   47681/18 Saray v.   Türkiye 04/09/2018 Ali SARAY 1968 İzmir Turkish Aydilek SARAY   57217/18 Tekin v.   Türkiye 16/11/2018 Seyfi TEKİN 1986 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Sümeyra DOBUR   3467/19 Özbey v.   Türkiye 27/12/2018 Süleyman ÖZBEY 1971 Yalova Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ   19135/19 Gülak v.   Türkiye 22/03/2019 Refik GÜLAK 1976 Kocaeli Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ   24217/19 Taşkın v.   Türkiye 10/04/2019 Mustafa TAŞKIN 1974 Trabzon Turkish     35143/19 Öksüz v.   Türkiye 19/06/2019 Zübeyir ÖKSÜZ 1979 Kütahya Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   44360/19 Ergitürk v.   Türkiye 08/08/2019 Turgut ERGİTÜRK 1972 Çorum Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   62097/19 Çeltekli v.   Türkiye 20/11/2019 Mustafa ÇELTEKLİ 1985 Balıkesir Turkish Muhammed Talha YILMAZ   19197/20 Gül v.   Türkiye 27/04/2020 Mehmet GÜL 1980 Osmaniye Turkish Nurhan ÖZDURAN   23386/20 Aktaş v.   Türkiye 14/05/2020 Deniz AKTAŞ 1987 Kocaeli Turkish Oğuz GÜNDÜZ   25724/20 Özay v.   Türkiye 15/06/2020 Nazmi ÖZAY 1972 İzmir Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL   27850/20 Çakar v.   Türkiye 29/06/2020 Sabit ÇAKAR 1954 Istanbul Turkish Adem UZAK   29974/20 Yıldız v.   Türkiye 12/07/2020 Selçuk YILDIZ 1982 Osmaniye Turkish Abdullah AKSOY   32052/20 Acar v.   Türkiye 06/07/2020 Halil ACAR 1994 Aksaray Turkish Cihat ÇITIR   34462/20 Özay v.   Türkiye 17/07/2020 Hacer ÖZAY 1978 Istanbul Turkish Emre AKARYILDIZ   34890/20 Arikan v.   Türkiye 10/08/2020 Reşat ARIKAN 1982 Bitlis Turkish Kübra GÜLAÇTI   35863/20 Dikici v.   Türkiye 08/07/2020 Mahmut DİKİCİ 1991 Osmaniye Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ   37167/20 Başaran v.   Türkiye 19/08/2020 Abdullah Sami BAŞARAN 1972 Ankara Turkish Utku Coşkuner SAKARYA   38355/20 Tokuç v.   Türkiye 19/08/2020 Ömer TOKUÇ 1982 İzmir Turkish Ahmet Salim ÇAKMAK   41543/20 Kaynarcı v.   Türkiye 03/09/2020 Fuat KAYNARCI 1974 Çankırı Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   43634/20 Ünal v.   Türkiye 17/09/2020 Muammer ÜNAL 1987 Antalya Turkish Okan GÜNEL   44227/20 Deniz v.   Türkiye 29/09/2020 Yılmaz DENİZ 1968 Sivas Turkish Tarık AVŞAR   44428/20 Yılmaz v.   Türkiye 23/09/2020 Osman YILMAZ 1968 İzmir Turkish Nafize GÜLCÜ   46355/20 İnkaya v.   Türkiye 05/10/2020 Abdulkadir İNKAYA 1959 İzmir Turkish     46565/20 Saçkan v.   Türkiye 15/10/2020 Hakan SAÇKAN 1973 İzmir Turkish Arzu BEYAZIT   46894/20 Çelik v.   Türkiye 18/10/2020 Necati ÇELİK 1981 Osmaniye Turkish Nazan ÇELİK   47621/20 Güney v.   Türkiye 21/10/2020 Halil GÜNEY 1990 İzmir Turkish Okan GÜNEL   49996/20 Kılıç v.   Türkiye 03/11/2020 Mesut KILIÇ 1983 Tekirdağ Turkish Zehra KILIÇ   51544/20 Yıldız v.   Türkiye 20/11/2020 Mihdad YILDIZ 1971 Sinop Turkish Hakkı KAYNAR   51767/20 Sarı v.   Türkiye 09/11/2020 Mesut SARI 1989 İzmir Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   54575/20 Yayla v.   Türkiye 26/11/2020 Musa YAYLA 1989 Kocaeli Turkish Nuri TAN   1432/21 Tekin v.   Türkiye 17/12/2020 Mehmet TEKİN 1979 Ankara Turkish     2070/21 Yilmaz v.   Türkiye 23/12/2020 Hüseyin YILMAZ 1971 Mersin Turkish Fatma Nur GÖKÇE UYSAL   2103/21 Coşkun v.   Türkiye 02/12/2020 Halil COŞKUN 1992 Manisa Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ   3037/21 Kızılateş v.   Türkiye 29/12/2020 Cumhur KIZILATEŞ 1974 Antalya Turkish Süeda KADIOĞLU   4793/21 Petek v.   Türkiye 30/12/2020 Ertan PETEK 1975 Mersin Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   5312/21 Şahin v.   Türkiye 05/01/2021 Musa ŞAHİN 1988 Kayseri Turkish Hamdi Kenan SEVİNÇ   5322/21 Vural v.   Türkiye 05/01/2021 Faruk VURAL 1979 Aksaray Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ   7415/21 Durmuş v.   Türkiye 21/01/2021 Hüseyin DURMUŞ 1974 Manisa Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   10055/21 Merdivan v.   Türkiye 12/02/2021 Saffet MERDİVAN 1982 Ankara Turkish Muhammet ÜSTÜN   22579/21 Babalı v.   Türkiye 19/02/2021 Tuncay BABALI 1973 Ankara Turkish Hakan YILDIRIM   38520/21 Yılmaz v.   Türkiye 29/06/2021 Ali YILMAZ 1986 Adana Turkish     48380/21 Cesur v.   Türkiye 24/09/2021 Kazım CESUR 1989 Zonguldak Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ   51131/21 Öztürk v.   Türkiye 07/10/2021 Eyup ÖZTÜRK 1973 Kayseri Turkish Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ   51434/21 Sezgin v.   Türkiye 06/10/2021 İbrahim SEZGİN 1988 Kırşehir Turkish Enes Malik KILIÇ   51815/21 Dombaycı v.   Türkiye 13/10/2021 Akın DOMBAYCI 1975 Uşak Turkish Elkan ALBAYRAK   59124/21 Karagöz v.   Türkiye 26/11/2021 Mustafa KARAGÖZ 1974 Ankara Turkish     60036/21 Güleryüz v.   Türkiye 23/11/2021 Fatih GÜLERYÜZ 1980 Ankara Turkish Zümrüt ŞAHİN   217/22 Sirkecioğlu v.   Türkiye 24/12/2021 İlyas SİRKECİOĞLU 1985 Istanbul Turkish Mehmet ÇAVDAR   1332/22 Damar v.   Türkiye 24/12/2021 Merve DAMAR 1994 Istanbul Turkish Mehmet ÇAVDAR   2327/22 Güzel v.   Türkiye 23/12/2021 Ejder GÜZEL 1993 İzmir Turkish Muhammet DEMİR   2408/22 Özcan v.   Türkiye 30/12/2021 Nalan ÖZCAN 1995 Istanbul Turkish Mehmet ÇAVDAR   3026/22 Gün v.   Türkiye 21/12/2021 Vahide Büşra GÜN 1993 Istanbul Turkish Lütfullah GÜN   3615/22 Demirtaş v.   Türkiye 13/01/2022 Serhat DEMİRTAŞ 1972 Aydın Turkish Orçun MUŞLU   3745/22 Özer v.   Türkiye 03/01/2022 Ahmet ÖZER 1984 Istanbul Turkish Mehmet ÖKSÜZ   7583/22 Er v.   Türkiye 02/02/2022 Tuğba ER 1986 Sakarya Turkish Ahmet EROL   9931/22 Kılıç v.   Türkiye 18/02/2022 Sedat KILIÇ 1982 Diyarbakır Turkish Burhan DEMİRCİ   11504/22 Bulduk v.   Türkiye 21/02/2022 Oktay BULDUK 1967 Istanbul Turkish Sümeyra BULDUK   12356/22 Hepgül v.   Türkiye 17/02/2022 Cemil HEPGÜL 1978 İzmir Turkish     14013/22 Kondu v.   Türkiye 14/03/2022 Ömer Faruk KONDU 1968 Istanbul Turkish Emre AKARYILDIZ   14678/22 Altın v.   Türkiye 11/03/2022 Nedim ALTIN 1978 Aksaray Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ   15013/22 Mercan v.   Türkiye 21/03/2022 Serdar MERCAN 1975 Çanakkale Turkish Burhan DEMİRCİ