CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 14 octobre 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 } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; 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 } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6F9C7ED9 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .sB466DA02 { margin-left:17pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s8FBB5171 { width:17.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s9199D62D { width:137.76pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF993D337 { width:25.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF78227B2 { width:156.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s72832412 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sD8909BE6 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD81AB0A7 { height:11.35pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF BUDAK AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 26831/17 and 93 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 14 October 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Budak and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Jovan Ilievski , President ,   Péter Paczolay,   Juha Lavapuro , 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 pre-trial detention, the length of 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 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 the remainder of the applications inadmissible; the parties’ observations; the decision to dismiss the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee; Having deliberated in private on 23   September 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 FETÖ/PDY, an offence punishable under Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see Baş v.   Turkey , no.   66448/17, § 58, 3 March 2020 ). The competent judicial authorities dismissed objections raised by the applicants against their detention. 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: (a) using the ByLock encrypted messaging application; (b)   provision of financial support to FETÖ/PDY in view of their use of accounts with Bank Asya, a bank with alleged ties to FETÖ/PDY; (c)   provision of financial support, the details and nature of which were not provided, to FETÖ/PDY or to institutions with ties to FETÖ/PDY; (d)   sharing social media posts or participating in protests in support of FETÖ/PDY; (e)   possession of pro ‑ FETÖ/PDY publications; (f) having regular telephone contact with FETÖ/PDY suspects; (g) working in or being a member of institutions with ties with the organisation in question or an organisation shut down by the state‑of‑emergency legislative decrees; (h) suspension or dismissal from office; (i) possessing United States one ‑ dollar banknotes with an “F” serial number; (j) travelling abroad with FETÖ/PDY suspects; (k)   enrolling their children in an educational institution allegedly affiliated with FETÖ/PDY; (l) attending or holding meetings ( sohbet ), the dates, nature or characteristics of which were not specified; (m) staying in FETÖ/PDY residences; (n) witness statements indicating ties with FETÖ/PDY; and (o)   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 (see Kavala v.   Turkey , no. 28749/18, §§ 71-72, 10   December 2019, for the text of those provisions), 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 Code of Criminal Procedure. 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, alleging, inter alia , a lack of reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence and a lack of reasons to justify the decision to remand them in pre ‑ trial detention. All of their applications were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court. 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, or whose compensation claims were still pending. They further asked the Court to declare the applications inadmissible as being an abuse of the right of application, in so far as 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 raised by the Government have already been dismissed in other cases against Türkiye (see, for instance, Baş , cited above, §§ 118-21, and Turan and Others v. Turkey , nos.   75805/16 and 426 others, §§ 57-64, 23 November 2021), and sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present case. The Court therefore considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article   35 §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 12.     The Court notes that the applicants’ initial pre ‑ trial detention was mainly based on evidence of their (a) use of the ByLock messaging application; (b) banking activities considered as financing FETÖ/PDY; (c)   sharing of social media posts or participation in protests in favour of FETÖ/PDY; (d) possession of certain pro ‑ FETÖ/PDY publications; (e)   regular telephone or other contact with FETÖ/PDY suspects; (f)   employment by and/or membership of FETÖ/PDY-affiliated institutions and organisations; (g) suspension or dismissal from office; and (h) possession of United States one ‑ dollar banknotes with an “F” serial number. 13.     To the extent that the detention orders took into account the applicants’ alleged use of the ByLock messaging application, the Court notes that it has already found that the mere use of ByLock was not sufficient to constitute “reasonable suspicion” within the meaning of Article   5   §   1   (c) of the Convention in respect of the offence with which the applicants were charged (see Akgün , cited above, §§ 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 has found that there was no reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence, for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention. 14.     As regards the other evidential grounds referred to by the national courts where the use of ByLock was not the central or sole factor, the Court refers to its finding in Taner Kılıç (cited above, §§ 104-05) 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 evidence, could not reasonably give rise to a suspicion of having committed the alleged offence. The Court emphasised in that case that such acts enjoyed a presumption of lawfulness unless there was further specific evidence capable of establishing the suspect’s intentional involvement in an organisation’s criminal activities (ibid., § 105). In the light of those considerations, the Court finds that the additional grounds relied on in the present applications for ordering the applicants’ detention, such as the possession of specific one-dollar banknotes, social media activity, protests, contact with other suspects, employment by and/or membership of 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. Those factors do not carry any greater evidential weight than the circumstantial evidence 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, with regard to some of the applicants, that 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 at the material time that the applicants concerned were members of a terrorist organisation (compare also Tüzemen and Others v.   Türkiye [Committee], nos. 66683/16 and 116 others, § 13, 8   July 2025). 15.     The Court further notes that, when ordering the applicants’ initial pre ‑ trial detention, the judicial authorities sought to justify the detention orders by making a general reference to Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the severity of the potential sentence prescribed by law, and “the evidence in the case files”. However, in doing so, they merely cited the wording of the provision in question, without actually specifying the evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the applicants had committed the offence in question. The Court refers in this connection to its findings in Baş (cited above, §§ 190 ‑ 95), according to which vague and general references to the wording of Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to the evidence in the case 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. 16.     Since the Government have not provided any other indications, facts or information capable of establishing, at the time of the applicants’ initial detention, a reasonable suspicion that they had committed the alleged offence, the Court finds that the requirements set out in Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in that regard have not been satisfied (compare Baş , cited above, §   195, and Taner Kılıç , cited above, §§ 114-16). Lastly, the Court notes that 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. While this 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). 17.     The Court therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article   5   §   1 of the Convention.     OTHER COMPLAINTS 18.     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 Turan and Others (cited above, § 98). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 19.     The applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos.   8565/18, 43864/18, 19141/19, 22748/19 and 30860/19, requested varying amounts in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage, submitting their claims within the time ‑ limit allotted. The majority of them also claimed amounts in respect of pecuniary damage, as well as the legal costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. 20.     The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive. 21.     For the reasons set out in Turan and Others (cited above, §§   102 ‑ 07), the Court rejects any claims in respect of pecuniary damage and awards each of the applicants, save for the applicants in applications nos.   8565/18, 43864/18, 19141/19, 22748/19 and 30860/19, a lump sum of 5,000   euros, 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   that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, each of the applicants, save for the applicants in applications nos.   8565/18, 43864/18, 19141/19, 22748/19 and 30860/19, EUR 5,000 (five   thousand euros) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;   that from the expiry of the above ‑ mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above 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’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 October 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 Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Represented by 1. 26831/17 Budak v. Türkiye 18/03/2017 İbrahim BUDAK 1974 Erzurum Turkish Levent MAZILIGÜNEY 2. 49751/17 Yüzer v. Türkiye 17/06/2017 Yakup YÜZER 1964 Ankara Turkish Hilal YILMAZ PUSAT 3. 55148/17 Maraş v. Türkiye 19/04/2017 Rıfat MARAŞ 1982 Büdingen (Germany) Turkish Hasan SEVER 4. 58451/17 Karahan v. Türkiye 17/07/2017 Ercan KARAHAN 1987 Afyonkarahisar Turkish Gülhis YÖRÜK 5. 60297/17 Çıngı v. Türkiye 28/06/2017 Devlet ÇINGI 1974 Kırşehir Turkish   Kadir ÖZTÜRK 6. 61103/17 Manisa v. Türkiye 14/08/2017 Cüneyt MANİSA 1979 Şırnak Turkish   Nurgül YAYMAN YILMAZ 7. 69860/17 Karagöz v. Türkiye 18/08/2017 Kasım KARAGÖZ 1973 Istanbul Turkish Dilara YILMAZ 8. 70642/17 Yıldız v. Türkiye 22/08/2017 Özkan YILDIZ 1986 Balıkesir Turkish Burcu HAS 9. 71047/17 Ağsakal v. Türkiye 16/08/2017 Ahmet AĞSAKAL 1987 Flörsheim (Germany) Turkish İbrahim AĞSAKAL 10. 2690/18 Paşaalioğlu v. Türkiye 19/12/2017 Erkan PAŞAALİOĞLU 1973 Çorum Turkish Hakan KAPLANKAYA 11. 3279/18 Başar v. Türkiye 26/12/2017 Mehmet BAŞAR 1986 Çankırı Turkish   Harun IŞIK 12. 3454/18 Yurdaer v. Türkiye 08/12/2017 Ahmet YURDAER 1972 Denizli Turkish   Akerke ABDYKALYKOVA ONAT 13. 4634/18 Eker v. Türkiye 13/07/2017 Dilek EKER 1975 Bolu Turkish   Mustafa DEMİR 14. 6631/18 Çetinkaya v. Türkiye 12/01/2018 Gökhan ÇETİNKAYA 1989 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Mehmet ÇETİNKAYA 15. 8313/18 Kahraman v. Türkiye 26/01/2018 Abdulahat KAHRAMAN 1987 Denizli Turkish Hasan Önder SULU 16. 8565/18 Kaya v. Türkiye 13/02/2018 Halil İbrahim KAYA 1990 Usak Turkish Karar Koray ATAK 17. 8607/18 Seçkiner v. Türkiye 28/04/2017 Mehmet SEÇKİNER 1978 Eskisehir Turkish Xavier LABBEE 18. 8899/18 Taş v. Türkiye 02/06/2017 Murat TAŞ 1981 Ankara Turkish Gülhis YÖRÜK 19. 8901/18 Girgin v. Türkiye 02/06/2017 Yalçın GİRGİN 1978 Ankara Turkish Gülhis YÖRÜK 20. 8910/18 Çolak v. Türkiye 23/05/2017 Yasin ÇOLAK 1968 Ankara Turkish Gülhis YÖRÜK 21. 8912/18 Yıldız v. Türkiye 06/07/2017 Adem YILDIZ 1977 Ankara Turkish Gülhis YÖRÜK 22. 9581/18 Kumaş v. Türkiye 13/02/2018 Hasan KUMAŞ 1960 Trabzon Turkish Fatma ALBAYRAK 23. 9587/18 Demir v. Türkiye 13/02/2018 Burak DEMİR 1990 Ankara Turkish Fatma ALBAYRAK 24. 9588/18 Yıldırım v. Türkiye 13/02/2018 Feyza YILDIRIM 1993 Rize Turkish Fatma ALBAYRAK 25. 11977/18 Aydoğdu v. Türkiye 05/03/2018 Cumhur AYDOĞDU 1978 Tekirdag Turkish Büteyra DEMIR 26. 12628/18 Göksu v. Türkiye 05/03/2018 Fazlı GÖKSU 1981 Samsun Turkish Mehmet ŞEN 27. 14185/18 Kunçay v. Türkiye 13/03/2018 İsa KUNÇAY 1968 Manisa Turkish Nevzat AKBİLEK 28. 15443/18 Sandal v. Türkiye 22/03/2018 Ramazan SANDAL 1981 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Ahmet AKSOY 29. 16300/18 Evren v. Türkiye 14/03/2018 Erhan EVREN 1980 Elazığ Turkish   Mehmet Sıddık KARAGÖZ 30. 17110/18 Melemez v. Türkiye 16/03/2018 Kenan MELEMEZ 1977 Bartın Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 31. 17579/18 Baran v. Türkiye 16/02/2018 Salim BARAN 1974 Çorum Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 32. 17720/18 Sarıtemur v. Türkiye 06/04/2018 Yılmaz SARITEMUR 1984 Aydın Turkish Elif KANDİLLİ 33. 19870/18 Demirci v. Türkiye 18/04/2018 Recep DEMİRCİ 1990 Kocaeli Turkish Burhan DEMİRCİ 34. 20982/18 Solmaz v. Türkiye 24/04/2018 Kamil SOLMAZ 1968 Isparta Turkish Ömer Furkan DAĞ 35. 21074/18 Kaplan v. Türkiye 20/04/2018 Enver KAPLAN 1963 Eskişehir Turkish Adem KAPLAN 36. 21101/18 Büyük v. Türkiye 20/04/2018 Ömer Ali BÜYÜK 1994 Istanbul Turkish Adem KAPLAN 37. 23774/18 Arı v. Türkiye 05/04/2018 Zekeriya ARI 1975 Eskisehir Turkish Mehmet YALÇIN 38. 24223/18 Murat v. Türkiye 07/05/2018 Ömer MURAT 1969 Sivas Turkish Fatih SARIKUŞ 39. 25205/18 Özcan v. Türkiye 21/05/2018 Ahmet Şahin ÖZCAN 1963 Ankara Turkish Vedat ÇAPRAZ 40. 30491/18 Ekim v. Türkiye 13/06/2018 Ömer Faruk EKİM 1981 Kırşehir Turkish Iyaz ÇİMEN 41. 38587/18 Arslan v. Türkiye 01/08/2018 Orhan ARSLAN 1970 Ankara Turkish Zülküf ARSLAN 42. 39152/18 Güç v. Türkiye 31/07/2018 Ömer GÜÇ 1975 Kocaeli Turkish İlyas TEKİN 43. 39833/18 Zengin v. Türkiye 15/08/2018 Ahmet Bilal ZENGİN 1973 Ankara Turkish Zümrüt ŞAHİN 44. 41856/18 Pınarakar v. Türkiye 14/08/2018 Sami PINARAKAR 1972 Ankara Turkish Necip Fazıl YILDIZ 45. 42238/18 Dolaşık v. Türkiye 27/08/2018 İlhan DOLAŞIK 1983 Malatya Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ 46. 42430/18 Bedir v. Türkiye 03/09/2018 Habip BEDİR 1984 Kayseri Turkish Yunus EMRE 47. 42866/18 Atılgan v. Türkiye 29/08/2018 Gökhan ATILGAN 1988 İstanbul Turkish Şehriban TOĞRUL 48. 42882/18 Çalışkan v. Türkiye 29/08/2018 Elvan ÇALIŞKAN 1978 Balıkesir Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ 49. 43864/18 Baş v. Türkiye 29/08/2018 Ergün BAŞ 1972 Kırşehir Turkish Sinan İPEK 50. 44202/18 Aydın v. Türkiye 08/09/2018 Nurettin AYDIN 1984 Düzce Turkish Ali KAYGISIZ 51. 45534/18 Karadavut v. Türkiye 07/09/2018 Özgür KARADAVUT 1977 Ankara Turkish Adem KAPLAN 52. 45893/18 Kaya v. Türkiye 20/09/2018 Sunulah KAYA 1991 Antalya Turkish Mehmet ARI 53. 46097/18 Dalar v. Türkiye 14/09/2018 Muhammet DALAR 1989 Isparta Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 54. 46241/18 Kıran v. Türkiye 24/09/2018 Hüsnü KIRAN 1973 Istanbul Turkish   55. 50802/18 Ertekin v. Türkiye 11/10/2018 Sedat ERTEKİN 1966 Ankara Turkish Adem KAPLAN 56. 52946/18 Tekkoyun v. Türkiye 30/10/2018 Muhammet Fatih TEKKOYUN 1980 Kırıkkale Turkish Dilara YILMAZ 57. 3146/19 Önerbay v. Türkiye 14/12/2018 Kamil ÖNERBAY 1980 Ankara Turkish Hüseyin YILMAZ 58. 3357/19 Topuz v. Türkiye 17/12/2018 Ramazan TOPUZ 1974 Konya Turkish Vedat ÇAPRAZ 59. 4658/19 Bekdemir v. Türkiye 31/12/2018 Yunus BEKDEMİR 1961 Samsun Turkish   İnan UZUN 60. 5196/19 Gönülaçar v. Türkiye 27/12/2018 Evren GÖNÜLAÇAR 1984 Gümüşhane Turkish   Muhammed Nuh POLAT 61. 5613/19 Kızıltan v. Türkiye 08/01/2019 Meral KIZILTAN 1977 Antalya Turkish Yusuf Sait PEKGÖZ 62. 6315/19 Civan v. Türkiye 07/01/2019 Yunus CİVAN 1988 Ankara Turkish Adem KAPLAN 63. 6329/19 Ayaz v. Türkiye 21/12/2018 Fahrettin AYAZ 1985 Tokat Turkish Salih BAŞ 64. 16245/19 Dırman v. Türkiye 20/03/2019 Hüseyin DIRMAN 1985 Antalya Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 65. 17495/19 Atakan v. Türkiye 25/03/2019 Atakan YÜCEL 1986 Istanbul Turkish Hüseyin AKBAŞ 66. 19141/19 Yiğit v. Türkiye 28/03/2019 Hasan YİĞİT 1969 Ankara Turkish Ömercan AYDIN 67. 19184/19 Polat v. Türkiye 26/03/2019 Adem POLAT 1976 Konya Turkish   Muhammet Emin ÇITIR 68. 21188/19 Demirtaş v. Türkiye 20/02/2019 Ali DEMİRTAŞ 1989 Adana Turkish     69. 21961/19 Elibol v. Türkiye 12/04/2019 Ersin ELİBOL 1973 Istanbul Turkish Lale KARADAŞ 70. 22748/19 Çebi v. Türkiye 16/04/2019 Emre ÇEBİ 1988 Bayburt Turkish Veysel MALKOÇ 71. 30259/19 Uyanık v. Türkiye 22/05/2019 Kenan UYANIK 1981 Eskişehir Turkish Ramazan AKDOĞAN 72. 30860/19 Pampal v. Türkiye 27/05/2019 Mehmet PAMPAL 1966 Yozgat Turkish   73. 35801/19 Sarı v. Türkiye 25/06/2019 İsmail SARI 1969 İzmir Turkish   74. 120/20 Kılıçak v. Türkiye 19/12/2019 Osman KILIÇAK 1987 Eskişehir Turkish Mustafa ALGAM 75. 7384/20 Özdemir v. Türkiye 22/01/2020 Kürşad ÖZDEMİR 1977 Tekirdağ Turkish Erşan CANSEVEN 76. 7911/20 Güden v. Türkiye 28/01/2020 Kadir GÜDEN 1975 Antalya Turkish   Yusuf Sait PEKGÖZ 77. 16084/20 Sefer v. Türkiye 09/03/2020 Salim SEFER 1984 Karabük Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 78. 17104/20 Durak v. Türkiye 03/04/2020 Emre DURAK 1988 Istanbul Turkish Fatif ŞAHİNLER 79. 23970/20 Demir v. Türkiye 15/05/2020 Selami DEMİR 1982 Manisa Turkish Hasan YILDIZ 80. 24326/20 İpekçi v. Türkiye 15/06/2020 İlyas İPEKÇİ 1988 Ankara Turkish Özkan OĞURLU 81. 29933/20 Akyüz v. Türkiye 17/06/2020 Murat AKYÜZ 1974 Duzce Turkish Bekir DÖNMEZ 82. 30439/20 Şahin v. Türkiye 17/06/2020 Levent ŞAHİN 1977 Bolu Turkish Merve Vildan DUMAN 83. 33367/20 Aker v. Türkiye 22/07/2020 Rana AKER 1988 Samsun Turkish İnan UZUN 84. 33596/20 Coşkun v. Türkiye 24/07/2020 Onur COŞKUN 1975 Ankara Turkish Ayşe COŞKUN 85. 33963/20 Aydın v. Türkiye 24/07/2020 Yunus Emre AYDIN 1988 Ankara Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ 86. 37312/20 Öztaş v. Türkiye 12/08/2020 Hasan ÖZTAŞ 1975 Afyonkarahisar Turkish Harun BOZKURT 87. 40092/20 Kantemir v. Türkiye 27/08/2020 Yasin KANTEMİR 1993 Çorum Turkish Kübra KAZANCI TOSUN 88. 40176/20 Öksüz v. Türkiye 25/08/2020 Enes ÖKSÜZ 1991 İzmir Turkish   89. 41682/20 Erçıkdı v. Türkiye 15/09/2020 Veysel ERÇIKDI 1974 Denizli Turkish Mehmet TUNÇER 90. 41928/20 Topuz v. Türkiye 01/09/2020 İlhan TOPUZ 1980 Afyonkarahisar Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 91. 48710/20 Karanfil v. Türkiye 23/10/2020 Arif KARANFİL 1971 Balıkesir Turkish Burcu HAS 92. 55276/20 Yavuz v. Türkiye 26/11/2020 Zeynep YAVUZ 1989 Istanbul Turkish   Dilara YILMAZ 93. 283/21 Ergin v. Türkiye 18/12/2020 Hüseyin ERGİN 1965 Denizli Turkish   Ayşegül ERGİN 94. 17904/21 Şekerci v. Türkiye 05/03/2021 Yaşar ŞEKERCİ 1963 Kocaeli Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK