CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 18 novembre 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 } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s99272BBB { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s452883D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1D1639D9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; font-weight:bold } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF BALIKÇI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 3038/18 and 85 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 18 November 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Balıkçı 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 individuals 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 appropriate redress 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 dismiss the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee; Having deliberated in private on 21 October 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, 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). 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. 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: (a) witness statements indicating ties with FETÖ/PDY; (b)   social media posts; (c) possession of pro-FETÖ/PDY publications; (d)   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; (e) provision of financial support to FETÖ/PDY or to institutions with ties to FETÖ/PDY; (f) attending or holding meetings ( sohbet ); (g) communication with senior executives of the organisation; (h) ensuring communication between FETÖ/PDY members; (i)   using the ByLock encrypted messaging application; (j) staying in FETÖ/PDY houses; and (k) 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, 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 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 their 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 these complaints 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. The Government further submitted 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. In addition, they 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. They also asked the Court to declare some of the 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 failure to use the remedy of an individual application to the Constitutional Court, an examination of the case files reveals that, contrary to the Government’s assertions, the applicants concerned 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, nor are they 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 is “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 connection that the competent courts in the present case referred to 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 have justified 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 Taş and Others v.   Türkiye [Committee], nos.   41527/17 and 212 others, §   20, 17   December 2024, and the references in both judgments). 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, and Taş and Others , cited above, §   22).     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 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. 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 (EUR) covering 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 extending the applicants’ 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   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;   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’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 November 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. 3038/18 Balıkçı v. Türkiye 04/01/2018 Cevdet BALIKÇI 1969 Ankara Turkish Filiz ALKAN (ASLANCAN) Awarded 2. 22156/18 Öz v. Türkiye 24/04/2018 Müjdat ÖZ 1971 Afyonkarahisar Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK Awarded 3. 26287/18 Oral v. Türkiye 17/05/2018 Gökhan ORAL 1971 Denizli Turkish   Awarded 4. 29960/18 Güven v. Türkiye 06/06/2018 Selim GÜVEN 1983 Balıkesir Turkish Fatih ŞAHİNLER Awarded 5. 33850/18 Gezer v. Türkiye 05/07/2018 Kutret GEZER 1960 Denizli Turkish Ahmet KOCABAŞ Awarded 6. 33979/18 Uslu v. Türkiye 11/05/2018 Nurettin USLU 1959 Çanakkale Turkish   Awarded 7. 36184/18 Çinemre v. Türkiye 23/07/2018 Remzi ÇİNEMRE 1964 Sakarya Turkish Ahmet EROL Awarded 8. 48613/18 Bozkurt v. Türkiye 08/10/2018 Durmuş BOZKURT 1962 Antalya Turkish Mehmet Turgay BİLGE Awarded 9. 49861/18 Alkan v. Türkiye 12/10/2018 Ramazan ALKAN 1979 Ankara Turkish Gözde ŞENYAYLA Awarded 10. 54403/18 Caferoğlu v. Türkiye 01/11/2018 Ahmet CAFEROĞLU 1981 Kırıkkale Turkish Özgür KOÇUM Awarded 11. 54929/18 Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye 01/11/2018 Merve YALÇINKAYA 1991 Muğla Turkish   Awarded 12. 57196/18 Yaşa v. Türkiye 12/11/2018 Özlem YAŞA 1983 Bilecik Turkish Fetullah Furkan Hakkı BAYRAKTAR Awarded 13. 57288/18 Üçkuyu v. Türkiye 14/11/2018 Mustafa ÜÇKUYU 1969 Ankara Turkish Mehmet Kemal ÜÇKUYU Awarded 14. 57907/18 Kara v. Türkiye 05/12/2018 Sami KARA 1964 Manisa Turkish Arife YÜKSEKDAĞ ALTUNAY Awarded 15. 58411/18 Eriktaş v. Türkiye 03/12/2018 Muhsin ERİKTAŞ 1972 Manisa Turkish Mustafa ASLAN Not awarded 16. 3054/19 Taşkın v. Türkiye 05/12/2018 Mustafa TAŞKIN 1971 İzmir Turkish Rıdvan DURGUN Awarded 17. 6249/19 Yılmazsoylu v. Türkiye 11/01/2019 Yusuf YILMAZSOYLU 1979 Antalya Turkish Yusuf Sait PEKGÖZ Awarded 18. 6940/19 Saygılı v. Türkiye 24/01/2019 Beytullah SAYGILI 1978 Aydın Turkish Esra Elif BOZKURT Awarded 19. 7279/19 Koyuncuoğlu v. Türkiye 24/01/2019 Hasan KOYUNCUOĞLU 1972 Manisa Turkish Müjdat Fatih İÇEL Awarded 20. 7352/19 Büyükkalaycı v. Türkiye 21/01/2019 Ahmet BÜYÜKKALAYCI 1990 Ankara Turkish İbrahim Halil UZUN Awarded 21. 7531/19 Arduç v. Türkiye 30/01/2019 Osman ARDUÇ 1988 Antalya Turkish Yusuf Sait PEKGÖZ Awarded 22. 12465/19 Akpınar v. Türkiye 15/02/2019 Mehmet Salih AKPINAR 1988 Hatay Turkish Mücahit AYDIN Awarded 23. 12789/19 Curabay v. Türkiye 27/02/2019 Ferhat CURABAY 1982 Kırklareli Turkish Hakan KAPLANKAYA Awarded 24. 15608/19 Dursun v. Türkiye 30/11/2018 Serkan DURSUN 1985 İzmir Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK Awarded 25. 15702/19 Keser v. Türkiye 06/03/2019 Eyüp KESER 1978 Ankara Turkish Hamide Nur ALKAÇ Awarded 26. 15732/19 Avandağ v. Türkiye 01/03/2019 Hüseyin AVANDAĞ 1983 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Özcan KARA Awarded 27. 18189/19 Batak v. Türkiye 29/03/2019 Mustafa BATAK 1976 Tekirdağ Turkish   Awarded 28. 18779/19 Arık v. Türkiye 28/03/2019 Burhan ARIK 1987 Kahramanmaraş Turkish İbrahim Halil UZUN Awarded 29. 38918/19 Akdoğan v. Türkiye 10/07/2019 Mustafa AKDOĞAN 1980 Ankara Turkish Kamile KILDAN Awarded 30. 46997/19 Mengirkaan v. Türkiye 19/08/2019 Şeyhmus MENGİRKAAN 1986 Bingöl Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ Awarded 31. 49418/19 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 20/08/2019 Kutluhan YILMAZ 1976 Erzincan Turkish   Not awarded 32. 56917/19 Koçak v. Türkiye 16/10/2019 Hüsmen KOÇAK 1976 Tekirdağ Turkish Nihat KILIÇ Awarded 33. 57578/19 Gökcen v. Türkiye 24/10/2019 Abdullah GÖKCEN 1987 Hatay Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ Awarded 34. 58724/19 Karaduman v. Türkiye 24/09/2019 Zekeriye KARADUMAN 1972 Osmaniye Turkish Hayrettin AÇIKGÖZ Awarded 35. 60476/19 Kahya v. Türkiye 19/11/2019 Ali Osman KAHYA 1958 Bursa Turkish Rukiye KAHYA Awarded 36. 4418/20 Deniz v. Türkiye 06/01/2020 Mehmet DENİZ 1990 Şanlıurfa Turkish Enes Malik KILIÇ Awarded 37. 7142/20 Ünal v. Türkiye 16/01/2020 Ali ÜNAL 1975 Çorum Turkish F. Halide ÜNAL Awarded 38. 8068/20 Aydın v. Türkiye 23/01/2020 Telat AYDIN 1973 Samsun Turkish Ahmet ÖZDİN Awarded 39. 12780/20 Udül v. Türkiye 24/02/2020 Eren UDÜL 1983 Manisa Turkish Sertan AKŞAR Awarded 40. 14436/20 Aktaş v. Türkiye 04/03/2020 İsa AKTAŞ 1968 Samsun Turkish Ayşenur ÖZDEMİR Awarded 41. 14902/20 Bilgin v. Türkiye 11/03/2020 Ayhan BİLGİN 1986 Amasya Turkish Nursel AKGÜN Awarded 42. 25786/20 Keleş v. Türkiye 25/06/2020 Halit KELEŞ 1977 Istanbul Turkish Ali TOKUL Awarded 43. 27345/20 Hasyiğit v. Türkiye 29/06/2020 Özcan HASYİĞİT 1950 Istanbul Turkish Adem UZAK Awarded 44. 44393/20 Durak v. Türkiye 25/09/2020 Muzaffer DURAK 1990 Düzce Turkish Cengiz YILMAZ Awarded 45. 45804/20 Yiğit v. Türkiye 08/10/2020 Emrah YİĞİT 1982 Aksaray Turkish Uğur ALTUN Awarded 46. 45814/20 Şen v. Türkiye 01/10/2020 Sedat ŞEN 1977 Burdur Turkish İrem TATLIDEDE Awarded 47. 47697/20 Güney v. Türkiye 13/10/2020 İsmail GÜNEY 1990 Bursa Turkish Mehmet ÖZER Awarded 48. 48662/20 Ercan v. Türkiye 22/10/2020 Mustafa Kemal ERCAN 1972 Diyarbakır Turkish Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN Awarded 49. 49159/20 Sivri v. Türkiye 27/10/2020 Süleyman SİVRİ 1970 Eskişehir Turkish Selma Zülal SİVRİ Awarded 50. 50182/20 Uçar v. Türkiye 21/10/2020 Muhterem UÇAR 1977 İzmir Turkish Lale KARADAŞ Awarded 51. 50656/20 Boz v. Türkiye 05/11/2020 Erol BOZ 1981 Konya Turkish Yalçın REŞİTOĞLU Not awarded 52. 50688/20 Şen v. Türkiye 06/11/2020 İhsan ŞEN 1991 Denizli Turkish Adnan ERDOĞAN Awarded 53. 51374/20 Ercan v. Türkiye 04/11/2020 Halil İbrahim ERCAN 1977 Samsun Turkish   Awarded 54. 52055/20 Şen v. Türkiye 13/11/2020 Mücahit ŞEN 1990 Ankara Turkish Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ Awarded 55. 52088/20 Han v. Türkiye 17/11/2020 Abdurrahman HAN 1983 Malatya Turkish Firdevs ERYAMAN UTKU Awarded 56. 52143/20 Turan v. Türkiye 11/11/2020 Bülent TURAN 1973 Tremelo (Belgium) Turkish   Awarded 57. 54296/20 Ünveren v. Türkiye 20/11/2020 Salih Buğra ÜNVEREN 1991 Istanbul Turkish   Awarded 58. 54391/20 Özdemir v. Türkiye 20/11/2020 Muhammet ÖZDEMİR 1977 Istanbul Turkish Nermin KARAL ÖZDEMİR Awarded 59. 55508/20 Dağlı v. Türkiye 01/12/2020 Harun DAĞLI 1980 Kırıkkale Turkish Meral KAYA Awarded 60. 103/21 Kaya v. Türkiye 04/12/2020 Özkan KAYA 1990 Eskişehir Turkish Tuğba Nur KIYMAZ Awarded 61. 493/21 Ayçiçek v. Türkiye 03/12/2020 Mehmet Emin AYÇİÇEK 1976 Bolu Turkish   Awarded 62. 3939/21 Kaya v. Türkiye 10/12/2020 Mustafa KAYA 1978 Istanbul Turkish   Awarded 63. 10265/21 Deniz v. Türkiye 27/01/2021 Selçuk DENİZ 1990 Elazığ Turkish Sercihan ÇELİK Awarded 64. 10357/21 Çiyik v. Türkiye 08/02/2021 Abdullah ÇİYİK 1975 İzmir Turkish Sümeyye ÖZCAN Awarded 65. 10496/21 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 02/02/2021 İsa YILMAZ 1987 Istanbul Turkish Emre AKARYILDIZ Awarded 66. 13004/21 Çınar v. Türkiye 23/02/2021 Muhammet Emin ÇINAR 1995 Mersin Turkish   Awarded 67. 13553/21 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 01/03/2021 Abdulkadir YILMAZ 1984 Tekirdağ Turkish   Awarded 68. 14091/21 Bilgin v. Türkiye 26/02/2021 İsmail BİLGİN 1968 Denizli Turkish Sümeyra DOBUR Awarded 69. 14507/21 Er v. Türkiye 05/03/2021 Ali Sefa ER 1991 Istanbul Turkish Rümeysa Senanur ER Awarded 70. 15044/21 Örük v. Türkiye 10/03/2021 Metin ÖRÜK 1974 Kırıkkale Turkish Meryem GÜNER Awarded 71. 16190/21 Mumcu v. Türkiye 16/03/2021 Kazım MUMCU 1970 Ankara Turkish Semih ECER Not awarded 72. 18061/21 Süvari v. Türkiye 24/03/2021 Recep SÜVARI 1977 Amasya Turkish   Awarded 73. 20844/21 Akelma v. Türkiye 26/02/2021 Enes AKELMA 1974 Diyarbakır Turkish Harun AKELMA Awarded 74. 22164/21 Kesik v. Türkiye 31/03/2021 Mahmut KESİK 1975 Ankara Turkish Halil ŞAHİN Not awarded 75. 28697/21 Acar v. Türkiye 31/05/2021 Serhat ACAR 1985 Bursa Turkish Kübra ACAR Awarded 76. 31574/21 Yücel v. Türkiye 11/06/2021 Fikri YÜCEL 1991 Istanbul Turkish Naim UZUN Awarded 77. 35316/21 Karagöz v. Türkiye 14/06/2021 İdris KARAGÖZ 1971 Eskişehir Turkish Adem KAPLAN Awarded 78. 36518/21 Dikmen v. Türkiye 08/07/2021 Babir DİKMEN 1973 Istanbul Turkish Cemalettin ÖZER Awarded 79. 36743/21 Yıldırım v. Türkiye 18/06/2021 İsmail YILDIRIM 1974 Kocaeli Turkish Abdulkadir AKBAŞ Awarded 80. 40386/21 Güç v. Türkiye 02/08/2021 Oktay GÜÇ 1989 Amasya Turkish Muhammet Emin ÇITIR Awarded 81. 51294/21 Özkan v. Türkiye 06/10/2021 Cebrail ÖZKAN 1989 Malatya Turkish   Awarded 82. 3065/22 İnan v. Türkiye 15/12/2021 Ahmet İNAN 1974 Samsun Turkish   Awarded 83. 3729/22 Gençer v. Türkiye 14/01/2022 Ali GENÇER 1985 Trabzon Turkish Latife GENÇER Awarded 84. 6279/22 Bulut v. Türkiye 28/01/2022 Enes BULUT 1993 İzmir Turkish Orçun MUŞLU Awarded 85. 7577/22 Boztürk v. Türkiye 02/02/2022 Tarık BOZTÜRK 1980 Ankara Turkish Emine Pınar TEKİNŞEN Awarded 86. 9653/22 Armutcu v. Türkiye 26/01/2022 Murat ARMUTCU 1986 Çorum Turkish Metin BOZKURT Awarded