FulLegal · İçtihat Detay

Türkiye 12.11.2024 EN

CASE OF MANAV AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi

Karar Metni

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt }.sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center }.sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }.s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }.s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }.s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }.s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }.sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }.s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }.s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify }.s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt }.s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break }.s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }.sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block }.s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }.s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase }.s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt }.sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase }.sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase }.s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase }.sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial }.sFBC99493 { font-style:italic }.s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify }.sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }.s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }.s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }.sB6A7F5BF { width:17.54pt; display:inline-block }.s6E24AFEB { width:129.08pt; display:inline-block }.s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block }.s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }.s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }.s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }.sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt }.s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse }.s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf }.s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt }.sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 }.sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }.sE385E089 { height:74.95pt }

SECOND SECTION

(Applications nos. 56211/19 and 127 others)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

12 November 2024

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

In the case of Manav and Others v. Türkiye,

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

Pauliine Koskelo, President,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Frédéric Krenc, 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, 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 15 October 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.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

4. 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 OF THE CONVENTION

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. The Court notes that similar objections have already been dismissed in other cases against Türkiye (see, for instance, 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. 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.

8. 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, §§ 190‑95), 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.

9. 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).

10. 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 COMPLAINTS

11. 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

12. The applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos. 59379/19, 60694/19, 63017/19, 63900/19, 64491/19, 65131/19, 503/20, 640/20, 2467/20, 3406/20, 5612/20, 5974/20, 7453/20 and 12837/20, 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.

13. The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive.

14. 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 applicants in applications nos. 59379/19, 60694/19, 63017/19, 63900/19, 64491/19, 65131/19, 503/20, 640/20, 2467/20, 3406/20, 5612/20, 5974/20, 7453/20 and 12837/20, 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;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, save for the applicants in applications nos. 59379/19, 60694/19, 63017/19, 63900/19, 64491/19, 65131/19, 503/20, 640/20, 2467/20, 3406/20, 5612/20, 5974/20, 7453/20 and 12837/20, 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 12 November 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

56211/19

Manav v. Türkiye

02/10/2019

Enes MANAV
1992
Konya
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

56255/19

Polat v. Türkiye

01/10/2019

Yusuf POLAT
1985
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

56429/19

Kahya v. Türkiye

08/10/2019

Ahmet KAHYA
1987
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

56516/19

Aydın v. Türkiye

16/10/2019

İrfan AYDIN
1988
Ankara
Turkish

56639/19

Demirci v. Türkiye

15/10/2019

Coşgun DEMİRCİ
1986
Kayseri
Turkish

Safiye YILMAZ

56701/19

Yiğit v. Türkiye

17/10/2019

Mehmet YİĞİT
1975
Kocaeli
Turkish

56973/19

Üstün v. Türkiye

10/10/2019

Murat ÜSTÜN
1974
Çorum
Turkish

Gaye Vuslat ÜSTÜN

57477/19

Kılıç v. Türkiye

31/10/2019

Bayram KILIÇ
1966
Izmir
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

57733/19

İlerde v. Türkiye

04/10/2019

Ahmet İLERDE
1983
Kars
Turkish

Ahmet KIRTEPE

10.

57954/19

Demiroğlu v. Türkiye

18/10/2019

Abbas DEMİROĞLU
1987
Elazığ
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

11.

58352/19

Öztürk v. Türkiye

30/10/2019

İbrahim ÖZTÜRK
1984
Kocaeli
Turkish

12.

58611/19

Aksu v. Türkiye

07/11/2019

Latif AKSU
1967
İzmir
Turkish

13.

58781/19

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

25/10/2019

Mehmet YILMAZ
1975
Gaziantep
Turkish

14.

58851/19

Karaaslan v. Türkiye

24/10/2019

Hasan KARAASLAN
1973
Trabzon
Turkish

15.

58963/19

Köseoğlu v. Türkiye

31/10/2019

Abdulhamit KÖSEOĞLU
1991
Samsun
Turkish

16.

59379/19

Kaya v. Türkiye

01/11/2019

Abdulmelik KAYA
1992
Ağrı
Turkish

17.

59512/19

Düzgün v. Türkiye

08/11/2019

Muzaffer DÜZGÜN
1972
Zonguldak
Turkish

Erdi KOSTIK

18.

59544/19

Aktürk v. Türkiye

06/11/2019

Ramazan AKTÜRK
1983
Karabük
Turkish

Ahmet ÖZDİN

19.

59740/19

Aydemir v. Türkiye

06/11/2019

Murat AYDEMİR
1982
Zonguldak
Turkish

Mustafa YELBEY

20.

59756/19

Daşdemir v. Türkiye

05/11/2019

Fatih DAŞDEMİR
1966
Manisa
Turkish

Oğuzhan DAŞDEMİR

21.

59874/19

Kef v. Türkiye

05/11/2019

Akif KEF
1969
Tekirdağ
Turkish

Dilara YILMAZ

22.

60692/19

Ayhan v. Türkiye

05/11/2019

Doğan AYHAN
1988
Bursa
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

23.

60694/19

Yıldırım v. Türkiye

12/11/2019

Ramazan YILDIRIM
1983
Ordu
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

24.

60999/19

Kuş v. Türkiye

14/11/2019

Bahadır KUŞ
1977
Ankara
Turkish

Ahmet ÖZDİN

25.

61139/19

Atlı v. Türkiye

18/11/2019

Davut ATLI
1974
Ordu
Turkish

26.

61159/19

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

11/11/2019

Kenan YILMAZ
1975
Tekirdağ
Turkish

Çiğdem YILMAZ

27.

61764/19

Akkoyunlu v. Türkiye

14/11/2019

Selma AKKOYUNLU
1991
Izmir
Turkish

Ferhan ŞİMŞEK

28.

61855/19

Avcı v. Türkiye

13/11/2019

Fikret AVCI
1973
ORDU
Turkish

Samet YILMAZ

29.

61862/19

Özbek v. Türkiye

22/10/2019

Harun ÖZBEK
1976
Adana
Turkish

Ayşenur Banu PEHLİVAN

30.

61865/19

Evmez v. Türkiye

15/11/2019

İbrahim EVMEZ
1993
Trabzon
Turkish

Güliz Rabia TEKİN

31.

62022/19

Yazıcı v. Türkiye

30/10/2019

Hüseyin YAZICI
1968
İzmir
Turkish

Fatima Büşra KAFTAN

32.

62321/19

Ünüvar v. Türkiye

22/11/2019

Ercan ÜNÜVAR
1975
Aksaray
Turkish

İsmail ÇALIŞKAN

33.

62942/19

Ulus v. Türkiye

27/11/2019

Ramazan ULUS
1988
Konya
Turkish

Mehmet MİRZA

34.

63017/19

Ala v. Türkiye

20/11/2019

Mehmet Afif ALA
1980
İstanbul
Turkish

35.

63027/19

Arslan v. Türkiye

18/11/2019

Abdullah ARSLAN
1994
Rize
Turkish

Safiyye Nur SABUNCU KARAKURT

36.

63518/19

Temür v. Türkiye

26/11/2019

Mustafa TEMÜR
1991
Ankara
Turkish

Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ

37.

63895/19

Şimşek v. Türkiye

27/11/2019

Mehmet ŞİMŞEK
1985
Adana
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

38.

63900/19

Karakoç v. Türkiye

27/11/2019

Yakup KARAKOÇ
1985
Empfingen
Turkish

Ahmet KÖROĞLU

39.

64491/19

Bulut v. Türkiye

27/11/2019

Ahmet BULUT
1980
Osmaniye
Turkish

40.

64705/19

Şahin v. Türkiye

29/11/2019

Şenol ŞAHİN
1975
Hatay
Turkish

Dudu ERTUNÇ

41.

64777/19

Çetinkaya v. Türkiye

03/12/2019

Kenan ÇETİNKAYA
1987
Tokat
Turkish

42.

64922/19

Kızılkaya v. Türkiye

27/11/2019

İdris KIZILKAYA
1977
Osmaniye
Turkish

Erdal ÇELİK

43.

65131/19

Şahin v. Türkiye

22/11/2019

Gürhan ŞAHİN
1983
Aydın
Turkish

Ahmet Buğra YEŞİLDENİZ

44.

2/20

Altıntaş v. Türkiye

08/11/2019

Mehmet Ali ALTINTAŞ
1972
Edirne
Turkish

Ahmet Can DEMİRCİ

45.

290/20

Danacı v. Türkiye

10/12/2019

Ali DANACI
1981
Balıkesir
Turkish

Muhammed Talha YILMAZ

46.

386/20

Azgün v. Türkiye

18/12/2019

Hüseyin AZGÜN
1988
Erzurum
Turkish

47.

503/20

Çıtanak v. Türkiye

10/12/2019

Nimet ÇITANAK
1989
Elazığ
Turkish

48.

640/20

Akyüz v. Türkiye

19/12/2019

Erkan AKYÜZ
1983
Van
Turkish

49.

1383/20

Yılmazer v. Türkiye

17/12/2019

Turan YILMAZER
1974
Manisa
Turkish

50.

1575/20

Doğan v. Türkiye

19/12/2019

Oğuzhan DOĞAN
1984
Aksaray
Turkish

51.

1950/20

Zincirkıran v. Türkiye

18/12/2019

Erdinç ZİNCİRKIRAN
1975
Adana
Turkish

52.

2135/20

Aktürk v. Türkiye

26/12/2019

Osman AKTÜRK
1976
Yozgat
Turkish

Havva Züleyha ARSLAN

53.

2239/20

Al v. Türkiye

19/12/2019

Ali AL
1990
Ankara
Turkish

Ahmet Alp AYTAÇ

54.

2456/20

Gülbahar v. Türkiye

25/12/2019

Uğur GÜLBAHAR
1988
Bursa
Turkish

55.

2467/20

Saygın v. Türkiye

26/12/2019

Üzeyir SAYGIN
1974
Kayseri
Turkish

Celal SAYGIN

56.

2525/20

Akdoğan v. Türkiye

27/12/2019

Mustafa AKDOĞAN
1975
Amasya
Turkish

Ekrem KAYA

57.

2599/20

Toprak v. Türkiye

12/12/2019

Mehmet TOPRAK
1983
Ankara
Turkish

İhsan MAKAS

58.

2939/20

Öztürk v. Türkiye

26/12/2019

Orhan ÖZTÜRK
1981
Konya
Turkish

Güliz Rabia TEKIN

59.

3039/20

Öztoprak v. Türkiye

30/12/2019

Mustafa ÖZTOPRAK
1982
Ankara
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

60.

3176/20

Topuz v. Türkiye

31/12/2019

Fatih TOPUZ
1978
Çorum
Turkish

Ersan CANSEVER

61.

3390/20

Nefesli v. Türkiye

31/12/2019

Hakan NEFESLİ
1987
Çorum
Turkish

Havva Züleyha ARSLAN

62.

3405/20

Gün v. Türkiye

31/12/2019

Halil GÜN
1973
Konya
Turkish

Mefaret GÜN

63.

3406/20

Atalay v. Türkiye

31/12/2019

Şakir ATALAY
1971
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

64.

3681/20

Kanat v. Türkiye

02/01/2020

Adem KANAT
1990
Osmaniye
Turkish

Mehmet Fatih ARSLAN

65.

4135/20

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

02/01/2020

Erdi YILMAZ
1988
Tekirdağ
Turkish

Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ

66.

4170/20

Gürpınar v. Türkiye

02/01/2020

Hacı Murat GÜRPINAR
1977
Tokat
Turkish

Cemalettin ÖZER

67.

4202/20

Börk v. Türkiye

07/01/2020

Hasan BÖRK
1984
Ankara
Turkish

Abdullah AVCI

68.

4403/20

Öztaş v. Türkiye

07/01/2020

Sinan ÖZTAŞ
1989
Çorum
Turkish

Nevzat AKBİLEK

69.

4405/20

Hakkıoğlu v. Türkiye

08/01/2020

Mustafa HAKKIOĞLU
1977
Zonguldak
Turkish

Merve Vildan DUMAN

70.

4408/20

Çelik v. Türkiye

08/01/2020

Nurettin ÇELİK
1972
Yozgat
Turkish

Ahmet ÖZDİN

71.

4436/20

Özkay v. Türkiye

08/01/2020

Bahaettin ÖZKAY
1974
Samsun
Turkish

Ali Berk SABANOĞLU

72.

5138/20

Arslan v. Türkiye

10/01/2020

Yakup ARSLAN
1973
Istanbul
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

73.

5458/20

Çavdar v. Türkiye

09/01/2020

Selim ÇAVDAR
1990
Afyonkarahisar
Turkish

Akerke ABDYKALYKOVA ONAT

74.

5503/20

Dündar v. Türkiye

09/01/2020

Bilal DÜNDAR
1982
Burdur
Turkish

İlyas DÜNDAR

75.

5598/20

Özlü v. Türkiye

15/01/2020

Abuzer Serdar ÖZLÜ
1966
Isparta
Turkish

Ali AVCI

76.

5612/20

İslam v. Türkiye

21/01/2020

Şimşek İSLAM
1970
Izmir
Turkish

77.

5769/20

Türkhan v. Türkiye

19/11/2019

Halil TÜRKHAN
1970
Istanbul
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

78.

5778/20

Aktaş v. Türkiye

24/10/2019

Osman AKTAŞ
1978
Yalova
Turkish

Metehan USLUEROL

79.

5974/20

Taş v. Türkiye

22/01/2020

Ali TAŞ
1975
İzmir
Turkish

80.

6055/20

M.A.A. v. Türkiye

14/01/2020

Mustafa Ali AKÇA
1986
Manisa
Turkish

81.

6352/20

Kuşca v. Türkiye

06/01/2020

Salih KUŞCA
1975
Hatay
Turkish

Dudu ERTUNÇ

82.

6566/20

Tat v. Türkiye

26/12/2019

Celal TAT
1974
Erzincan
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

83.

7112/20

Delice v. Türkiye

09/01/2020

Murat DELİCE
1974
Kırıkkale
Turkish

84.

7453/20

Uçkun v. Türkiye

20/01/2020

Yasin UÇKUN
1988
Aksaray
Turkish

Tuncer UÇKUN

85.

7480/20

Orhanlı v. Türkiye

15/01/2020

Atnan ORHANLI
1964
Kırşehir
Turkish

Mehmet Arif YALÇINKAYA

86.

7545/20

Kaplan v. Türkiye

29/01/2020

İsmet KAPLAN
1966
Erbach
Turkish

87.

7705/20

Kaynar v. Türkiye

24/01/2020

İsmail KAYNAR
1973
BURDUR
Turkish

Zülal BÜKER

88.

7826/20

Temiz v. Türkiye

17/01/2020

Güngör TEMİZ
1989
Samsun
Turkish

Tahir EREN

89.

7932/20

Demirhan v. Türkiye

10/01/2020

Mesut DEMİRHAN
1990
Ankara
Turkish

90.

7960/20

Küçükkılınç v. Türkiye

22/01/2020

İrfan KÜÇÜKKILINÇ
1986
Samsun
Turkish

Tahir EREN

91.

9257/20

Demir v. Türkiye

30/01/2020

Hüseyin DEMİR
1979
Istanbul
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

92.

9462/20

Çayıroğlu v. Türkiye

05/02/2020

Ferhat ÇAYIROĞLU
1986
Çorum
Turkish

Seyhan ÇAYIROĞLU

93.

9999/20

Sunar v. Türkiye

31/01/2020

Muharrem SUNAR
1977
Istanbul
Turkish

94.

10100/20

Bilgin v. Türkiye

03/02/2020

Necdet BİLGİN
1965
Manisa
Turkish

Nevzat AKBİLEK

95.

10748/20

Toprak v. Türkiye

07/02/2020

Alper TOPRAK
1976
Aksaray
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

96.

10913/20

Arabacı v. Türkiye

11/02/2020

İbrahim ARABACI
1979
Manisa
Turkish

97.

11252/20

Kahriman v. Türkiye

17/02/2020

Mustafa KAHRİMAN
1983
Konya
Turkish

Furkan AYDIN

98.

11347/20

Günarslan v. Türkiye

13/02/2020

Ersin GÜNARSLAN
1978
Kayseri
Turkish

99.

11371/20

Avan v. Türkiye

12/02/2020

Yasin AVAN
1984
Aksaray
Turkish

Mustafa YÖN

100.

11450/20

Keleş v. Türkiye

14/02/2020

Özcan KELEŞ
1970
Aksaray
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

101.

11482/20

Öztürk v. Türkiye

14/02/2020

Kadir ÖZTÜRK
1992
Samsun
Turkish

102.

11493/20

Bozkurt v. Türkiye

14/02/2020

Hamdi BOZKURT
1971
Kayseri
Turkish

103.

12003/20

Taşdelen v. Türkiye

12/02/2020

Ahmet Adnan TAŞDELEN
1982
Gaziantep
Turkish

Derya TAŞDELEN

104.

12232/20

Akbaba v. Türkiye

13/02/2020

Erhan AKBABA
1980
Ankara
Turkish

105.

12631/20

Yolcu v. Türkiye

20/02/2020

Ali YOLCU
1984
Balıkesir
Turkish

Fatih ŞAHİNLER

106.

12694/20

Türkoğlu v. Türkiye

26/02/2020

Ali TÜRKOĞLU
1975
Ankara
Turkish

107.

12779/20

Kılıçarslan v. Türkiye

26/02/2020

Ferat KILIÇARSLAN
1967
Konya
Turkish

Hanife Ruveyda KILINÇ

108.

12812/20

Karazeybek v. Türkiye

27/02/2020

Halil İbrahim KARAZEYBEK
1967
İzmir
Turkish

109.

12837/20

Canöz v. Türkiye

03/03/2020

Alparslan CANÖZ
1975
Ankara
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

110.

13036/20

Ergun v. Türkiye

05/02/2020

Mehmet ERGUN
1987
İzmir
Turkish

Furkan AYDIN

111.

13045/20

Temel v. Türkiye

08/01/2020

Bülent TEMEL
1987
Konya
Turkish

Güliz Rabia TEKİN

112.

13273/20

Bayraktar v. Türkiye

25/02/2020

İbrahim BAYRAKTAR
1988
Eskişehir
Turkish

Cemalettin ÖZER

113.

13436/20

Bayraktaroğlu v. Türkiye

22/01/2020

Hakan BAYRAKTAROĞLU
1975
Antalya
Turkish

Hatice BAYRAKTAROĞLU

114.

13598/20

Ergin v. Türkiye

30/01/2020

Mehmet ERGİN
1965
Eskişehir
Turkish

Emine AYTEKİN

115.

13767/20

Kocadiz v. Türkiye

28/02/2020

Tahir KOCADİZ
1971
Konya
Turkish

Fuat ÖZGÜL

116.

14442/20

Oruç v. Türkiye

08/11/2019

Mehmet ORUÇ
1983
Manisa
Turkish

Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ

117.

14788/20

Ekmekçi v. Türkiye

07/02/2020

Adem EKMEKÇİ
1986
Westerwaldkreis
Turkish

Leyla MESUTOĞLU

118.

14789/20

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

14/02/2020

Tuncay YILMAZ
1974
Samsun
Turkish

Ömer Faruk KESKİN

119.

14804/20

Öktem v. Türkiye

06/03/2020

Sefa ÖKTEM
1973
Bursa
Turkish

120.

14832/20

Atıcı v. Türkiye

03/03/2020

Hasan ATICI
1962
Nevşehir
Turkish

Ebru EKİCİ

121.

14838/20

Çinar v. Türkiye

04/03/2020

Nüsret ÇINAR
1985
Samsun
Turkish

İlayda Emine SAROĞLU

122.

14839/20

Ceylan v. Türkiye

28/02/2020

Mehmet CEYLAN
1975
Şanlıurfa
Turkish

123.

14930/20

Civan v. Türkiye

06/03/2020

Abdülkadir CİVAN
1977
Izmir
Turkish

Çetin BİNGÖLBALI

124.

14940/20

Akkuş v. Türkiye

11/03/2020

Abdullah AKKUŞ
1988
Samsun
Turkish

125.

14946/20

Alboga v. Türkiye

11/03/2020

Beytullah ALBOGA
1988
Adana
Turkish

Saadet

ALBOGA

126.

15018/20

Vuruşkan v. Türkiye

16/03/2020

Yunus VURUŞKAN
1989
Çorum
Turkish

Neda BUYRUKÇU

127.

15029/20

Aktaş v. Türkiye

26/02/2020

Murat AKTAŞ
1984
Bolu
Turkish

Muhammed Selim TÜRKOĞLU

128.

15079/20

Berber v. Türkiye

28/02/2020

Abdullah BERBER
1988
Adana
Turkish

Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy