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 } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s73CB0247 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#cfcfcf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sD2699E90 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#cfcfcf } .s8EC0E0F { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#cfcfcf } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCEF3A785 { margin-left:31.34pt; padding-left:4.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s252CB7BA { margin-left:36pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s91EF7E88 { margin-left:36pt; text-indent:-18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s95CD39A2 { width:29.54pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s385D0776 { height:58.9pt } .s1D1639D9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; font-weight:bold } .s1AC10776 { height:59.6pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF SEYHAN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 57837/19 and 851 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 Seyhan 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 6 § 1 AND 7 OF THE CONVENTION Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 6.     The applicants complained that their trials and convictions under Article   314   §   2 of the Criminal Code 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 v. Türkiye (nos.   1595/20 and 238 others, § 29, 22 July 2025). In particular, they complained of various alleged irregularities in the collection and admission in evidence of the ByLock data, as well as of the difficulties encountered in challenging them and the inadequacy of the reasoning in the courts’ decisions vis-à-vis that evidence, which in their opinion had rendered their trials unfair. 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 6 § 1 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, §§   300-56), 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. 12 .     The Court would further note that the criminal proceedings conducted separately against each applicant may indeed have shown differences in certain procedural respects, depending mainly on the evidence produced for or against the applicant and the administration of such evidence. However, irrespective of the possible particularities of each file, the domestic courts’ uniform and global approach to the use of ByLock has effectively defined the procedural framework of the criminal proceedings at issue, which have therefore suffered from the main shortcomings identified in Yüksel Yalçınkaya under Article 6 § 1 (cited above, § 345; see also Demirhan and Others , cited above, §§ 42-45). The Court concluded in these cases that the domestic courts’ failure to put in place appropriate safeguards vis ‑ à ‑ vis the use of the ByLock data as the key piece of evidence at issue to enable the applicants to challenge them effectively, to address the salient issues lying at the core of the case and to provide reasons justifying their decisions was incompatible with the very essence of the applicants’ procedural rights under Article 6   §   1. The Court accepts that the difficulties facing Türkiye in the aftermath of the attempted military coup of 15   July 2016 are undoubtedly a contextual factor which must be taken into account in cases such as the present one. Yet, for the reasons explained in detail in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§ 353-55), it has no basis on which to hold that the limitations on the applicants’ fair trial rights at issue were strictly required by the exigencies of the situation within the meaning of Article   15 of the Convention. 13 .     In view of the above considerations, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on the facts of the present case (see also Yüksel Yalçınkaya , cited above, § 356, and Demirhan and Others , cited above, § 46). Alleged violation of Article 7 of the Convention 14 .     Some of the applicants also complained that their convictions for membership of the FETÖ/PDY had violated the principle of no punishment without law under Article 7 of the Convention. 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. 15 .     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 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case (see paragraph 13 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 18 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. 16.     Accordingly, the Court decides not to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the Article 7 complaints raised by some of the applicants. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION 17.     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   6   §   1 above (see paragraph   13), the reasons for that finding (see paragraphs 10-12 and 14-15) 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 18 .     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   6 § 1 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. 19.     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 trials and convictions for membership of the FETÖ/PDY had violated the right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention – as concerns the rights of the defence in respect of the evidence underlying the conviction – admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article   6   §   1 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   57837/19 Seyhan v. Türkiye 23/10/2019 Ali Hızır SEYHAN 1987 Diyarbakır Turkish Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN   27776/19 Ateş v. Türkiye 02/05/2019 Serdal ATEŞ 1979 Çorum Turkish     49474/19 Soğucak v. Türkiye 04/09/2019 Ercan SOĞUCAK 1980 Istanbul Turkish Yeliz HANOĞLU   51731/19 Özdemir v. Türkiye 06/09/2019 Ali ÖZDEMİR 1962 Kayseri Turkish     59969/19 Sakarya v. Türkiye 05/11/2019 Samet SAKARYA 1990 Manisa Turkish İlyas ERDOĞAN   63600/19 Yıldız v. Türkiye 28/11/2019 İzettin YILDIZ 1988 Sivas Turkish Okan GÜNEL   811/20 Tezcan v. Türkiye 13/12/2019 Kemal TEZCAN 1977 Mersin Turkish     836/20 Üstüntaş v. Türkiye 11/12/2019 Gökhan ÜSTÜNTAŞ 1984 Diyarbakır Turkish Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN   2153/20 Öztürk v. Türkiye 24/12/2019 Süleyman ÖZTÜRK 1973 Osmaniye Turkish Kubra ÖZTÜRK   8420/20 Çiçek v. Türkiye 28/01/2020 Emre ÇİÇEK 1987 Isparta Turkish Recep BAKIRCI   9528/20 Bedur v. Türkiye 27/12/2019 Serhan BEDUR 1986 Burdur Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   10706/20 Cenik v. Türkiye 14/02/2020 Hüseyin CENİK 1993 Giresun Turkish     10753/20 Ulukütük v. Türkiye 11/02/2020 Yusuf ULUKÜTÜK 1984 Gaziantep Turkish     13692/20 Yıldırım v. Türkiye 09/03/2020 Faruk YILDIRIM 1984 Kütahya Turkish     13770/20 Karaalp v. Türkiye 24/02/2020 Bestami KARAALP 1985 Diyarbakir Turkish Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN   14840/20 Bartan v. Türkiye 04/03/2020 Serdar BARTAN 1990 Çanakkale Turkish Serhat BARTAN   14859/20 Mortaş v. Türkiye 17/02/2020 Emin MORTAŞ 1986 Kayseri Turkish Özcan AKINCI   15663/20 Gül v. Türkiye 12/03/2020 Abdullah GÜL 1985 Kırıkkale Turkish     16344/20 Ayaydın v. Türkiye 03/04/2020 Canan AYAYDIN 1969 Niğde Turkish Arife ASLAN   16542/20 Tektaş v. Türkiye 23/03/2020 Özkan TEKTAŞ 1979 Kayseri Turkish Özcan AKINCI   16587/20 Ünal v. Türkiye 24/03/2020 Serdal ÜNAL 1980 Niğde Turkish Özcan AKINCI   16595/20 Üzümcü v. Türkiye 23/03/2020 Hüseyin ÜZÜMCÜ 1984 Aydın Turkish     16976/20 Akar v. Türkiye 18/03/2020 Coşkun AKAR 1983 Adana Turkish Selim YILMAZ   17632/20 Deliktaş v. Türkiye 07/04/2020 Erkan DELİKTAŞ 1992 Istanbul Turkish Murat GÜRSOY   17973/20 Yiğit v. Türkiye 16/04/2020 Şener YİĞİT 1987 İzmir Turkish Umut YILMAZ   17995/20 Kaymaklı v. Türkiye 14/04/2020 Ahmet KAYMAKLI 1987 Kırşehir Turkish İlyas TEKİN   18258/20 Taştan v. Türkiye 20/04/2020 Nursel TAŞTAN 1976 Manisa Turkish Asım Burak GÜNEŞ   19084/20 Erdoğan v. Türkiye 20/03/2020 Halil ERDOĞAN 1970 Niğde Turkish Özcan AKINCI   19842/20 Aldı v. Türkiye 11/05/2020 Bahtiyar ALDI 1983 Aydın Turkish Hakkı ÇELİK   21347/20 Ünalan v. Türkiye 20/05/2020 Emre ÜNALAN 1980 Sivas Turkish Ali ARTUK   21832/20 Özen v. Türkiye 27/05/2020 İbrahim ÖZEN 1983 Agri Turkish Timur DEMİR   23289/20 Başpınar v. Türkiye 10/06/2020 Fatih BAŞPINAR 1976 Kütahya Turkish Mehmet BAŞYİĞİT   23949/20 Danışman v. Türkiye 15/05/2020 Fadime DANIŞMAN 1984 İzmir Turkish Mahir ORAK   24042/20 Satan v. Türkiye 02/06/2020 Hasan SATAN 1992 Şanlıurfa Turkish     24760/20 Özen v. Türkiye 29/05/2020 Fahretdin ÖZEN 1978 Samsun Turkish Ekrem KAYA   25512/20 Varlı v. Türkiye 03/06/2020 Agit VARLI 1988 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Yusuf ASLAN   25550/20 Tuğ v. Türkiye 22/06/2020 Enes TUĞ 1988 Adıyaman Turkish     25553/20 Taş v. Türkiye 05/06/2020 Seyfi Ali TAŞ 1978 Niğde Turkish Yasin ÇALIM   25577/20 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 17/06/2020 Sait YILMAZ 1981 Kocaeli Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ   25710/20 Taş v. Türkiye 08/06/2020 Mustafa TAŞ İzmir Turkish Hasan Ali TAN   25720/20 Doğan v. Türkiye 08/06/2020 Çetin DOĞAN 1975 Kayseri Turkish Hasan Ali TAN   26014/20 Gür v. Türkiye 25/06/2020 Coşkun GÜR 1975 Osmaniye Turkish Hanifi BAYRI   27270/20 Aydavalı v. Türkiye 18/06/2020 Hidayet AYDAVALI 1976 Trabzon Turkish     27359/20 İşbilir v. Türkiye 04/06/2020 Ekrem İŞBİLİR 1972 Kayseri Turkish Özcan AKINCI   28411/20 Polat v. Türkiye 24/06/2020 Muhammet Nuri POLAT 1989 Gaziantep Turkish     28935/20 Duymuş v. Türkiye 07/07/2020 Yener DUYMUŞ 1975 Kütahya Turkish     29353/20 Güler v. Türkiye 11/06/2020 Halil GÜLER 1971 Uşak Turkish     29793/20 Namal v. Türkiye 03/07/2020 Hüseyin Ercan NAMAL 1977 Burdur Turkish Merve MENGİ ELTUTAN   29907/20 Kurtgöz v. Türkiye 02/07/2020 Ahmet KURTGÖZ 1969 Osmaniye Turkish Fitnat GÜNEY   30232/20 Dal v. Türkiye 26/06/2020 Hasan DAL 1982 Konya Turkish Ramazan ZEREY   30393/20 Can v. Türkiye 24/06/2020 Kamil CAN 1981 Manisa Turkish Arife YÜKSEKDAĞ ALTUNAY   30477/20 Sarı v. Türkiye 02/07/2020 Ahmet SARI 1968 Kütahya Turkish     30528/20 Benli v. Türkiye 04/06/2020 Esat Faruk BENLİ 1970 Konya Turkish Fatma Zehra BENLİ   30619/20 Fidan v. Türkiye 25/06/2020 Bünyamin FİDAN 1974 Yozgat Turkish     32874/20 Çanakcı v. Türkiye 16/07/2020 Erdinç ÇANAKCI 1981 Kayseri Turkish Mutlu KARAYILAN   32893/20 Çolakoğlu v. Türkiye 24/07/2020 Fatih ÇOLAKOĞLU 1983 Mersin Turkish Yavuz Selim ÇELİK   33621/20 Balı v. Türkiye 20/07/2020 Erdem BALI 1986 Muğla Turkish     34065/20 Durak v. Türkiye 05/08/2020 Turan DURAK 1986 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Murat CENGİZ   34555/20 Çetin v. Türkiye 13/07/2020 Tezcan ÇETİN 1977 Manisa Turkish Tuğba Nur KARATEKE   35326/20 Keren v. Türkiye 01/07/2020 Necat KEREN 1988 Elazığ Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   35839/20 Çin v. Türkiye 27/07/2020 Murat ÇİN 1979 Burdur Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   35955/20 Lafcı v. Türkiye 24/07/2020 Serdar LAFCI 1987 Rize Turkish     36216/20 Deniz v. Türkiye 04/08/2020 Şerif DENİZ 1976 Kayseri Turkish Özcan AKINCI   36385/20 Karataş v. Türkiye 30/07/2020 Mehmet KARATAŞ 1979 Yozgat Turkish     36681/20 Uçak v. Türkiye 07/08/2020 Haydar UÇAK 1979 Diyarbakır Turkish Şivan Cemil ÖZEN   36704/20 Ulusal v. Türkiye 06/08/2020 Abdurrahman ULUSAL 1988 Siirt Turkish Mirzan AY   36834/20 Yasul v. Türkiye 06/08/2020 Mustafa YASUL 1979 Kayseri Turkish Özcan AKINCI   36854/20 Akdağ v. Türkiye 05/08/2020 Mehmet AKDAĞ 1977 Malatya Turkish Azmi Kaan ŞEN   37169/20 Kara v. Türkiye 06/08/2020 Zafer KARA 1981 Konya Turkish Sinan DAĞ   37488/20 Kaya v. Türkiye 05/08/2020 Ertan KAYA 1973 Düzce Turkish Osman Rahmi OFLUOĞLU   38108/20 Doğan v. Türkiye 18/08/2020 Abdurrahman DOĞAN 1981 Çorum Turkish     38114/20 Akkavak v. Türkiye 19/08/2020 Hasan Hüseyin AKKAVAK 1986 Erzincan Turkish Sezai DEMİRBİLEK   39975/20 Aksoy v. Türkiye 28/08/2020 Ali AKSOY 1980 Muğla Turkish     40117/20 Köse v. Türkiye 25/08/2020 Yaşar KÖSE 1985 Denizli Turkish Halil ÇETİN   40188/20 Özbey v. Türkiye 28/08/2020 Mücahit ÖZBE Y 1983 Bursa Turkish Arif ÖZER   40262/20 Demirel v. Türkiye 26/08/2020 Enes DEMİREL 1991 Eskişehir Turkish Elif Nurbanu OR   40747/20 Gürcan v. Türkiye 01/09/2020 Üseyit GÜRCAN 1983 Manisa Turkish Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN   40755/20 Sarıbaş v. Türkiye 31/08/2020 Remzi SARIBAŞ 1972 Kayseri Turkish     40934/20 Erşen v. Türkiye 12/09/2020 Mahmut Sami ERŞEN 1988 Kayseri Turkish Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ   41141/20 Mutlu v. Türkiye 31/08/2020 Onur MUTLU 1984 Denizli Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   41193/20 Tunçyürek v. Türkiye 01/09/2020 Güven TUNÇYÜREK 1973 Nevşehir Turkish Mesut TOKGÖZ   41355/20 Karabacak v. Türkiye 26/08/2020 Ali Osman KARABACAK 1981 Balıkesir Turkish Nuriye Beyza BİLGEN GÜÇ   41461/20 Erdoğan v. Türkiye 11/09/2020 Rasih ERDOĞAN 1980 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Ahmet AKSOY   41487/20 Azak v. Türkiye 31/08/2020 Tuncay AZAK 1986 Kocaeli Turkish İlyas TEKİN   41826/20 Güneş v. Türkiye 31/08/2020 Mustafa GÜNEŞ 1973 Konya Turkish Recep BADEMCİ   41839/20 Baz v. Türkiye 15/09/2020 Mustafa BAZ 1974 Isparta Turkish     41898/20 Özaslan v. Türkiye 28/08/2020 Abdullah ÖZASLAN 1984 Şanlıurfa Turkish Fazilet TAŞTAN ARSERIM   42342/20 Çetinbaş v. Türkiye 18/09/2020 Ömer ÇETİNBAŞ 1992 Denizli Turkish Hanifi BAYRI   42471/20 Karakulak v. Türkiye 23/09/2020 Nurhayattin KARAKULAK 1974 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Ahmet AKSOY   42766/20 Cinbaş v. Türkiye 16/09/2020 Emel CİNBAŞ 1965 Isparta Turkish Ali AVCI   43145/20 Çatal v. Türkiye 06/08/2020 Ümit ÇATAL 1977 Malatya Turkish Bülent BANAZILI   43204/20 Erkoç v. Türkiye 10/09/2020 Fatih Mehmet ERKOÇ 1979 Kırıkkale Turkish Mustafa KOÇ   43236/20 Pınar v. Türkiye 18/09/2020 İzzet PINAR 1987 Manisa Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   43516/20 Bayram v. Türkiye 08/09/2020 Hamza BAYRAM 1985 Şanlıurfa Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK   44394/20 Çetinkaya v. Türkiye 30/09/2020 Üsame ÇETİNKAYA 1989 Ağrı Turkish Ali ARTUK   44430/20 Taş v. Türkiye 25/09/2020 Abdullah TAŞ 1989 Kayseri Turkish İrem TATLIDEDE   44516/20 Altıntaş v. Türkiye 03/10/2020 Emin ALTINTAŞ 1993 Denizli Turkish Cevat KAHYAOĞLU   44742/20 Koç v. Türkiye 22/09/2020 Şükrü KOÇ 1988 Kayseri Turkish     44828/20 Altın v. Türkiye 10/09/2020 Mustafa ALTIN 1973 Osmaniye Turkish Hamdi MERSİN                       45067/20 Yıldız v. Türkiye 22/09/2020 Sinan YILDIZ 1987 Manisa Turkish Merve AVCI                       45134/20 Orak v. Türkiye 07/10/2020 Önder ORAK 1971 Kayseri Turkish Metin POLAT                       46049/20 Özügüzel v. Türkiye 28/09/2020 Mehmet Emin ÖZÜGÜZEL 1971 Konya Turkish Hanife Ruveyda KILINÇ                       46484/20 Erdem v. Türkiye 08/10/2020 Mustafa ERDEM 1991 Amasya Turkish Ekrem KAYA                       47058/20 Gezmiş v. Türkiye 12/10/2020 Erkan GEZMİŞ 1975 Muğla Turkish                         47087/20 Akdoğan v. Türkiye 12/10/2020 Ali AKDOĞAN 1966 Muğla Turkish                         47232/20 Koç v. Türkiye 14/10/2020 Özkan KOÇ 1987 Afyonkarahisar Turkish Ömer Faruk ERKOÇ                       48324/20 Saygınlı v. Türkiye 19/10/2020 Muhammet Fatih SAYGINLI 1977 Erzincan Turkish Esranur ATILĞAN                       48580/20 Baydemir v. Türkiye 27/10/2020 Tekin BAYDEMİR 1972 Kayseri Turkish Özcan AKINCI                       49044/20 Atay v. Türkiye 22/10/2020 Mehmet ATAY 1968 Uşak Turkish Fatma GÜRMEN                       49539/20 Eroğlu v. Türkiye 20/10/2020 Ali EROĞLU 1977 Manisa Turkish Veli TOPUZ                       49586/20 Dağ v. Türkiye 16/10/2020 Mehmet DAĞ 1988 Batman Turkish Sinan DAĞ                       49595/20 Eti v. Türkiye 28/10/2020 Burak ETİ 1974 Çankırı Turkish Bülent AKBAY                       49878/20 Göncü v. Türkiye 21/09/2020 Yusuf GÖNCÜ 1975 Kayseri Turkish Özcan AKINCI                       49882/20 Demirden v. Türkiye 30/10/2020 Hasan DEMİRDE N 1976 Karabük Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK                       50170/20 Doğdu v. Türkiye 04/11/2020 Uğur DOĞDU 1979 Siirt Turkish Hasan TOK                       50190/20 Gürel v. Türkiye 27/10/2020 Hüseyin Ziya GÜREL 1982 Muğla Turkish                         50391/20 Ağca v. Türkiye 09/11/2020 İsmail AĞCA 1980 Istanbul Turkish Hasan TOK                       50448/20 Pekmez v. Türkiye 03/11/2020 Yalçın PEKMEZ 1981 Bielefeld Turkish Ayfer PEKMEZ                       50623/20 Akdoğan v. Türkiye 30/10/2020 Lokman AKDOĞAN 1982 Bingöl Turkish Mucahit NUSRETOĞLU                       50798/20 Kara v. Türkiye 15/10/2020 Recep KARA 1985 Kocaeli Turkish                         51144/20 Solak v. Türkiye 04/11/2020 Murat SOLAK 1981 Yozgat Turkish Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN                       51289/20 Gülen v. Türkiye 09/11/2020 Pınar GÜLEN 1984 Adana Turkish Havva ALAN ÖZCEL                       51439/20 Bülbül v. Türkiye 16/11/2020 Nazan BÜLBÜL 1969 Osmaniye Turkish Saffet Ahmet BÜLBÜL                       51477/20 Baş v. Türkiye 14/10/2020 Erhan BAŞ 1980 İzmir Turkish Serkan CENGİZ                       51512/20 Pirim v. Türkiye 17/11/2020 Özlem PİRİM 1976 İzmir Turkish Mehmet PİRİM                       51847/20 Akbal v. Türkiye 16/09/2020 Mehmet AKBAL 1971 Istanbul Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ                       52099/20 İleri v. Türkiye 03/11/2020 Nuri İLERİ 1971 İzmir Turkish Nafize GÜLCÜ                       52188/20 Akdoğan v. Türkiye 13/11/2020 Mehmet Emin AKDOĞAN 1981 Ağrı Turkish Arzu BEYAZIT                       52450/20 Güneş v. Türkiye 16/11/2020 Recep GÜNEŞ 1987 Şanlıurfa Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK                       52913/20 Er v. Türkiye 17/11/2020 Adem ER 1983 Kocaeli Turkish Doğan BEKİROĞLU                       53148/20 Kahya v. Türkiye 23/11/2020 Veysel KAHYA 1970 Kütahya Turkish Bilal ŞAŞMAZ                       53313/20 Topbaş v. Türkiye 20/11/2020 Nurettin TOPBAŞ 1972 Konya Turkish                         53923/20 Ayık v. Türkiye 19/11/2020 Eren AYIK 1974 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Aslı TEKŞAHİN                       54162/20 Sayılı v. Türkiye 23/11/2020 Ebrar Tuba SAYILI 1992 Gaziantep Turkish Mehmet Fatih İÇER                       54338/20 Özcimbit v. Türkiye 05/12/2020 Ömer ÖZCİMBİT 1985 Kırıkkale Turkish Tunahan SANDALLI                       54385/20 Yavuz v. Türkiye 20/11/2020 Safa YAVUZ 1973 Diyarbakır Turkish Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN                       54594/20 Somkaya v. Türkiye 13/11/2020 Salim SOMKAYA 1971 Denizli Turkish                         54602/20 Aydoğmuş v. Türkiye 23/11/2020 Yasin AYDOĞMUŞ 1982 Ankara Turkish Fatma ALBAYRAK                       54650/20 Mustafa v. Türkiye 20/11/2020 Hakan MUSTAFA 1987 İzmir Turkish Elif Nur KILIÇ                       55016/20 Toka v. Türkiye 30/11/2020 Erdinç TOKA 1971 Balıkesir Turkish Zeynep TOKA                       55038/20 Savaş v. Türkiye 27/11/2020 Muhammed SAVAŞ 1989 Van Turkish Abdülkadir ÖZ                       55132/20 Söylemez v. Türkiye 20/11/2020 Ahmet SÖYLEMEZ 1972 Karaman Turkish Cihat ÇITIR                       55546/20 Yavuz v. Türkiye 26/11/2020 Mehmet YAVUZ 1971 Kütahya Turkish                         30/21 Karaağaç v. Türkiye 11/12/2020 Ferda KARAAĞAÇ 1972 Ankara Turkish Burcu HAS                       210/21 Turhan v. Türkiye 27/11/2020 Mehmet Akif TURHAN 1984 Kütahya Turkish Süleyman KARTAL                       446/21 Ova v. Türkiye 25/12/2020 Hasan OVA 1992 İzmir Turkish                         565/21 Tekin v. Türkiye 27/11/2020 Murat Yasin TEKİN 1975 Niğde Turkish Hilmi KÖRPEKAYA                       585/21 Aktepe v. Türkiye 11/12/2020 Süleyman AKTEPE 1987 Antalya Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK                       1208/21 Taşdelen v. Türkiye 18/12/2020 Mustafa TAŞDELEN 1981 Ankara Turkish Ahmet KAVUNCUOĞLU                       1254/21 Aktaş v. Türkiye 09/12/2020 Yalçın Murat AKTAŞ 1974 Kocaeli Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK                       1984/21 Geçit v. Türkiye 23/12/2020 Murat GEÇİT 1975 Çorum Turkish                         2342/21 Sarıkaya v. Türkiye 14/12/2020 Samed SARIKAYA 1992 Erzincan Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK                       3274/21 Evirgen v. Türkiye 06/01/2021 Mehmet Çetin EVİRGEN 1986 Kütahya Turkish Hakan KAPLANKAYA                       3572/21 Akdursun v. Türkiye 29/12/2020 Fakrullah AKDURSUN 1979 Elazığ Turkish Sinan DAĞ                       3578/21 Gözütok İnalhan v. Türkiye 30/12/2020 Aygül GÖZÜTOK İNALHAN 1980 Kocaeli Turkish İlyas TEKİN                       3589/21 Doğan v. Türkiye 29/12/2020 Serkan DOĞAN 1980 Rize Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK                       3808/21 Kuzucu v. Türkiye 30/12/2020 Tarık KUZUCU 1984 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Meryem YAŞAR KARAYAZGAN                       4060/21 Öztürk v. Türkiye 04/12/2020 Abdurrahman ÖZTÜRK 1976 Elazığ Turkish Adnan DEMİR                       4560/21 Aydemir v. Türkiye 08/01/2021 Üzeyir AYDEMİR 1984 Zonguldak Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK                       4641/21 Ayaoku v. Türkiye 15/01/2021 Ahmet AYAOKU 1985 Malatya Turkish İzettin DEMİR                       4655/21 Karakaya v. Türkiye 15/01/2021 Bülent KARAKAYA 1986 Ankara Turkish İzettin DEMİR                       4669/21 Sivri v. Türkiye 15/01/2021 Yücel SİVRİ 1982 Elazığ Turkish İzettin DEMİR                       4675/21 Kara v. Türkiye 15/01/2021 Ali KARA 1988 Elazığ Turkish İzettin DEMİR                       5181/21 Kalaycı v. Türkiye 19/01/2021 Mustafa KALAYCI 1983 Kütahya Turkish Rıdvan ÇAKIR                       6097/21 Demir v. Türkiye 11/01/2021 Kurtuluş DEMİR 1985 İzmir Turkish Aydın KIRMIZITAŞ                       6372/21 Görgel v. Türkiye 08/01/2021 Nuri GÖRGEL 1975 Uşak Turkish Ayşe AYGÜN                       6464/21 İdinak v. Türkiye 08/01/2021 Ahmet İDİNAK 1977 Kütahya Turkish                         6663/21 Çeçen v. Türkiye 07/01/2021 Hamdi ÇEÇEN 1970 Niğde Turkish Adem ÇEÇEN                       6681/21 Örküt v. Türkiye 06/01/2021 Hüseyin ÖRKÜT 1973 Manisa Turkish Rukiye COŞGUN                       6886/21 Özer v. Türkiye 15/01/2021 Fikri ÖZER 1976 Kocaeli Turkish İlyas TEKİN                       6919/21 Uysal v. Türkiye 05/01/2021 Osman UYSAL 1970 Manisa Turkish Cemil Üneys UYSAL                       7204/21 Özden v. Türkiye 15/01/2021 Metin ÖZDEN 1973 Kocaeli Turkish                         7402/21 Özleblebici v. Türkiye 05/01/2021 Cengiz ÖZLEBLEBİCİ 1983 Uşak Turkish Mehmet BAŞYİĞİT                       7782/21 Kesmenoğlu v. Türkiye 22/01/2021 Mustafa KESMENOĞLU 1987 Kilis Turkish Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN                       7945/21 Aydın v. Türkiye 15/01/2021 Ümit Yaşar AYDIN 1977 Malatya Turkish Sedat ORAL                       8682/21 Biçer v. Türkiye 12/01/2021 Muammer BİÇER 1975 İzmir Turkish Mert DİNÇ                       8750/21 Öztürk v. Türkiye 02/02/2021 Fatih ÖZTÜRK 1983 Yozgat Turkish Fatih Nadi DOĞAN                       9442/21 Aktik v. Türkiye 28/01/2021 Cem AKTİK 1974 Gümüşhane Turkish Bülent YÜMİN                       9770/21 Bıçakcıgil v. Türkiye 10/02/2021 Sümeyye Saadet BIÇAKCIGİL 1994 Sivas Turkish Mualla ERCAN AKÇADAĞ                       9811/21 Kırsoy v. Türkiye 04/02/2021 İlker KIRSOY 1984 Kahramanmaraş Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK                       10230/21 Bektaşoğlu v. Türkiye 09/12/2020 İdris BEKTAŞOĞLU 1976 Çorum Turkish Şeyma ALKAN                       10402/21 Yakut v. Türkiye 02/02/2021 Halil İbrahim YAKUT 1974 Balıkesir Turkish Muhammed Talha YILMAZ                       10443/21 İşcan v. Türkiye 01/02/2021 Yunus İŞCAN 1979 Mardin Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK                       10453/21 Fidan v. Türkiye 05/02/2021 Şaban FİDAN 1993 Van Turkish Cihan MACİT                       10741/21 Caner v. Türkiye 08/02/2021 Haluk CANER 1985 Elazığ Turkish Filiz ALKAN (ASLANCAN)                       10749/21 Başar v. Türkiye 04/02/2021 Ergünay BAŞAR 1989 Konya Turkish Ali ARTUK                       11028/21 Arslan v. Türkiye 15/02/2021 Bülent ARSLAN 1974 Ankara Turkish Burhan DEMİRCİ                       11373/21 Özkaya v. Türkiye 12/02/2021 Hüsnü ÖZKAYA 1981 Ankara Turkish                         11461/21 Aygül v. Türkiye 19/02/2021 Arif AYGÜL 1989 Samsun Turkish Emine ASLAN                       11541/21 Karaduman v. Türkiye 13/01/2021 Mustafa