CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 16 décembre 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 } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s100D1E5 { width:50.22pt; display:inline-block } .s2CF788F1 { width:132.09pt; 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 } .sC1CB89D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7F95B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:11pt } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s536FC1B2 { margin-left:23pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:13pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sEB3964EC { height:76.1pt } .sC366685A { margin-left:26.41pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:13pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s94826666 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-49.65pt }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF BOZYOKUŞ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 39586/20 and 131 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 16 December 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bozyokuş 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 6 § 1 (the right to a fair trial) and Article   7 of the Convention (no punishment without law) to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr Abdullah   Aydın, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye; 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 25 November 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the applicants’ convictions for membership of an armed terrorist organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure” ( Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması , hereinafter referred to as “the FETÖ/PDY”), considered by the authorities to be behind the coup attempt that took place in Türkiye on 15 July 2016. The broader domestic background and context to the present applications was set out by the Court in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye ([GC], no. 15669/20, §§ 10-22 and 108-40, 26   September 2023). 2.     The applicants’ convictions were based decisively on their use of an encrypted messaging application by the name of “ByLock”. The domestic authorities and courts considered that the ByLock application was designed for the exclusive use of the members of the FETÖ/PDY and that the establishment of the use of that application was sufficient on its own for conviction under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code for membership of an armed terrorist organisation (ibid., §§ 155-65 and 257). 3 .     Other evidence against the applicants, if any, involved mainly an admission of using ByLock, decrypted message content confirming use of that application or witness statements attesting to such use; membership of a trade union, association and/or foundation considered to be affiliated with the FETÖ/PDY; account activities at Bank Asya, which was considered by the authorities to be a part of the financial structure of the FETÖ/PDY; possession of pro-FETÖ/PDY publications or other audio-visual material; participation in trips considered to have been organised by the FETÖ/PDY and records of exit from and entry to Türkiye; donations to FETÖ/PDY-affiliated foundations; participation in various demonstrations considered to be in support of the FETÖ/PDY or in other organisational activities; social media posts in favour of the organisation; residence in FETÖ/PDY student houses or dormitories; use of other messaging applications, such as Kakao Talk or Eagle, to communicate with other members of the organisation; HTS (Historical Traffic Search) records indicating communications with others prosecuted of the same offence or other digital evidence suggesting membership of the organisation; employment by and/or membership of FETÖ/PDY ‑ affiliated institutions, organisations or companies; witness statements as regards such employment and/or membership, or as regards other connections to the FETÖ/PDY. In the case of some of the applicants, the convictions were imposed without waiting for the submission to the case files of the detailed ByLock findings and evaluation reports – which potentially included decrypted content of communications over ByLock – on the ground that the establishment of the use of that application sufficed for conviction, irrespective of the nature and content of the communications. 4.     The individual applications lodged by the applicants with the Constitutional Court against their convictions were summarily dismissed by that court as being inadmissible, on the basis of its case-law endorsing the Court of Cassation’s landmark judgments on the matter (see Yüksel   Yalçınkaya , cited above, §§   169-88). THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     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 ARTICLES 7 and 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION Alleged violation of Article 7 of the Convention 6.     The applicants complained that their convictions under Article   314   §   2 of the Criminal Code for membership of the FETÖ/PDY had violated the principle of no punishment without law under Article 7 of the Convention, primarily for the reasons set out in Demirhan and Others v. Türkiye (nos.   1595/20 and 238 others, § 29, 22 July 2025). 7.     The Government reiterated their observations as outlined in Demirhan and Others (ibid., §§ 31-34). They submitted that, while notice of the present applications had been given to them as raising issues similar to those addressed by the Court in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above), the Court’s considerations in that judgment had related to the specific facts of that case. They argued that the Court should therefore refrain from extrapolating the findings made therein to the present applications and invited it to assess the criminal proceedings conducted against each applicant on the basis of their own particular circumstances. They claimed, in particular, that the convictions in the present applications had not been based solely on the applicants’ use of the ByLock application but had involved a wide variety of other evidence, not all of which had been subject to assessment in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above; see the evidence listed in paragraph 3 above). The domestic courts, which had enjoyed direct contact with the evidence at issue, had established each   applicant’s membership of the armed terrorist organisation on an individual basis following a careful assessment of all the elements in their specific case files. 8.     The Court notes that the applicants’ complaint under Article 7 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 9.     As regards the merits, the Court indeed observes that the evidence in respect of some of the applicants included material that was not at issue in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above). That being said, having examined all the material and arguments submitted to it, the Court finds no reason in the present case to depart from its findings in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§   237-72), for the reasons set out in detail in Demirhan and Others (cited above, §§ 35-47). 10 .     It notes in this connection that the finding of violations of Articles   7 and 6 § 1 of the Convention in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above) had resulted notably from the domestic courts’ characterisation of the use of ByLock, according to which anyone whose use of ByLock was established could be convicted on that sole basis of membership of an armed terrorist organisation pursuant to Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code (ibid., §§ 364, 413 and 414). It therefore follows, as also underlined in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §   414), and subsequently reiterated in Demirhan and Others (cited above, §   38) that the situation that led to a finding of a violation of Articles   7 and 6   §   1 of the Convention in that case was not prompted by an isolated incident or attributable to the particular turn of events specific to the facts of that case, but potentially applied to everyone convicted for membership of the FETÖ/PDY on the basis of their use of ByLock. 11 .     The Court does not rule out that there may be other evidence in respect of some of the applicants, other than their use of ByLock, that may demonstrate their organic link with the FETÖ/PDY based on the continuity, diversity and intensity of their activities and their submission to its hierarchy as required under the Court of Cassation’s case-law (see Yüksel Yalçınkaya , cited above, § 184) and thus secure their conviction as charged. The fact nevertheless remains that the establishment of the mere use of ByLock served, on its own, as conclusive proof of the presence of all of the constituent elements of the crime of membership of an armed terrorist organisation as defined in domestic law. The Court has declared this approach of the domestic courts, which effectively imputed objective liability to the users of ByLock, to be in contravention of the principle of legality safeguarded under Article 7 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 271 and 272), and it sees no reason to find otherwise in the present case (see also Demirhan and Others , cited above, §   39). 12 .     In view of the above considerations, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention on the facts of the present case (see also Yüksel Yalçınkaya , cited above, § 272, and Demirhan and Others , cited above, §§ 39 and 46). Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 13.     Some of the applicants also complained that their trial and convictions for membership of the FETÖ/PDY had violated the right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, primarily for the reasons set out in Demirhan and Others (cited above, § 29). The Government argued that those complaints had not been duly raised before the Constitutional Court, either expressly or in substance, and that they should therefore be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 14.     The Court reiterates that the main problems identified by the Grand Chamber in this group of cases in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above), and subsequently reaffirmed in Demirhan and Others (cited above), was not attributable to the particular turn of events or procedural issues specific to those cases, but resulted notably from the domestic courts’ characterisation of the use of ByLock and the uniform and global approach adopted by the Turkish judiciary vis-à-vis the ByLock evidence (see Yüksel Yalçınkaya , cited above, §§ 364, 413 and 414, and Demirhan and Others , cited above, §§   37, 38 and 42). Having already found that this approach amounted to a violation of Article 7 of the Convention in the present case (see paragraph 12 above), which will enable the applicants to seek the reopening of the domestic proceedings in the light of the principles enunciated in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§ 411, 412 and 425; see also paragraph 17 below), the Court does not deem it necessary to examine whether the Government’s preliminary objection under this head may be upheld in respect of each individual application concerned. 15.     Accordingly, the Court decides not to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the Article 6 § 1 complaints raised by some of the applicants. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION 16.     The Court notes that some of the applicants also lodged complaints under other provisions of the Convention, such as Articles 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14, or raised complaints relating to other aspects of Article 6 (as in Yüksel   Yalçınkaya , cited above, §§ 357, 358, 368 and 374). However, having regard to the finding of a violation of Article   7 above (see paragraph   12), the reasons for that finding (see paragraphs 10 and 11) and the specific circumstances of the case, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal question raised by the case and that there is no need to address the admissibility and merits of any remaining complaints (see, mutatis mutandis , Yüksel   Yalçınkaya , cited above, §§ 365, 367 and 373; Turan and Others v.   Turkey , nos. 75805/16 and 426 others, § 98, 23   November 2021; and Demirhan and Others , cited above, § 48). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 17 .     The Court considers, for the reasons explained in Yüksel   Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§ 404, 411, 412 and 425; see also Demirhan and Others , cited above, § 53), that the finding of a violation of Article   7 of the Convention can be regarded as sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in the present case. It notes in this regard that the applicants have the possibility under Article 311 § 1 (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have the domestic proceedings reopened following the delivery of the present judgment (see Yüksel   Yalçınkaya , cited above, §   411), and that the reopening of the proceedings in a manner compatible with the “conclusions and spirit” of the judgment would in principle constitute the most appropriate form of redress, should they so request. 18.     Furthermore, for the reasons set out in Demirhan and Others (cited above, §§ 54-56), the Court makes no awards for costs and expenses in respect of follow-up applications of this type. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applicants’ complaint that their convictions for membership of the FETÖ/PDY had violated the principle of no punishment without law under Article 7 of the Convention admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ remaining complaints; Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants; Dismisses the remainder of any claim made by the applicants for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 December 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     39586/20 Bozyokuş v. Türkiye 14/08/2020 Latif Tuncer BOZYOKUŞ 1977 Istanbul Turkish Sena AKKAYA AVVURAN   61905/19 Türkhan v. Türkiye 19/11/2019 Halil TÜRKHAN 1970 Istanbul Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   62032/19 Kıran v. Türkiye 01/11/2019 Zeynep KIRAN 1988 Zonguldak Turkish Sevgi KÜMÜŞ TEK   1672/20 Çelik v. Türkiye 10/12/2019 Bekir ÇELİK 1976 Kayseri Turkish Özcan AKINCI   11160/20 Okur v. Türkiye 25/02/2020 Mustafa OKUR 1977 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   11163/20 Korkmaz v. Türkiye 25/02/2020 İbrahim KORKMAZ 1964 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   11165/20 Aksoy v. Türkiye 26/02/2020 Dilaver AKSOY 1976 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   11168/20 Coşkun v. Türkiye 26/02/2020 Abdullah COŞKUN 1974 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   11171/20 Ceylan v. Türkiye 26/02/2020 Kerim CEYLAN 1974 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   11175/20 Seyip v. Türkiye 26/02/2020 Mehmet SEYİP 1977 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   15518/20 Karaca v. Türkiye 20/02/2020 İbrahim KARACA 1976 Çorum Turkish     16910/20 Er v. Türkiye 31/03/2020 Özcan ER 1971 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Birsen KARADAŞ   17659/20 İpek v. Türkiye 07/04/2020 Mustafa İPEK 1978 Çorum Turkish Fahri AZKUR   19758/20 Hamalosmanoğlu v. Türkiye 07/05/2020 Harun HAMALOSMANOĞLU 1978 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   23433/20 Büyükçakır v. Türkiye 20/05/2020 Mustafa BÜYÜKÇAKIR 1962 Balıkesir Turkish Fatih BÜYÜKÇAKIR   23791/20 Kurt v. Türkiye 21/05/2020 Musa KURT 1980 Giresun Turkish Feyza TİRYAKİ   24273/20 Baran v. Türkiye 16/06/2020 Halil İbrahim BARAN 1982 Denizli Turkish Mehmet MİRZA   29209/20 Bucaktepe v. Türkiye 30/06/2020 Muhammet BUCAKTEPE 1984 Çorum Turkish Ebubekir RENK   33294/20 Murt v. Türkiye 22/07/2020 Osman MURT 1971 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   35794/20 Işık v. Türkiye 29/07/2020 İlyas IŞIK 1981 Osmaniye Turkish Halil ÇETİN   39962/20 Anar v. Türkiye 25/08/2020 Mustafa ANAR 1980 Erzurum Turkish Mehmet Akif PALABIYIK   41239/20 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 08/07/2020 Seçkin YILMAZ 1976 Ankara Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   43140/20 Demir v. Türkiye 12/08/2020 Enes DEMİR 1992 İzmir Turkish Fatima Büşra KAFTAN   44773/20 Erkal v. Türkiye 02/10/2020 Adem ERKAL 1967 Aydın Turkish     45070/20 Karaboğa v. Türkiye 10/09/2020 Osman KARABOĞA 1987 Osmaniye Turkish Hamdi MERSİN   46061/20 Çakar v. Türkiye 30/09/2020 Şerif ÇAKAR 1974 Balıkesir Turkish Mehmet BAŞYİĞİT   46500/20 Şahan v. Türkiye 09/10/2020 Şeyma ŞAHAN 1990 Balıkesir Turkish Sercan ALACIK   46569/20 Kaya v. Türkiye 09/10/2020 Ali KAYA 1986 Afyonkarahisar Turkish Mehmet SARIKAYA   47233/20 Erdem v. Türkiye 15/10/2020 Bayram ERDEM 1971 Malatya Turkish Nalan ERDEM   50156/20 Avcı v. Türkiye 30/10/2020 Nadir AVCI 1972 Burdur Turkish Zülal BÜKER   50434/20 Karagöz v. Türkiye 21/10/2020 Talat KARAGÖZ 1970 Burdur Turkish     51867/20 Aldam v. Türkiye 12/10/2020 Ali ALDAM 1974 Manisa Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   52909/20 Polattaş v. Türkiye 19/11/2020 Mustafa POLATTAŞ 1982 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Mehmet Fatih İÇER   53186/20 Akdoğan v. Türkiye 18/11/2020 Metin AKDOĞAN 1974 Samsun Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   54608/20 Demirci v. Türkiye 24/11/2020 Mehmet Ali DEMİRCİ 1991 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Tufan YILMAZ   55073/20 Sarıkaya v. Türkiye 08/12/2020 Cengiz SARIKAYA 1970 Kayseri Turkish Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ   55119/20 Çetin v. Türkiye 27/11/2020 İsa ÇETİN 1984 Şanlıurfa Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   55242/20 Toyaksi v. Türkiye 27/11/2020 İbrahim TOYAKSİ 1978 Gaziantep Turkish İbrahim KOÇAKGÖL   55336/20 Kılıç v. Türkiye 14/12/2020 İhsan KILIÇ 1962 İzmir Turkish     55437/20 Musullu v. Türkiye 27/11/2020 İsmail MUSULLU 1993 Erzincan Turkish Mehmet Burak UZUN   2530/21 Çınar v. Türkiye 09/12/2020 Fatih ÇINAR 1981 Manisa Turkish     6575/21 Kaygas v. Türkiye 13/01/2021 Mustafa KAYGAS 1988 Antalya Turkish Muhammet DEMİREL   6636/21 Ceylan v. Türkiye 12/01/2021 Coşkun CEYLAN 1974 Kayseri Turkish Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ   9759/21 Ersoy v. Türkiye 05/02/2021 Levent ERSOY 1989 İzmir Turkish Halil ÇETİN   12481/21 Aytekin v. Türkiye 19/02/2021 Seyfi AYTEKİN 1975 Afyonkarahisar Turkish Halil ÇETİN   13655/21 Şahin v. Türkiye 01/03/2021 Dursun ŞAHİN 1985 Kayseri Turkish Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ   13665/21 Alan v. Türkiye 25/02/2021 Mithat ALAN 1985 Elazığ Turkish Mehmet Sıddık KARAGÖZ   13838/21 Uygun v. Türkiye 01/03/2021 Ahmet UYGUN 1976 Eskişehir Turkish Halil ÇETİN   14089/21 Bülbül v. Türkiye 26/02/2021 Ferhat BÜLBÜL 1989 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Bülent AKBAY   15441/21 Kabasakal v. Türkiye 15/03/2021 Mustafa KABASAKAL 1971 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   15444/21 Irmak v. Türkiye 15/03/2021 Mehmet IRMAK 1984 Turkish Metin POLAT   15447/21 Cansever v. Türkiye 15/03/2021 Gültekin CANSEVER 1972 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   15449/21 Eroğlu v. Türkiye 15/03/2021 Bestami EROĞLU 1978 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   15451/21 Karadeniz v. Türkiye 15/03/2021 Zekeriya KARADENİZ 1993 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   15468/21 Taktak v. Türkiye 15/03/2021 Mahmut TAKTAK 1975 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   15483/21 Atık v. Türkiye 15/03/2021 Kemal ATIK 1970 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   15496/21 Bezgin v. Türkiye 15/03/2021 Mehmet BEZGİN 1966 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   15506/21 Poyraz v. Türkiye 15/03/2021 Süleyman POYRAZ 1994 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   15521/21 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 15/03/2021 Oğuzhan YILMAZ 1974 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   15525/21 Çaylan v. Türkiye 15/03/2021 Zeliha ÇAYLAN 1991 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   15527/21 Çokgez v. Türkiye 15/03/2021 Abdulkadir ÇOKGEZ 1974 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   17569/21 Görgülü v. Türkiye 24/03/2021 Hüseyin GÖRGÜLÜ 1974 Manisa Turkish Ahmet Emre CEYLAN   17955/21 Bayrak v. Türkiye 24/03/2021 Veli BAYRAK 1975 Brussels Turkish     18226/21 Hakan v. Türkiye 30/03/2021 Servet HAKAN 1975 Denizli Turkish Tarık AVŞAR   18508/21 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 26/03/2021 Mustafa YILMAZ 1991 Amasya Turkish Kübra KAZANCI TOSUN   18691/21 Akın v. Türkiye 18/03/2021 Mehmet AKIN 1963 İzmir Turkish Halil ÇETİN   18751/21 Menekşe v. Türkiye 30/03/2021 Yusuf MENEKŞE 1987 Kayseri Turkish Kadriye MENEKŞE   20362/21 Er v. Türkiye 06/04/2021 Abdullah ER 1979 Istanbul Turkish Hakan YILMAZ   21686/21 Akbulut v. Türkiye 12/04/2021 Yunus Emre AKBULUT 1993 Samsun Turkish Nur Efşan ÇİL   22351/21 Deniz v. Türkiye 15/04/2021 Ünal DENİZ 1992 Istanbul Turkish     24140/21 Özdemir v. Türkiye 26/04/2021 Hamdi ÖZDEMİR 1968 Turkish Ali AVCI   24754/21 Razı v. Türkiye 29/04/2021 Bülent RAZI 1979 Siirt Turkish Mehmet SATICI   26946/21 Horkar v. Türkiye 12/05/2021 Rafet HORKAR 1982 Ankara Turkish Can AHMETOĞLU   27355/21 Özbay v. Türkiye 10/05/2021 Fatih ÖZBAY 1975 Kütahya Turkish Meliha Gülsüm ŞAHİN SOYTÜRK   27379/21 Demir v. Türkiye 30/04/2021 İlker DEMİR 1982 Balıkesir Turkish Mustafa YELBEY   28204/21 Sarı v. Türkiye 26/05/2021 Derya SARI 1991 Antalya Turkish Muammer HAPİL   28974/21 Özdemir v. Türkiye 18/05/2021 Ahmet ÖZDEMİR 1973 Ankara Turkish Ramazan AKDOĞAN   29308/21 Kırdağ v. Türkiye 02/06/2021 Ramazan KIRDAĞ 1981 Ankara Turkish Levent MAZILIGÜNEY   31145/21 Altuntaş v. Türkiye 08/06/2021 Fatih ALTUNTAŞ 1984 Ankara Turkish Elif Nurbanu OR   32320/21 Özçelik v. Türkiye 14/06/2021 Hidayet ÖZÇELİK 1969 Kütahya Turkish Burak NAZLIM   32357/21 Gülcan v. Türkiye 24/06/2021 Gonca GÜLCAN 1986 Sivas Turkish Abdurrahim KARSLI   32578/21 Yıldız v. Türkiye 08/06/2021 Necip YILDIZ 1987 Kütahya Turkish Hasan KILIÇ   32612/21 Sarı v. Türkiye 14/06/2021 Yalçın SARI 1978 Kırşehir Turkish     34360/21 Keçeci v. Türkiye 10/06/2021 Mehmet KEÇECİ 1985 Osmaniye Turkish Serdar BALIK   36071/21 Öztürk v. Türkiye 08/06/2021 Bahtiyar ÖZTÜRK 1983 İzmir Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   38198/21 Bayram v. Türkiye 09/07/2021 Tamer BAYRAM 1971 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   38240/21 Akkaya v. Türkiye 09/07/2021 Salih AKKAYA 1985 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   39484/21 Açıkel v. Türkiye 31/07/2021 Murat AÇIKEL 1976 Erzurum Turkish Hanif Asım BERBER   41117/21 Değer v. Türkiye 29/07/2021 Lokman DEĞER 1978 Erzurum Turkish Abubekir COŞKUN   43549/21 Rişvanlı v. Türkiye 19/08/2021 Recep RİŞVANLI 1990 Şanlıurfa Turkish İbrahim Halil GÜRDAL   43799/21 Deli v. Türkiye 31/08/2021 Adem DELİ 1985 Istanbul Turkish Mehmet ÇAVDAR   44000/21 Karataş v. Türkiye 27/08/2021 Metin KARATAŞ 1976 İzmir Turkish Fatima Büşra KAFTAN   44781/21 Demiray v. Türkiye 06/09/2021 Mehmet Hanefi DEMIRAY 1965 Turkish Tarık AVŞAR   49056/21 Gün v. Türkiye 30/09/2021 Aydın GÜN 1979 Denizli Turkish Mehmet MİRZA   49284/21 Gezen v. Türkiye 28/09/2021 Seher GEZEN 1988 Istanbul Turkish İlyas HARMANDALI   53003/21 Ak v. Türkiye 13/10/2021 Mustafa AK 1972 Kayseri Turkish Hamide Nur ALKAÇ   54076/21 Arslan v. Türkiye 01/11/2021 İsmail ARSLAN 1987 Afyonkarahisar Turkish Eyyüp SAĞIR   54118/21 Keskin v. Türkiye 07/10/2021 Ensar KESKİN 1972 Artvin Turkish Ersayın IŞIK   109/22 Güven v. Türkiye 14/12/2021 Elif GÜVEN 1984 Çanakkale Turkish Mehmet Fatih İÇER   2173/22 Kurt v. Türkiye 17/12/2021 Muhammed Bilal KURT 1993 Gaziantep Turkish Mehmet Fatih İÇER   2356/22 Karaisa v. Türkiye 04/01/2022 Ercan KARAİSA 1984 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   2357/22 Polat v. Türkiye 04/01/2022 Halil POLAT 1981 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT   6382/22 İnce v. Türkiye 25/01/2022 Suat İNCE 1983 Çanakkale Turkish Esra İNCE   8630/22 Moran v. Türkiye 09/02/2022 Rukiye MORAN 1978 Kayseri Turkish Burak ÇAĞ   10037/22 Tutkun v. Türkiye 11/02/2022 Ali TUTKUN 1972 Turkish Fırat KAPLAN   10299/22 Şen v. Türkiye 24/01/2022 Murat ŞEN 1986 Konya Turkish Kemal ŞEN   10465/22 Gür v. Türkiye 15/02/2022 Arif GÜR 1971 Antalya Turkish Yusuf Sait PEKGÖZ   10609/22 Yüce v. Türkiye 16/02/2022 Cengiz YÜCE 1984 Adana Turkish Selhan SAĞIRER   12049/22 Akın v. Türkiye 03/03/2022 Cezmi AKIN 1973 Aydın Turkish Orçun MUŞLU   13833/22 İsa v. Türkiye 09/03/2022 Doğan İSA 1989 Gaziantep Turkish Şevket ARZIK   15276/22 Şentürk v. Türkiye 11/03/2022 Ahmet ŞENTÜRK 1988 Gaziantep Turkish Ertuğrul Emin ERDEM   16665/22 Aksoy v. Türkiye 22/03/2022 Hamdi AKSOY 1971 Denizli Turkish Muhammed Berat YOLCU   17199/22 Kömürcüoğlu v. Türkiye 23/03/2022 Mehmet KÖMÜRCÜOĞLU 1975 Isparta Turkish Yekta Mustafa POLAT   19327/22 Şahin v. Türkiye 15/03/2022 Musa ŞAHİN 1988 Kayseri Turkish Hamdi Kenan SEVİNÇ   22808/22 Tepe v. Türkiye 21/04/2022 Halil TEPE 1984 Nevşehir Turkish Ebru EKİCİ   23216/22 Koşar v. Türkiye 29/04/2022 Mehmet KOŞAR 1986 Balıkesir Turkish Burcu HAS   24236/22 Ataş v. Türkiye 25/04/2022 Şenel ATAŞ 1985 Kocaeli Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ   32392/22 Taner v. Türkiye 11/04/2022 Ayşe TANER 1988 Antalya Turkish Ali AVCI   34981/22 Kaynar v. Türkiye 09/06/2022 Salih KAYNAR 1974 Nevşehir Turkish Ebru EKİCİ   41251/22 Kaya v. Türkiye 04/08/2022 Turgay KAYA 1988 Iğdır Turkish Furkan POLATTİMUR   41889/22 Tanrıkulu v. Türkiye 12/08/2022 Saim TANRIKULU 1974 Istanbul Turkish Dilara YILMAZ   42275/22 Taşıyan v. Türkiye 17/08/2022 Emre TAŞIYAN 1990 Çorum Turkish Enes Burak ÖZDEMİR   43908/22 Erbil v. Türkiye 02/09/2022 İlhan ERBİL 1975 İzmir Turkish Elif GİRGİN   44088/22 Dönmez v. Türkiye 02/09/2022 Hüseyin DÖNMEZ 1991 Hatay Turkish Bülent AKBAY   47025/22 Çinici v. Türkiye 28/02/2022 Muhammet ÇINİCİ 1987 Manisa Turkish Adem BEDİR   47038/22 Sarıaydın v. Türkiye 21/09/2022 Ekrem SARIAYDIN 1992 Istanbul Turkish Cemal ŞAHİN   48187/22 Işık v. Türkiye 26/09/2022 Kenan IŞIK 1973 Hatay Turkish Tamer DEMİRCİ   49482/22 Şenel v. Türkiye 04/10/2022 Niyazi ŞENEL 1975 Aksaray Turkish Ayşe DURMUŞ   53998/22 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 15/11/2022 Mehmet YILMAZ 1970 İzmir Turkish Eyyüp SAĞIR   54437/22 Kaya v. Türkiye 17/11/2022 Dilek KAYA 1976 Kırıkkale Turkish Merve Elif GÜRACAR   57429/22 Türk v. Türkiye 25/11/2022 İsmail TÜRK 1973 Ankara Turkish Didem Gizem ÇAMLIOĞLU   17992/23 Temel v. Türkiye 07/04/2023 Sezgin TEMEL 1974 Giresun Turkish Elif CİVELEKOĞLU