SECOND SECTION
CASE OF KOLAY AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
(Applications nos. 15231/17 and 283 others)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 December 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kolay and Others v. Türkiye,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Jovan Ilievski, President,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Diana Sârcu, 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”);
the decision to give notice to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye, 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 for detention, the length of pre-trial detention, the ineffectiveness of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention, and the absence of a remedy to obtain compensation, 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 21 November 2023,
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 applicants lodged objections against the detention orders but without success. 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 six months.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. In the meantime, the applicants lodged one or more individual applications with the Constitutional Court in respect of the detention orders, complaining, inter alia, about the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence and the alleged lack of reasons to justify the decision to remand them in pre-trial detention, all of which were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court in summary fashion.
6. 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, for the most part, the proceedings are still pending before the appellate courts or the Constitutional Court.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENTJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
7. 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 §§ 1 and 3 OF THE CONVENTION
8. 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.
9. 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 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 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 the domestic legislation and Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention.
10. The Court notes that similar objections raised by the Government have already been dismissed in other cases against Türkiye (see, for instance, Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, §§ 118-21, 3 March 2020; Alparslan Altan v. Turkey, no. 12778/17, §§ 84-85, 16 April 2019; Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, §§ 212-214, 22 December 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 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.Alleged lack of reasoning in the decisions ordering the applicants’ pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 3 of the Convention)
11. Under 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 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 101-102, 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).
12. 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 3 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.
13. 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).
14. 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 4 above).
15. In so far as the detentions were justified on the basis of the “nature of the offence”, the Court notes that the 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 notes 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.
16. 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 six months.
17. 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). 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.
18. As regards Article 15 of the Convention and Türkiye’s derogation, the Court notes at the outset that 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 (see Alparslan Altan v. Turkey, no. 12778/17, § 147, 16 April 2019). Nonetheless, Articles 100 and 101 of the CCP, which specifically require the judicial authorities to provide “relevant and sufficient” reasons when deciding to place or keep a suspect in pre-trial detention and to provide legal and factual reasons as to why alternative measures would be insufficient, were not amended during the state of emergency, unlike some other provisions of the CCP in relation to deprivations of liberty (see, for instance, Alparslan Altan, §§ 113 and 117, and Baş, § 81, both cited above, for the restrictions introduced after the coup attempt on the procedural safeguards laid down in domestic law for those held in pre-trial detention, such as restrictions on access to case files and on the examination of objections against detention orders). The applicants’ detention was therefore decided on the basis of the legislation in force before the declaration of the state of emergency, legislation which is still applicable (see, mutatis mutandis, Akgün v. Turkey, no. 19699/18, § 183, 20 July 2021). While the Government requested that the applicants’ complaints under Article 5 be examined from the perspective of Article 15 of the Convention, they have not submitted arguments to justify the derogation from the above‑mentioned requirements set out under Articles 100 and 101 of the CCP. Therefore, the Court considers that 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” (see, mutatis mutandis, Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, no. 13237/17, § 140, 20 March 2018). 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).
19. 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.Alleged lack of reasonable suspicion that the applicants committed a criminal offence (Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention)
20. Having regard to the particular circumstances of the present case (see paragraphs 12-13 above) and its findings under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 19 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).OTHER COMPLAINTS
21. As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 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
22. 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).
23. 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.
24. The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive.
25. 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,Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the absence of sufficient grounds for ordering and keeping the applicants in pre-trial detention;Holds that there is no need to examine separately the merits of the complaints under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention;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, 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;Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 December 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Dorothee von Arnim Jovan Ilievski
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of cases:
No.
Application no.
Case name
Applicant
Just satisfaction
1.
15231/17
Kolay v. Türkiye
Fatih KOLAY
Awarded
2.
34063/17
Yalçınsoy v. Türkiye
Fikret YALÇINSOY
Awarded
3.
34069/17
Ak v. Türkiye
Mehmet AK
Awarded
4.
39406/17
Kaya v. Türkiye
Ogün KAYA
Awarded
5.
41289/17
Demirci v. Türkiye
Süleyman DEMİRCİ
Awarded
6.
41522/17
Akıncı v. Türkiye
Ahmet AKINCI
Awarded
7.
41873/17
Atasoy v. Türkiye
Fatih ATASOY
Awarded
8.
43361/17
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
Ali Rıza YILMAZ
Awarded
9.
43769/17
Yücel v. Türkiye
Rıdvan YÜCEL
Awarded
10.
45792/17
Arslan v. Türkiye
Erhan ARSLAN
Awarded
11.
46354/17
Acar v. Türkiye
Seyhan ACAR
Awarded
12.
47114/17
Çağlar v. Türkiye
Oğuz ÇAĞLAR
Awarded
13.
49526/17
Anlaşıker v. Türkiye
Mustafa ANLAŞIKER
Awarded
14.
49744/17
Şanlı v. Türkiye
Ersin ŞANLI
Awarded
15.
56308/17
Cömert v. Türkiye
Mustafa CÖMERT
Awarded
16.
58475/17
Düzgün v. Türkiye
Muştak DÜZGÜN
Awarded
17.
58601/17
Toraman v. Türkiye
Nurullah TORAMAN
Awarded
18.
58643/17
Ünğan v. Türkiye
Okan ÜNĞAN
Awarded
19.
58681/17
Kılıç v. Türkiye
Mehmet KILIÇ
Awarded
20.
58682/17
Uzun v. Türkiye
Muammer UZUN
Awarded
21.
58697/17
Gökce v. Türkiye
Ali GÖKCE
Awarded
22.
59568/17
Karaloğlu v. Türkiye
Hakan KARALOĞLU
Not awarded
23.
60948/17
Erol v. Türkiye
Hasan EROL
Awarded
24.
60964/17
Yirik v. Türkiye
Şevket YİRİK
Awarded
25.
61339/17
Ateş v. Türkiye
Oktay ATEŞ
Awarded
26.
62832/17
Erdem v. Türkiye
Cengiz ERDEM
Awarded
27.
62876/17
Yüzbaşı v. Türkiye
Kamil YÜZBAŞI
Awarded
28.
63445/17
Tanrıverdi v. Türkiye
İsmail TANRIVERDİ
Awarded
29.
63612/17
Aynı v. Türkiye
İsa AYNI
Awarded
30.
63682/17
Yilmaz v. Türkiye
Erdem YILMAZ
Awarded
31.
63898/17
Şener v. Türkiye
Hamit ŞENER
Awarded
32.
66702/17
Bilgin v. Türkiye
Zafer BİLGİN
Awarded
33.
68983/17
Gökay v. Türkiye
Kadir Koray GÖKAY
Not awarded
34.
69764/17
Söztutan v. Türkiye
Ali İhsan SÖZTUTAN
Awarded
35.
69817/17
Baştuğ v. Türkiye
Mustafa BAŞTUĞ
Awarded
36.
69821/17
Devirmiş v. Türkiye
Çağrı DEVİRMİŞ
Awarded
37.
69824/17
Güllüce v. Türkiye
Sinan GÜLLÜCE
Awarded
38.
69851/17
Laçiner v. Türkiye
Sedat LAÇİNER
Awarded
39.
69855/17
Güney v. Türkiye
Enis GÜNEY
Awarded
40.
69857/17
Aslantaş v. Türkiye
Muammer ASLANTAŞ
Awarded
41.
69875/17
Yazgan v. Türkiye
Cumali YAZGAN
Awarded
42.
69883/17
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
Özgür YILMAZ
Awarded
43.
70186/17
Kahyalar v. Türkiye
Kayhan KAHYALAR
Awarded
44.
70276/17
Yıldız v. Türkiye
Remzi YILDIZ
Awarded
45.
70279/17
Erbağcı v. Türkiye
Selim ERBAĞCI
Awarded
46.
70499/17
Gökkoyun v. Türkiye
Turgay GÖKKOYUN
Awarded
47.
70869/17
Karaca v. Türkiye
Hikmet KARACA
Awarded
48.
71049/17
Çakmak v. Türkiye
Fuat ÇAKMAK
Awarded
49.
71071/17
Önler v. Türkiye
Yusuf ÖNLER
Awarded
50.
73021/17
Boy v. Türkiye
Hayati BOY
Awarded
51.
76224/17
Coruk v. Türkiye
Mehmet CORUK
Awarded
52.
76261/17
Yazılıtaş v. Türkiye
Ahmet YAZILITAŞ
Awarded
53.
76301/17
Yazıcı v. Türkiye
Yavuz YAZICI
Awarded
54.
76312/17
Bayar v. Türkiye
Levent Serhat BAYAR
Awarded
55.
79815/17
Derebaşı v. Türkiye
Harun DEREBAŞI
Awarded
56.
79844/17
Deniz v. Türkiye
Hasan DENİZ
Awarded
57.
80966/17
Demirkandan v. Türkiye
Osman DEMİRKANDAN
Not awarded
58.
81926/17
Kabak v. Türkiye
İrfan KABAK
Awarded
59.
82066/17
Çoksoylu v. Türkiye
Mahmut Murat ÇOKSOYLU
Awarded
60.
82313/17
Karabudak v. Türkiye
Fatih KARABUDAK
Awarded
61.
83959/17
Havabulut v. Türkiye
Gökay HAVABULUT
Awarded
62.
83973/17
Çiçek v. Türkiye
Musa ÇİÇEK
Awarded
63.
83983/17
Boyalı v. Türkiye
Hacı Salih BOYALI
Awarded
64.
83995/17
Sağlam v. Türkiye
Gültekin SAĞLAM
Awarded
65.
84046/17
Duran v. Türkiye
Muharrem DURAN
Awarded
66.
84322/17
M.Y. v. Türkiye
Muharrem YILMAZ
Awarded
67.
117/18
Keskin v. Türkiye
Hüseyin KESKİN
Not awarded
68.
352/18
Genç v. Türkiye
Zafer GENÇ
Awarded
69.
747/18
Demir v. Türkiye
Bekir DEMİR
Awarded
70.
2859/18
Şeker v. Türkiye
Mustafa ŞEKER
Not awarded
71.
6731/18
Biliyor v. Türkiye
Fatih BİLİYOR
Awarded
72.
6769/18
Olcay v. Türkiye
Fatih OLCAY
Awarded
73.
6959/18
Baş v. Türkiye
Muammer BAŞ
Awarded
74.
8386/18
Yiğit v. Türkiye
İbrahim YİĞİT
Awarded
75.
8903/18
Yaşar v. Türkiye
Ferhat YAŞAR
Awarded
76.
8913/18
Teyran v. Türkiye
İshak TEYRAN
Awarded
77.
9947/18
Çamcı v. Türkiye
Adem ÇAMCI
Awarded
78.
9954/18
Gelir v. Türkiye
Ahmet Göksel GELİR
Awarded
79.
9957/18
Arslan v. Türkiye
Mustafa ARSLAN
Awarded
80.
9965/18
Kaya v. Türkiye
Şaban KAYA
Awarded
81.
9975/18
Ayer v. Türkiye
Gökhan AYER
Awarded
82.
9984/18
Türker v. Türkiye
Mustafa TÜRKER
Awarded
83.
10286/18
Güneyisi v. Türkiye
Ekrem GÜNEYİSİ
Awarded
84.
10405/18
Arı v. Türkiye
Bekir Enes ARI
Awarded
85.
10618/18
Gözüaçık v. Türkiye
Hakan GÖZÜAÇIK
Awarded
86.
10640/18
Demir v. Türkiye
Halil İbrahim DEMİR
Not awarded
87.
10648/18
Bilsel v. Türkiye
Mehmet BİLSEL
Awarded
88.
10653/18
Tunçkol v. Türkiye
Kadir TUNÇKOL
Awarded
89.
10852/18
Sancar v. Türkiye
Ufuk Selçuk SANCAR
Awarded
90.
11782/18
Çakır v. Türkiye
İsmail ÇAKIR
Awarded
91.
11892/18
Balaban v. Türkiye
Ayhan BALABAN
Awarded
92.
12210/18
Turan v. Türkiye
Mustafa TURAN
Awarded
93.
12314/18
Sargın v. Türkiye
Bayram SARGIN
Awarded
94.
12602/18
Yıldırım v. Türkiye
Resul YILDIRIM
Awarded
95.
12631/18
Tufan v. Türkiye
Fatih TUFAN
Awarded
96.
13397/18
Abanoz v. Türkiye
Yahya ABANOZ
Awarded
97.
13739/18
Şahin v. Türkiye
Ali Kemal ŞAHİN
Awarded
98.
14817/18
Acar v. Türkiye
Mehmet Cemal ACAR
Awarded
99.
15433/18
Kaya v. Türkiye
Mehmet KAYA
Not awarded
100.
15883/18
Çelik v. Türkiye
Bilgin ÇELİK
Awarded
101.
16261/18
Çakıcı v. Türkiye
Beytullah ÇAKICI
Awarded
102.
16806/18
Öztürk v. Türkiye
Ercüment ÖZTÜRK
Awarded
103.
16906/18
Deniz v. Türkiye
Hasan DENİZ
Awarded
104.
16909/18
Yıldırım v. Türkiye
Ahmet YILDIRIM
Awarded
105.
16954/18
Arıtık v. Türkiye
Ahmet Derviş ARITIK
Awarded
106.
17141/18
Uğur v. Türkiye
İbrahim UĞUR
Awarded
107.
17353/18
Bakar v. Türkiye
Sabiha Büşra BAKAR
Awarded
108.
17681/18
Sabır v. Türkiye
Alaattin SABIR
Awarded
109.
17907/18
Kağızman v. Türkiye
Mustafa Cağrı KAĞIZMAN
Awarded
110.
18027/18
Serçe v. Türkiye
Recep SERÇE
Awarded
111.
18051/18
Uçkan v. Türkiye
Sedat UÇKAN
Awarded
112.
18054/18
Beyaz v. Türkiye
İsmail BEYAZ
Awarded
113.
18599/18
Bol v. Türkiye
Akif BOL
Awarded
114.
18785/18
Arık v. Türkiye
Mehmet Ali ARIK
Awarded
115.
18799/18
Sarı v. Türkiye
Osman SARI
Not awarded
116.
19248/18
Ünlü v. Türkiye
Himmet ÜNLÜ
Awarded
117.
19707/18
Öz v. Türkiye
Tünay ÖZ
Awarded
118.
20000/18
Çam v. Türkiye
Turgay ÇAM
Awarded
119.
20263/18
Uygur v. Türkiye
Ramazan UYGUR
Awarded
120.
20379/18
Kayabaşı v. Türkiye
Muammer KAYABAŞI
Awarded
121.
20393/18
Pala v. Türkiye
Alaattin PALA
Awarded
122.
20538/18
Altınkaynak v. Türkiye
Önder ALTINKAYNAK
Awarded
123.
20993/18
Cerit v. Türkiye
Yusuf Ulvi CERİT
Awarded
124.
21002/18
Çelik v. Türkiye
Aykut ÇELİK
Awarded
125.
21054/18
Yaşar v. Türkiye
Ersan YAŞAR
Awarded
126.
21066/18
Dinç v. Türkiye
İsmail DİNÇ
Awarded
127.
21079/18
Uyar v. Türkiye
Erol UYAR
Awarded
128.
21161/18
Yıldırım v. Türkiye
Abdurrahim YILDIRIM
Awarded
129.
21973/18
Yardımcı v. Türkiye
Mustafa YARDIMCI
Awarded
130.
22008/18
Göksel v. Türkiye
Emrah GÖKSEL
Not awarded
131.
22108/18
Güneş v. Türkiye
Murat GÜNEŞ
Awarded
132.
22134/18
Balık v. Türkiye
Sinan BALIK
Awarded
133.
22237/18
Koç v. Türkiye
Özcan KOÇ
Awarded
134.
23391/18
Kaplan v. Türkiye
Müdayi KAPLAN
Awarded
135.
23626/18
Çakır v. Türkiye
Ayhan ÇAKIR
Awarded
136.
23631/18
Ekiz v. Türkiye
Ahmet Yılmaz EKİZ
Awarded
137.
23635/18
Atalay v. Türkiye
Nuh Taha ATALAY
Awarded
138.
23646/18
Eker v. Türkiye
İsa EKER
Awarded
139.
23659/18
Yiğit v. Türkiye
Şenduran YİĞİT
Awarded
140.
23780/18
Dolamaç v. Türkiye
Ahmet DOLAMAÇ
Awarded
141.
23871/18
Çam v. Türkiye
Oğuzhan ÇAM
Awarded
142.
23882/18
Hallaçoğlu v. Türkiye
Ruhi HALLAÇOĞLU
Awarded
143.
23885/18
Ünal v. Türkiye
Mehmet Akif ÜNAL
Awarded
144.
23897/18
Tunç v. Türkiye
İbrahim Can TUNÇ
Awarded
145.
24212/18
Kahraman v. Türkiye
Abdullah KAHRAMAN
Awarded
146.
24232/18
Özgül v. Türkiye
Abdulkadir Ceylani ÖZGÜL
Awarded
147.
24719/18
Demir v. Türkiye
Enes DEMİR
Awarded
148.
24861/18
Konak v. Türkiye
Gökhan KONAK
Awarded
149.
24894/18
Köylü v. Türkiye
Ahmet Mutlu KÖYLÜ
Awarded
150.
25234/18
Yüksel v. Türkiye
Ömer YÜKSEL
Awarded
151.
25292/18
Gökçegöz v. Türkiye
Fazlı GÖKÇEGÖZ
Awarded
152.
25294/18
Demirci v. Türkiye
Erdoğan DEMİRCİ
Awarded
153.
25353/18
Solak v. Türkiye
Hasan SOLAK
Awarded
154.
25901/18
Karakaya v. Türkiye
Mehmet KARAKAYA
Awarded
155.
26019/18
Şen v. Türkiye
Muhammet Ali ŞEN
Not awarded
156.
26335/18
Vural v. Türkiye
Yesari VURAL
Awarded
157.
26339/18
Hayal v. Türkiye
Fatih HAYAL
Awarded
158.
26355/18
Bilici v. Türkiye
Yakup BİLİCİ
Awarded
159.
26586/18
Öz v. Türkiye
Süleyman ÖZ
Awarded
160.
26914/18
Taşar v. Türkiye
Hasan TAŞAR
Awarded
161.
27017/18
Çınar v. Türkiye
Yakup ÇINAR
Awarded
162.
27025/18
Diler v. Türkiye
Metin DİLER
Not awarded
163.
27053/18
Akkaşoğlu v. Türkiye
Selim AKKAŞOĞLU
Awarded
164.
27056/18
Aslan v. Türkiye
Ahmet ASLAN
Awarded
165.
27062/18
Uyğun v. Türkiye
Serkan UYĞUN
Awarded
166.
27074/18
Olur v. Türkiye
Murat OLUR
Awarded
167.
27123/18
Koçak v. Türkiye
Ersin KOÇAK
Awarded
168.
27220/18
Tufan v. Türkiye
Mürşit TUFAN
Awarded
169.
27723/18
Aksoy v. Türkiye
Murat AKSOY
Awarded
170.
27766/18
Aydın v. Türkiye
Mustafa Suat AYDIN
Awarded
171.
27827/18
Can v. Türkiye
Kadir CAN
Awarded
172.
27895/18
Arslan v. Türkiye
Muhsin ARSLAN
Awarded
173.
28584/18
Kantaş v. Türkiye
Recep KANTAŞ
Awarded
174.
28595/18
Akpınar v. Türkiye
Mustafa AKPINAR
Awarded
175.
28613/18
Alıcı v. Türkiye
Lütfi ALICI
Awarded
176.
28734/18
Akçin v. Türkiye
Osman AKÇİN
Awarded
177.
29382/18
Çolak v. Türkiye
Eyüp ÇOLAK
Awarded
178.
29399/18
Kaba v. Türkiye
Ufuk KABA
Awarded
179.
29593/18
Yücel v. Türkiye
Metin YÜCEL
Awarded
180.
29766/18
Akdoğan v. Türkiye
Seyit Ahmet AKDOĞAN
Awarded
181.
30463/18
Sayhan v. Türkiye
Çağlar SAYHAN
Awarded
182.
30500/18
Kurnaz v. Türkiye
Veli KURNAZ
Awarded
183.
30504/18
Yaprak v. Türkiye
Ahmet YAPRAK
Awarded
184.
30507/18
Saribay v. Türkiye
Huseyin SARİBAY
Awarded
185.
36939/18
Kunt v. Türkiye
Emre KUNT
Not awarded
186.
37745/18
Balkaş v. Türkiye
Serdar Resul BALKAŞ
Awarded
187.
39195/18
Çevik v. Türkiye
Abdullah ÇEVİK
Awarded
188.
39434/18
Kuş v. Türkiye
Metin KUŞ
Not awarded
189.
39460/18
Demirhan v. Türkiye
Kadir DEMİRHAN
Awarded
190.
39519/18
Kocabaş v. Türkiye
Timur KOCABAŞ
Awarded
191.
39678/18
Duysak v. Türkiye
Raşit DUYSAK
Awarded
192.
39710/18
Özdemir v. Türkiye
Veysel ÖZDEMİR
Awarded
193.
39764/18
Güler v. Türkiye
Hakan GÜLER
Awarded
194.
39844/18
Yakar v. Türkiye
Tamer YAKAR
Awarded
195.
40324/18
Erdoğan v. Türkiye
Yunus ERDOĞAN
Awarded
196.
40525/18
Koçyiğit v. Türkiye
Mustafa KOÇYİĞİT
Awarded
197.
40601/18
Şahpaz v. Türkiye
İsmail ŞAHPAZ
Awarded
198.
40844/18
Metin v. Türkiye
Selahaddin METİN
Awarded
199.
41593/18
Gültekin v. Türkiye
Adem GÜLTEKİN
Awarded
200.
42247/18
Sevinç v. Türkiye
Hüseyin SEVİNÇ
Awarded
201.
42591/18
Demir v. Türkiye
Mehmet DEMİR
Awarded
202.
42673/18
Kural v. Türkiye
Suat KURAL
Awarded
203.
42857/18
Dilcioğlu v. Türkiye
Metin DİLCİOĞLU
Awarded
204.
42872/18
Gülten v. Türkiye
Mesut GÜLTEN
Awarded
205.
42887/18
Köroğlu v. Türkiye
Mehmet KÖROĞLU
Awarded
206.
43671/18
Ceran v. Türkiye
Yavuz CERAN
Awarded
207.
43712/18
Durdu v. Türkiye
Aydın DURDU
Awarded
208.
43979/18
Küçük v. Türkiye
Mürsel KÜÇÜK
Awarded
209.
44657/18
Tokyay v. Türkiye
Mehmet Zafer TOKYAY
Awarded
210.
44761/18
Olcabay v. Türkiye
Doğan OLCABAY
Awarded
211.
44807/18
Demir v. Türkiye
Bilal DEMİR
Awarded
212.
44960/18
Keleş v. Türkiye
Murat KELEŞ
Awarded
213.
45545/18
Şahin v. Türkiye
İlker ŞAHİN
Awarded
214.
46168/18
Altundal v. Türkiye
Zeki Osman ALTUNDAL
Awarded
215.
47328/18
Yıldız v. Türkiye
Hakan Şinasi YILDIZ
Awarded
216.
48106/18
Çelik v. Türkiye
Ahmet ÇELİK
Awarded
217.
48214/18
Üzümcü v. Türkiye
Ercan ÜZÜMCÜ
Awarded
218.
48726/18
Tuğberk v. Türkiye
Murat TUĞBERK
Awarded
219.
48731/18
Kervancıoğlu v. Türkiye
Mahmut KERVANCIOĞLU
Awarded
220.
48917/18
Ürnez v. Türkiye
Hüseyin ÜRNEZ
Awarded
221.
49399/18
Kansız v. Türkiye
Cihan KANSIZ
Awarded
222.
49835/18
Akbulut v. Türkiye
Murat AKBULUT
Awarded
223.
49840/18
Ateş v. Türkiye
Aziz ATEŞ
Awarded
224.
49848/18
Şanlı v. Türkiye
Savaş ŞANLI
Awarded
225.
49849/18
Kandemir v. Türkiye
Halit KANDEMİR
Awarded
226.
50974/18
Tekten v. Türkiye
Murat Tuncay TEKTEN
Awarded
227.
52160/18
Şimşek v. Türkiye
Ferhat Fevzi ŞİMŞEK
Awarded
228.
52386/18
Kafes v. Türkiye
Cemil KAFES
Awarded
229.
52502/18
Fidan v. Türkiye
Hüseyin FİDAN
Awarded
230.
52966/18
Çabuk v. Türkiye
Mustafa ÇABUK
Awarded
231.
53385/18
Körsulu v. Türkiye
Erdal KÖRSULU
Awarded
232.
53443/18
Çelik v. Türkiye
Suat ÇELİK
Awarded
233.
53772/18
Tetik v. Türkiye
Nedim TETİK
Awarded
234.
54954/18
Karaduman v. Türkiye
Murat KARADUMAN
Awarded
235.
57185/18
Karhan v. Türkiye
Muhammet KARHAN
Awarded
236.
57929/18
Eroğlu v. Türkiye
Ünal EROĞLU
Awarded
237.
58133/18
Bağcı v. Türkiye
Mustafa BAĞCI
Awarded
238.
58217/18
Kara v. Türkiye
Hüseyin KARA
Awarded
239.
58232/18
Gedemenli v. Türkiye
Sait GEDEMENLİ
Awarded
240.
58254/18
Yaşa v. Türkiye
Yaşar YAŞA
Awarded
241.
58577/18
Aydın v. Türkiye
İsmail AYDIN
Awarded
242.
58911/18
Şahin v. Türkiye
Köksal ŞAHİN
Awarded
243.
59028/18
Özturk v. Türkiye
Hamza ÖZTÜRK
Awarded
244.
59384/18
Çakar v. Türkiye
Zafer ÇAKAR
Awarded
245.
525/19
Zor v. Türkiye
Cüneyt ZOR
Awarded
246.
1200/19
Silahşör v. Türkiye
Şaban SİLAHŞÖR
Awarded
247.
1686/19
Şahin v. Türkiye
Halil İbrahim ŞAHİN
Not awarded
248.
1933/19
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
Tarık YILMAZ
Awarded
249.
2196/19
Sağlam v. Türkiye
Levent SAĞLAM
Awarded
250.
2735/19
Sezer v. Türkiye
Yasir SEZER
Awarded
251.
2762/19
Torunler v. Türkiye
Çağlar TORUNLER
Awarded
252.
3441/19
Pala v. Türkiye
Fahrettin PALA
Awarded
253.
3452/19
Yücel v. Türkiye
Murat YÜCEL
Awarded
254.
3459/19
Ülkemen v. Türkiye
Sinan ÜLKEMEN
Awarded
255.
3770/19
Kayacan v. Türkiye
Fevzi KAYACAN
Awarded
256.
4299/19
Bülbül v. Türkiye
Halil BÜLBÜL
Awarded
257.
4357/19
Çelebi v. Türkiye
Bekir ÇELEBİ
Awarded
258.
4405/19
Koçak v. Türkiye
Fatih KOÇAK
Awarded
259.
4918/19
Şimşek v. Türkiye
Doğan Özgür ŞİMŞEK
Awarded
260.
4991/19
İstek v. Türkiye
Hakan İSTEK
Awarded
261.
5135/19
Topuz v. Türkiye
Ayhan TOPUZ
Awarded
262.
5418/19
Körpe v. Türkiye
Erol KÖRPE
Awarded
263.
5494/19
Bulut v. Türkiye
Burhanettin BULUT
Awarded
264.
5498/19
Ekinci v. Türkiye
Yasin EKİNCİ
Awarded
265.
5713/19
Açıkgöz v. Türkiye
Seyfettin AÇIKGÖZ
Awarded
266.
6468/19
Özduran v. Türkiye
Hasan ÖZDURAN
Awarded
267.
7254/19
Özcel v. Türkiye
Ali ÖZCEL
Awarded
268.
7281/19
Uysal v. Türkiye
Bakıt UYSAL
Awarded
269.
7302/19
Türkmen v. Türkiye
İbrahim TÜRKMEN
Awarded
270.
7442/19
Kuş v. Türkiye
Davut Murat KUŞ
Awarded
271.
7480/19
Toprak v. Türkiye
İlhan TOPRAK
Awarded
272.
8720/19
Sekmen v. Türkiye
Bünyamin SEKMEN
Awarded
273.
9324/19
Bartan v. Türkiye
Nihat Murat BARTAN
Awarded
274.
9355/19
Barin v. Türkiye
Mehmet Ali BARİN
Awarded
275.
9466/19
Usta v. Türkiye
Mehmet USTA
Awarded
276.
9704/19
Gerez v. Türkiye
Salih Mesut GEREZ
Awarded
277.
9818/19
Sağdıç v. Türkiye
Yasin SAĞDIÇ
Awarded
278.
10535/19
Yaslan v. Türkiye
Barış YASLAN
Awarded
279.
10593/19
Topal v. Türkiye
Yasemin TOPAL
Awarded
280.
10619/19
Asan v. Türkiye
Enes ASAN
Not awarded
281.
10954/19
Erdin v. Türkiye
Cevat ERDİN
Awarded
282.
11075/19
Varsın v. Türkiye
Murat VARSIN
Awarded
283.
18561/19
Ulusoy v. Türkiye
Fatih ULUSOY
Awarded
284.
22762/19
Kaya v. Türkiye
Osman KAYA
Awarded
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy