CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sA160E30D { width:9.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sB6D26911 { width:27%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s582B6897 { width:28.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD63ECEF0 { width:17.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBB07DB2D { width:17.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAF3B7830 { width:9.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1741BFC { width:27%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAD05385B { width:28.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8ECD9008 { width:17.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s452EA0AD { width:17.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 2 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 50266/21 Ahmet Salih YOLUÇ and Others against Türkiye lodged on 6 October 2021 communicated on 16 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns changing the name of a mosque that was originally named after the applicants’ close late relative, who had provided the financial resources for its construction. On 10 March 2016 the Director of Religious Affairs for the Avcılar district in Istanbul signed a protocol with a construction company setting out the terms for the building of a new mosque. According to the protocol, the name of the mosque was to be determined by the company at a later stage. On 21   December 2016 the company signed another protocol with the applicants’ late relative in which he agreed to provide 6,000,000 (six million) Turkish Liras   (TRY) (approximately 1,630,000 euros (1 million 630 thousand euros) at the time) for the construction of the mosque. In return, the company undertook to name the mosque after him. During the construction, the applicants’ relative passed away. The applicants (the widow, daughter and son of the deceased) continued making the necessary payments for the completion of the construction. On 20 April 2018 a commission established by the Avcılar District Governor’s Office decided to change the name of the mosque into the name of a martyr who had lived in the vicinity of the mosque and died during the attempted coup d’état of 15 July 2016. On 15 May 2018 the mosque was opened for worship. On 31 October 2019 the Istanbul Administrative Court rejected an action brought by the applicants seeking the annulment of the commission’s decision. It noted that the decision to give a new name to the mosque in place of the applicants’ late relative had been taken in consideration of the public interest and within the administration’s margin of appreciation. On 11 June 2020 the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal dismissed an objection lodged by the applicants. On 2 June 2021 the Constitutional Court declared the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 and Article 8 of the Convention inadmissible as being manifestly ill founded and incompatible rationae   personae respectively. The applicants complain under Article 6 and 8 of the Convention that the name of the mosque which had been initially named after their late relative was changed. They submit that the removal of their late father’s name from a religious memorial of spiritual significance affected them, as it was not only of great importance to their late father during his lifetime, but also essential to their wish to preserve his memory. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the applicants have victim status, within the meaning of Article   34 of the Convention in respect of their complaint under Article 8 of the Convention (see Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v.   Switzerland [GC], no. 53600/20, § 465, 9 April 2024 and Sargsyan v.   Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, § 255, ECHR 2015, and with further references therein)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private life on account of the renaming of the mosque from their deceased relative’s name (cf. M.L. v. Slovakia , no.   34159/17, § 23, 14   October 2021)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 ( see, for general principles, Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §   83, 7   February 2012; Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos.   47621/13 and 5 others, § 273, 8 April 2021; see also M.L. v. Slovakia , cited above, § 23; Putistin v. Ukraine , no. 16882/03, §§ 32-35, 21   November 2013; and Znamenskaya v. Russia , no.   77785/01, § 27, 2   June 2005)?       APPENDIX Application no. 50266/21 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Ahmet Salih YOLUÇ 1985 Turkish Istanbul 2. Banu ALP 1972 Turkish Istanbul 3. Muzaffer Begüm YOLUÇ 1952 Turkish Istanbul