CASE OF BUDAK AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF BUDAK AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

(Applications nos. 26831/17 and 93 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

14 October 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Budak 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 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 pre-trial detention, the length of pre-trial detention and the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their then Agent, 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 23 September 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, 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 attempted coup d’état (for further background information, see Akgün v. Turkey, no. 19699/18, §§ 3‑9, and §§ 106‑07, 20 July 2021).

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 v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, § 58, 3 March 2020). 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.

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) using the ByLock encrypted messaging application; (b) provision of financial support to FETÖ/PDY in view of their use of accounts with Bank Asya, a bank with alleged ties to FETÖ/PDY; (c) provision of financial support, the details and nature of which were not provided, to FETÖ/PDY or to institutions with ties to FETÖ/PDY; (d) sharing social media posts or participating in protests in support of FETÖ/PDY; (e) possession of pro‑FETÖ/PDY publications; (f) having regular telephone contact with FETÖ/PDY suspects; (g) 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; (h) suspension or dismissal from office; (i) possessing United States one‑dollar banknotes with an “F” serial number; (j) travelling abroad with FETÖ/PDY suspects; (k) enrolling their children in an educational institution allegedly affiliated with FETÖ/PDY; (l) attending or holding meetings (sohbet), the dates, nature or characteristics of which were not specified; (m) staying in FETÖ/PDY residences; (n) witness statements indicating ties with FETÖ/PDY; and (o) 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 (see Kavala v. Turkey, no. 28749/18, §§ 71-72, 10 December 2019, for the text of those provisions), 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 the 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.

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 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 present 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, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, that they had committed a criminal offence necessitating, in particular, their initial pre-trial detention.

10.  The Government urged the Court to declare this complaint 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. They further 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.

11.  The Court notes that similar objections raised by the Government have already been dismissed in other cases against Türkiye (see, for instance, Baş, cited above, §§ 118-21, 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. The Court therefore considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

12.  The Court notes that the applicants’ initial pre‑trial detention was mainly based on evidence of their (a) use of the ByLock messaging application; (b) banking activities considered as financing FETÖ/PDY; (c) sharing of social media posts or participation in protests in favour of FETÖ/PDY; (d) possession of certain pro‑FETÖ/PDY publications; (e) regular telephone or other contact with FETÖ/PDY suspects; (f) employment by and/or membership of FETÖ/PDY-affiliated institutions and organisations; (g) suspension or dismissal from office; and (h) possession of United States one‑dollar banknotes with an “F” serial number.

13.  To the extent that the detention orders took into account the applicants’ alleged use of the ByLock messaging application, the Court notes that it has already found that the mere use of ByLock was not sufficient to constitute “reasonable suspicion” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in respect of the offence with which the applicants were charged (see Akgün, cited above, §§ 151-85, 20 July 2021, and Taner Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 208/18, §§ 102-03 and 106-09, 31 May 2022). Accordingly, in applications where the use of ByLock constituted the principal basis for the applicants’ detention, the Court has found that there was no reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence, for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

14.  As regards the other evidential grounds referred to by the national courts where the use of ByLock was not the central or sole factor, the Court refers to its finding in Taner Kılıç (cited above, §§ 104-05) that acts such as subscribing to the organisation’s lawful publications, enrolling children in legally operating schools allegedly affiliated with the organisation, or holding an account with Bank Asya were merely circumstantial and, in the absence of further evidence, could not reasonably give rise to a suspicion of having committed the alleged offence. The Court emphasised in that case that such acts enjoyed a presumption of lawfulness unless there was further specific evidence capable of establishing the suspect’s intentional involvement in an organisation’s criminal activities (ibid., § 105). In the light of those considerations, the Court finds that the additional grounds relied on in the present applications for ordering the applicants’ detention, such as the possession of specific one-dollar banknotes, social media activity, protests, contact with other suspects, employment by and/or membership of affiliated entities, or dismissal from public service, likewise fall within the scope of acts which do not, per se, give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the applicants were members of a terrorist organisation. Those factors do not carry any greater evidential weight than the circumstantial evidence previously examined by the Court. The Court thus considers, a fortiori, that the other acts imputed to the applicants allegedly demonstrating an “organisational connection” (see paragraph 4 above) cannot reasonably be construed as evidence of membership of a terrorist organisation in the absence of further information substantiating such suspicions (compare Taner Kılıç, cited above, §§ 104-05, and the cases cited therein). The Court also notes, with regard to some of the applicants, that the Government have referred to the existence of witness statements justifying the measures in question. It observes, however, that the detention orders do not refer to any statements setting out concrete and specific facts that may have given rise to a reasonable suspicion at the material time that the applicants concerned were members of a terrorist organisation (compare also Tüzemen and Others v. Türkiye [Committee], nos. 66683/16 and 116 others, § 13, 8 July 2025).

15.  The Court further notes that, when ordering the applicants’ initial pre‑trial detention, the judicial authorities sought to justify the detention orders by making a general reference to Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the severity of the potential sentence prescribed by law, and “the evidence in the case files”. However, in doing so, they merely cited the wording of the provision in question, without actually specifying the evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the applicants had committed the offence in question. The Court refers in this connection to its findings in Baş (cited above, §§ 190‑95), according to which vague and general references to the wording of Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to the evidence in the case file cannot be regarded as sufficient to justify the “reasonableness” of the suspicion on which the applicants’ detention was supposed to have been based, in the absence either of a specific assessment of the individual items of evidence in the file, or of any information available in the file at the material time that could have justified the suspicion against the applicants, or of any other kinds of verifiable material or facts.

16.  Since the Government have not provided any other indications, facts or information capable of establishing, at the time of the applicants’ initial detention, a reasonable suspicion that they had committed the alleged offence, the Court finds that the requirements set out in Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in that regard have not been satisfied (compare Baş, cited above, § 195, and Taner Kılıç, cited above, §§ 114-16). Lastly, the Court notes that the applicants were detained a short time after the attempted coup d’état – that is, the event that prompted the declaration of the state of emergency and the notice of derogation by Türkiye. While this is undoubtedly a contextual factor that should be fully taken into account in interpreting and applying Article 5 of the Convention in the present case, the measure at issue cannot be said to have been strictly required by the exigencies of the situation (compare Baş, cited above, §§ 115-16 and 196‑201).

17.  The Court therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

18.  As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention, the Court decides not to examine them, in view of its findings under Article 5 § 1 above and its considerations in Turan and Others (cited above, § 98).

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

19.  The applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos. 8565/18, 43864/18, 19141/19, 22748/19 and 30860/19, 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.

20.  The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive.

21.  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, save for the applicants in applications nos. 8565/18, 43864/18, 19141/19, 22748/19 and 30860/19, a lump sum of 5,000 euros, covering non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, each of the applicants, save for the applicants in applications nos. 8565/18, 43864/18, 19141/19, 22748/19 and 30860/19, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount, 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 14 October 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

1.

26831/17

Budak v. Türkiye

18/03/2017

İbrahim BUDAK
1974
Erzurum
Turkish

Levent MAZILIGÜNEY

2.

49751/17

Yüzer v. Türkiye

17/06/2017

Yakup YÜZER
1964
Ankara
Turkish

Hilal YILMAZ PUSAT

3.

55148/17

Maraş v. Türkiye

19/04/2017

Rıfat MARAŞ
1982
Büdingen (Germany)
Turkish

Hasan SEVER

4.

58451/17

Karahan v. Türkiye

17/07/2017

Ercan KARAHAN
1987
Afyonkarahisar
Turkish

Gülhis YÖRÜK

5.

60297/17

Çıngı v. Türkiye

28/06/2017

Devlet ÇINGI
1974
Kırşehir
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

6.

61103/17

Manisa v. Türkiye

14/08/2017

Cüneyt MANİSA
1979
Şırnak
Turkish

Nurgül YAYMAN YILMAZ

7.

69860/17

Karagöz v. Türkiye

18/08/2017

Kasım KARAGÖZ
1973
Istanbul
Turkish

Dilara YILMAZ

8.

70642/17

Yıldız v. Türkiye

22/08/2017

Özkan YILDIZ
1986
Balıkesir
Turkish

Burcu HAS

9.

71047/17

Ağsakal v. Türkiye

16/08/2017

Ahmet AĞSAKAL
1987
Flörsheim (Germany)
Turkish

İbrahim AĞSAKAL

10.

2690/18

Paşaalioğlu v. Türkiye

19/12/2017

Erkan PAŞAALİOĞLU
1973
Çorum
Turkish

Hakan KAPLANKAYA

11.

3279/18

Başar v. Türkiye

26/12/2017

Mehmet BAŞAR
1986
Çankırı
Turkish

Harun IŞIK

12.

3454/18

Yurdaer v. Türkiye

08/12/2017

Ahmet YURDAER
1972
Denizli
Turkish

Akerke ABDYKALYKOVA ONAT

13.

4634/18

Eker v. Türkiye

13/07/2017

Dilek EKER
1975
Bolu
Turkish

Mustafa DEMİR

14.

6631/18

Çetinkaya v. Türkiye

12/01/2018

Gökhan ÇETİNKAYA
1989
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish

Mehmet ÇETİNKAYA

15.

8313/18

Kahraman v. Türkiye

26/01/2018

Abdulahat KAHRAMAN
1987
Denizli
Turkish

Hasan Önder SULU

16.

8565/18

Kaya v. Türkiye

13/02/2018

Halil İbrahim KAYA
1990
Usak
Turkish

Karar Koray ATAK

17.

8607/18

Seçkiner v. Türkiye

28/04/2017

Mehmet SEÇKİNER
1978
Eskisehir
Turkish

Xavier LABBEE

18.

8899/18

Taş v. Türkiye

02/06/2017

Murat TAŞ
1981
Ankara
Turkish

Gülhis YÖRÜK

19.

8901/18

Girgin v. Türkiye

02/06/2017

Yalçın GİRGİN
1978
Ankara
Turkish

Gülhis YÖRÜK

20.

8910/18

Çolak v. Türkiye

23/05/2017

Yasin ÇOLAK
1968
Ankara
Turkish

Gülhis YÖRÜK

21.

8912/18

Yıldız v. Türkiye

06/07/2017

Adem YILDIZ
1977
Ankara
Turkish

Gülhis YÖRÜK

22.

9581/18

Kumaş v. Türkiye

13/02/2018

Hasan KUMAŞ
1960
Trabzon
Turkish

Fatma ALBAYRAK

23.

9587/18

Demir v. Türkiye

13/02/2018

Burak DEMİR
1990
Ankara
Turkish

Fatma ALBAYRAK

24.

9588/18

Yıldırım v. Türkiye

13/02/2018

Feyza YILDIRIM
1993
Rize
Turkish

Fatma ALBAYRAK

25.

11977/18

Aydoğdu v. Türkiye

05/03/2018

Cumhur AYDOĞDU
1978
Tekirdag
Turkish

Büteyra DEMIR

26.

12628/18

Göksu v. Türkiye

05/03/2018

Fazlı GÖKSU
1981
Samsun
Turkish

Mehmet ŞEN

27.

14185/18

Kunçay v. Türkiye

13/03/2018

İsa KUNÇAY
1968
Manisa
Turkish

Nevzat AKBİLEK

28.

15443/18

Sandal v. Türkiye

22/03/2018

Ramazan SANDAL
1981
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish

Ahmet AKSOY

29.

16300/18

Evren v. Türkiye

14/03/2018

Erhan EVREN
1980
Elazığ
Turkish

Mehmet Sıddık KARAGÖZ

30.

17110/18

Melemez v. Türkiye

16/03/2018

Kenan MELEMEZ
1977
Bartın
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

31.

17579/18

Baran v. Türkiye

16/02/2018

Salim BARAN
1974
Çorum
Turkish

Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ

32.

17720/18

Sarıtemur v. Türkiye

06/04/2018

Yılmaz SARITEMUR
1984
Aydın
Turkish

Elif KANDİLLİ

33.

19870/18

Demirci v. Türkiye

18/04/2018

Recep DEMİRCİ
1990
Kocaeli
Turkish

Burhan DEMİRCİ

34.

20982/18

Solmaz v. Türkiye

24/04/2018

Kamil SOLMAZ
1968
Isparta
Turkish

Ömer Furkan DAĞ

35.

21074/18

Kaplan v. Türkiye

20/04/2018

Enver KAPLAN
1963
Eskişehir
Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

36.

21101/18

Büyük v. Türkiye

20/04/2018

Ömer Ali BÜYÜK
1994
Istanbul
Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

37.

23774/18

Arı v. Türkiye

05/04/2018

Zekeriya ARI
1975
Eskisehir
Turkish

Mehmet YALÇIN

38.

24223/18

Murat v. Türkiye

07/05/2018

Ömer MURAT
1969
Sivas
Turkish

Fatih SARIKUŞ

39.

25205/18

Özcan v. Türkiye

21/05/2018

Ahmet Şahin ÖZCAN
1963
Ankara
Turkish

Vedat ÇAPRAZ

40.

30491/18

Ekim v. Türkiye

13/06/2018

Ömer Faruk EKİM
1981
Kırşehir
Turkish

Iyaz ÇİMEN

41.

38587/18

Arslan v. Türkiye

01/08/2018

Orhan ARSLAN

1970

Ankara

Turkish

Zülküf ARSLAN

42.

39152/18

Güç v. Türkiye

31/07/2018

Ömer GÜÇ
1975
Kocaeli
Turkish

İlyas TEKİN

43.

39833/18

Zengin v. Türkiye

15/08/2018

Ahmet Bilal ZENGİN
1973
Ankara
Turkish

Zümrüt ŞAHİN

44.

41856/18

Pınarakar v. Türkiye

14/08/2018

Sami PINARAKAR
1972
Ankara
Turkish

Necip Fazıl YILDIZ

45.

42238/18

Dolaşık v. Türkiye

27/08/2018

İlhan DOLAŞIK
1983
Malatya
Turkish

Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ

46.

42430/18

Bedir v. Türkiye

03/09/2018

Habip BEDİR
1984
Kayseri
Turkish

Yunus EMRE

47.

42866/18

Atılgan v. Türkiye

29/08/2018

Gökhan ATILGAN
1988
İstanbul
Turkish

Şehriban TOĞRUL

48.

42882/18

Çalışkan v. Türkiye

29/08/2018

Elvan ÇALIŞKAN
1978
Balıkesir
Turkish

Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ

49.

43864/18

Baş v. Türkiye

29/08/2018

Ergün BAŞ
1972
Kırşehir
Turkish

Sinan İPEK

50.

44202/18

Aydın v. Türkiye

08/09/2018

Nurettin AYDIN
1984
Düzce
Turkish

Ali KAYGISIZ

51.

45534/18

Karadavut v. Türkiye

07/09/2018

Özgür KARADAVUT
1977
Ankara
Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

52.

45893/18

Kaya v. Türkiye

20/09/2018

Sunulah KAYA
1991
Antalya
Turkish

Mehmet ARI

53.

46097/18

Dalar v. Türkiye

14/09/2018

Muhammet DALAR
1989
Isparta
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

54.

46241/18

Kıran v. Türkiye

24/09/2018

Hüsnü KIRAN
1973
Istanbul
Turkish

55.

50802/18

Ertekin v. Türkiye

11/10/2018

Sedat ERTEKİN
1966
Ankara
Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

56.

52946/18

Tekkoyun v. Türkiye

30/10/2018

Muhammet Fatih TEKKOYUN
1980
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Dilara YILMAZ

57.

3146/19

Önerbay v. Türkiye

14/12/2018

Kamil ÖNERBAY

1980

Ankara

Turkish

Hüseyin YILMAZ

58.

3357/19

Topuz v. Türkiye

17/12/2018

Ramazan TOPUZ
1974
Konya
Turkish

Vedat ÇAPRAZ

59.

4658/19

Bekdemir v. Türkiye

31/12/2018

Yunus BEKDEMİR
1961
Samsun
Turkish

İnan UZUN

60.

5196/19

Gönülaçar v. Türkiye

27/12/2018

Evren GÖNÜLAÇAR
1984
Gümüşhane
Turkish

Muhammed Nuh POLAT

61.

5613/19

Kızıltan v. Türkiye

08/01/2019

Meral KIZILTAN
1977
Antalya
Turkish

Yusuf Sait PEKGÖZ

62.

6315/19

Civan v. Türkiye

07/01/2019

Yunus CİVAN
1988
Ankara
Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

63.

6329/19

Ayaz v. Türkiye

21/12/2018

Fahrettin AYAZ
1985
Tokat
Turkish

Salih BAŞ

64.

16245/19

Dırman v. Türkiye

20/03/2019

Hüseyin DIRMAN
1985
Antalya
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

65.

17495/19

Atakan v. Türkiye

25/03/2019

Atakan YÜCEL
1986
Istanbul
Turkish

Hüseyin AKBAŞ

66.

19141/19

Yiğit v. Türkiye

28/03/2019

Hasan YİĞİT
1969
Ankara
Turkish

Ömercan AYDIN

67.

19184/19

Polat v. Türkiye

26/03/2019

Adem POLAT
1976
Konya
Turkish

Muhammet Emin ÇITIR

68.

21188/19

Demirtaş v. Türkiye

20/02/2019

Ali DEMİRTAŞ

1989

Adana

Turkish

69.

21961/19

Elibol v. Türkiye

12/04/2019

Ersin ELİBOL
1973
Istanbul
Turkish

Lale KARADAŞ

70.

22748/19

Çebi v. Türkiye

16/04/2019

Emre ÇEBİ
1988
Bayburt
Turkish

Veysel MALKOÇ

71.

30259/19

Uyanık v. Türkiye

22/05/2019

Kenan UYANIK
1981
Eskişehir
Turkish

Ramazan AKDOĞAN

72.

30860/19

Pampal v. Türkiye

27/05/2019

Mehmet PAMPAL
1966
Yozgat
Turkish

73.

35801/19

Sarı v. Türkiye

25/06/2019

İsmail SARI

1969

İzmir

Turkish

74.

120/20

Kılıçak v. Türkiye

19/12/2019

Osman KILIÇAK
1987
Eskişehir
Turkish

Mustafa ALGAM

75.

7384/20

Özdemir v. Türkiye

22/01/2020

Kürşad ÖZDEMİR
1977
Tekirdağ
Turkish

Erşan CANSEVEN

76.

7911/20

Güden v. Türkiye

28/01/2020

Kadir GÜDEN
1975
Antalya
Turkish

Yusuf Sait PEKGÖZ

77.

16084/20

Sefer v. Türkiye

09/03/2020

Salim SEFER
1984
Karabük
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

78.

17104/20

Durak v. Türkiye

03/04/2020

Emre DURAK
1988
Istanbul
Turkish

Fatif ŞAHİNLER

79.

23970/20

Demir v. Türkiye

15/05/2020

Selami DEMİR
1982
Manisa
Turkish

Hasan YILDIZ

80.

24326/20

İpekçi v. Türkiye

15/06/2020

İlyas İPEKÇİ
1988
Ankara
Turkish

Özkan OĞURLU

81.

29933/20

Akyüz v. Türkiye

17/06/2020

Murat AKYÜZ
1974
Duzce
Turkish

Bekir DÖNMEZ

82.

30439/20

Şahin v. Türkiye

17/06/2020

Levent ŞAHİN
1977
Bolu
Turkish

Merve Vildan DUMAN

83.

33367/20

Aker v. Türkiye

22/07/2020

Rana AKER
1988
Samsun
Turkish

İnan UZUN

84.

33596/20

Coşkun v. Türkiye

24/07/2020

Onur COŞKUN
1975
Ankara
Turkish

Ayşe COŞKUN

85.

33963/20

Aydın v. Türkiye

24/07/2020

Yunus Emre AYDIN
1988
Ankara
Turkish

Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ

86.

37312/20

Öztaş v. Türkiye

12/08/2020

Hasan ÖZTAŞ
1975
Afyonkarahisar
Turkish

Harun BOZKURT

87.

40092/20

Kantemir v. Türkiye

27/08/2020

Yasin KANTEMİR
1993
Çorum
Turkish

Kübra KAZANCI TOSUN

88.

40176/20

Öksüz v. Türkiye

25/08/2020

Enes ÖKSÜZ
1991
İzmir
Turkish

89.

41682/20

Erçıkdı v. Türkiye

15/09/2020

Veysel ERÇIKDI
1974
Denizli
Turkish

Mehmet TUNÇER

90.

41928/20

Topuz v. Türkiye

01/09/2020

İlhan TOPUZ
1980
Afyonkarahisar
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

91.

48710/20

Karanfil v. Türkiye

23/10/2020

Arif KARANFİL
1971
Balıkesir
Turkish

Burcu HAS

92.

55276/20

Yavuz v. Türkiye

26/11/2020

Zeynep YAVUZ
1989
Istanbul
Turkish

Dilara YILMAZ

93.

283/21

Ergin v. Türkiye

18/12/2020

Hüseyin ERGİN
1965
Denizli
Turkish

Ayşegül ERGİN

94.

17904/21

Şekerci v. Türkiye

05/03/2021

Yaşar ŞEKERCİ
1963
Kocaeli
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK