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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 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 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF ÇETİN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 30185/17 and 136 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 Çetin 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 the applicants’ pre-trial detention, the length of the pre-trial detention, the alleged ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the lawfulness of detention, and the absence of a remedy to obtain compensation for the alleged breaches of their rights under Article 5 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 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 coup attempt of 15   July 2016, primarily on suspicion of their membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure” ( Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması   –   hereinafter referred to as “FETÖ/PDY”), which was considered by the authorities to be behind the coup attempt (further information regarding the events that unfolded after the coup attempt, including the details of the state of emergency declared by the Government and the ensuing notice of derogation given to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, as well as the legislative developments that followed the declaration of the state of emergency, may be found in   Baş v.   Turkey , no.   66448/17, §§ 6 ‑ 14 and 109 ‑ 10, 3 March 2020). 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 , cited above, §   58). 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. The applicants were held in pre-trial detention for periods ranging from one year to four years and five days. 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: witness statements indicating ties with FETÖ/PDY; social media posts; possession of pro-FETÖ/PDY publications; working in, or being a member of, institutions with ties with the organisation in question or an organisation shut down by the legislative decrees under the state of emergency; provision of financial support to FETÖ/PDY or to institutions with ties to FETÖ/PDY; attending or holding meetings ( sohbet ); communication with senior executives of the organisation; ensuring communication between FETÖ/PDY members; use of the Bylock application; staying in FETÖ/PDY houses; 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 (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 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. Moreover, in the later stages of the proceedings, the competent judges took into account the time spent by the applicants in pre ‑ trial detention when deciding to extend their detention, without explaining the relevance of that factor to their decision. 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, all of which were summarily 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 available 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 and 3 OF THE CONVENTION 9.     The applicants complained that there had been no specific evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that they had committed a criminal offence necessitating pre-trial detention. They further argued that the domestic courts had not provided relevant and sufficient reasons in their decisions ordering their placement in detention and their continued detention. They also maintained that the domestic authorities had failed to consider alternative measures to detention. In that connection, they alleged that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention. Admissibility 10.     The Government urged the Court to declare inadmissible the complaints of 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. The Government further claimed that some of the applicants had been granted compensation under Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had therefore lost their victim status. They further requested that the Court 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. They also asked the Court to declare some applications inadmissible on account of the applicants’ failure to duly raise their complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention before the Turkish Constitutional Court. The Government lastly submitted that the applicants’ initial and continued pre-trial detention had complied with the domestic legislation and Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention. 11.     The Court notes that similar objections raised by the Government have already been dismissed in other cases against Türkiye (see, for instance, Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, §§   212-14, 22   December 2020;   Alparslan Altan v. Turkey , no. 12778/17, §§   84-85, 16   April 2019; Baş , v. Turkey , no. 66448/17, §§ 118-21, 3 March 2020; and Turan and Others v.   Turkey , nos.   75805/16 and 426 others, §§ 57-64, 23   November 2021), and sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present case. Moreover, as regards the objections concerning the exhaustion of the individual application remedy before the Constitutional Court, an examination of the case files reveals that, contrary to the Government’s claims, the applicants concerned have expressly raised their complaints pertaining to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in their application forms submitted to the Constitutional Court. 12.     The Court therefore considers that the applicants’ complaints under Article   5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention are not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. Merits Alleged lack of reasoning in the decisions ordering the applicants’ pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 3 of the Convention) 13.     As regards the merits, the Court reiterates that, according to its well ‑ established case - law under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that a detainee has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the validity of his or her continued detention. The Court must further establish whether the national authorities gave relevant and sufficient reasons for the detention from the time of the first decision ordering detention on remand onwards. Those other grounds may be a risk of flight, a risk of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses or of evidence being tampered with, a risk of collusion, a risk of reoffending, or a risk of public disorder and the related need to protect the detainee (see Buzadji v.   the   Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§   87-88 and 101-02, 5   July 2016). Those risks must be duly substantiated, and the authorities’ reasoning on those points cannot be abstract, general or stereotyped (see Merabishvili v.   Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 222, 28 November 2017). 14 .     The Court notes that when ordering the applicants’ initial and continued pre-trial detention, the judicial authorities cited, in a formulaic manner, numerous pieces of evidence in support of their findings that there were concrete indications that the applicants had committed an offence (see   paragraph 4 above). However, the Court has doubts as to whether the national courts convincingly demonstrated the link between the pieces of evidence they mentioned in the detention orders and the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” that the applicants had committed the offence of membership of an armed organisation of which they were suspected. 15 .     Even assuming that there was “reasonable suspicion” that an offence has been committed, decisions ordering and prolonging pre-trial detention must contain relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the necessity of the detention. In that connection, the Court observes that in Türkiye, as required by the Convention, domestic law provides that the competent judicial authorities must put forward “relevant and sufficient” reasons when considering the need to place and keep a suspect in pre-trial detention. This is a procedural obligation laid down in Articles 100 and 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provide that decisions to place or keep a suspect in pre-trial detention must include legal and factual reasons (see Tuncer Bakırhan v. Turkey , no. 31417/19, §§ 23 ‑ 24, 14   September 2021). 16.     The Court notes in this regard that the competent courts relied on the following grounds for detention: the nature of the offence; the severity of the sentences prescribed by law for the offence concerned; the state of the evidence; the period spent in detention; the risk of the applicants’ absconding and tampering with evidence; and the finding that alternative measures to detention appeared insufficient (see paragraph 5 above). 17.     In so far as the detention was justified on the basis of the “nature of the offence”, the Court notes that the domestic courts ruling on the applicants’ detention considered that they were accused of offences listed in Article   100 §   3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (also referred to as “catalogue” offences). As regards these “catalogue” offences, the Court observes that under Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Turkish law provides that for certain offences there is a statutory presumption of the existence of grounds for detention (risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, or putting pressure on witnesses, victims and other persons). In this connection, the Court reaffirms that any system of mandatory detention on remand is per se incompatible with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. Where the law provides for a presumption concerning the grounds for pre-trial detention, it must nevertheless be convincingly demonstrated that there are concrete facts warranting a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty. This is also the case where the judicial authorities justify the detention of a suspect by the nature of the offence in question or the severity of the potential sentence prescribed by law (compare also Tuncer Bakırhan , cited above, §§ 46-49). The Court therefore needs to examine whether the national courts carried out an individualised examination when ordering the applicants’ pre ‑ trial detention. 18.     As regards the other reasons given by the national courts for placing or keeping the applicants in pre-trial detention, the Court observes firstly that they entail a formulaic enumeration of the grounds for detention under domestic law in a general and abstract manner, such as the state of the evidence, the period spent in detention and the risk of the applicants’ absconding and tampering with evidence. While the Court is prepared to accept that, in view of the particular circumstances surrounding the attempted coup, the risk of the applicants’ absconding and/or tampering with evidence might justify the measure of detention, at least during the initial phase of the criminal investigation, it nevertheless observes that the subsequent decisions ordering the applicants’ continued pre-trial detention did not contain an individualised analysis in that regard. In the Court’s view, decisions worded in formulaic and stereotyped terms, as in the present case, can on no account be regarded as sufficient to justify a person’s continued pre-trial detention (see, mutatis mutandis ,   Şık v. Turkey , no. 53413/11, § 62, 8 July 2014). This is particularly so, given that the applicants in the present case were remanded in pre-trial detention for periods ranging from one year to more than four years. 19.     The Court notes that it has already examined many cases in which it has found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention for similar reasons (see   Tuncer Bakırhan , cited above, §§   40 ‑ 58, and the cases cited therein; see also Kolay and Others v. Türkiye [Committee], nos. 15231/17 and 283 others, §§   11-19, 12   December 2023). In the present case, having regard to the grounds provided by the national judicial authorities, the Court considers that they ordered and extended the applicants’ pre-trial detention on grounds that cannot be regarded as “sufficient” to justify the measure in issue. 20.     The Court further considers that while the applicants were detained a short time after the coup attempt –   which is undoubtedly a contextual factor that should be fully taken into account in interpreting and applying Article   5 of the Convention   – it has not been established that the failure to comply with the requirements described above could be justified by the derogation notified by the Government of Türkiye under Article 15 of the Convention and did not go beyond the “extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”. This is particularly so, having regard to the duration of the applicants’ pre ‑ trial detention, which lasted at least one year in each case. The Court points out in this connection that the considerations giving rise to the application of Article 15 of the Convention have gradually become less forceful and relevant as the public emergency threatening the life of the nation, while still persisting, has declined in intensity, at which point the “exigency” criterion must be applied more stringently (see Baş , cited above, §   224; compare also Kolay and Others , cited above, § 18, and the references therein; and Taş and Others v.   Türkiye [Committee], nos.   41527/17 and   212   others, § 20, 17 December 2024). 21 .     In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants. Alleged lack of reasonable suspicion that the applicants committed a criminal offence (Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention) 22.     Having regard to the particular circumstances of the present case (see   paragraphs 14-15 above) and its findings under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 21 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to determine whether there was any objective information showing that the suspicion against the applicants was “reasonable” at the time of their detention (for a similar approach, see Tuncer Bakırhan , cited above, §§   36 ‑ 39; see also Kolay and Others , cited above, §   20). OTHER COMPLAINTS 23.     As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 of the Convention, the Court decides not to examine the admissibility and merits of those complaints, in view of its findings under Article 5 § 3 above and its considerations in Turan and Others (cited above, §   98). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 24.     Some of the applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction, or failed to do so within the prescribed time-limit. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on that account (see the appended table indicating the applicants to whom no award is to be made). 25.     The remaining applicants requested varying amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage, submitting their claims within the prescribed time ‑ limit. The majority of them also claimed compensation in respect of pecuniary damage, as well as the legal costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. 26.     The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive. 27.     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 who submitted claims a lump sum of 3,000 euros in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount (see the last column of the appended table). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares admissible the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of an offence and the alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons when ordering and extending the pre-trial detention; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the absence of sufficient grounds for ordering and keeping the applicants in pre-trial detention; Holds that there is no need to examine separately the merits of the complaints under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints under Article 5 of the Convention; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants who submitted a claim for just satisfaction (see the appended table), within three months, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 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 Just satisfaction 1. 30185/17 Çetin v. Türkiye 01/03/2017 Metin ÇETİN 1983 Tekirdağ Turkish Mustafa DEMİR Awarded 2. 30685/17 Yerlikaya v. Türkiye 28/02/2017 Nail YERLİKAYA 1991 Tokat Turkish Adnan ERDOĞAN Awarded 3. 38448/17 Erdem v. Türkiye 22/05/2017 Alpay ERDEM 1976 Ankara Turkish Ali YILDIZ Awarded 4. 41874/17 Koçak v. Türkiye 23/03/2017 Cebrail KOÇAK 1977 Elazığ Turkish Mesut Can TARIM Awarded 5. 44794/17 Topal v. Türkiye 01/06/2017 Ahmet TOPAL 1973 Malatya Turkish Deniz SEZGİN Not awarded 6. 48983/17 İren v. Türkiye 25/04/2017 Erdem İREN 1980 Istanbul Turkish Büşra KURT KÜÇÜK Awarded 7. 49551/17 Yigit v. Türkiye 03/04/2017 Ramazan YİĞİT 1969 Ankara Turkish Necip Fazıl YILDIZ Awarded 8. 54589/17 Metin v. Türkiye 11/07/2017 Abdurrahim METİN 1991 Eskişehir Turkish Ömer KARADENİZ Not awarded 9. 54648/17 Önder v. Türkiye 01/05/2017 Akın ÖNDER 1973 Turkish Gülşah OBUT Not awarded 10. 58476/17 Aldı v. Türkiye 20/07/2017 İsmail ALDI 1985 Giresun Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ Awarded 11. 58919/17 Hankulu v. Türkiye 22/02/2017 Mahmut HANKULU 1986 Kayseri Turkish Hayrullah TUFAN Awarded 12. 60341/17 Kale v. Türkiye 21/06/2017 Arif KALE 1968 Mersin Turkish Abdulselam DURAN Awarded 13. 61646/17 Mete v. Türkiye 01/06/2017 Haydar METE 1969 Istanbul Turkish Gizem ÇAKMAK BEKAR Awarded 14. 61932/17 Çiftçi v. Türkiye 01/06/2017 İsmail ÇİFTÇİ 1985 Sivas Turkish Yunus Emre YAŞAR Awarded 15. 62884/17 Çini v. Türkiye 30/06/2017 Ahmet ÇİNİ 1985 Kocaeli Turkish Mustafa UYSAL Awarded 16. 63683/17 İmal v. Türkiye 08/05/2017 Ramazan İMAL 1975 Şanlıurfa Turkish Büşra KURT KÜÇÜK Awarded 17. 68912/17 Öksüz v. Türkiye 29/08/2017 Mehmet ÖKSÜZ 1983 Tekirdağ Turkish   Awarded 18. 69555/17 Kocabay v. Türkiye 23/08/2017 Serkan KOCABAY 1976 Ankara Turkish Hicran GÜLMEZ GENCALOĞLU Awarded 19. 69814/17 Serin v. Türkiye 09/08/2017 Nevzat SERİN 1960 Denizli Turkish Dilara YILMAZ Awarded 20. 71061/17 Soncan v. Türkiye 08/08/2017 Emre SONCAN 1982 Istanbul Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ Awarded 21. 71064/17 Kaya v. Türkiye 08/08/2017 Bayram KAYA 1982 Istanbul Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ Awarded 22. 73515/17 Yazgan v. Türkiye 15/09/2017 Vahit YAZGAN 1969 İzmir Turkish Mehmet Nur TERZİ Awarded 23. 76372/17 Taktak v. Türkiye 10/10/2017 Ahmet TAKTAK 16/03/1970 Eskişehir Turkish Oğuzhan GÖKSU Awarded 24. 78952/17 Aksu v. Türkiye 12/03/2018 İlhami AKSU 1966 İzmir Turkish Furkan ÖZÇELİK Awarded 25. 81096/17 Diri v. Türkiye 08/11/2017 Adem DİRİ 1981 Ankara Turkish   Not awarded 26. 81483/17 Tekin v. Türkiye 16/11/2017 Murat TEKİN 1975 Kastamonu Turkish Esra ACAR Awarded 27. 81670/17 Can v. Türkiye 10/11/2017 Ergüder CAN 1967 Manisa Turkish Hüseyin ÖZÇELİK Awarded 28. 82032/17 Bul v. Türkiye 23/10/2017 Cemal Azmi BUL 1955 Rize Turkish Dilara YILMAZ Awarded 29. 82871/17 Aktaş v. Türkiye 02/11/2017 Tayfun AKTAŞ 1965 Istanbul Turkish Gül AKTAŞ Awarded 30. 84019/17 Karaçil v. Türkiye 01/11/2017 Kudret KARAÇİL 1980 İzmir Turkish Mesut Can TARIM Awarded 31. 5936/18 Hanay v. Türkiye 25/04/2017 Metin HANAY 1979 Istanbul Turkish Dilara YILMAZ Awarded 32. 6388/18 Kocaman v. Türkiye 18/01/2018 Halil KOCAMAN 1985 Ankara Turkish Levent KOCAMAN Awarded 33. 6519/18 Özdemir v. Türkiye 20/12/2017 Ferdi ÖZDEMİR 1983 Istanbul Turkish Demet YÜREKLİ KAYAALP Awarded 34. 6701/18 Odabaşı v. Türkiye 04/01/2018 Ali ODABAŞI 1979 Ankara Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ Awarded 35. 8608/18 Karagöz v. Türkiye 27/04/2017 Mehmet KARAGÖZ 1972 Karaman Turkish Xavier LABBEE Awarded 36. 9869/18 Yıldız v. Türkiye 26/01/2018 Mustafa YILDIZ 1969 Ankara Turkish Necip Fazıl YILDIZ Awarded 37. 9887/18 Tunç v. Türkiye 30/01/2018 Recep TUNÇ 1971 Antalya Turkish Nurgül YAYMAN YILMAZ Awarded 38. 9969/18 Güler v. Türkiye 29/01/2018 Mehmet GÜLER 1963 Kocaeli Turkish Ahmet EROL Awarded 39. 9982/18 Eren v. Türkiye 29/01/2018 Ömer EREN 1987 Turkish Ahmet EROL Awarded 40. 10609/18 Kara v. Türkiye 12/02/2018 Recep KARA 1972 İzmir Turkish Ümmügülsüm OKUR Awarded 41. 12565/18 Aydoğan v. Türkiye 16/02/2018 Hakan AYDOĞAN 1978 Ankara Turkish Hayrettin AÇIKGÖZ Awarded 42. 16308/18 Yıldırım v. Türkiye 29/03/2018 Abdurrahman YILDIRIM 1983 Giresun Turkish Hilal YILMAZ PUSAT Awarded 43. 16907/18 Alemdar v. Türkiye 20/03/2018 Gökay ALEMDAR 1977 Istanbul Turkish Ahmet EROL Awarded 44. 19254/18 Dere v. Türkiye 12/04/2018 Erol DERE 1969 İzmir Turkish   Awarded 45. 19465/18 Aykan v. Türkiye 11/04/2018 Abdurrahman AYKAN 1977 Wetzlar Turkish Lale KARADAŞ Awarded 46. 19695/18 Tekin v. Türkiye 16/04/2018 Adem TEKİN 1972 Ankara Turkish Adem KAPLAN Awarded 47. 19867/18 Gülecen v. Türkiye 18/04/2018 Mahmut GÜLECEN 1972 Ankara Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN Awarded 48. 20491/18 Akkoyun v. Türkiye 16/04/2018 Erkan AKKOYUN 1987 Istanbul Turkish Esra Nur AKYOL Awarded 49. 21083/18 Karakaş v. Türkiye 20/04/2018 Doğan KARAKAŞ 1967 Ankara Turkish Adem KAPLAN Awarded 50. 21157/18 Aydın v. Türkiye 20/04/2018 Harun AYDIN 1987 Hatay Turkish Adem KAPLAN Awarded 51. 22076/18 Karabürk v. Türkiye 02/05/2018 Mustafa KARABÜRK 1975 Giresun Turkish Erol GÜNAYDIN Awarded 52. 22182/18 Dolmaz v. Türkiye 02/04/2018 Fahri DOLMAZ 1974 İzmir Turkish Akkız KARDEŞLER Awarded 53. 22241/18 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 08/05/2018 Kudret YILMAZ 1976 Kütahya Turkish Memnune Melike AKYILDIZ Awarded 54. 22257/18 Göçmen v. Türkiye 10/05/2018 Abdullah Ömer GÖÇMEN 1971 Kütahya Turkish Halil ÇETİN Awarded 55. 23883/18 Doğan v. Türkiye 10/05/2018 Kılıç DOĞAN 1969 Ankara Turkish Hakan KAPLANKAYA Awarded 56. 24450/18 Aslan v. Türkiye 04/05/2018 Züfer ASLAN 1976 Samsun Turkish Şeyma MISIRLIOĞLU Awarded 57. 26411/18 Özyapı v. Türkiye 30/05/2018 Mustafa ÖZYAPI 1968 Ankara Turkish Hüseyin AYGÜN Awarded 58. 26880/18 Okuşluk v. Türkiye 30/05/2018 Ahmet Yasin OKUŞLUK 1984 Konya Turkish Demet YÜREKLİ KAYAALP Awarded 59. 27059/18 Tütüncü v. Türkiye 18/05/2018 Zakir TÜTÜNCÜ 1972 Kocaeli Turkish Adem KAPLAN Awarded 60. 27255/18 Çutur v. Türkiye 28/05/2018 İbrahim ÇUTUR 1977 Burdur Turkish Nurgül YAYMAN YILMAZ Awarded 61. 39466/18 Çilkız v. Türkiye 10/08/2018 Erol ÇİLKIZ 1986 Istanbul Turkish Cengiz YILMAZ Awarded 62. 39536/18 Kaya v. Türkiye 02/08/2018 Hüseyin KAYA 1978 Tekirdağ Turkish Mehmet Ertürk ERDEVİR Awarded 63. 39835/18 Tekin v. Türkiye 06/08/2018 Ayhan TEKİN 1974 Ankara Turkish Ebubekir ÇAKIR Awarded 64. 42120/18 Tüysüz v. Türkiye 03/09/2018 Erol TÜYSÜZ 1973 Kocaeli Turkish Yakup GÖNEN Awarded 65. 42307/18 Şahin v. Türkiye 15/08/2018 Fatih ŞAHİN 1965 Istanbul Turkish Handan YAVAŞCAN MARHAN Awarded 66. 42858/18 Alıcı v. Türkiye 28/08/2018 Halil ALICI 1983 Hatay Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ Awarded 67. 43165/18 Ebcim v. Türkiye 03/09/2018 İskender EBCİM 1978 Bingöl Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ Awarded 68. 45325/18 Sert v. Türkiye 17/09/2018 Fatih SERT 1983 Ankara Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ Awarded 69. 45330/18 Hazman v. Türkiye 14/09/2018 Ahmet HAZMAN 1984 Kırıkkale Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ Awarded 70. 45543/18 Nokta v. Türkiye 07/09/2018 Sinan NOKTA 1983 Karabük Turkish Adem KAPLAN Awarded 71. 46225/18 Aydın v. Türkiye 20/09/2018 Cengiz AYDIN 1973 Çorum Turkish Kerem ALTUNTAŞ Awarded 72. 48203/18 Çimen v. Türkiye 02/10/2018 Osman ÇİMEN 1985 Kayseri Turkish Hüseyin DÖNMEZ Awarded 73. 48911/18 Kobalay v. Türkiye 28/09/2018 Hasan KOBALAY 1980 Aydın Turkish Adem KAPLAN Awarded 74. 49836/18 Yaşa v. Türkiye 15/10/2018 Hasan YAŞA 1981 Bilecik Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ Awarded 75. 50062/18 Akkaya v. Türkiye 12/10/2018 Ali AKKAYA 1975 Düzce Turkish Betül KAYA Awarded 76. 51313/18 Olgaç v. Türkiye 19/10/2018 Şahin OLGAÇ 1990 Gaziantep Turkish Mehmet Fatih İÇER Not awarded 77. 52539/18 Arlı v. Türkiye 22/10/2018 Ali ARLI 1977 Istanbul Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ Awarded 78. 53071/18 Kara v. Türkiye 22/10/2018 Yunus KARA 1984 Nevşehir Turkish Fatih GÖÇER Awarded 79. 3652/19 Dinlemez v. Türkiye 18/12/2018 Zafer DİNLEMEZ 1987 Ankara Turkish Ömer Tarık ORMANCI Awarded 80. 3709/19 Kuş v. Türkiye 21/12/2018 Mesut KUŞ 1972 İzmir Turkish Sultan TAKAK Awarded 81. 4571/19 Kocaer v. Türkiye 28/12/2018 Mustafa KOCAER 1974 Manisa Turkish Tuğba ÇIĞ Awarded 82. 5916/19 Ekemen v. Türkiye 26/12/2018 Mustafa EKEMEN 1975 Manisa Turkish Ömer KÖSTEKÇİ Awarded 83. 16532/19 Çomak v. Türkiye 18/03/2019 Erol ÇOMAK 1969 Burdur Turkish Yasemin ÇOMAK Awarded 84. 19695/19 Gülbay v. Türkiye 29/03/2019 Kenan GÜLBAY 1975 Eskişehir Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK Awarded 85. 19866/19 Çelik v. Türkiye 24/03/2019 Muhammed Said ÇELİK 1976 Elazığ Turkish Ayşegül ÇELİK Awarded 86. 20047/19 Dönmez v. Türkiye 25/03/2019 Mehmet DÖNMEZ 1974 Ankara Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ Awarded 87. 21344/19 Bakan v. Türkiye 12/04/2019 Vedat BAKAN 1970 Istanbul Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK Awarded 88. 23822/19 Gür v. Türkiye 03/04/2019 Alim GÜR 1956 Konya Turkish Ülkü GÜR Not awarded 89. 23942/19 Talay v. Türkiye 01/04/2019 Mahmut TALAY 1975 Mersin Turkish   Not awarded 90. 27493/19 Şahin v. Türkiye 17/05/2019 Orhan ŞAHİN 1978 Kırıkkale Turkish Tülay ÇETİN Not awarded 91. 32501/19 Hoş v. Türkiye 10/05/2019 Mustafa HOŞ 1976 İzmir Turkish Mine ÖZTÜRK Awarded 92. 33034/19 Hamurcu v. Türkiye 31/05/2019 Baki HAMURCU 1990 Karabük Turkish Sümeyye UYAR Awarded 93. 34664/19 Alptekin v. Türkiye 14/06/2019 Mustafa ALPTEKİN 1988 Balıkesir Turkish   Awarded 94. 35252/19 Abdi v. Türkiye 24/06/2019 Mehmet ABDİ 1982 Kırıkkale Turkish Mustafa SOYLU Awarded 95. 53290/19 Şan v. Türkiye 05/10/2019 Mehmet Akif ŞAN 1978 Ankara Turkish Beyza Esma TUNA Awarded 96. 61931/19 Uğur v. Türkiye 15/11/2019 Şaban UĞUR 1985 Kayseri Turkish Regaip DEMİR Awarded 97. 6382/20 Oflaz v. Türkiye 15/01/2020 Bilal OFLAZ 1984 Ankara Turkish Merve KOÇ Awarded 98. 14810/20 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 06/03/2020 Erhan YILMAZ 1989 Kocaeli Turkish Metehan USLUEROL Not awarded 99. 15694/20 Gençkaya v. Türkiye 17/03/2020 Fethi GENÇKAYA 1986 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Nihal KARAGÖZ Awarded 100. 16406/20 Çancılar v. Türkiye 07/04/2020 Mesut ÇANCILAR 1991 Samsun Turkish Gökhan DİRİCAN Awarded 101. 16553/20 Kaya v. Türkiye 17/03/2020 İlhami KAYA 1984 Ankara Turkish Nihal KARAGÖZ Not awarded 102. 17100/20 Bebek v. Türkiye 27/03/2020 Bekir BEBEK 1981 Ankara Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK Awarded 103. 17366/20 Hocaoğlu v. Türkiye 27/03/2020 Ahmet HOCAOĞLU 1978 Samsun Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ Awarded 104. 17668/20 Bostancı v. Türkiye 08/04/2020 Fatma BOSTANCI 1992 Ankara Turkish Merve Vildan DUMAN Awarded 105. 18713/20 Çelik v. Türkiye 21/04/2020 Celal ÇELİK 1978 Istanbul Turkish Ebubekir RENK Awarded 106. 18782/20 Akgül v. Türkiye 21/04/2020 Murat Kağan AKGÜL 1985 Tekirdağ Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK Awarded 107. 19196/20 Dölen v. Türkiye 06/05/2020 Sadrettin DÖLEN 1981 Istanbul Turkish Muhammed Selim TÜRKOĞLU Not awarded 108. 21238/20 Sağlam v. Türkiye 05/05/2020 Ferdi SAĞLAM 1988 Ankara Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK Awarded 109. 21248/20 Alada v. Türkiye 29/04/2020 Ensar ALADA 1987 Sivas Turkish İhsan MAKAS Awarded 110. 21557/20 Darama v. Türkiye 05/03/2020 Resul DARAMA 1976 Manisa Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ Awarded 111. 22575/20 Maraşlıoğlu v. Türkiye 08/05/2020 Mevlüt MARAŞLIOĞLU 1989 Aksaray Turkish Enes Malik KILIÇ Awarded 112. 23987/20 Duman v. Türkiye 29/05/2020 Cafer DUMAN 1977 Aksaray Turkish Kaşif ALTINSOY Awarded 113. 25638/20 Erol v. Türkiye 17/06/2020 Muhammet EROL 1989 Şanlıurfa Turkish Burcu EROL Awarded 114. 26913/20 Berk v. Türkiye 17/06/2020 Ömer BERK 1971 Kırşehir Turkish Lale KARADAŞ Awarded 115. 26961/20 Tunç v. Türkiye 05/06/2020 Raşit TUNÇ 1990 Manisa Turkish Çağrı Seyfettin GÖKDEMİR Awarded 116. 30048/20 Kılıçdoğan v. Türkiye 22/06/2020 Ali KILIÇDOĞAN 1980 İzmir Turkish Bülent ULAŞ Awarded 117. 33022/20 Genç v. Türkiye 21/07/2020 İsmet GENÇ 1990 Giresun Turkish Eda YAMAN Awarded 118. 33333/20 Urgan v. Türkiye 24/07/2020 İshak URGAN 1982 Turkish Merve KOÇ Awarded 119. 36371/20 Karakoç v. Türkiye 06/08/2020 Serdar KARAKOÇ 1992 Sakarya Turkish Gamze AKSOY Awarded 120. 36760/20 Taşkın v. Türkiye 06/08/2020 Orhan TAŞKIN 1981 Aydın Turkish Esra Nur AKYOL Awarded 121. 37181/20 Işıklı v. Türkiye 29/07/2020 İbrahim IŞIKLI 1972 Mersin Turkish Selma IŞIKLI Awarded 122. 37921/20 Yayan v. Türkiye 11/08/2020 İlyas YAYAN 1990 Bingöl Turkish Ömer YAYAN Awarded 123. 38261/20 Balcı v. Türkiye 19/08/2020 Ersin BALCI 1979 Adana Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL Awarded 124. 38262/20 Kaya v. Türkiye 11/08/2020 Cağatay KAYA 1994 Istanbul Turkish Ahmet KAYA Awarded 125. 38991/20 Barış v. Türkiye 31/08/2020 Mehmet Fatih BARIŞ 1976 Tekirdağ Turkish Mustafa KÜÇÜK Awarded 126. 39599/20 Kayabaşı v. Türkiye 05/09/2020 Erol KAYABAŞI 1984 Kastamonu Turkish Yakup Yaşar MIRZAOĞLU Awarded 127. 40610/20 Çelik v. Türkiye 21/08/2020 Serhat ÇELİK 1990 Istanbul Turkish Hasan ÇELİK Awarded 128. 42398/20 Şahan v. Türkiye 03/09/2020 İsmail ŞAHAN 1976 Konya Turkish Leyla MESUTOĞLU Awarded 129. 43092/20 Yıldırım v. Türkiye 08/09/2020 Doğan YILDIRIM 1981 Sivas Turkish Hamdi Kenan SEVİNÇ Awarded 130. 44081/20 Çavuş v. Türkiye 29/09/2020 Çetin ÇAVUŞ 1982 Ankara Turkish Beyza Esma TUNA Awarded 131. 53963/20 Ordu v. Türkiye 25/11/2020 Hüseyin ORDU 1977 Manisa Turkish Kadriye TÜMEN Awarded 132. 55519/20 Uslu v. Türkiye 27/11/2020 Vedat USLU 1978 Turkish Zafer İRAZ Awarded 133. 1315/21 Kocakurt v. Türkiye 22/12/2020 Hubeyb KOCAKURT 1982 İzmir Turkish Kadriye TÜMEN Awarded 134. 9455/21 Kavak v. Türkiye 26/01/2021 Hasan KAVAK 1981 Yozgat Turkish Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞIN Awarded 135. 11883/21 Aslan v. Türkiye 28/01/2021 Ahmet ASLAN 1976 Zonguldak Turkish Arzu BEYAZIT Awarded 136. 22432/21 Köşe v. Türkiye 27/04/2021 Ümit KÖŞE /1989 Ankara Turkish Uğur ALTUN Awarded 137. 39544/21 Kaya v. Türkiye 26/07/2021 Mehmet Salih KAYA 1977 Ankara Turkish Mahmut KAÇAN Awarded