CASE OF BOZYOKUŞ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

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

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

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).

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.

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,

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