CASE OF DENİZ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF DENİZ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

(Applications nos. 43382/19 and 236 others)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

17 December 2024

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

In the case of Deniz and Others v. Türkiye,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Pauliine Koskelo, President,
 Jovan Ilievski,
 Davor Derenčinović, 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 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 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 inadmissible the remainder of the applications;

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 26 November 2024,

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, 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 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 eight months.

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 having ties with the organisation in question or an organisation shut down by the state‑of‑emergency legislative decrees; 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; 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 (“the CCP”, 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 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 CCP. 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, which were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court in summary fashion.

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 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 those complaints inadmissible in respect of the applicants who had not made use of the compensatory remedy under Article 141 of the CCP, or whose compensation claims were still pending. The Government further claimed that some of the applicants had been granted compensation pursuant to Article 141 of the CCP and had therefore lost their victim status. They further requested 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 applications inadmissible for 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 § 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, 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. 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 recalls that according to its well‑established case-law under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the 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, in the Court’s view, the national courts failed to demonstrate 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 they were suspected of.

15.  Even assuming that there was “reasonable suspicion” that an offence has been committed, decisions ordering 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 CCP, 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.  Insofar as the detentions were 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 CCP (also referred to as the “catalogue” offences). As regards these “catalogue” offences, the Court observes that under Article 100 § 3 of the CCP, 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 respect. 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 four years and eight months.

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], no. 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 is not 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 had not gone 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, and the references cited in Kolay and Others, cited above, § 18).

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 in the present case there was any objective information showing that the suspicion against the applicants was “reasonable” at the time of their initial 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, or failed to submit within the allotted time-limit, a claim for just satisfaction. 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 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 for 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, within three months, to each of the applicants who submitted a claim for just satisfaction (see the appended table), 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 17 December 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Dorothee von Arnim Pauliine Koskelo
 Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases:

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality

Just satisfaction

1.

43382/19

Deniz v. Türkiye

03/08/2019

Sadettin DENİZ
1972
İzmir
Turkish

Not awarded

2.

43435/19

Doğantürk v. Türkiye

08/08/2019

İbrahim Halil DOĞANTÜRK
1985
Kilis
Turkish

Awarded

3.

44081/19

Ünver v. Türkiye

24/07/2019

Yasin ÜNVER
1985
Antalya
Turkish

Awarded

4.

44262/19

Baran v. Türkiye

08/08/2019

Mustafa BARAN
1988
Isparta
Turkish

Awarded

5.

45131/19

Acar v. Türkiye

16/08/2019

Mehmet ACAR
1980
Aydın
Turkish

Awarded

6.

45473/19

Özer v. Türkiye

20/08/2019

Mustafa ÖZER
1980
Kocaeli
Turkish

Awarded

7.

45907/19

Akın v. Türkiye

19/08/2019

Ali AKIN
1976
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

8.

45923/19

Burgaç v. Türkiye

15/08/2019

Mustafa BURGAÇ
1975
Osmaniye
Turkish

Awarded

9.

45949/19

Aksoy v. Türkiye

16/08/2019

Kasım AKSOY
1973
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

10.

46148/19

Çevikgil v. Türkiye

20/08/2019

Harun ÇEVİKGİL
1989
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

11.

46538/19

Yıldır v. Türkiye

21/08/2019

Aykut YILDIR
1984
Istanbul
Turkish

Not awarded

12.

46752/19

Akbaba v. Türkiye

22/08/2019

Eyüp AKBABA
1979
Osmaniye
Turkish

Awarded

13.

46756/19

Albayrak v. Türkiye

19/08/2019

Muhammed ALBAYRAK
1986
Giresun
Turkish

Awarded

14.

46994/19

Demir v. Türkiye

27/08/2019

Recep DEMİR
1977
Kocaeli
Turkish

Awarded

15.

47008/19

Kozan v. Türkiye

16/08/2019

Umut KOZAN
1980
Samsun
Turkish

Awarded

16.

47312/19

Çakır v. Türkiye

21/08/2019

Nazım ÇAKIR
1988
Şanlıurfa
Turkish

Awarded

17.

47604/19

Yıldırım v. Türkiye

21/08/2019

Salih YILDIRIM
1981
Samsun
Turkish

Awarded

18.

47663/19

Kılıç v. Türkiye

21/08/2019

Ruhi KILIÇ
1986
Bingöl
Turkish

Awarded

19.

48028/19

Sarıbek v. Türkiye

19/08/2019

Serkan SARIBEK
1985
Niğde
Turkish

Awarded

20.

49425/19

Kençi v. Türkiye

18/09/2019

Volkan KENÇİ
1981
Yozgat
Turkish

Awarded

21.

50745/19

Can v. Türkiye

05/09/2019

Erkan CAN
1974
Konya
Turkish

Not awarded

22.

51096/19

Mısır v. Türkiye

03/09/2019

Fatih MISIR
1980
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

23.

51099/19

Korkmaz v. Türkiye

05/09/2019

Murat KORKMAZ
1975
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

24.

51136/19

Karaca v. Türkiye

17/09/2019

İbrahim KARACA
1976
Çorum
Turkish

Awarded

25.

51159/19

Hoda v. Türkiye

06/09/2019

Ramazan HODA
1974
Bolu
Turkish

Awarded

26.

51195/19

Demir v. Türkiye

28/08/2019

Mehmet DEMİR
1985
Gaziantep
Turkish

Awarded

27.

51326/19

İpekçi v. Türkiye

04/09/2019

Cihan İPEKÇİ
1989
Yozgat
Turkish

Awarded

28.

51390/19

Aka v. Türkiye

25/09/2019

Şahseyin AKA
1965
Aydın
Turkish

Awarded

29.

51534/19

Elemen v. Türkiye

23/08/2019

Bünyamin ELEMEN
1987
Balıkesir
Turkish

Awarded

30.

51624/19

Orak v. Türkiye

16/09/2019

Zülküf ORAK
1977
Bursa
Turkish

Awarded

31.

51636/19

Sever v. Türkiye

19/09/2019

M. Abdullah SEVER
1975
Antakya
Turkish

Awarded

32.

51693/19

Duman v. Türkiye

17/09/2019

Rıza DUMAN
1976
Elazig
Turkish

Awarded

33.

51791/19

Eroğlu v. Türkiye

17/09/2019

Harun EROĞLU
1974
Eskişehir
Turkish

Not awarded

34.

51802/19

Doğan v. Türkiye

27/08/2019

Secattin DOĞAN
1979
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

35.

51925/19

Gültekin v. Türkiye

13/09/2019

Recep GÜLTEKİN
1953
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

36.

51934/19

Ulutepe v. Türkiye

28/08/2019

Sebahattin ULUTEPE
1984
Ordu
Turkish

Awarded

37.

51962/19

Birinci v. Türkiye

16/09/2019

Eyüp BİRİNCİ
1975
Antalya
Turkish

Awarded

38.

52066/19

Kaya v. Türkiye

24/09/2019

Halil İbrahim KAYA
1975
Aksaray
Turkish

Awarded

39.

52453/19

Demir v. Türkiye

23/09/2019

Resul DEMİR
1989
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

40.

52455/19

Sayın v. Türkiye

26/09/2019

İbrahim SAYIN
1963
Istanbul
Turkish

Not awarded

41.

52941/19

Kösem v. Türkiye

20/09/2019

Burak Hamza KÖSEM
1993
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

42.

53059/19

Yaşa v. Türkiye

01/10/2019

Cihad YAŞA
1972
Manisa
Turkish

Awarded

43.

53244/19

Bayram v. Türkiye

30/09/2019

Fatih Mehmet BAYRAM
1977
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

44.

53371/19

Yıldız v. Türkiye

03/10/2019

İlhami YILDIZ
1984
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

45.

53376/19

Meriç v. Türkiye

02/08/2019

Mehmet MERİÇ
1982
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish

Awarded

46.

53523/19

Mert v. Türkiye

17/09/2019

Eşref MERT
1974
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

47.

53604/19

Polat v. Türkiye

09/10/2019

Adem POLAT
1979
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

48.

54201/19

Tulgar v. Türkiye

03/09/2019

Ömer Faruk TULGAR
1982
Kocaeli
Turkish

Awarded

49.

54379/19

Tosun v. Türkiye

03/10/2019

Hidayet TOSUN
1970
Bolu
Turkish

Awarded

50.

54490/19

Şıla v. Türkiye

01/10/2019

Fatih Cihan ŞILA
1987
Appenweier
Turkish

Awarded

51.

54581/19

Gülten v. Türkiye

03/10/2019

Ömer Tolga GÜLTEN
1985
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

52.

54685/19

Türkcan v. Türkiye

20/09/2019

Osman Kürşat TÜRKCAN
1980
Alphen aan den Rijn
Turkish

Awarded

53.

54836/19

Beytullah v. Türkiye

02/10/2019

Beytullah ŞAHİN
1986
Keskin
Turkish

Awarded

54.

54866/19

Ulusoy v. Türkiye

11/09/2019

Şakir ULUSOY
1971
Manisa
Turkish

Awarded

55.

55247/19

Ereroğlu v. Türkiye

13/09/2019

Orhan EREROĞLU
1978
Kayseri
Turkish

Awarded

56.

55281/19

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

19/09/2019

Fatih YILMAZ
1970
Manisa
Turkish

Awarded

57.

55329/19

Ergün v. Türkiye

11/10/2019

Ramazan ERGÜN
1977
Balıkesir
Turkish

Awarded

58.

55520/19

Balcı v. Türkiye

15/10/2019

Ahmet BALCI
1971
İzmir
Turkish

Not awarded

59.

55817/19

Arukan v. Türkiye

06/09/2019

Ali ARUKAN
1980
Kastamonu
Turkish

Awarded

60.

56003/19

Osman v. Türkiye

18/10/2019

Yıldırım OSMAN
1972
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

61.

56011/19

Karaman v. Türkiye

09/10/2019

Ramazan KARAMAN
1990
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

62.

56077/19

Buyur v. Türkiye

10/10/2019

Ercan BUYUR
1980
Kocaeli
Turkish

Not awarded

63.

56192/19

Biray v. Türkiye

29/08/2019

Mahmut BİRAY
1990
Mardin
Turkish

Awarded

64.

56248/19

Kama v. Türkiye

30/09/2019

Nasif Erdem KAMA
1986
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Awarded

65.

56711/19

Benli v. Türkiye

17/10/2019

Murat BENLİ
1969
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

66.

56817/19

Abit v. Türkiye

07/10/2019

Mahmut Sinan ABİT
1981
Bingöl
Turkish

Awarded

67.

56994/19

Baysal v. Türkiye

16/10/2019

Ercan BAYSAL
1977
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

68.

57069/19

Doğruöz v. Türkiye

16/10/2019

İdris DOĞRUÖZ
1984
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

69.

57133/19

Dikik v. Türkiye

17/10/2019

Mehmet Can DİKİK
1988
Muğla
Turkish

Awarded

70.

57139/19

Taşyağan v. Türkiye

09/10/2019

Esma TAŞYAĞAN
1987
Manisa
Turkish

Awarded

71.

57319/19

Kazancı v. Türkiye

09/10/2019

Melih KAZANCI
1994
Antalya
Turkish

Awarded

72.

57323/19

Zeytun v. Türkiye

16/10/2019

Fatih ZEYTUN
1983
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

73.

57452/19

Öztürk v. Türkiye

10/10/2019

Osman ÖZTÜRK
1979
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

74.

58859/19

Dikbaş v. Türkiye

24/10/2019

Sadreddin DİKBAŞ
1980
Afyonkarahisar
Turkish

Awarded

75.

59167/19

Başkurt v. Türkiye

11/11/2019

Şaban BAŞKURT
1983
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

76.

59183/19

Keleş v. Türkiye

25/10/2019

Celalettin KELEŞ
1973
Konya
Turkish

Awarded

77.

59193/19

Acar v. Türkiye

22/10/2019

İsmail ACAR
1965
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

78.

61359/19

Pehlivan v. Türkiye

08/11/2019

Hüseyin PEHLİVAN
1973
Balıkesir
Turkish

Awarded

79.

61683/19

Ataç v. Türkiye

05/11/2019

Gafur ATAÇ
1979
Tekirdağ
Turkish

Awarded

80.

61722/19

Ayday v. Türkiye

12/11/2019

Abdulbaki AYDAY
1988
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

81.

61802/19

Albayrak v. Türkiye

15/11/2019

Ahmet ALBAYRAK
1978
Ankara
Turkish

Not awarded

82.

62362/19

Şamasas v. Türkiye

13/11/2019

Nihat ŞAMASAS
1971
Adana
Turkish

Awarded

83.

62382/19

Özcan v. Türkiye

18/11/2019

Naci ÖZCAN
1974
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

84.

62539/19

Satılmış v. Türkiye

19/11/2019

İsmail SATILMIŞ
1986
Çorum
Turkish

Awarded

85.

62557/19

Doğan v. Türkiye

21/11/2019

Mehmet DOĞAN
1987
Gaziantep
Turkish

Awarded

86.

62709/19

Kayaalp v. Türkiye

29/11/2019

Abdullah KAYAALP
1984
Balıkesir
Turkish

Awarded

87.

63046/19

Atalay v. Türkiye

15/11/2019

İbrahim ATALAY
1972
Yozgat
Turkish

Awarded

88.

63376/19

Erdem v. Türkiye

27/11/2019

Mehmet Alper ERDEM
1972
Erzurum
Turkish

Awarded

89.

63635/19

İşbilen v. Türkiye

05/12/2019

İlhan İŞBİLEN
1946
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

90.

64677/19

Şen v. Türkiye

03/12/2019

Nuri ŞEN
1983
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

91.

64712/19

Yükleyen v. Türkiye

04/12/2019

İsmail YÜKLEYEN
1976
Kayseri
Turkish

Awarded

92.

64984/19

Kaya v. Türkiye

03/12/2019

Harun KAYA
1986
Bursa
Turkish

Awarded

93.

4/20

Avcı v. Türkiye

19/11/2019

İlyas AVCI
1984
Mersin
Turkish

Awarded

94.

1114/20

Buzdağ v. Türkiye

10/12/2019

Ertan BUZDAĞ
1975
Zonguldak
Turkish

Awarded

95.

1312/20

Yorulmaz v. Türkiye

11/12/2019

Celal YORULMAZ
1971
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

96.

1491/20

Özkan v. Türkiye

20/12/2019

Sait ÖZKAN
1974
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

97.

1988/20

Tüten v. Türkiye

09/12/2019

Hasan TÜTEN
1986
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

98.

2116/20

Erten v. Türkiye

26/12/2019

Derviş ERTEN
1982
Gaziantep
Turkish

Awarded

99.

2149/20

Şanaral v. Türkiye

27/12/2019

Mesut ŞANARAL
1972
Balıkesir
Turkish

Awarded

100.

2469/20

Öz v. Türkiye

23/12/2019

Tanju ÖZ
1988
Adana
Turkish

Awarded

101.

2658/20

Ensaroğlu v. Türkiye

25/12/2019

Fatih ENSAROĞLU
1982
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

102.

3397/20

Gürkan v. Türkiye

19/12/2019

Akif GÜRKAN
1979
Isparta
Turkish

Awarded

103.

4819/20

Turhal v. Türkiye

28/05/2020

Ali TURHAL
1967
Denizli
Turkish

Awarded

104.

5223/20

Akgül v. Türkiye

10/01/2020

Rıdvan AKGÜL
1990
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

105.

5246/20

Dedeli v. Türkiye

16/01/2020

Ramazan DEDELİ
1976
Manisa
Turkish

Awarded

106.

5497/20

Bilgili v. Türkiye

27/12/2019

Ali Galip BİLGİLİ
1970
Isparta
Turkish

Awarded

107.

5534/20

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

20/01/2020

İhsan YILMAZ
1971
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

108.

6032/20

Sel v. Türkiye

20/01/2020

Bilal SEL
1973
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

109.

6063/20

Benli v. Türkiye

17/12/2019

Mustafa BENLİ
1977
Çorum
Turkish

Not awarded

110.

6150/20

Uçan v. Türkiye

15/01/2020

Musa Can UÇAN
1980
Diyarbakır
Turkish

Awarded

111.

6344/20

Ertuğrul v. Türkiye

10/01/2020

Murat ERTUĞRUL
1984
Balıkesir
Turkish

Awarded

112.

6629/20

Sağır v. Türkiye

20/12/2019

Mehmet SAĞIR
1980
Manisa
Turkish

Awarded

113.

6911/20

Akdağ v. Türkiye

31/12/2019

Rıdvan AKDAĞ
1970
Çorum
Turkish

Awarded

114.

7075/20

Şahin v. Türkiye

16/01/2020

Yunus ŞAHİN
1993
Istanbul
Turkish

Not awarded

115.

7085/20

Karaçoban v. Türkiye

20/01/2020

Eyüp KARAÇOBAN
1976
Balıkesir
Turkish

Awarded

116.

7438/20

Karataş v. Türkiye

31/01/2020

Erkan KARATAŞ
1987
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

117.

7458/20

Karahasanoğlu v. Türkiye

03/02/2020

Mehmet Yücel KARAHASANOĞLU
1973
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

118.

7841/20

Dalkılıç v. Türkiye

23/01/2020

Yakup DALKILIÇ
1973
Kırşehir
Turkish

Awarded

119.

7892/20

Yalçın v. Türkiye

04/02/2020

Recep Ali YALÇIN
1973
Denizli
Turkish

Awarded

120.

8094/20

Patırgan v. Türkiye

27/01/2020

Uğur PATIRGAN
1977
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

121.

8117/20

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

28/01/2020

Ramazan YILMAZ
1973
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

122.

8209/20

Altun v. Türkiye

27/01/2020

Orhan ALTUN
1983
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

123.

8756/20

Ataç v. Türkiye

06/02/2020

Fatih ATAÇ
1976
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

124.

9074/20

Özden v. Türkiye

10/02/2020

Selim ÖZDEN
1981
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

125.

9255/20

Sakarya v. Türkiye

05/02/2020

Emre SAKARYA
1989
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

126.

9406/20

Işıtan v. Türkiye

28/01/2020

Bilal IŞITAN
1971
Samsun
Turkish

Awarded

127.

10697/20

Eyilcim v. Türkiye

06/02/2020

Muzaffer EYİLCİM
1967
Bursa
Turkish

Awarded

128.

10741/20

Yazıcı v. Türkiye

10/02/2020

Süleyman YAZICI
1981
Samsun
Turkish

Awarded

129.

11022/20

Özoğlu v. Türkiye

22/02/2020

Arif ÖZOĞLU
1987
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

130.

11361/20

Bayram v. Türkiye

14/02/2020

Şerif Ahmet BAYRAM
1966
Samsun
Turkish

Awarded

131.

11432/20

Uçar v. Türkiye

13/02/2020

Yusuf UÇAR
1973
Antalya
Turkish

Not awarded

132.

11449/20

Çelik v. Türkiye

19/02/2020

Selami ÇELİK
1985
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

133.

11480/20

Aykutluğ v. Türkiye

14/02/2020

Ayhan AYKUTLUĞ
1984
Çankırı
Turkish

Awarded

134.

11533/20

Sarı v. Türkiye

14/02/2020

Feyzullah SARI
1977
Karabük
Turkish

Awarded

135.

12495/20

Orcan v. Türkiye

19/02/2020

Mevlüt ORCAN
1992
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish

Awarded

136.

13368/20

Zıraplı v. Türkiye

26/02/2020

Barış ZIRAPLI
1972
Konya
Turkish

Awarded

137.

13590/20

Çetinkaya v. Türkiye

06/03/2020

Bülent ÇETİNKAYA
1974
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

138.

13866/20

Örnek v. Türkiye

05/03/2020

Faruk ÖRNEK
1984
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

139.

14985/20

Boydak v. Türkiye

25/02/2020

Hacı BOYDAK
1958
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

140.

15015/20

Polat v. Türkiye

04/03/2020

İbrahim POLAT
1971
Yozgat
Turkish

Awarded

141.

15142/20

Özer v. Türkiye

09/03/2020

Yusuf ÖZER
1986
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

142.

15146/20

Malkoçoğlu v. Türkiye

09/03/2020

Murat MALKOÇOĞLU
1983
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

143.

15172/20

Özçelik v. Türkiye

06/03/2020

Kadir ÖZÇELİK
1979
Samsun
Turkish

Awarded

144.

15891/20

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

13/03/2020

Veysel YILMAZ
1979
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

145.

16421/20

Pakel v. Türkiye

20/03/2020

Hakan PAKEL
1971
Manisa
Turkish

Awarded

146.

17017/20

Zorlu v. Türkiye

26/03/2020

Muhammed Şahin ZORLU
1993

Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

147.

17108/20

Karaduman v. Türkiye

24/03/2020

Mustafa KARADUMAN
1960
Balıkesir
Turkish

Awarded

148.

17617/20

Filizciler v. Türkiye

02/04/2020

Mesut FİLİZCİLER
1967
Balıkesir
Turkish

Awarded

149.

18031/20

Turan v. Türkiye

14/04/2020

Mesut TURAN
1978
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

150.

18043/20

Kür v. Türkiye

20/04/2020

Mahmut KÜR
1983
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

151.

18733/20

Altaylı v. Türkiye

30/04/2020

Enver ALTAYLI
1944
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

152.

20183/20

Özünal v. Türkiye

14/05/2020

Lokman ÖZÜNAL
1982
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

153.

20198/20

Şamak v. Türkiye

14/05/2020

Edip ŞAMAK
1982
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

154.

21215/20

Taş v. Türkiye

15/05/2020

Veysel Özgel TAŞ
1981
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

155.

21420/20

Arıcan v. Türkiye

06/05/2020

Ahmet ARICAN
1970
Ankara
Turkish

Not awarded

156.

22033/20

Ağırdaş v. Türkiye

01/06/2020

Hüseyin AĞIRDAŞ
1969
Karabük
Turkish

Awarded

157.

22081/20

Kılıç v. Türkiye

02/06/2020

Ertuğrul KILIÇ
1988
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

158.

23316/20

Ateş v. Türkiye

12/06/2020

Mustafa Alper ATEŞ
1981
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

159.

23557/20

Doğan v. Türkiye

14/05/2020

Ali DOĞAN
1976
Manisa
Turkish

Awarded

160.

24777/20

Mert v. Türkiye

11/06/2020

Muhit MERT
1962
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

161.

25863/20

Berk v. Türkiye

18/06/2020

Atilla BERK
1976
Samsun
Turkish

Awarded

162.

26179/20

İşlekel v. Türkiye

19/06/2020

Tahsin İŞLEKEL
1979
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

163.

26206/20

Tercan v. Türkiye

15/06/2020

Seydi TERCAN
1985
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

164.

27276/20

Ergincan v. Türkiye

29/06/2020

Gökhan ERGİNCAN
1965
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

165.

27565/20

Pekşen v. Türkiye

17/06/2020

Celalettin PEKŞEN
1976
Sivas
Turkish

Awarded

166.

29289/20

Kolu v. Türkiye

30/06/2020

Sait KOLU
1978
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

167.

29556/20

Kurnaz v. Türkiye

22/06/2020

Şenol KURNAZ
1989
Eskişehir
Turkish

Awarded

168.

30404/20

Düzgün v. Türkiye

08/07/2020

Ali Kemal DÜZGÜN
1986
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

169.

30427/20

Ayan v. Türkiye

23/06/2020

Burhan AYAN
1983
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

170.

33313/20

Akdeniz v. Türkiye

21/07/2020

Emrah AKDENİZ
1987
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Awarded

171.

35592/20

Demir v. Türkiye

12/08/2020

Barbaros DEMİR
1979
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

172.

35710/20

Yıldırım v. Türkiye

12/08/2020

Ramazan YILDIRIM
1991
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

173.

35796/20

Memiş v. Türkiye

05/08/2020

Ahmet MEMİŞ
1974
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

174.

35799/20

Benli v. Türkiye

09/07/2020

Ömer BENLİ
1975
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish

Awarded

175.

36386/20

Karagöz v. Türkiye

06/08/2020

Zeyit KARAGÖZ
1976
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

176.

36433/20

Kol v. Türkiye

11/08/2020

Ümit KOL
1977
Kocaeli
Turkish

Awarded

177.

36468/20

Altun v. Türkiye

30/07/2020

Mehmet Akif ALTUN
1992
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

178.

37452/20

Cenk v. Türkiye

14/08/2020

Hamza CENK
1967
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

179.

37752/20

Danışmaz v. Türkiye

17/08/2020

Kadir DANIŞMAZ
1977
Zonguldak
Turkish

Awarded

180.

38271/20

Kilimtepe v. Türkiye

28/08/2020

Heysem KİLİMTEPE
1988
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

181.

38278/20

Gümüş v. Türkiye

27/08/2020

Muzaffer Taha GÜMÜŞ
1991
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

182.

38387/20

Önder v. Türkiye

18/08/2020

Adaklı ÖNDER
1989
Antalya
Turkish

Awarded

183.

39243/20

Aydın v. Türkiye

31/08/2020

Harun AYDIN
1981
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Awarded

184.

40090/20

Tarlacı v. Türkiye

31/08/2020

Erkal TARLACI
1980
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Awarded

185.

40306/20

Karakaya v. Türkiye

08/09/2020

İlyas KARAKAYA
1972
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

186.

41063/20

Geçer v. Türkiye

04/09/2020

Mesut GEÇER
1974
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

187.

41553/20

Gülaçtı v. Türkiye

01/09/2020

Emre GÜLAÇTI
1985
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

188.

42336/20

Kıyma v. Türkiye

11/09/2020

Nurettin KIYMA
1968
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

189.

43065/20

Uçar v. Türkiye

10/09/2020

Mürsel UÇAR
1996
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

190.

43715/20

Ayer v. Türkiye

29/09/2020

Hasan AYER
1983
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

191.

44052/20

Tekkoyun v. Türkiye

23/09/2020

İsmail TEKKOYUN
1974
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

192.

44233/20

Tan v. Türkiye

24/09/2020

Harun TAN
1985
Amasya
Turkish

Awarded

193.

44816/20

Can v. Türkiye

03/09/2020

Hüzeyfe CAN
1989
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

194.

44975/20

Mungan v. Türkiye

02/10/2020

Nushet Şehmus MUNGAN
1987
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

195.

45475/20

Keleş v. Türkiye

01/10/2020

Yusuf KELEŞ
1976
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

196.

45995/20

Erko v. Türkiye

14/10/2020

Taha ERKO
1983
Tekirdağ
Turkish

Awarded

197.

46060/20

Karagöz v. Türkiye

13/10/2020

Ömer Faruk KARAGÖZ
1990
Eskişehir
Turkish

Awarded

198.

46366/20

Kaya v. Türkiye

08/10/2020

Cafer Sadık KAYA
1994
Edirne
Turkish

Awarded

199.

46418/20

Özbulut v. Türkiye

09/10/2020

Bekir ÖZBULUT
1990
Mersin
Turkish

Awarded

200.

47271/20

Gökçöl v. Türkiye

19/10/2020

Yavuz GÖKÇÖL
1971
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

201.

48471/20

Şen v. Türkiye

09/10/2020

Ender ŞEN
1975
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

202.

48701/20

Koçuk v. Türkiye

26/10/2020

Fahri KOÇUK
1986
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Awarded

203.

48703/20

Cambaztepe v. Türkiye

26/10/2020

Emre CAMBAZTEPE
1981
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

204.

50285/20

Çiçek v. Türkiye

10/11/2020

Erdoğan ÇİÇEK
1977
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

205.

50290/20

Türkmen v. Türkiye

10/11/2020

Ömer Faruk TÜRKMEN
1992
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

206.

50359/20

Sevimli v. Türkiye

03/11/2020

Hasan SEVİMLİ
1989
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

207.

50463/20

Demirsoy v. Türkiye

23/10/2020

Mahmut Murat DEMİRSOY
1992
Malatya
Turkish

Awarded

208.

50915/20

Doğan v. Türkiye

05/11/2020

Ömer DOĞAN
1983
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

209.

52222/20

Uygun v. Türkiye

16/11/2020

Murat UYGUN
1971
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

210.

52329/20

Pala v. Türkiye

02/11/2020

Abdullah PALA
1983
Adana
Turkish

Awarded

211.

53125/20

Türk v. Türkiye

18/11/2020

İsa TÜRK
1985
Yozgat
Turkish

Awarded

212.

55056/20

Arığ v. Türkiye

01/12/2020

Mustafa ARIĞ
1987
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

213.

55078/20

Dirlikli v. Türkiye

01/12/2020

Murat DİRLİKLİ
1977
Şırnak
Turkish

Awarded

214.

55104/20

Küçüker v. Türkiye

08/12/2020

Veysel KÜÇÜKER
1974
Burdur
Turkish

Awarded

215.

55142/20

Altuntaş v. Türkiye

27/11/2020

Murat Sinan ALTUNTAŞ
1966
Çorum
Turkish

Awarded

216.

24/21

Arı v. Türkiye

14/12/2020

Tolga ARI
1986
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

217.

751/21

Bardakkaya v. Türkiye

11/12/2020

Resul BARDAKKAYA
1984
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

218.

1684/21

Ünsür v. Türkiye

02/12/2020

Özgür ÜNSÜR
1989
Amasya
Turkish

Awarded

219.

2157/21

Ilker v. Türkiye

24/12/2020

Demirkıyık İLKER
1987
Manisa
Turkish

Awarded

220.

2491/21

Güler v. Türkiye

14/12/2020

Hakan GÜLER
1982
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

221.

2555/21

Tulukcu v. Türkiye

22/12/2020

Seyit TULUKCU
1970
Karaman
Turkish

Awarded

222.

2879/21

Aydın v. Türkiye

22/12/2020

Yıldız AYDIN
1979
Rize
Turkish

Awarded

223.

3888/21

Makineci v. Türkiye

04/01/2021

Halil MAKİNECİ
1968
Afyonkarahisar
Turkish

Awarded

224.

4423/21

Avcı v. Türkiye

11/01/2021

Gültekin AVCI
1969
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

225.

4510/21

Türk v. Türkiye

14/01/2021

Halil İbrahim TÜRK
1990
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

226.

9370/21

Koral v. Türkiye

07/12/2020

Halil Özhan KORAL
1979

Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

227.

9964/21

Akar v. Türkiye

02/02/2021

Muhammed AKAR
1986
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

228.

10053/21

Uzuntarla v. Türkiye

12/02/2021

Özcan UZUNTARLA
1988
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

229.

17696/21

Şeker v. Türkiye

26/03/2021

Erhan ŞEKER
1988
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

230.

20258/21

Ergin v. Türkiye

06/04/2021

Mevlit ERGİN
1966
Tekirdağ
Turkish

Awarded

231.

23878/21

Aygün v. Türkiye

03/05/2021

Enver AYGÜN
1990
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

232.

23942/21

Çavdar v. Türkiye

28/04/2021

Cafer ÇAVDAR
1974
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

233.

24091/21

Akdeniz v. Türkiye

05/05/2021

Mustafa AKDENİZ
1985
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

234.

26458/21

Akdeniz v. Türkiye

05/03/2021

Yasin AKDENİZ
1976
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

235.

34205/21

İyigün v. Türkiye

02/06/2021

Cemal İYİGÜN
1977
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

236.

37181/21

Topak v. Türkiye

25/06/2021

Eyyüp TOPAK
1976
Hatay
Turkish

Awarded

237.

44242/21

Ülker v. Türkiye

26/08/2021

Birol ÜLKER
1980
Denizli
Turkish

Awarded