SECOND SECTION
CASE OF KARASU AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
(Applications nos. 12589/18 and 42 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 June 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Karasu and Others v. Türkiye,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Péter Paczolay, President,
Gediminas Sagatys,
Stéphane Pisani, 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 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons when ordering and extending the applicants’ pre-trial detention, the length of the pre-trial detention and the alleged ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the lawfulness of detention to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Abdullah Aydın, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye, 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 2 June 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. At the material time, most of the applicants were serving in the army as senior army officers, field officers or private soldiers. Some of the applicants were serving or former police officers.
2. The applications concern the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants in the aftermath of the attempted coup of 15 July 2016. The applicants were suspected of having been involved in the coup attempt and of membership of an armed terrorist organisation.
General Background3. During the night of 15 to 16 July 2016 a group of members of the Turkish armed forces calling themselves the “Peace at Home Council” attempted to carry out a military coup aimed at overthrowing the democratically installed National Assembly, government and President of Türkiye.
4. During the coup attempt, the instigators, using fighter planes and helicopters, bombarded several strategic State buildings, including the National Assembly building and the presidential compound, as well as the police special operations command and the headquarters of the secret services. They also attacked the hotel where the President of Türkiye was staying, held the Chief of General Staff hostage, attacked and occupied a number of institutions (including Türksat, a Turkish satellite telecommunications operator in Ankara), took over various television channels, sealed off bridges over the Bosphorus, took control of Istanbul Airport, and fired shots at demonstrators. During the night of violence, 251 people were killed and 2,194 were injured.
5. The day after the attempted military coup, the national authorities blamed the network linked to Fetullah Gülen, a Turkish citizen living in Pennsylvania (United States of America) and considered to be the leader of an organisation referred to by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure” (Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması – hereinafter referred to as “FETÖ/PDY”).
6. During and after the coup attempt, acting on the instructions of the Ankara public prosecutor’s office, regional and provincial prosecutors’ offices initiated criminal investigations in respect of individuals suspected of being involved in the attempt and others who were not directly involved but were alleged to have links to the FETÖ/PDY organisation.
7. On 20 July 2016 the government declared a state of emergency for a period of three months from 21 July 2016. The state of emergency was subsequently extended for further periods of three months by the Council of Ministers. On 18 July 2018 the state of emergency was lifted.
8. On 21 July 2016 the Turkish authorities gave notice to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of a derogation from the Convention under Article 15. Türkiye’s derogation from the Convention ended in July 2018.
9. Further information regarding the events that unfolded after the coup attempt – including the declaration of a state of emergency by the government, the ensuing notice of derogation submitted to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, and the legislative developments that followed – may be found in Baş v. Turkey (no. 66448/17, §§ 6‑14 and 109‑10, 3 March 2020).
the Applicants’ Pre-trial Detention10. On various dates the applicants were arrested and placed in pre‑trial detention, on suspicion of having been involved in the coup attempt and of membership of FETÖ/PDY. The applicants lodged objections against the detention orders but without success.
11. 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 two years to four years and six months.
12. 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 the fact that they had personally participated in the coup attempt, either in their capacity as members of the army or as former or serving police officers.
13. The detention orders in the case file refer, inter alia, to one or more of the following acts, which the judicial authorities considered to constitute grounds for reasonable suspicion that the applicants had committed the imputed offences:
(i) planning and commanding the coup attempt;
(ii) attacking or attempting to seize certain strategic public buildings, such as the headquarters of the National Intelligence Service and the Turkish Radio and Television Association, the Parliament building, and various ministries;
(iii) using transport aircraft, fighter jets, helicopters, and battleships;
(iv) for those who had not been on duty that night, participating in the actions of their respective units on the orders of the instigators; and
(v) facilitating the coup by aiding the putschists.
14. 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 those 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 account of the nature and severity of the sentences prescribed by law for the offences concerned. They noted that those offences were among the “catalogue” offences listed in Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The authorities also referred to the state of the evidence and, taking into account that the applicants had been arrested on suspicion of involvement in the coup attempt, considered that there was a risk of their absconding, reoffending or tampering with evidence. On that basis, they concluded that detention would be a proportionate measure in the circumstances. At the later stages of the proceedings, the competent judges continued to rely on the same reasons and also took into account the time already spent by the applicants in pre‑trial detention when deciding to extend their detention.
15. In the meantime, the applicants lodged one or more individual applications with the Constitutional Court challenging the detention orders. They complained, inter alia, of the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence, the absence of sufficient reasons to justify their pre-trial detention, and the length of that detention. On various dates all of those complaints were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court.
16. According to the most recent information provided by the parties, the majority of the applicants were convicted at first instance of attempting to overthrow the Constitutional order and the elected government and/or of membership of an armed terrorist organisation. Those convictions were based on evidence that either had been available at the time of their initial detention or appeared subsequently in the course of the proceedings.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS17. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION18. The applicants 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. Some of the applicants complained that the length of their pre-trial detention was excessive. In that connection, they alleged that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
Admissibility19. The Government first 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, or whose compensation claims were still pending. The Government further claimed that some of the applicants had been granted compensation pursuant to Article 141 and had therefore lost their victim status. They also 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. The Government lastly submitted that the applicants’ initial and continued pre‑trial detention had complied with domestic legislation and Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
20. As for the objections raised by the Government, the Court notes that similar objections 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. Accordingly, the Court rejects these objections.
21. The Court considers that the applicants’ complaints under Article 5 § 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.
Merits22. The applicable general principles under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention regarding the reasoning of detention orders are summarised in Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova ([GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-102, 5 July 2016) and Merabishvili (cited above, §§ 222-25; see also Hasselbaink v. the Netherlands, no. 73329/16, §§ 69‑73, 9 February 2021).
23. In accordance with the Court’s established case-law under Article 5 § 3, 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 reasons 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, cited above, §§ 87-88 and 101-02). Those risks must be duly substantiated, and the authorities’ reasoning on those points cannot be abstract, general or formulaic (see Merabishvili, cited above, § 222).
24. As for the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicants had committed an offence, the Court notes that at the material time the applicants, who were army officers of various ranks or serving or former police officers, were arrested and subsequently placed in detention particularly on suspicion of being involved in the attempted coup d’état aimed at overthrowing the constitutional order and the elected government. It appears from the documents in the case file that the applicants’ arrest and pre-trial detention were based on one or more allegations, including involvement in planning or commanding the coup attempt; participation in attacks on or attempts to seize strategic public buildings; use of military assets such as aircraft and naval vessels; participation in the actions of their respective units on the orders of the instigators; or facilitating the coup by aiding the putschists (see paragraph 13 above). In the light of these elements, the Court considers that there was a reasonable suspicion throughout the applicants’ pre-trial detention that they had committed the offences in question.
25. In addition to the existence of a reasonable suspicion, the authorities relied, in the initial detention decisions, on the following main grounds: (i) the fact that Turkish law provided for a statutory presumption of the existence of grounds for detention for the offences in question under Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) the seriousness of the offences and the severity of the potential penalties; (iii) the state of the evidence; (iv) the risk of the applicants’ reoffending; (v) the risk of their absconding; and (vi) the risk of their tampering with evidence (see paragraph 14 above).
26. As regards item (i), the Court reiterates that the existence of a statutory presumption under Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not, in the context of the review it must carry out under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, provide any specific elements demonstrating the need for pre‑trial detention (see Şık v. Turkey, no. 53413/11, § 62, 8 July 2014). As for item (ii), the Court reiterates that although the seriousness of the offence and the severity of the potential penalties are relevant elements in the assessment of the risk that an accused might abscond or reoffend, the need to continue the deprivation of liberty cannot be assessed from a purely abstract point of view, on the basis of those factors alone. Similarly, the applicant’s continued detention cannot serve to anticipate a custodial sentence (see also Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 145, 22 May 2012).
27. As regards the risks of the applicants’ reoffending, absconding and/or tampering with evidence (items (iv), (v) and (vi)), the domestic courts considered those risks to be substantiated. In this connection, they relied, in particular, on the fact that the applicants belonged to the security forces, that threats to national security were ongoing at the material time, and that a significant number of persons who had planned, instigated or participated in the coup attempt had fled the country on the same day as the events. The courts also noted that the criminal investigations concerning the organisers of the coup attempt and their subordinates were still ongoing and that not all suspects had yet been apprehended, which, in their view, increased the risks of collusion and obstruction of the proceedings. Having regard to those considerations, the courts concluded that, at that stage of the proceedings, the objectives pursued by the applicants’ detention could not be achieved by the application of less restrictive measures than detention.
28. The Court considers, in view of all the foregoing, that, cumulatively, the grounds referred to by the national courts in their decisions were duly substantiated and the reasoning in respect of the applicants was sufficiently individualised. They accordingly gave “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for the applicants’ remand in custody during the initial period of the proceedings.
29. The Court must also examine the question whether the applicants’ detention continued to be justified as time passed. It notes that, at the later stages of the proceedings, the domestic courts largely relied on the reasoning set out in the initial detention orders. It observes that they based the continuation of the applicants’ detention mainly on the risks of their absconding and tampering with evidence. They also referred to the seriousness of the offences, the severity of the potential penalties, the state of the evidence and the time already spent in detention. The courts further stated that alternative measures of restraint would not have been sufficient (see paragraph 14 above).
30. It appears that the decisions concerning the continuation of the detention placed particular emphasis on the risk of the applicants’ reoffending, absconding and tampering with evidence. Whilst more detailed and individualised reasoning would have been desirable, the Court is satisfied that this was sufficient in the circumstances for a certain period of time. As repeatedly noted by the Court, a generally formulated risk flowing from the nature of the alleged criminal activities as a member of an organised criminal group of which an applicant is accused may be accepted as the basis for his or her detention at the initial stages of the proceedings and in some circumstances also for subsequent prolongations of the detention (see, among other authorities, Dudek v. Poland, no. 633/03, § 36, 4 May 2006).
31. In assessing whether the domestic courts provided “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for the applicants’ continued detention, the Court must also have regard to the specific circumstances of the case (see, for example, Perstner v. Luxembourg, no. 7446/21, §§ 39-50, 16 February 2023, and Gomes Costa v. Portugal, no. 34916/16, §§ 81-84, 25 February 2025). Having regard to the overall context of the case, in particular the fact that the applicants belonged to the security forces and were suspected of direct involvement in the attempted coup, the Court is prepared to accept that those risks could be regarded as sufficiently substantiated, at least until the lifting of the state of emergency.
32. Nevertheless, the applicants’ detention lasted for more than two years and continued after the state of emergency had been lifted and the Government’s derogation from the Convention had ended.
33. The Court considers that, from that date onwards, the domestic courts were under a strict obligation to carry out a fresh assessment of the necessity of the applicants’ detention and to examine the possibility of applying less intrusive measures. As time went on, the risks relied on by the domestic courts inevitably diminished, making it incumbent on them to provide increasingly specific and individualised reasons to justify the continued deprivation of liberty. This requirement was all the more pressing given the duration of the applicants’ pre-trial detention, which lasted for more than two years in each case. The Court further considers that the considerations relevant during the state of emergency necessarily became less compelling after its lifting.
34. The material in the case file, however, indicates that the domestic courts failed to discharge that obligation. They relied on repetitive and overly succinct reasoning, without taking into account the applicants’ individual circumstances, examining the potential application of alternative measures to detention, or assessing whether the reasons justifying the applicants’ continued detention at the initial stages of the proceedings had evolved over time, in particular after the lifting of the state of emergency in Türkiye.
35. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that, although the reasons relied on by the domestic courts for extending the applicants’ pre‑trial detention may be regarded as “relevant”, they cannot be considered “sufficient” for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in so far as the applicants’ detention continued after the state of emergency had been lifted, having regard to the overall duration of the detention (which lasted for more than two years and, in some cases, up to four years and six months).
36. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants.
37. In view of this finding, it is not necessary to examine, in respect of the applicants who raised this complaint, whether the duration of their detention complied with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
OTHER COMPLAINTS38. As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 § 4 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
39. The 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.
40. The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive.
41. 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 a lump sum of 2,000 euros in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;Holds that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, to each of the applicants EUR 2,000 (two 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; 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;Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 June 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Dorothee von Arnim Péter Paczolay
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.
12589/18
Karasu v. Türkiye
14/02/2018
İlhan KARASU
1966
Erzurum
Turkish
Cem ALPTEKİN
2.
39026/18
Acar v. Türkiye
01/08/2018
Ümit ACAR
1986
Antalya
Turkish
Pelin EMENİR ABAZOĞLU
3.
23833/20
Göktürk v. Türkiye
20/05/2020
Fatih GÖKTÜRK
1973
Ankara
Turkish
Yadigar GÖNÜLLÜ
4.
40085/20
Kukut v. Türkiye
28/08/2020
Mehmet Burak KUKUT
1989
Ankara
Turkish
Ayşe Nesibe YAZAR
5.
40650/20
Özşahin v. Türkiye
02/09/2020
Fazlı ÖZŞAHİN
1985
Antalya
Turkish
Fatma HACIPAŞALIOĞLU
6.
40978/20
Yapıcı v. Türkiye
28/08/2020
İsmail YAPICI
1982
Kırıkkale
Turkish
7.
46463/20
Aydemir v. Türkiye
09/10/2020
Fatih AYDEMİR
1986
Kırıkkale
Turkish
Ayten İZMİRLİ
8.
50039/20
Turğan v. Türkiye
30/10/2020
Sinan TURĞAN
1991
Van
Turkish
Ahmet Aykut YILDIZ
9.
50144/20
Demir v. Türkiye
04/11/2020
Erkan DEMİR
1985
Kırıkkale
Turkish
Melike ÖNAL TOPRAK
10.
202/21
Kabaklı v. Türkiye
16/12/2020
Savaş KABAKLI
1975
Ankara
Turkish
Janset ATİLA
11.
959/21
Karlıdağ v. Türkiye
09/12/2020
Erdal KARLIDAĞ
1970
Kırıkkale
Turkish
Veysel MAYDA
12.
2372/21
Bülbül v. Türkiye
14/12/2020
Gültekin BÜLBÜL
1980
Manisa
Turkish
Mehmet Akif ACAR
13.
3103/21
Başpınar v. Türkiye
18/12/2020
İbrahim BAŞPINAR
1978
Ankara
Turkish
Ayşe Süeda ÜNAL
14.
4942/21
Taşkın v. Türkiye
18/01/2021
Zeki TAŞKIN
1965
Kırıkkale
Turkish
Kamile ÖZBULUT
15.
5391/21
Okul v. Türkiye
06/01/2021
Erdem OKUL
1993
Ankara
Turkish
Refia TAŞCIOĞLU ERBİROL
16.
6573/21
Ergin v. Türkiye
05/01/2021
Fatih ERGİN
1981
Kocaeli
Turkish
Zülal Nur KÖMÜRCÜ
17.
11073/21
Kürklü v. Türkiye
08/02/2021
Mustafa KÜRKLÜ
1972
Tekirdağ
Turkish
Refia TAŞCIOĞLU ERBİROL
18.
11258/21
Çiçek v. Türkiye
19/02/2021
İlker ÇİÇEK
1982
Diyarbakır
Turkish
Nalan KELEBEK KURU
19.
11751/21
Palalı v. Türkiye
18/02/2021
İlker PALALI
1992
Ankara
Turkish
20.
12038/21
Toygar v. Türkiye
17/02/2021
Bülent TOYGAR
1975
Adana
Turkish
Enes Malik KILIÇ
21.
13528/21
Nozoğlu v. Türkiye
26/02/2021
Cihat NOZOĞLU
1980
Istanbul
Turkish
Emel NOZOĞLU
22.
13689/21
Kubatoğlu v. Türkiye
01/03/2021
Emre KUBATOĞLU
1979
Van
Turkish
Goncagül KUBATOĞLU
23.
14597/21
Vardar v. Türkiye
05/03/2021
Engin VARDAR
1985
Adana
Turkish
24.
15949/21
Hamzaçebi v. Türkiye
19/03/2021
Kazım HAMZAÇEBİ
1993
İstanbul
Turkish
Banu YURDAKUL
25.
20137/21
Kahveci v. Türkiye
07/04/2021
Onur KAHVECİ
1988
Ankara
Turkish
Suna BİLGEN
26.
20841/21
Köse v. Türkiye
01/01/2021
Veli KÖSE
1981
Ankara
Turkish
Refia TAŞÇIOĞLU ERBIROL
27.
26093/21
Aydoğdu v. Türkiye
28/04/2021
Ekrem AYDOĞDU
1981
İzmir
Turkish
Orçun MUŞLU
28.
26142/21
Akbal v. Türkiye
12/05/2021
Fahri AKBAL
1963
Konya
Turkish
Yakup Yaşar MİRZAOĞLU
29.
27775/21
Özcan v. Türkiye
25/05/2021
Ahmet ÖZCAN
1978
Antalya
Turkish
Mustafa Enes EROL
30.
27949/21
Demirkale v. Türkiye
24/05/2021
Muharrem DEMİRKALE
1969
Ankara
Turkish
Nalan KELEBEK KURU
31.
28972/21
Yıldırım v. Türkiye
25/05/2021
Yakup YILDIRIM
1985
Ankara
Turkish
32.
31048/21
Çayırlı v. Türkiye
25/05/2021
Mehmet Barış ÇAYIRLI
1973
Tekirdağ
Turkish
Müberra ÇAYIRLI
33.
31274/21
Akbulut v. Türkiye
11/06/2021
Yusuf AKBULUT
1993
Ankara
Turkish
Şifa TAT
34.
37159/21
Gündüz v. Türkiye
16/07/2021
Aydın GÜNDÜZ
1965
Ankara
Turkish
Özlem BARINER
35.
42324/21
Muzafferiyet v. Türkiye
13/08/2021
Erkan MUZAFFERİYET
1990
Çorum
Turkish
Hasan TOK
36.
42878/21
Gökçe v. Türkiye
19/08/2021
Mehmet GÖKÇE
1979
Bolu
Turkish
37.
43401/21
Avşar v. Türkiye
20/08/2021
Samet AVŞAR
1991
Batman
Turkish
Burak ÇOLAK
38.
44034/21
Ordu v. Türkiye
25/08/2021
Yüksel ORDU
1971
Ankara
Turkish
Ayşe Nesibe YAZAR
39.
44179/21
Ercan v. Türkiye
01/09/2021
Ali ERCAN
1982
Erzincan
Turkish
Ayşe Süeda ÜNAL
40.
47799/21
Kılıç v. Türkiye
08/09/2021
Ramazan KILIÇ
1987
Turkish
Ayten İZMİRLİ
41.
293/22
Gür v. Türkiye
16/12/2021
Osman Nuri GÜR
1968
Ankara
Turkish
Özlem BARINER
42.
7843/22
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
25/01/2022
Yiğitcan YILMAZ
1992
Ankara
Turkish
Furkan Önder ÖZEL
43.
20852/22
Yıldız v. Türkiye
11/04/2022
İlhami YILDIZ
1987
Samsun
Turkish
Sibel KALABALIK