CASE OF ÇETİN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF ÇETİN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

(Applications nos. 30185/17 and 136 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 Çetin 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 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 compensation 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 reject 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 coup attempt 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). Challenges brought by them against their detention were dismissed by the competent courts.

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: witness statements indicating ties with FETÖ/PDY; social media posts; possession of pro-FETÖ/PDY publications; working in, or being a member of, institutions with ties with the organisation in question or an organisation shut down by the legislative decrees under the state of emergency; provision of financial support to FETÖ/PDY or to institutions with ties to FETÖ/PDY; attending or holding meetings (sohbet); communication with senior executives of the organisation; ensuring communication between FETÖ/PDY members; use of the Bylock application; staying in FETÖ/PDY houses; and 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, complaining, inter alia, about the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence and the alleged lack of reasons to justify the decision to remand them in pre-trial detention, all of which 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 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 inadmissible the complaints of 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 claimed 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. They further requested that the Court 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 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 exhaustion of the individual application remedy before the Constitutional Court, an examination of the case files reveals that, contrary to the Government’s claims, the applicants concerned have 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 or 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 was “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 regard that the competent courts relied on 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 justify 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 the references therein; and Taş and Others v. Türkiye [Committee], nos. 41527/17 and 212 others, § 20, 17 December 2024).

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).

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 prescribed time‑limit. The majority of them also claimed compensation 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 in respect of 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 amount 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

Just satisfaction

1.

30185/17

Çetin v. Türkiye

01/03/2017

Metin ÇETİN
1983
Tekirdağ
Turkish

Mustafa DEMİR

Awarded

2.

30685/17

Yerlikaya v. Türkiye

28/02/2017

Nail YERLİKAYA
1991
Tokat
Turkish

Adnan ERDOĞAN

Awarded

3.

38448/17

Erdem v. Türkiye

22/05/2017

Alpay ERDEM
1976
Ankara
Turkish

Ali YILDIZ

Awarded

4.

41874/17

Koçak v. Türkiye

23/03/2017

Cebrail KOÇAK
1977
Elazığ
Turkish

Mesut Can TARIM

Awarded

5.

44794/17

Topal v. Türkiye

01/06/2017

Ahmet TOPAL
1973
Malatya
Turkish

Deniz SEZGİN

Not awarded

6.

48983/17

İren v. Türkiye

25/04/2017

Erdem İREN
1980
Istanbul
Turkish

Büşra KURT KÜÇÜK

Awarded

7.

49551/17

Yigit v. Türkiye

03/04/2017

Ramazan YİĞİT
1969
Ankara
Turkish

Necip Fazıl YILDIZ

Awarded

8.

54589/17

Metin v. Türkiye

11/07/2017

Abdurrahim METİN
1991
Eskişehir
Turkish

Ömer KARADENİZ

Not awarded

9.

54648/17

Önder v. Türkiye

01/05/2017

Akın ÖNDER
1973
Turkish

Gülşah OBUT

Not awarded

10.

58476/17

Aldı v. Türkiye

20/07/2017

İsmail ALDI
1985
Giresun
Turkish

Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ

Awarded

11.

58919/17

Hankulu v. Türkiye

22/02/2017

Mahmut HANKULU
1986
Kayseri
Turkish

Hayrullah TUFAN

Awarded

12.

60341/17

Kale v. Türkiye

21/06/2017

Arif KALE
1968
Mersin
Turkish

Abdulselam DURAN

Awarded

13.

61646/17

Mete v. Türkiye

01/06/2017

Haydar METE
1969
Istanbul
Turkish

Gizem ÇAKMAK BEKAR

Awarded

14.

61932/17

Çiftçi v. Türkiye

01/06/2017

İsmail ÇİFTÇİ
1985
Sivas
Turkish

Yunus Emre YAŞAR

Awarded

15.

62884/17

Çini v. Türkiye

30/06/2017

Ahmet ÇİNİ
1985
Kocaeli
Turkish

Mustafa UYSAL

Awarded

16.

63683/17

İmal v. Türkiye

08/05/2017

Ramazan İMAL
1975
Şanlıurfa
Turkish

Büşra KURT KÜÇÜK

Awarded

17.

68912/17

Öksüz v. Türkiye

29/08/2017

Mehmet ÖKSÜZ
1983
Tekirdağ
Turkish

Awarded

18.

69555/17

Kocabay v. Türkiye

23/08/2017

Serkan KOCABAY
1976
Ankara
Turkish

Hicran GÜLMEZ GENCALOĞLU

Awarded

19.

69814/17

Serin v. Türkiye

09/08/2017

Nevzat SERİN
1960
Denizli
Turkish

Dilara YILMAZ

Awarded

20.

71061/17

Soncan v. Türkiye

08/08/2017

Emre SONCAN
1982
Istanbul
Turkish

İrem GÜNEŞ

Awarded

21.

71064/17

Kaya v. Türkiye

08/08/2017

Bayram KAYA
1982
Istanbul
Turkish

İrem GÜNEŞ

Awarded

22.

73515/17

Yazgan v. Türkiye

15/09/2017

Vahit YAZGAN
1969
İzmir
Turkish

Mehmet Nur TERZİ

Awarded

23.

76372/17

Taktak v. Türkiye

10/10/2017

Ahmet TAKTAK
16/03/1970
Eskişehir
Turkish

Oğuzhan GÖKSU

Awarded

24.

78952/17

Aksu v. Türkiye

12/03/2018

İlhami AKSU
1966
İzmir
Turkish

Furkan ÖZÇELİK

Awarded

25.

81096/17

Diri v. Türkiye

08/11/2017

Adem DİRİ
1981
Ankara
Turkish

Not awarded

26.

81483/17

Tekin v. Türkiye

16/11/2017

Murat TEKİN
1975
Kastamonu
Turkish

Esra ACAR

Awarded

27.

81670/17

Can v. Türkiye

10/11/2017

Ergüder CAN
1967
Manisa
Turkish

Hüseyin ÖZÇELİK

Awarded

28.

82032/17

Bul v. Türkiye

23/10/2017

Cemal Azmi BUL
1955
Rize
Turkish

Dilara YILMAZ

Awarded

29.

82871/17

Aktaş v. Türkiye

02/11/2017

Tayfun AKTAŞ
1965
Istanbul
Turkish

Gül AKTAŞ

Awarded

30.

84019/17

Karaçil v. Türkiye

01/11/2017

Kudret KARAÇİL
1980
İzmir
Turkish

Mesut Can TARIM

Awarded

31.

5936/18

Hanay v. Türkiye

25/04/2017

Metin HANAY
1979
Istanbul
Turkish

Dilara YILMAZ

Awarded

32.

6388/18

Kocaman v. Türkiye

18/01/2018

Halil KOCAMAN
1985
Ankara
Turkish

Levent KOCAMAN

Awarded

33.

6519/18

Özdemir v. Türkiye

20/12/2017

Ferdi ÖZDEMİR
1983
Istanbul
Turkish

Demet YÜREKLİ KAYAALP

Awarded

34.

6701/18

Odabaşı v. Türkiye

04/01/2018

Ali ODABAŞI
1979
Ankara
Turkish

Mehmet ÖNCÜ

Awarded

35.

8608/18

Karagöz v. Türkiye

27/04/2017

Mehmet KARAGÖZ
1972
Karaman
Turkish

Xavier LABBEE

Awarded

36.

9869/18

Yıldız v. Türkiye

26/01/2018

Mustafa YILDIZ
1969
Ankara
Turkish

Necip Fazıl YILDIZ

Awarded

37.

9887/18

Tunç v. Türkiye

30/01/2018

Recep TUNÇ
1971
Antalya
Turkish

Nurgül YAYMAN YILMAZ

Awarded

38.

9969/18

Güler v. Türkiye

29/01/2018

Mehmet GÜLER
1963
Kocaeli
Turkish

Ahmet EROL

Awarded

39.

9982/18

Eren v. Türkiye

29/01/2018

Ömer EREN
1987
Turkish

Ahmet EROL

Awarded

40.

10609/18

Kara v. Türkiye

12/02/2018

Recep KARA
1972
İzmir
Turkish

Ümmügülsüm OKUR

Awarded

41.

12565/18

Aydoğan v. Türkiye

16/02/2018

Hakan AYDOĞAN
1978
Ankara
Turkish

Hayrettin AÇIKGÖZ

Awarded

42.

16308/18

Yıldırım v. Türkiye

29/03/2018

Abdurrahman YILDIRIM
1983
Giresun
Turkish

Hilal YILMAZ PUSAT

Awarded

43.

16907/18

Alemdar v. Türkiye

20/03/2018

Gökay ALEMDAR
1977
Istanbul
Turkish

Ahmet EROL

Awarded

44.

19254/18

Dere v. Türkiye

12/04/2018

Erol DERE
1969
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

45.

19465/18

Aykan v. Türkiye

11/04/2018

Abdurrahman AYKAN
1977
Wetzlar
Turkish

Lale KARADAŞ

Awarded

46.

19695/18

Tekin v. Türkiye

16/04/2018

Adem TEKİN
1972
Ankara
Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

Awarded

47.

19867/18

Gülecen v. Türkiye

18/04/2018

Mahmut GÜLECEN
1972
Ankara
Turkish

Hüseyin AYGÜN

Awarded

48.

20491/18

Akkoyun v. Türkiye

16/04/2018

Erkan AKKOYUN
1987
Istanbul
Turkish

Esra Nur AKYOL

Awarded

49.

21083/18

Karakaş v. Türkiye

20/04/2018

Doğan KARAKAŞ
1967
Ankara
Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

Awarded

50.

21157/18

Aydın v. Türkiye

20/04/2018

Harun AYDIN
1987
Hatay
Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

Awarded

51.

22076/18

Karabürk v. Türkiye

02/05/2018

Mustafa KARABÜRK
1975
Giresun
Turkish

Erol GÜNAYDIN

Awarded

52.

22182/18

Dolmaz v. Türkiye

02/04/2018

Fahri DOLMAZ
1974
İzmir
Turkish

Akkız KARDEŞLER

Awarded

53.

22241/18

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

08/05/2018

Kudret YILMAZ
1976
Kütahya
Turkish

Memnune Melike AKYILDIZ

Awarded

54.

22257/18

Göçmen v. Türkiye

10/05/2018

Abdullah Ömer GÖÇMEN
1971
Kütahya
Turkish

Halil ÇETİN

Awarded

55.

23883/18

Doğan v. Türkiye

10/05/2018

Kılıç DOĞAN
1969
Ankara
Turkish

Hakan KAPLANKAYA

Awarded

56.

24450/18

Aslan v. Türkiye

04/05/2018

Züfer ASLAN
1976
Samsun
Turkish

Şeyma MISIRLIOĞLU

Awarded

57.

26411/18

Özyapı v. Türkiye

30/05/2018

Mustafa ÖZYAPI
1968
Ankara
Turkish

Hüseyin AYGÜN

Awarded

58.

26880/18

Okuşluk v. Türkiye

30/05/2018

Ahmet Yasin OKUŞLUK
1984
Konya
Turkish

Demet YÜREKLİ KAYAALP

Awarded

59.

27059/18

Tütüncü v. Türkiye

18/05/2018

Zakir TÜTÜNCÜ
1972
Kocaeli
Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

Awarded

60.

27255/18

Çutur v. Türkiye

28/05/2018

İbrahim ÇUTUR
1977
Burdur
Turkish

Nurgül YAYMAN YILMAZ

Awarded

61.

39466/18

Çilkız v. Türkiye

10/08/2018

Erol ÇİLKIZ
1986
Istanbul
Turkish

Cengiz YILMAZ

Awarded

62.

39536/18

Kaya v. Türkiye

02/08/2018

Hüseyin KAYA
1978
Tekirdağ
Turkish

Mehmet Ertürk ERDEVİR

Awarded

63.

39835/18

Tekin v. Türkiye

06/08/2018

Ayhan TEKİN
1974
Ankara
Turkish

Ebubekir ÇAKIR

Awarded

64.

42120/18

Tüysüz v. Türkiye

03/09/2018

Erol TÜYSÜZ
1973
Kocaeli
Turkish

Yakup GÖNEN

Awarded

65.

42307/18

Şahin v. Türkiye

15/08/2018

Fatih ŞAHİN
1965
Istanbul
Turkish

Handan YAVAŞCAN MARHAN

Awarded

66.

42858/18

Alıcı v. Türkiye

28/08/2018

Halil ALICI
1983
Hatay
Turkish

Dudu ERTUNÇ

Awarded

67.

43165/18

Ebcim v. Türkiye

03/09/2018

İskender EBCİM
1978
Bingöl
Turkish

Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ

Awarded

68.

45325/18

Sert v. Türkiye

17/09/2018

Fatih SERT
1983
Ankara
Turkish

Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ

Awarded

69.

45330/18

Hazman v. Türkiye

14/09/2018

Ahmet HAZMAN
1984
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ

Awarded

70.

45543/18

Nokta v. Türkiye

07/09/2018

Sinan NOKTA
1983
Karabük
Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

Awarded

71.

46225/18

Aydın v. Türkiye

20/09/2018

Cengiz AYDIN
1973
Çorum
Turkish

Kerem ALTUNTAŞ

Awarded

72.

48203/18

Çimen v. Türkiye

02/10/2018

Osman ÇİMEN
1985
Kayseri
Turkish

Hüseyin DÖNMEZ

Awarded

73.

48911/18

Kobalay v. Türkiye

28/09/2018

Hasan KOBALAY
1980
Aydın
Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

Awarded

74.

49836/18

Yaşa v. Türkiye

15/10/2018

Hasan YAŞA
1981
Bilecik
Turkish

Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ

Awarded

75.

50062/18

Akkaya v. Türkiye

12/10/2018

Ali AKKAYA
1975
Düzce
Turkish

Betül KAYA

Awarded

76.

51313/18

Olgaç v. Türkiye

19/10/2018

Şahin OLGAÇ
1990
Gaziantep
Turkish

Mehmet Fatih İÇER

Not awarded

77.

52539/18

Arlı v. Türkiye

22/10/2018

Ali ARLI
1977
Istanbul
Turkish

Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ

Awarded

78.

53071/18

Kara v. Türkiye

22/10/2018

Yunus KARA
1984
Nevşehir
Turkish

Fatih GÖÇER

Awarded

79.

3652/19

Dinlemez v. Türkiye

18/12/2018

Zafer DİNLEMEZ
1987
Ankara
Turkish

Ömer Tarık ORMANCI

Awarded

80.

3709/19

Kuş v. Türkiye

21/12/2018

Mesut KUŞ
1972
İzmir
Turkish

Sultan TAKAK

Awarded

81.

4571/19

Kocaer v. Türkiye

28/12/2018

Mustafa KOCAER
1974
Manisa
Turkish

Tuğba ÇIĞ

Awarded

82.

5916/19

Ekemen v. Türkiye

26/12/2018

Mustafa EKEMEN
1975
Manisa
Turkish

Ömer KÖSTEKÇİ

Awarded

83.

16532/19

Çomak v. Türkiye

18/03/2019

Erol ÇOMAK
1969
Burdur
Turkish

Yasemin ÇOMAK

Awarded

84.

19695/19

Gülbay v. Türkiye

29/03/2019

Kenan GÜLBAY
1975
Eskişehir
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

Awarded

85.

19866/19

Çelik v. Türkiye

24/03/2019

Muhammed Said ÇELİK
1976
Elazığ
Turkish

Ayşegül ÇELİK

Awarded

86.

20047/19

Dönmez v. Türkiye

25/03/2019

Mehmet DÖNMEZ
1974
Ankara
Turkish

Mehmet ÖNCÜ

Awarded

87.

21344/19

Bakan v. Türkiye

12/04/2019

Vedat BAKAN
1970
Istanbul
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

Awarded

88.

23822/19

Gür v. Türkiye

03/04/2019

Alim GÜR
1956
Konya
Turkish

Ülkü GÜR

Not awarded

89.

23942/19

Talay v. Türkiye

01/04/2019

Mahmut TALAY
1975
Mersin
Turkish

Not awarded

90.

27493/19

Şahin v. Türkiye

17/05/2019

Orhan ŞAHİN
1978
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Tülay ÇETİN

Not awarded

91.

32501/19

Hoş v. Türkiye

10/05/2019

Mustafa HOŞ
1976
İzmir
Turkish

Mine ÖZTÜRK

Awarded

92.

33034/19

Hamurcu v. Türkiye

31/05/2019

Baki HAMURCU
1990
Karabük
Turkish

Sümeyye UYAR

Awarded

93.

34664/19

Alptekin v. Türkiye

14/06/2019

Mustafa ALPTEKİN
1988
Balıkesir
Turkish

Awarded

94.

35252/19

Abdi v. Türkiye

24/06/2019

Mehmet ABDİ
1982
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Mustafa SOYLU

Awarded

95.

53290/19

Şan v. Türkiye

05/10/2019

Mehmet Akif ŞAN
1978
Ankara
Turkish

Beyza Esma TUNA

Awarded

96.

61931/19

Uğur v. Türkiye

15/11/2019

Şaban UĞUR
1985
Kayseri
Turkish

Regaip DEMİR

Awarded

97.

6382/20

Oflaz v. Türkiye

15/01/2020

Bilal OFLAZ
1984
Ankara
Turkish

Merve KOÇ

Awarded

98.

14810/20

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

06/03/2020

Erhan YILMAZ
1989
Kocaeli
Turkish

Metehan USLUEROL

Not awarded

99.

15694/20

Gençkaya v. Türkiye

17/03/2020

Fethi GENÇKAYA
1986
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish

Nihal KARAGÖZ

Awarded

100.

16406/20

Çancılar v. Türkiye

07/04/2020

Mesut ÇANCILAR
1991
Samsun
Turkish

Gökhan DİRİCAN

Awarded

101.

16553/20

Kaya v. Türkiye

17/03/2020

İlhami KAYA
1984
Ankara
Turkish

Nihal KARAGÖZ

Not awarded

102.

17100/20

Bebek v. Türkiye

27/03/2020

Bekir BEBEK
1981
Ankara
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

Awarded

103.

17366/20

Hocaoğlu v. Türkiye

27/03/2020

Ahmet HOCAOĞLU
1978
Samsun
Turkish

Mehmet ÖNCÜ

Awarded

104.

17668/20

Bostancı v. Türkiye

08/04/2020

Fatma BOSTANCI
1992
Ankara
Turkish

Merve Vildan DUMAN

Awarded

105.

18713/20

Çelik v. Türkiye

21/04/2020

Celal ÇELİK
1978
Istanbul
Turkish

Ebubekir RENK

Awarded

106.

18782/20

Akgül v. Türkiye

21/04/2020

Murat Kağan AKGÜL
1985
Tekirdağ
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

Awarded

107.

19196/20

Dölen v. Türkiye

06/05/2020

Sadrettin DÖLEN
1981
Istanbul
Turkish

Muhammed Selim TÜRKOĞLU

Not awarded

108.

21238/20

Sağlam v. Türkiye

05/05/2020

Ferdi SAĞLAM
1988
Ankara
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

Awarded

109.

21248/20

Alada v. Türkiye

29/04/2020

Ensar ALADA
1987
Sivas
Turkish

İhsan MAKAS

Awarded

110.

21557/20

Darama v. Türkiye

05/03/2020

Resul DARAMA
1976
Manisa
Turkish

Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ

Awarded

111.

22575/20

Maraşlıoğlu v. Türkiye

08/05/2020

Mevlüt MARAŞLIOĞLU
1989
Aksaray
Turkish

Enes Malik KILIÇ

Awarded

112.

23987/20

Duman v. Türkiye

29/05/2020

Cafer DUMAN
1977
Aksaray
Turkish

Kaşif ALTINSOY

Awarded

113.

25638/20

Erol v. Türkiye

17/06/2020

Muhammet EROL
1989
Şanlıurfa
Turkish

Burcu EROL

Awarded

114.

26913/20

Berk v. Türkiye

17/06/2020

Ömer BERK
1971
Kırşehir
Turkish

Lale KARADAŞ

Awarded

115.

26961/20

Tunç v. Türkiye

05/06/2020

Raşit TUNÇ
1990
Manisa
Turkish

Çağrı Seyfettin GÖKDEMİR

Awarded

116.

30048/20

Kılıçdoğan v. Türkiye

22/06/2020

Ali KILIÇDOĞAN
1980
İzmir
Turkish

Bülent ULAŞ

Awarded

117.

33022/20

Genç v. Türkiye

21/07/2020

İsmet GENÇ
1990
Giresun
Turkish

Eda YAMAN

Awarded

118.

33333/20

Urgan v. Türkiye

24/07/2020

İshak URGAN
1982
Turkish

Merve KOÇ

Awarded

119.

36371/20

Karakoç v. Türkiye

06/08/2020

Serdar KARAKOÇ
1992
Sakarya
Turkish

Gamze AKSOY

Awarded

120.

36760/20

Taşkın v. Türkiye

06/08/2020

Orhan TAŞKIN
1981
Aydın
Turkish

Esra Nur AKYOL

Awarded

121.

37181/20

Işıklı v. Türkiye

29/07/2020

İbrahim IŞIKLI
1972
Mersin
Turkish

Selma IŞIKLI

Awarded

122.

37921/20

Yayan v. Türkiye

11/08/2020

İlyas YAYAN
1990
Bingöl
Turkish

Ömer YAYAN

Awarded

123.

38261/20

Balcı v. Türkiye

19/08/2020

Ersin BALCI
1979
Adana
Turkish

Müjdat Fatih İÇEL

Awarded

124.

38262/20

Kaya v. Türkiye

11/08/2020

Cağatay KAYA
1994
Istanbul
Turkish

Ahmet KAYA

Awarded

125.

38991/20

Barış v. Türkiye

31/08/2020

Mehmet Fatih BARIŞ
1976
Tekirdağ
Turkish

Mustafa KÜÇÜK

Awarded

126.

39599/20

Kayabaşı v. Türkiye

05/09/2020

Erol KAYABAŞI
1984
Kastamonu
Turkish

Yakup Yaşar MIRZAOĞLU

Awarded

127.

40610/20

Çelik v. Türkiye

21/08/2020

Serhat ÇELİK
1990
Istanbul
Turkish

Hasan ÇELİK

Awarded

128.

42398/20

Şahan v. Türkiye

03/09/2020

İsmail ŞAHAN
1976
Konya
Turkish

Leyla MESUTOĞLU

Awarded

129.

43092/20

Yıldırım v. Türkiye

08/09/2020

Doğan YILDIRIM
1981
Sivas
Turkish

Hamdi Kenan SEVİNÇ

Awarded

130.

44081/20

Çavuş v. Türkiye

29/09/2020

Çetin ÇAVUŞ
1982
Ankara
Turkish

Beyza Esma TUNA

Awarded

131.

53963/20

Ordu v. Türkiye

25/11/2020

Hüseyin ORDU
1977
Manisa
Turkish

Kadriye TÜMEN

Awarded

132.

55519/20

Uslu v. Türkiye

27/11/2020

Vedat USLU
1978
Turkish

Zafer İRAZ

Awarded

133.

1315/21

Kocakurt v. Türkiye

22/12/2020

Hubeyb KOCAKURT
1982
İzmir
Turkish

Kadriye TÜMEN

Awarded

134.

9455/21

Kavak v. Türkiye

26/01/2021

Hasan KAVAK
1981
Yozgat
Turkish

Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞIN

Awarded

135.

11883/21

Aslan v. Türkiye

28/01/2021

Ahmet ASLAN
1976
Zonguldak
Turkish

Arzu BEYAZIT

Awarded

136.

22432/21

Köşe v. Türkiye

27/04/2021

Ümit KÖŞE
/1989
Ankara
Turkish

Uğur ALTUN

Awarded

137.

39544/21

Kaya v. Türkiye

26/07/2021

Mehmet Salih KAYA
1977
Ankara
Turkish

Mahmut KAÇAN

Awarded