CASE OF BALIKÇI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

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

8.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants who submitted a claim for just satisfaction (see the appended table), within three months, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above‑mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

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