SECOND SECTION
CASE OF KESLER AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
(Applications nos. 18809/18 and 171 others)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3 December 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kesler 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 pre-trial detention, the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the lawfulness of detention and the absence of a remedy to obtain compensation 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 12 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 (for further background information see Akgün v. Turkey, no. 19699/18, §§ 3-9 and §§ 106-07, 20 July 2021).
2. On various dates, the applicants were arrested and placed in pre-trial detention, mainly on suspicion of membership of the FETÖ/PDY, an offence punishable under Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, § 58, 3 March 2020). The detention orders relied principally on the nature of the alleged offence, the state of the evidence and the potential sentence. It was also noted that investigations into the coup attempt were being conducted across the country, that statements had not yet been taken from all the suspects and that the alleged offence was among the “catalogue” offences listed in Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) (for the text of Article 100 of the CCP, as relevant, see Baş, cited above, § 61). It appears from the initial detention orders and the documents available in the case files that the majority of the applicants were identified as users of the ByLock messaging system. Moreover, some of the applicants were suspected of being affiliated with the FETÖ/PDY based on witness statements, or of financing the FETÖ/PDY in view of their use of accounts in Bank Asya – a bank allegedly linked to FETÖ/PDY –, possession of pro-FETÖ/PDY publications and/or United States one-dollar bills with an “F” serial number (denoting the initial of the forename “Fetullah”), and/or their employment by and/or memberships in FETÖ/PDY-affiliated institutions and organisations. The challenges brought by the applicants against their detention, including by reason of the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion of having committed the offence imputed to them, were dismissed, including by the Constitutional Court.
3. According to the latest information provided by the parties, most of the applicants were convicted of membership of a terrorist organisation by the first instance courts. It appears that, in some of the applications, the criminal proceedings are still pending before appeal courts or the Constitutional Court.
4. On 1 October 2023 the applicant in application no. 18710/20, Mr Uğur Uzuntaş, died and his spouse, Ms Sümeyra Uzuntaş, indicated that she wished to pursue the application.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
PRELIMINARY ISsUE: LOCUS STANDI AS REGARDS APPLICATION No. 18710/206. The Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which an applicant has died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken into account statements by the applicant’s heirs or by close family members expressing their wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see Tripcovici v. Montenegro, no. 80104/13, § 28, 7 November 2017, with further references).
7. The Court notes at the outset that unlike the applicants in cases where the applicant died during the domestic proceedings and the application was lodged by his heirs after the victim’s death, the late applicant died during the proceedings before the Court (see Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 28, 8 April 2014 and the case-law cited therein). In accordance with its case-law and having regard to the subject matter of the present case, it considers that the spouse of applicant in application no. 18710/20 has a legitimate interest in maintaining the application in the name of the deceased and therefore has standing to proceed in the late applicant’s stead (see Ergezen, cited above, § 30 and, mutatis mutandis, Göktaş v. Turkey, no. 66446/01, § 19, 29 November 2007). For reasons of convenience, however, the Court will continue to refer to Mr Uzuntaş as the “applicant” (see, for example, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION8. The applicants complained that there had been no specific evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, that they had committed a criminal offence necessitating, in particular, their initial pre-trial detention.
9. The Government urged the Court to declare this complaint inadmissible in respect of the applicants who had not made use of the compensatory remedy under Article 141 of the CCP, or whose compensation claims were still pending. They further asked the Court to declare the applications inadmissible for abuse of the right of application to the extent that the applicants had not informed the Court of the developments in their cases following the lodging of their applications.
10. The Court notes that similar objections have already been dismissed in other cases against Türkiye (see, for instance, 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. The Court therefore considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
11. The Court notes that, when ordering the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention, the magistrate’s courts sought to justify their decisions by making a general reference to Article 100 of the CCP and the potential sentence, as well as to “the evidence in the file”. However, in doing so, they simply cited the wording of the provision in question, without actually specifying what the evidence in question entailed and why it constituted a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question. The Court refers in this connection to its findings in the judgment of Baş (cited above, §§ 190‑195), according to which the vague and general references to the wording of Article 100 of the CCP and to the evidence in the file cannot be regarded as sufficient to justify the “reasonableness” of the suspicion on which the applicants’ detention was supposed to have been based, in the absence either of a specific assessment of the individual items of evidence in the file, or of any information available in the file at the material time that could have justified the suspicion against the applicants, or of any other kinds of verifiable material or facts.
12. The Court further notes that the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention orders were mainly based on information indicating their use of the ByLock messaging system, banking activities considered as financing the FETÖ/PDY, subscriptions to certain pro-FETÖ/PDY publications, having in their possessions United States one‑dollar bills with an “F” serial number, and/or their employment by and/or memberships in FETÖ/PDY-affiliated institutions and organisations. To the extent that the detention orders have taken into account the applicants’ alleged use of the ByLock messaging system, the Court notes that it has already found that the use of ByLock alone was not of a nature to constitute “reasonable suspicion” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) in respect of the offence attributed to the applicants (see Akgün v. Turkey, no. 19699/18, §§ 151-85, 20 July 2021, and Taner Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 208/18, §§ 102-03 and 106-09, 31 May 2022). The Court also notes that as regards some of the applicants, the Government have referred to the existence of witness statements justifying the measures in question. It observes, however, that there are no statements in the case files referring to concrete and specific facts that may have given rise to a reasonable suspicion against the applicants concerned at the material time. The Court further considers, as relevant, that the other acts imputed to the applicants (see paragraph 2 above) were merely circumstantial elements which, in the absence of any other information capable of justifying the suspicions in question, benefited from the presumption of legality and cannot reasonably be regarded as constituting a body of evidence demonstrating the applicants’ membership of a terrorist organisation (compare Taner Kılıç, cited above, §§ 104-05 and the cases cited therein).
13. Since the Government have not provided any other indications, “facts” or “information” capable of satisfying it that the applicants were “reasonably suspected”, at the time of their initial detention, of having committed the alleged offence, the Court finds that the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (c) regarding the “reasonableness” of a suspicion justifying detention have not been satisfied (see Baş, cited above, § 195, and Taner Kılıç, cited above, §§ 114-16). At this juncture, it cannot be maintained, as the Government argued in their observations, that the fact that the applicants were not members of the judiciary had any bearing on the conclusion reached. It finally considers that while the applicants were detained a short time after the coup attempt – that is, the event that prompted the declaration of the state of emergency and the notice of derogation by Türkiye –, which is undoubtedly a contextual factor that should be fully taken into account in interpreting and applying Article 5 of the Convention in the present case, the measure at issue cannot be said to have been strictly required by the exigencies of the situation (compare Baş, cited above, §§ 115-16 and §§ 196‑201). It therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
OTHER COMPLAINTS14. As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention, the Court decides not to examine them, in view of its findings under Article 5 § 1 above and its considerations in the case of Turan and Others (cited above, § 98).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. The applicants, except for the applicant in application no. 30276/19, requested compensation in varying amounts in respect of non‑pecuniary damage within the time-limit allotted. Most of the applicants in question also claimed pecuniary damage, as well as the legal costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
16. The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive.
17. For the reasons put forth in Turan and Others (cited above, §§ 102‑07), the Court rejects any claims for pecuniary damage and awards each of the applicants, save for the applicant in application no. 30276/19, a lump sum of 5,000 euros (EUR), covering 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;Holds, in respect of application no. 18710/20, that the late applicant’s spouse has standing to continue the proceedings in his stead;Declares the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, concerning the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion, at the time of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention, that they had committed an offence, admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of reasonable suspicion, at the time of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention, that they had committed an offence;Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ remaining complaints under Article 5 of the Convention;Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants (that is, in application no. 18710/20 the spouse of the applicant), with the exception of the applicant in application no. 30276/19, within three months, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount, which is 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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 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
Represented by
1.
18809/18
Kesler v. Türkiye
03/04/2018
Mehmet Furkan KESLER
1993
Istanbul
Turkish
Elvan BAĞ CANBAZ
2.
22272/18
Köksal v. Türkiye
04/05/2018
Cihangir KÖKSAL
1969
SEE REP. ADDRESS
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
3.
25383/18
Akbayrak v. Türkiye
21/05/2018
Tuncay AKBAYRAK
1983
SEE REP. ADDRESS
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
4.
26429/18
Demir v. Türkiye
29/05/2018
Şeref DEMİR
1972
Istanbul
Turkish
Emre KOZANDAĞI
5.
33468/18
Aktaşoğlu v. Türkiye
02/07/2018
Ali AKTAŞOĞLU
1973
Istanbul
Turkish
İrem GÜNEŞ
6.
35183/18
Tiryaki v. Türkiye
13/07/2018
Emin TİRYAKİ 1982
Çankırı
Turkish
Burak ÇOLAK
7.
38501/18
Karataş v. Türkiye
27/07/2018
Ali KARATAŞ
1978
Ankara
Turkish
Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ
8.
38775/18
Akbulut v. Türkiye
27/07/2018
Ayhan AKBULUT
1978
Ankara
Turkish
Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ
9.
38848/18
Şenel v. Türkiye
07/08/2018
Kemal ŞENEL
1969
Ankara
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
10.
38853/18
Benek v. Türkiye
07/08/2018
Tayyip BENEK
1988
Siirt
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
11.
11885/19
Benli v. Türkiye
26/02/2019
Musa BENLİ
1984
Ankara
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
12.
16700/19
Fırtına v. Türkiye
14/03/2019
Metin FIRTINA
1976
Ankara
Turkish
Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ
13.
18495/19
Ablak v. Türkiye
22/03/2019
Mustafa ABLAK
1985
Ankara
Turkish
Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ
14.
18762/19
Öztürk v. Türkiye
27/03/2019
Meriye ÖZTÜRK
1971
Samsun
Turkish
İnan UZUN
15.
20728/19
Kılıç v. Türkiye
02/04/2019
Mustafa KILIÇ
1984
Kocaeli
Turkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
16.
20738/19
Kaya v. Türkiye
02/04/2019
Mustafa KAYA
1972
Kocaeli
Turkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
17.
21904/19
Bozdemir v. Türkiye
08/04/2019
Sadık BOZDEMİR
1971
Ankara
Turkish
Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ
18.
21975/19
Demir v. Türkiye
15/04/2019
Ali DEMİR
1983
SEE REP. ADDRESS
Turkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
19.
22078/19
Örnek v. Türkiye
15/04/2019
Adem ÖRNEK
1977
Erzincan
Turkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
20.
22126/19
Kahveci v. Türkiye
15/04/2019
Nihal KAHVECİ
1980
Kocaeli
Turkish
Aydın KAHVECİ
1981
Kocaeli
Turkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
21.
22778/19
Mendeş v. Türkiye
24/04/2019
Mustafa MENDEŞ
1979
SEE REP. ADDRESS
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
22.
24855/19
Kahveci v. Türkiye
25/04/2019
Faruk KAHVECİ
1980
Kocaeli
Turkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
23.
25525/19
Kızıldere v. Türkiye
08/05/2019
Halil İbrahim KIZILDERE
1971
Ankara
Turkish
Burak ÇOLAK
24.
25722/19
Ercan v. Türkiye
02/05/2019
Ali ERCAN
1976
Kocaeli
Turkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
25.
26315/19
Ağpak v. Türkiye
08/05/2019
Ali İhsan AĞPAK
1992
Turkish
Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ
26.
26928/19
Karabudak v. Türkiye
09/05/2019
Veis KARABUDAK
1981
Hatay
Turkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
27.
27026/19
Turhan v. Türkiye
08/05/2019
Fatih TURHAN
1989
Ankara
Turkish
Burak ÇOLAK
28.
27965/19
Demirdiş v. Türkiye
13/05/2019
Nuğman DEMİRDİŞ
1971
Ankara
Turkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ
29.
27968/19
Doğan v. Türkiye
14/05/2019
Halil DOĞAN
1984
Ankara
Turkish
Hanifi BAYRI
30.
29374/19
Öner v. Türkiye
10/05/2019
Murat ÖNER
1982
SEE REP. ADDRESS
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
31.
29601/19
Ak v. Türkiye
09/05/2019
Oğuz AK
1978
SEE REP. ADDRESS
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
32.
30276/19
Çiçekçi v. Türkiye
16/05/2019
İsmail ÇİÇEKÇİ
1973
SEE REP. ADDRESS
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
33.
30518/19
Özçam v. Türkiye
24/05/2019
Muzaffer ÖZÇAM
1977
Kocaeli
Turkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
34.
32902/19
Çırak v. Türkiye
23/05/2019
Nihat ÇIRAK
1975
Afyonkarahisar
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
35.
33160/19
Çelik v. Türkiye
12/06/2019
Halil İbrahim ÇELİK
1985
Ankara
Turkish
Burak ÇOLAK
36.
33181/19
Ermiş v. Türkiye
12/06/2019
Mustafa ERMİŞ
1978
Amasya
Turkish
Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ
37.
33197/19
Taşkan v. Türkiye
12/06/2019
Hamza TAŞKAN
1986
Ankara
Turkish
Burak ÇOLAK
38.
33221/19
Altun v. Türkiye
12/06/2019
Recep ALTUN
1988
Kastamonu
Turkish
Burak ÇOLAK
39.
33251/19
Duran v. Türkiye
11/06/2019
Ali Rıza DURAN
1979
Kocaeli
Turkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
40.
35087/19
Güldüren v. Türkiye
28/06/2019
Resul GÜLDÜREN
1988
SEE REP. ADDRESS
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
41.
35370/19
Tetik v. Türkiye
10/06/2019
Şinasi Sedat TETİK
1976
Ankara
Turkish
Burak ÇOLAK
42.
37579/19
Demirel v. Türkiye
04/07/2019
Tekin DEMİREL
1969
Samsun
Turkish
İnan UZUN
43.
38036/19
Öner v. Türkiye
28/06/2019
Ahmet ÖNER
1984
Samsun
Turkish
İnan UZUN
44.
40046/19
Akgül v. Türkiye
19/07/2019
Hakan AKGÜL
1989
SEE REP. ADDRESS
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
45.
40215/19
Yerlikaya v. Türkiye
17/07/2019
Yüksel YERLİKAYA
1974
Aydın
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
46.
41297/19
Uysal v. Türkiye
25/07/2019
Alpaslan UYSAL
1989
Kocaeli
Turkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
47.
42519/19
Güney v. Türkiye
06/08/2019
Hayri GÜNEY
1967
Ankara
Turkish
Burak ÇOLAK
48.
42530/19
Elmacı v. Türkiye
01/08/2019
Hüseyin ELMACI
1987
Burdur
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
49.
42701/19
Kan v. Türkiye
02/08/2019
Hasan KAN
1983
Erzurum
Turkish
Muhammet ÜSTÜN
50.
43484/19
Canbay v. Türkiye
05/08/2019
Fuat CANBAY
1981
Kocaeli
Turkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
51.
47671/19
Erol v. Türkiye
04/09/2019
Adem EROL
1988
Kırıkkale
Turkish
İrem GÜNEŞ
52.
49457/19
Kara v. Türkiye
05/09/2019
Ferit KARA
1980
Gaziantep
Turkish
Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN
53.
51539/19
Türkmen v. Türkiye
20/09/2019
Mahmut TÜRKMEN
1971
Ankara
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
54.
55078/19
Göksu v. Türkiye
03/10/2019
Bedir GÖKSU
1965
Kocaeli
Turkish
Elvan BAĞ CANBAZ
55.
56066/19
Durmuş v. Türkiye
09/10/2019
Edip DURMUŞ
1977
Ankara
Turkish
Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ
56.
56302/19
Polat v. Türkiye
03/10/2019
Selma POLAT
1989
Ankara
Turkish
İrem GÜNEŞ
57.
56374/19
Kahveci v. Türkiye
11/10/2019
Merve KAHVECİ
1989
Gebze
Turkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
58.
57931/19
Dursun v. Türkiye
15/10/2019
Selim DURSUN
1978
İzmir
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
59.
61585/19
Menteş v. Türkiye
11/11/2019
Furkan MENTEŞ
1996
Denizli
Turkish
İrem GÜNEŞ
60.
61591/19
Öztürk v. Türkiye
14/11/2019
Metin Yıldıray ÖZTÜRK
1983
SEE REP. ADDRESS
Turkish
İrem GÜNEŞ
61.
61926/19
Güneş v. Türkiye
18/11/2019
Müjdat GÜNEŞ
1981
Istanbul
Turkish
Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ
62.
266/20
Topal v. Türkiye
18/12/2019
Adnan TOPAL
1966
İzmir
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
63.
1102/20
Yaman v. Türkiye
13/12/2019
Ahmet YAMAN
1984
Kayseri
Turkish
Özcan AKINCI
64.
1169/20
Tokgöz v. Türkiye
23/12/2019
Orhan TOKGÖZ
1976
Diyarbakır
Turkish
Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN
65.
2653/20
Başar v. Türkiye
18/12/2019
Musa Fatih BAŞAR
1977
İzmir
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
66.
2907/20
Gilik v. Türkiye
16/12/2019
Ali GİLİK
1977
Adana
Turkish
İrem GÜNEŞ
67.
3394/20
Dulkadir v. Türkiye
31/12/2019
Ulaş DULKADİR
1983
Ankara
Turkish
Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ
68.
3550/20
Demir v. Türkiye
26/12/2019
Ümit DEMİR
1980
Samsun
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
69.
3648/20
Altunay v. Türkiye
10/01/2020
Eda ALTUNAY
1991
Samsun
Turkish
İrem GÜNEŞ
70.
4180/20
Yinanç v. Türkiye
30/12/2019
Mevlüt YİNANÇ
1981
Bursa
Turkish
Elvan BAĞ CANBAZ
71.
6632/20
Kocaeli v. Türkiye
17/01/2020
Carullah KOCAELİ
1974
Ankara
Turkish
Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ
72.
6644/20
Söğütlü v. Türkiye
17/01/2020
Zafer SÖĞÜTLÜ
1966
Ankara
Turkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ
73.
6983/20
Köse v. Türkiye
10/01/2020
Mustafa KÖSE
1977
Kayseri
Turkish
Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN
74.
7368/20
Bediz v. Türkiye
23/01/2020
Burhan BEDİZ
1979
İzmir
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
75.
10484/20
Çalımlı v. Türkiye
12/02/2020
Niyazi ÇALIMLI
1977
Ankara
Turkish
Burak ÇOLAK
76.
10695/20
Karacif v. Türkiye
10/02/2020
Mehmet KARACİF
1982
Ankara
Turkish
Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ
77.
10894/20
Karagöl v. Türkiye
07/02/2020
Zeynep KARAGÖL
1992
İzmir
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
78.
12068/20
Öner v. Türkiye
20/02/2020
Ragibe ÖNER
1989
Çorum
Turkish
İnan UZUN
79.
13105/20
İnce v. Türkiye
02/03/2020
Mehmet İNCE
1981
Kayseri
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
80.
13266/20
Aslan v. Türkiye
09/03/2020
Ahmet ASLAN
1968
Istanbul
Turkish
Hanifi BAYRI
81.
13794/20
Nuhbaşa v. Türkiye
26/02/2020
Hasan NUHBAŞA
1972
Erzurum
Turkish
Burak ÇOLAK
82.
14917/20
Çakır v. Türkiye
06/03/2020
Sultan ÇAKIR
1989
Ankara
Turkish
Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ
83.
15190/20
Kaymak v. Türkiye
05/03/2020
Mustafa KAYMAK
1976
Ankara
Turkish
Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ
84.
15690/20
Demir v. Türkiye
16/03/2020
Fatma DEMİR
1993
Ankara
Turkish
İrem GÜNEŞ
85.
15844/20
Türker v. Türkiye
13/03/2020
Tarık TÜRKER
1970
Kırıkkale
Turkish
Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ
86.
15862/20
Tatar v. Türkiye
13/03/2020
Sercan TATAR
1991
Kocaeli
Turkish
Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ
87.
16986/20
Çevirgen v. Türkiye
30/03/2020
Sevinç ÇEVİRGEN
1978
Bolu
Turkish
İrem GÜNEŞ
88.
18710/20
Uzuntaş v. Türkiye
17/04/2020
Uğur UZUNTAŞ
1976
Ankara
Turkish
İrem GÜNEŞ
89.
19895/20
Demir v. Türkiye
07/04/2020
Hüseyin DEMİR
1980
Ankara
Turkish
İrem GÜNEŞ
90.
20161/20
Kelebek v. Türkiye
15/05/2020
Ayhan KELEBEK
1965
Ankara
Turkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ
91.
20182/20
Kılınç v. Türkiye
15/05/2020
Ramazan KILINÇ
1980
Ankara
Turkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ
92.
20224/20
Akkurt v. Türkiye
15/05/2020
Aytekin AKKURT
1976
Ankara
Turkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ
93.
20248/20
Eralp v. Türkiye
12/05/2020
Ahmet ERALP
1964
Bolu
Turkish
İrem GÜNEŞ
94.
21070/20
Aslan v. Türkiye
12/05/2020
Muammer ASLAN
1966
Çankırı
Turkish
Burak ÇOLAK
95.
21071/20
Ata v. Türkiye
12/05/2020
Abdulhamit ATA
1971
Ankara
Turkish
Burak ÇOLAK
96.
21072/20
Kazel v. Türkiye
12/05/2020
Hakkı KAZEL
1992
Kırıkkale
Turkish
Burak ÇOLAK
97.
21074/20
Özbilen v. Türkiye
12/05/2020
İbrahim Halil ÖZBİLEN
1977
Eskişehir
Turkish
Burak ÇOLAK
98.
21076/20
Korkmaz v. Türkiye
12/05/2020
İbrahim KORKMAZ
1989
Eskişehir
Turkish
Burak ÇOLAK
99.
21203/20
Kazkondu v. Türkiye
12/05/2020
Vedat KAZKONDU
1980
Ankara
Turkish
Burak ÇOLAK
100.
21205/20
Sevgi v. Türkiye
04/05/2020
Fatih SEVGİ
1986
Atakum / SAMSUN
Turkish
İnan UZUN
101.
21207/20
Asan v. Türkiye
12/05/2020
Önder ASAN
1975
Balıkesir
Turkish
Burak ÇOLAK
102.
22918/20
Charyyev v. Türkiye
21/05/2020
Kerim CHARYYEV
1993
Samsun
Turkmen
İnan UZUN
103.
22922/20
Özkarslı v. Türkiye
21/05/2020
Ayşegül ÖZKARSLI
1988
Samsun
Turkish
İnan UZUN
104.
22960/20
Özel v. Türkiye
21/05/2020
Hacı ÖZEL
1988
Samsun
Turkish
İnan UZUN
105.
23127/20
Ergin v. Türkiye
21/05/2020
Ömer ERGİN
1975
Samsun
Turkish
İnan UZUN
106.
23604/20
Daniş v. Türkiye
14/05/2020
Burhan DANİŞ
1984
Gaziosmanpaşa - Istanbul
Turkish
İrem GÜNEŞ
107.
23711/20
Kaya v. Türkiye
14/05/2020
Burakhan KAYA
1989
Ankara
Turkish
Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ
108.
23731/20
Erçelik v. Türkiye
03/06/2020
Abdullah ERÇELİK
1965
Ankara
Turkish
İrem GÜNEŞ
109.
24837/20
Özkarslı v. Türkiye
10/06/2020
Gökhan ÖZKARSLI
1987
Samsun
Turkish
İnan UZUN
110.
25505/20
Türkmen v. Türkiye
05/06/2020
Kağan TÜRKMEN
1978
Istanbul
Turkish
Elvan BAĞ CANBAZ
111.
26406/20
Ordu v. Türkiye
05/06/2020
Adem ORDU
1952
Manisa
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
112.
26547/20
Sekban v. Türkiye
15/06/2020
Muhammet Serdar SEKBAN
1963
İzmir
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
113.
28796/20
Demirci v. Türkiye
30/06/2020
Rauf DEMİRCİ
1977
Burhaniye
Turkish
Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ
114.
29033/20
Cansever v. Türkiye
30/06/2020
Coşkun CANSEVER
1974
Ankara
Turkish
Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ
115.
29171/20
Yenilmez v. Türkiye
30/06/2020
Murat YENİLMEZ
1987
Denizli
Turkish
Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ
116.
29182/20
Dursun v. Türkiye
01/07/2020
Raşit DURSUN
1974
İzmir
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
117.
29194/20
İçel v. Türkiye
01/07/2020
Mehmet İÇEL
1968
İzmir
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
118.
29405/20
Öztürk v. Türkiye
26/06/2020
Güler ÖZTÜRK
1968
İzmir
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
119.
29860/20
Gökçe v. Türkiye
30/06/2020
Kemal GÖKÇE
1982
Ankara
Turkish
Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ
120.
30171/20
Koç v. Türkiye
06/07/2020
Abdulkerim KOÇ
1986
Nevşehir
Turkish
Özcan AKINCI
121.
30178/20
Ünsal v. Türkiye
06/07/2020
Abdülkerim ÜNSAL
1969
Ankara
Turkish
Özcan AKINCI
122.
30622/20
Aydın v. Türkiye
03/07/2020
Adem AYDIN
1986
Ankara
Turkish
Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ
123.
31303/20
Demirhisar v. Türkiye
21/07/2020
Cemal İbrahim DEMİRHİSAR
1950
Istanbul
Turkish
Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ
124.
31308/20
Cengiz v. Türkiye
21/07/2020
Şahin CENGİZ
1961
Ankara
Turkish
Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ
125.
31479/20
Keskin v. Türkiye
09/07/2020
Hasan KESKİN
1973
Nevşehir
Turkish
Özcan AKINCI
126.
34082/20
Yıldız v. Türkiye
05/08/2020
Nurhayat YILDIZ
1989
Tokat
Turkish
İrem GÜNEŞ
127.
34498/20
Adanalı v. Türkiye
10/07/2020
Mehmet ADANALI
1984
Nevşehir
Turkish
Özcan AKINCI
128.
34524/20
Karcı v. Türkiye
14/07/2020
Şeyma KARCI
1994
Ankara
Turkish
Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ
129.
34814/20
Günen v. Türkiye
14/07/2020
Tekin GÜNEN
1964
Kırşehir
Turkish
Özcan AKINCI
130.
35944/20
Sertel v. Türkiye
05/08/2020
Ertuğrul SERTEL
1992
Hatay
Turkish
Dudu ERTUNÇ
131.
36213/20
Güleç v. Türkiye
11/08/2020
Fatma GÜLEÇ
1988
Samsun
Turkish
İnan UZUN
132.
36321/20
Laçin v. Türkiye
06/08/2020
Eşref LAÇİN
1978
İzmir
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
133.
36379/20
Karakoç v. Türkiye
06/08/2020
Nermin KARAKOÇ
1983
Elazığ
Turkish
Özcan AKINCI
134.
36563/20
Aydemir v. Türkiye
12/08/2020
Osman AYDEMİR
1980
Ankara
Turkish
Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ
135.
36948/20
Ağaç v. Türkiye
21/08/2020
Ali AĞAÇ
1973
Balıkesir
Turkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ
136.
37332/20
Duman v. Türkiye
21/08/2020
Ali DUMAN
1977
Ankara
Turkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ
137.
37695/20
Ödemiş v. Türkiye
12/08/2020
Mikail ÖDEMİŞ
1976
İzmir
Turkish
Muhammet ÜSTÜN
138.
37732/20
Demir v. Türkiye
18/08/2020
Sami DEMİR
1990
Ankara
Turkish
İrem GÜNEŞ
139.
37774/20
Öğe v. Türkiye
02/06/2020
İbrahim ÖĞE
1987
Adana
Turkish
Özcan AKINCI
140.
37964/20
Kanberoğlu v. Türkiye
24/08/2020
Murat KANBEROĞLU
1985
SEE REP. ADDRESS
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
141.
38129/20
Şahin v. Türkiye
19/08/2020
Betül ŞAHİN
1978
İzmir
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
142.
38335/20
Er v. Türkiye
19/08/2020
Hümeyra ER
1980
Manisa
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
143.
38349/20
Selçuk v. Türkiye
19/08/2020
Erdal SELÇUK
1980
İzmir
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
144.
39191/20
Yıldız v. Türkiye
25/08/2020
Nizamettin YILDIZ
1991
Istanbul Sancaktepe
Turkish
Hanifi BAYRI
145.
39211/20
Karaarslan v. Türkiye
25/08/2020
Ahmet KARAARSLAN
1985
Boğazlıyan
Turkish
Hanifi BAYRI
146.
40132/20
Karaca v. Türkiye
20/08/2020
Yusuf KARACA
1982
Istanbul
Turkish
İnan UZUN
147.
40357/20
Açıkgöz v. Türkiye
28/08/2020
Ali AÇIKGÖZ
1994
Afyonkarahisar
Turkish
Abdurrahim SIĞIRTMAÇ
148.
41159/20
Kurt v. Türkiye
25/08/2020
Zeliha KURT
1992
Hatay
Turkish
Dudu ERTUNÇ
149.
41960/20
Konca v. Türkiye
28/08/2020
Aziz KONCA
1960
Hatay
Turkish
Dudu ERTUNÇ
150.
42732/20
Ünsal v. Türkiye
08/09/2020
Mehmet Taha ÜNSAL
1989
Ankara
Turkish
Özcan AKINCI
151.
43536/20
Yekeler v. Türkiye
22/09/2020
İbrahim YEKELER
1986
Ankara
Turkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ
152.
44302/20
Şimşek v. Türkiye
25/09/2020
Seyhan ŞİMŞEK
1989
Samsun
Turkish
İnan UZUN
153.
44595/20
Ünal v. Türkiye
09/09/2020
Kemal ÜNAL
1984
Kocaeli
Turkish
Elvan BAĞ CANBAZ
154.
45114/20
Çınar v. Türkiye
22/09/2020
Serdar ÇINAR
1980
Izmir
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
155.
45244/20
Yıldız v. Türkiye
09/09/2020
Fatih YILDIZ
1979
Kocaeli
Turkish
Elvan BAĞ CANBAZ
156.
46007/20
Okyay v. Türkiye
06/10/2020
İsmet OKYAY
1979
İzmir
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
157.
46422/20
Altun v. Türkiye
08/10/2020
Abdulkerim ALTUN
1975
Mardin
Turkish
Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN
158.
47620/20
Yanık v. Türkiye
23/10/2020
Ferhat YANIK
1991
Istanbul
Turkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ
159.
49570/20
Gelen v. Türkiye
27/10/2020
Muharrem GELEN
1987
Hatay
Turkish
Dudu ERTUNÇ
160.
49924/20
Gümüş v. Türkiye
28/10/2020
İsmail GÜMÜŞ
1980
Diyarbakır
Turkish
Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN
161.
51006/20
Şimşek v. Türkiye
11/11/2020
Abdullah ŞİMŞEK
1979
Konya
Turkish
Özcan AKINCI
162.
54321/20
Demir v. Türkiye
30/10/2020
Bekir DEMİR
1990
Mersin
Turkish
Özcan AKINCI
163.
10056/21
Sarı v. Türkiye
12/02/2021
Sebahattin SARI
1971
Ankara
Turkish
Muhammet ÜSTÜN
164.
11657/21
Ünal v. Türkiye
15/02/2021
Yiğit ÜNAL
1973
Hatay
Turkish
Dudu ERTUNÇ
165.
11790/21
Kaya v. Türkiye
15/02/2021
Oktay KAYA
1979
Istanbul
Turkish
Dudu ERTUNÇ
166.
12139/21
Akçay v. Türkiye
25/02/2021
Kasım AKÇAY
1981
Kayseri
Turkish
Özcan AKINCI
167.
12547/21
Aytaş v. Türkiye
15/02/2021
İdris AYTAŞ
1976
Hatay
Turkish
Dudu ERTUNÇ
168.
18490/21
Maylıba v. Türkiye
01/04/2021
Halil MAYLIBA
1969
Eskişehir
Turkish
Hanifi BAYRI
169.
18510/21
Kahraman v. Türkiye
23/03/2021
Murat KAHRAMAN
1977
Zonguldak
Turkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
170.
20837/21
Açıkgöz v. Türkiye
06/04/2021
Hasan AÇIKGÖZ
1980
Kocaeli
Turkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
171.
21697/21
Salman v. Türkiye
13/04/2021
Nurullah SALMAN
1984
Mardin
Turkish
Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN
172.
24047/21
Karasoy v. Türkiye
28/04/2021
Hakan KARASOY
1981
Hatay
Turkish
Dudu ERTUNÇ