CASE OF TAŞ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF TAŞ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

(Applications nos. 41527/17 and 212 others)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

17 December 2024

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

In the case of Taş and Others v. Türkiye,

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

 Pauliine Koskelo, President,
 Jovan Ilievski,
 Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;

the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 5 of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of an offence, the alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons when ordering and extending the pre-trial detention, the length of the pre-trial detention, the alleged ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the lawfulness of detention, and the absence of a remedy to obtain compensation for the alleged breaches of their rights under Article 5 to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) represented by their then Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, former Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;

the parties’ observations;

the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;

Having deliberated in private on 26 November 2024,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The present applications mainly concern the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants in the aftermath of the coup attempt of 15 July 2016, on suspicion of their membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure” (Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması – hereinafter referred to as “FETÖ/PDY”), which was considered by the authorities to be behind the coup attempt (further information regarding the events that unfolded after the coup attempt, including the details of the state of emergency declared by the Government and the ensuing notice of derogation given to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, as well as the legislative developments that followed the declaration of the state of emergency, may be found in Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, §§ 6‑14 and 109‑10, 3 March 2020).

2.  On various dates the applicants were arrested and placed in pre-trial detention, mainly on suspicion of membership of FETÖ/PDY, an offence punishable under Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see Baş, cited above, § 58). The challenges brought by them against their detention were dismissed by the competent courts.

3.  On various dates in the course of the ensuing criminal investigations and trials, the competent judicial authorities ordered the applicants’ continued detention. The applicants were held in pre-trial detention for periods ranging from one year to four years and eight months.

4.  It appears from the information and documents in the case files that, when ordering and extending the applicants’ pre-trial detention, the competent judicial authorities relied on various evidential grounds, including but not limited to: witness statements indicating ties with FETÖ/PDY; social media posts; possession of pro-FETÖ/PDY publications; working in, or being a member of, institutions having ties with the organisation in question or an organisation shut down by the state‑of‑emergency legislative decrees; provision of financial support to FETÖ/PDY or to institutions with ties to FETÖ/PDY; attending or holding meetings (sohbet); communication with senior executives of the organisation; ensuring communication between FETÖ/PDY members; staying in FETÖ/PDY houses; and carrying out various other activities on the orders of the organisation.

5.  It further appears from the case files that, in accordance with Articles 100 and 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”, for the text of these provisions see Kavala v. Turkey, no. 28749/18, §§ 71-72, 10 December 2019), the competent judicial authorities justified their decisions to deprive the applicants of their liberty not only on the basis of the existence of reasonable suspicion, but also on the grounds of the nature and the severity of the alleged offence of membership of an armed terrorist organisation and the fact that that offence was among the “catalogue” offences listed in Article 100 § 3 of the CCP. Without making an individualised assessment, they also relied on the state of the evidence and the risk of the applicants’ absconding and tampering with evidence and considered that detention would be a proportionate measure in the circumstances. Moreover, in the later stages of the proceedings, the competent judges took into account the time spent by the applicants in pre‑trial detention when deciding to extend their detention, without explaining the relevance of that factor to their decision.

6.  In the meantime, the applicants lodged one or more individual applications with the Constitutional Court in respect of the detention orders, complaining, inter alia, about the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence and the alleged lack of reasons to justify the decision to remand them in pre-trial detention, which were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court in summary fashion.

7.  According to the latest information provided by the parties, most of the applicants were convicted of membership of an armed terrorist organisation by the courts of first instance on the basis of evidence that was present at the time of their detention or that appeared at a later stage in the proceedings. It further appears that some of the criminal proceedings are still pending before the appellate courts or the Constitutional Court.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

8.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

9.  The applicants complained that there had been no specific evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that they had committed a criminal offence necessitating pre-trial detention. They further argued that the domestic courts had not provided relevant and sufficient reasons in their decisions ordering their placement in detention and their continued detention. They also maintained that the domestic authorities had failed to consider alternative measures to detention. In that connection, they alleged that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention.

10.  The Government urged the Court to declare those complaints inadmissible in respect of the applicants who had not made use of the compensatory remedy under Article 141 of the CCP, or whose compensation claims were still pending. The Government further claimed that some of the applicants had been granted compensation pursuant to Article 141 of the CCP and had therefore lost their victim status. They further requested the Court to declare the applications inadmissible as being an abuse of the right of application, in so far as the applicants had not informed the Court of the developments in their cases following the lodging of their applications. They also asked the Court to declare some applications inadmissible for the applicants’ failure to duly raise their complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention before the Turkish Constitutional Court. The Government lastly submitted that the applicants’ initial and continued pre-trial detention had complied with the domestic legislation and Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

11.  The Court notes that similar objections raised by the Government have already been dismissed in other cases against Türkiye (see, for instance, Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, §§ 212-14, 22 December 2020; Alparslan Altan v. Turkey, no. 12778/17, §§ 84-85, 16 April 2019; Baş, cited above, §§ 118-21; and Turan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 75805/16 and 426 others, §§ 57-64, 23 November 2021), and sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present case. Moreover, as regards the objections concerning the exhaustion of the individual application remedy before the Constitutional Court, an examination of the case files reveals that contrary to the Government’s claims, the applicants concerned have expressly raised their complaints pertaining to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in their application forms submitted to the Constitutional Court.

12.  The Court therefore considers that the applicants’ complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

13.  As regards the merits, the Court recalls that according to its well‑established case-law under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the detainee has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the validity of his or her continued detention. The Court must further establish whether the national authorities gave relevant and sufficient reasons for the detention from the time of the first decision ordering detention on remand onwards. Those other grounds may be a risk of flight, a risk of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses or of evidence being tampered with, a risk of collusion, a risk of reoffending, or a risk of public disorder and the related need to protect the detainee (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 87-88 and 101‑02, 5 July 2016). Those risks must be duly substantiated, and the authorities’ reasoning on those points cannot be abstract, general or stereotyped (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 222, 28 November 2017).

14.  The Court notes that when ordering the applicants’ initial and continued pre-trial detention, the judicial authorities cited, in a formulaic manner, numerous pieces of evidence in support of their findings that there were concrete indications that the applicants had committed an offence (see paragraph 4 above). However, in the Court’s view, the national courts failed to demonstrate the link between the pieces of evidence they mentioned in the detention orders and the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” that the applicants had committed the offence of membership of an armed organisation they were suspected of.

15.  Even assuming that there was “reasonable suspicion” that an offence has been committed, decisions ordering pre-trial detention must contain relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the necessity of the detention. In that connection, the Court observes that in Türkiye, as required by the Convention, domestic law provides that the competent judicial authorities must put forward “relevant and sufficient” reasons when considering the need to place and keep a suspect in pre-trial detention. This is a procedural obligation laid down in Articles 100 and 101 of the CCP, which provide that decisions to place or keep a suspect in pre-trial detention must include legal and factual reasons (see Tuncer Bakırhan v. Turkey, no. 31417/19, §§ 23‑24, 14 September 2021).

16.  The Court notes in this regard that the competent courts relied on the following grounds for detention: the nature of the offence; the severity of the sentences prescribed by law for the offence concerned; the state of the evidence; the period spent in detention; the risk of the applicants’ absconding and tampering with evidence; and the finding that alternative measures to detention appeared insufficient (see paragraph 5 above).

17.  In so far as the detentions were justified on the basis of the “nature of the offence”, the Court notes that the domestic courts ruling on the applicants’ detention considered that they were accused of offences listed in Article 100 § 3 of the CCP (also referred to as the “catalogue” offences). As regards these “catalogue” offences, the Court observes that under Article 100 § 3 of the CCP, Turkish law provides that for certain offences there is a statutory presumption of the existence of grounds for detention (risk of absconding, tampering with evidence or putting pressure on witnesses, victims and other persons). In this connection, the Court reaffirms that any system of mandatory detention on remand is per se incompatible with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. Where the law provides for a presumption concerning the grounds for pre-trial detention, it must nevertheless be convincingly demonstrated that there are concrete facts warranting a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty. This is also the case where the judicial authorities justify the detention of a suspect by the nature of the offence in question or the severity of the potential sentence prescribed by law (compare also Tuncer Bakırhan, cited above, §§ 46-49). The Court therefore needs to examine whether the national courts carried out an individualised examination when ordering the applicants’ pre‑trial detention.

18.  As regards the other reasons given by the national courts for placing or keeping the applicants in pre-trial detention, the Court observes firstly that they entail a formulaic enumeration of the grounds for detention under domestic law in a general and abstract manner, such as the state of the evidence, the period spent in detention and the risk of the applicants’ absconding and tampering with evidence. While the Court is prepared to accept that, in view of the particular circumstances surrounding the attempted coup, the risk of the applicants’ absconding and/or tampering with evidence might justify the measure of detention, at least during the initial phase of the criminal investigation, it nevertheless observes that the subsequent decisions ordering the applicants’ continued pre-trial detention did not contain an individualised analysis in that respect. In the Court’s view, decisions worded in formulaic and stereotyped terms as in the present case can on no account be regarded as sufficient to justify a person’s continued pre-trial detention (see, mutatis mutandis, Şık v. Turkey, no. 53413/11, § 62, 8 July 2014). This is particularly so given that the applicants in the present case were remanded in pre-trial detention for periods ranging from one year to four years and eight months.

19.  The Court notes that it has already examined many cases in which it has found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention for similar reasons (see Tuncer Bakırhan, cited above, §§ 40‑58, and the cases cited therein; see also Kolay and Others v. Türkiye [Committee], no. 15231/17 and 283 others, §§ 11-19, 12 December 2023). In the present case, having regard to the grounds provided by the national judicial authorities, the Court considers that they ordered and extended the applicants’ pre-trial detention on grounds that cannot be regarded as “sufficient” to justify the measure in issue.

20.  The Court further considers that while the applicants were detained a short time after the coup attempt – which is undoubtedly a contextual factor that should be fully taken into account in interpreting and applying Article 5 of the Convention –, it is not established that the failure to comply with the requirements described above could be justified by the derogation notified by the Government of Türkiye under Article 15 of the Convention and had not gone beyond the “extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”. This is particularly so having regard to the duration of the applicants’ pre‑trial detention, which lasted at least one year in each case. The Court points out in this connection that the considerations giving rise to the application of Article 15 of the Convention have gradually become less forceful and relevant as the public emergency threatening the life of the nation, while still persisting, has declined in intensity, at which point the “exigency” criterion must be applied more stringently (see Baş, cited above, § 224, and the references cited in Kolay and Others, cited above, § 18).

21.  In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants.

22.  Having regard to the particular circumstances of the present case (see paragraphs 14-15 above) and its findings under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 21 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to determine whether in the present case there was any objective information showing that the suspicion against the applicants was “reasonable” at the time of their initial detention (for a similar approach, see Tuncer Bakırhan, cited above, §§ 36-39; see also Kolay and Others, cited above, § 20).

23.  As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 of the Convention, the Court decides not to examine the admissibility and merits of those complaints, in view of its findings under Article 5 § 3 above and its considerations in Turan and Others (cited above, § 98).

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

24.  Some of the applicants did not submit or failed to submit within the allotted time-limit, a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on that account (see the appended table indicating the applicants to whom no award is to be made).

25.  The remaining applicants requested varying amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage, submitting their claims within the time-limit allotted. The majority of them also claimed compensation in respect of pecuniary damage, as well as the legal costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.

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

27.  For the reasons set out in Turan and Others (cited above, §§ 102‑07), the Court rejects any claims for pecuniary damage and awards each of the applicants who submitted claims a lump sum of 3,000 euros in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount (see the last column of the appended table).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, to each of the applicants who submitted a claim for just satisfaction (see the appended table), EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 December 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Dorothee von Arnim Pauliine Koskelo
 Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases:

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality

Just satisfaction

1.

41527/17

Taş v. Türkiye

18/04/2017

Güven TAŞ
1961
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

2.

54657/17

Büyükberber v. Türkiye

24/04/2017

Süleyman BÜYÜKBERBER
1965
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

3.

58608/17

Öge v. Türkiye

24/07/2017

Ahmet ÖGE
1986
Aksaray
Turkish

Awarded

4.

70280/17

Üner v. Türkiye

21/07/2017

Süleyman ÜNER
1982
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

5.

70796/17

Turhan v. Türkiye

24/08/2017

Hasan TURHAN
1990
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

6.

70844/17

Söyler v. Türkiye

17/08/2017

Murat Cem SÖYLER
1974
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

7.

82734/17

Tosun v. Türkiye

31/10/2017

Bilal TOSUN
1973
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Awarded

8.

1/18

Harput v. Türkiye

04/12/2017

Şahabettin HARPUT
1949
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

9.

10803/18

Cengiz v. Türkiye

29/01/2018

Atakan CENGİZ
1975
Balıkesir
Turkish

Awarded

10.

11789/18

Pilgir v. Türkiye

13/02/2018

Abdurrahim PİLGİR
1989
Antalya
Turkish

Awarded

11.

12139/18

Sürmeneli v. Türkiye

01/03/2018

Dursun SÜRMENELİ
1970
Trabzon
Turkish

Awarded

12.

15597/18

Gökçe v. Türkiye

28/03/2018

Abdulhamid GÖKÇE
1988
Vantaa
Turkish

Awarded

13.

16527/18

Tunç v. Türkiye

19/03/2018

Sami TUNÇ
1969
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

14.

16767/18

Aktı v. Türkiye

23/03/2018

Yasin AKTI
1975
Aksaray
Turkish

Awarded

15.

18201/18

Kutlu v. Türkiye

15/03/2018

Tahsin KUTLU
1977
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Awarded

16.

18261/18

Temel v. Türkiye

09/04/2018

Mehmet TEMEL
1966
Afyonkarahisar
Turkish

Not awarded

17.

20556/18

Kocamış v. Türkiye

20/04/2018

Cumali KOCAMIŞ
1985
Adana
Turkish

Awarded

18.

22093/18

Şener v. Türkiye

30/04/2018

Özkan ŞENER
1978
Konya
Turkish

Awarded

19.

22269/18

Onarıcıoğlu v. Türkiye

30/04/2018

İsmail ONARICIOĞLU
1970
Konya
Turkish

Awarded

20.

23446/18

Nacar v. Türkiye

30/04/2018

Ahmet NACAR
1968
Tekirdağ
Turkish

Awarded

21.

23680/18

Çakmakkaya v. Türkiye

30/04/2018

Zeki ÇAKMAKKAYA
1960
Konya
Turkish

Awarded

22.

24651/18

Bayram v. Türkiye

27/12/2017

Yunus BAYRAM
1973
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

23.

25788/18

Dağlı v. Türkiye

23/05/2018

Yusuf DAĞLI
1983
Kocaeli
Turkish

Awarded

24.

26359/18

Barak v. Türkiye

24/05/2018

Mustafa BARAK
1973
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish

Awarded

25.

26372/18

Aksoy v. Türkiye

28/05/2018

Cemal AKSOY
1971
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish

Awarded

26.

26432/18

Çalışkan v. Türkiye

24/05/2018

Mehmet ÇALIŞKAN
1985
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish

Awarded

27.

28074/18

Kıllı v. Türkiye

10/05/2018

Halil KILLI
1960
Afyonkarahisar
Turkish

Awarded

28.

28548/18

Öztaş v. Türkiye

04/06/2018

Recep ÖZTAŞ
1982
Kayseri
Turkish

Awarded

29.

29391/18

Kellegöz v. Türkiye

08/06/2018

Fatih KELLEGÖZ
1982
Çorum
Turkish

Awarded

30.

32414/18

Erdönmez v. Türkiye

29/06/2018

Erhan ERDÖNMEZ
1974
Keerbergen
Turkish

Awarded

31.

32451/18

Bakır v. Türkiye

21/06/2018

Mehmet BAKIR
1974
Osmaniye
Turkish

Not awarded

32.

32456/18

Yiğit v. Türkiye

22/06/2018

Harun YİĞİT
1985
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

33.

32615/18

Akpınar v. Türkiye

25/06/2018

İhsan Nuri AKPINAR
1971
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Awarded

34.

32850/18

Özdemir v. Türkiye

02/07/2018

Mehmet ÖZDEMIR
1977
Adana
Turkish

Awarded

35.

32857/18

Ekicioğlu v. Türkiye

26/06/2018

Dursun EKİCİOĞLU
1972
Karaman
Turkish

Awarded

36.

32866/18

Yaylagül v. Türkiye

17/05/2018

Kadir YAYLAGÜL
1987
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

37.

32887/18

Günerigök v. Türkiye

05/07/2018

Taner GÜNERİGÖK
1985
Diyarbakır
Turkish

Awarded

38.

32952/18

Özyiğit v. Türkiye

25/06/2018

Ercan ÖZYİĞİT
1975
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

39.

32957/18

Kırcılı v. Türkiye

25/06/2018

Lokman KIRCILI
1967
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Awarded

40.

32964/18

Uran v. Türkiye

26/06/2018

İlhan URAN
1967
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

41.

33078/18

Çalışkan v. Türkiye

29/06/2018

Yalçın ÇALIŞKAN
1986
Afyonkarahisar
Turkish

Awarded

42.

33476/18

Özbeyli v. Türkiye

05/07/2018

Selçuk ÖZBEYLİ
1983
Kütahya
Turkish

Awarded

43.

33815/18

Kasımoglu v. Türkiye

10/05/2018

Hasan KASIMOĞLU
1973
Kocaeli
Turkish

Awarded

44.

34038/18

Karabulut v. Türkiye

11/05/2018

İbrahim Şahin KARABULUT
1994
Manisa
Turkish

Awarded

45.

34091/18

Aybek v. Türkiye

16/05/2018

Mehmet Ali AYBEK
1970
Kütahya
Turkish

Awarded

46.

34499/18

Akkurt v. Türkiye

11/07/2018

Mehmet Şirin AKKURT
1978
Osmaniye
Turkish

Awarded

47.

34503/18

Ünal v. Türkiye

13/07/2018

Burhan ÜNAL
1978
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

48.

35070/18

Yıldız v. Türkiye

19/07/2018

Kemal YILDIZ
1970
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Awarded

49.

35131/18

Aslan v. Türkiye

06/07/2018

Mehmet ASLAN
1973
Manisa
Turkish

Awarded

50.

35190/18

Demirbaş v. Türkiye

15/05/2018

Erhan DEMİRBAŞ
1981
Çanakkale
Turkish

Awarded

51.

35372/18

Ilık v. Türkiye

16/07/2018

Abdullah ILIK
1977
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

52.

35479/18

Öktem v. Türkiye

11/07/2018

Selim ÖKTEM
1984
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

53.

35507/18

Can v. Türkiye

06/07/2018

Birol CAN
1981
Klingenberg
Turkish

Awarded

54.

35944/18

İnanç v. Türkiye

13/07/2018

Murat İNANÇ
1987
Malatya
Turkish

Awarded

55.

36447/18

İldiz v. Türkiye

23/07/2018

Vedat İLDİZ
1977
Şanlıurfa
Turkish

Awarded

56.

36948/18

Aslan v. Türkiye

20/07/2018

Muhammet Lütfi ASLAN
1975
Konya
Turkish

Awarded

57.

37463/18

Güç v. Türkiye

27/07/2018

Bestami GÜÇ
1974
Hatay
Turkish

Not awarded

58.

37655/18

Sözen v. Türkiye

03/08/2018

Ömer Faruk SÖZEN
1993
Konya
Turkish

Awarded

59.

37749/18

Küçükkara v. Türkiye

30/07/2018

Feyzullah KÜÇÜKKARA
1991
Hatay
Turkish

Not awarded

60.

37791/18

Yıldırım v. Türkiye

24/07/2018

Ali YILDIRIM
1987
Antalya
Turkish

Awarded

61.

37823/18

Çoşkun v. Türkiye

02/07/2018

Ramazan ÇOŞKUN
1975
Hatay
Turkish

Awarded

62.

39054/18

Çaylı v. Türkiye

31/07/2018

Hamdi ÇAYLI
1969
Osmaniye
Turkish

Not awarded

63.

46255/18

Eğedemir v. Türkiye

18/09/2018

Nurettin EĞEDEMİR
1968
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

64.

46897/18

Sevengül v. Türkiye

20/09/2018

Uğur SEVENGÜL
1990
Ordu
Turkish

Awarded

65.

48594/18

Denizci v. Türkiye

05/10/2018

Duran DENİZCİ
1986
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

66.

50262/18

Kazan v. Türkiye

28/09/2018

Gökhan KAZAN
1983
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

67.

55547/18

Ünüvar v. Türkiye

05/10/2018

İmdat ÜNÜVAR
1989
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

68.

3515/19

Demirel v. Türkiye

25/12/2018

Bekir DEMİREL
1973
Düzce
Turkish

Awarded

69.

5267/19

Alper v. Türkiye

11/01/2019

Emrah ALPER
1989
Istanbul
Turkish

Not awarded

70.

5409/19

Samiloglu Bezkun v. Türkiye

25/12/2018

Tansu SAMİLOGLU BEZKUN
1990
Bavaria
Turkish

Awarded

71.

6347/19

Sakman v. Türkiye

26/01/2019

Zeki SAKMAN
1943
Izmir
Turkish

Awarded

72.

6968/19

Canaz v. Türkiye

18/01/2019

Şaban CANAZ
1977
Samsun
Turkish

Awarded

73.

9358/19

Sarsık v. Türkiye

06/02/2019

Muhammet SARSIK
1986
Zonguldak
Turkish

Awarded

74.

9448/19

Atay v. Türkiye

01/02/2019

Önder ATAY
1989
Ağrı
Turkish

Not awarded

75.

10906/19

Saz v. Türkiye

14/02/2019

Cumali SAZ
1986
Hatay
Turkish

Awarded

76.

11363/19

Sumeli v. Türkiye

09/01/2019

Murat SUMELİ
1985
Trabzon
Turkish

Awarded

77.

11774/19

Bahçeci v. Türkiye

20/02/2019

Selim BAHÇECİ
1975
Elazig
Turkish

Awarded

78.

11791/19

Pala v. Türkiye

20/02/2019

İlhan PALA
1978
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

79.

12177/19

Sarı v. Türkiye

19/02/2019

Mustafa SARI
1989
Mersin
Turkish

Not awarded

80.

12528/19

Samer v. Türkiye

22/02/2019

Taner SAMER
1977
Uşak
Turkish

Not awarded

81.

12817/19

Acaboğa v. Türkiye

01/03/2019

Efrahim ACABOĞA
1982
Tekirdağ
Turkish

Awarded

82.

12989/19

Işık v. Türkiye

22/02/2019

Ahmet IŞIK
1961
Osmaniye
Turkish

Awarded

83.

13028/19

Pekgenç v. Türkiye

21/02/2019

Recep PEKGENÇ
1983
Diyarbakır
Turkish

Not awarded

84.

13232/19

Çoban v. Türkiye

06/03/2019

Hüseyin ÇOBAN
1986
Samsun
Turkish

Awarded

85.

14470/19

Süt v. Türkiye

28/02/2019

Cem SÜT
1978
Çorum
Turkish

Awarded

86.

14486/19

Daştan v. Türkiye

11/03/2019

Yaşar DAŞTAN
1975
Bursa
Turkish

Not awarded

87.

14849/19

Noyan v. Türkiye

01/03/2019

Ömer Faruk NOYAN
1964
Manisa
Turkish

Awarded

88.

15198/19

Almalıoğlu v. Türkiye

28/02/2019

İsmail ALMALIOĞLU
1984
Sivas
Turkish

Awarded

89.

15210/19

Ata v. Türkiye

01/03/2019

Kamil ATA
1973
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

90.

15461/19

Bilgin v. Türkiye

11/03/2019

Bora BİLGİN
1980
Adana
Turkish

Not awarded

91.

15693/19

Erdoğan v. Türkiye

11/03/2019

Mehmet ERDOĞAN
1965
Manisa
Turkish

Awarded

92.

15979/19

Çendek v. Türkiye

18/02/2019

Akif ÇENDEK
1985
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

93.

15987/19

Alagöz v. Türkiye

14/03/2019

Hakkı ALAGÖZ
1966
Antalya
Turkish

Awarded

94.

15998/19

Erşahin v. Türkiye

21/02/2019

Mustafa ERŞAHİN
1988
Karaman
Turkish

Awarded

95.

16030/19

Genç v. Türkiye

01/03/2019

Fatih GENÇ
1977
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

96.

16039/19

Akmirza v. Türkiye

01/03/2019

Havva AKMİRZA
1973
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

97.

16145/19

Yaprak v. Türkiye

28/02/2019

Emrullah YAPRAK
1988
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

98.

16429/19

Yalçın v. Türkiye

01/03/2019

Bekir YALÇIN
1982
Çorum
Turkish

Awarded

99.

16773/19

Apacık v. Türkiye

01/03/2019

Ahmet APACIK
1993
Elazığ
Turkish

Awarded

100.

17177/19

Kılıç v. Türkiye

04/03/2019

Hüseyin KILIÇ
1991
Kocaeli
Turkish

Awarded

101.

17196/19

İşlekoğlu v. Türkiye

07/03/2019

Emrullah İŞLEKOĞLU
1983
Düzce
Turkish

Awarded

102.

17499/19

Bayrak v. Türkiye

15/03/2019

İzzet BAYRAK
1977
Yozgat
Turkish

Awarded

103.

17774/19

Arvasi v. Türkiye

15/03/2019

Serhat ARVASİ
1985
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

104.

18571/19

Uray v. Türkiye

22/03/2019

Erol URAY
1975
Manisa
Turkish

Awarded

105.

18792/19

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

29/03/2019

Murat YILMAZ
1974
Samsun
Turkish

Awarded

106.

19083/19

Diker v. Türkiye

20/03/2019

Muhammet DİKER
1980
İzmir
Turkish

Not awarded

107.

19110/19

Ahmetoğlu v. Türkiye

29/03/2019

Murat AHMETOĞLU
1983
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

108.

19206/19

Akyar v. Türkiye

27/02/2019

Dursun AKYAR
1972
Afyonkarahisar
Turkish

Awarded

109.

19246/19

Topçak v. Türkiye

28/03/2019

Özgüraslan TOPÇAK
1971
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

110.

19548/19

Akçalı v. Türkiye

21/03/2019

Seyit Ahmet AKÇALI
1982
İstanbul
Turkish

Awarded

111.

19702/19

Hennep v. Türkiye

14/03/2019

Hayati HENNEP
1967
Amasya
Turkish

Awarded

112.

19837/19

Cankurt v. Türkiye

05/04/2019

Murat CANKURT
1977
Aydın
Turkish

Awarded

113.

20267/19

Erdoğan v. Türkiye

01/04/2019

Savaş ERDOĞAN
1973
Yozgat
Turkish

Awarded

114.

20573/19

Çışan v. Türkiye

29/03/2019

Adem ÇIŞAN
1981
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

115.

20758/19

Pakdemirli v. Türkiye

05/04/2019

Mehmet PAKDEMİRLİ
1963
Manisa
Turkish

Awarded

116.

21005/19

Ayhan v. Türkiye

05/04/2019

Özgür AYHAN
1988
Istanbul
Turkish

Not awarded

117.

21010/19

Özkaya v. Türkiye

05/04/2019

Vahdettin ÖZKAYA
1969
Aksaray
Turkish

Awarded

118.

21263/19

Yaman v. Türkiye

03/04/2019

Mehmet YAMAN
1987
Hatay
Turkish

Awarded

119.

21448/19

Aydemir v. Türkiye

08/04/2019

Dursun AYDEMİR
1970
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

120.

21651/19

Altun v. Türkiye

11/04/2019

Fethi ALTUN
1985
Şanlıurfa
Turkish

Awarded

121.

22070/19

Kınay v. Türkiye

15/04/2019

Sedat KINAY
1973
Sakarya
Turkish

Awarded

122.

22103/19

Çetin v. Türkiye

15/04/2019

Vedat ÇETİN
1980
Kocaeli
Turkish

Awarded

123.

22162/19

Karataş v. Türkiye

04/04/2019

İbrahim KARATAŞ
1973
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

124.

22472/19

Canşı v. Türkiye

12/04/2019

İlhan CANŞI
1981
Şanlıurfa
Turkish

Awarded

125.

22628/19

Aktaş v. Türkiye

12/04/2019

Özkan AKTAŞ
1988
Manisa
Turkish

Not awarded

126.

23631/19

Şafak v. Türkiye

04/04/2019

Haydar ŞAFAK
1968
Çanakkkale
Turkish

Awarded

127.

23666/19

Dağdeviren v. Türkiye

09/04/2019

Murat DAĞDEVİREN
1984
Kocaeli
Turkish

Awarded

128.

23844/19

Baştürk v. Türkiye

06/04/2019

Mehmet BAŞTÜRK
1981
Niğde
Turkish

Awarded

129.

24548/19

Günaydın v. Türkiye

22/04/2019

Harun GÜNAYDIN
1979
Manisa
Turkish

Awarded

130.

24643/19

Tergek v. Türkiye

25/04/2019

Abdül Samed TERGEK
1989
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

131.

24789/19

Boran v. Türkiye

29/04/2019

Ahmet BORAN
1976
Elazığ
Turkish

Awarded

132.

25292/19

Boz v. Türkiye

27/04/2019

Mehmet BOZ
1976
Samsun
Turkish

Awarded

133.

25670/19

Halis v. Türkiye

08/05/2019

İlgun HALİS
1971
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

134.

26071/19

Durmaz v. Türkiye

18/04/2019

Betül DURMAZ
1983
Bursa
Turkish

Awarded

135.

26091/19

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

02/05/2019

Muhamed YILMAZ
1985
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

136.

26092/19

Altıparmak v. Türkiye

03/05/2019

Ömer ALTIPARMAK
1962
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

137.

26100/19

Kıratlı v. Türkiye

30/04/2019

Mutlu KIRATLI
1979
Ankara
Turkish

Not awarded

138.

26906/19

Gece v. Türkiye

27/04/2019

Doğan GECE
1979
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

139.

26942/19

Taşkaya v. Türkiye

09/05/2019

Ferdi TAŞKAYA
1981
Bursa
Turkish

Awarded

140.

26971/19

Çetin v. Türkiye

07/05/2019

Yakup ÇETİN
1986
Istanbul
Turkish

Not awarded

141.

26979/19

Erboğa v. Türkiye

07/05/2019

Mustafa ERBOĞA
1985
Tekirdağ
Turkish

Awarded

142.

27181/19

Güler v. Türkiye

03/05/2019

Osman GÜLER
1987
Hatay
Turkish

Awarded

143.

27503/19

Araç v. Türkiye

17/05/2019

Murat ARAÇ
1975
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

144.

27662/19

Meydan v. Türkiye

03/05/2019

Nasuf MEYDAN
1983
Hatay
Turkish

Awarded

145.

27678/19

Koç v. Türkiye

09/05/2019

Anıl KOÇ
1991
Bolu
Turkish

Awarded

146.

27948/19

Taşkıran v. Türkiye

13/05/2019

Sadettin TAŞKIRAN
1973
Eskişehir
Turkish

Awarded

147.

28327/19

Yurtseven v. Türkiye

14/05/2019

Hasan YURTSEVEN
1974
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Awarded

148.

29107/19

Metin v. Türkiye

28/03/2019

Şenol METİN
1982
Samsun
Turkish

Awarded

149.

29172/19

Karakaş v. Türkiye

14/05/2019

Adem KARAKAŞ
1984
Çorum
Turkish

Awarded

150.

29637/19

Altuntepe v. Türkiye

02/05/2019

Beytullah ALTUNTEPE
1975
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

151.

29681/19

Arslan v. Türkiye

07/05/2019

Enes ARSLAN
1988
Çanakkale
Turkish

Awarded

152.

30291/19

Baltaş v. Türkiye

06/05/2019

Süleyman BALTAŞ
1976
Aydın
Turkish

Awarded

153.

30315/19

Şimşek v. Türkiye

23/05/2019

Yakup ŞİMŞEK
1964
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

154.

30376/19

Karalar v. Türkiye

21/05/2019

Murat KARALAR
1972
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

155.

30398/19

Sayan v. Türkiye

08/05/2019

Alişan SAYAN
1974
Kayseri
Turkish

Awarded

156.

30494/19

Ürkmez v. Türkiye

23/05/2019

Murat ÜRKMEZ
1984
Hatay
Turkish

Awarded

157.

30512/19

Aytaç v. Türkiye

21/05/2019

Gökhan AYTAÇ
1992
Bursa
Turkish

Awarded

158.

31637/19

Eker v. Türkiye

29/05/2019

Veysel EKER
1994
Mersin
Turkish

Awarded

159.

31712/19

Taşdöğen v. Türkiye

27/05/2019

Yaşar TAŞDÖĞEN
1970
Afyonkarahisar
Turkish

Awarded

160.

31797/19

Atabey v. Türkiye

28/05/2019

Ali ATABEY
1985
Tekirdağ
Turkish

Awarded

161.

32751/19

Kaya v. Türkiye

10/06/2019

Sezgin KAYA
1973
Karabük
Turkish

Awarded

162.

32766/19

Doğan v. Türkiye

17/05/2019

Bayram DOĞAN
1977
Kocaeli
Turkish

Not awarded

163.

33430/19

Küçükbay v. Türkiye

19/06/2019

Ahmet KÜÇÜKBAY
1958
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

164.

33501/19

Kılıç v. Türkiye

12/06/2019

Ramazan KILIÇ
1976
Mersin
Turkish

Awarded

165.

33502/19

Uluçay v. Türkiye

12/06/2019

Sadık ULUÇAY
1989
Sivas
Turkish

Awarded

166.

33885/19

Kalkan v. Türkiye

28/05/2019

Arif KALKAN
1971
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Awarded

167.

33930/19

San v. Türkiye

23/05/2019

Abdülkerim SAN
1987
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Awarded

168.

34135/19

Erdoğan v. Türkiye

11/06/2019

Murat ERDOĞAN
1975
Kırklareli
Turkish

Awarded

169.

34605/19

Yiğit v. Türkiye

11/06/2019

Ali YİĞİT
1989
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

170.

35092/19

Çınar v. Türkiye

28/06/2019

Ercan ÇINAR
1977
Zonguldak
Turkish

Awarded

171.

35306/19

Akkoç v. Türkiye

19/06/2019

Osman AKKOÇ
1970
Osmaniye
Turkish

Not awarded

172.

35908/19

Çetin v. Türkiye

21/06/2019

Aydın Yaşar ÇETİN
1983
Burdur
Turkish

Awarded

173.

36072/19

Kaya v. Türkiye

24/06/2019

Taner KAYA
1977
Aydın
Turkish

Awarded

174.

36088/19

Çevik v. Türkiye

14/06/2019

Muhammet ÇEVİK
1981
Manisa
Turkish

Awarded

175.

36184/19

Arıbaş v. Türkiye

21/06/2019

Yılmaz ARIBAŞ
1974
Aksaray
Turkish

Awarded

176.

36196/19

Bolat v. Türkiye

27/06/2019

Cumali BOLAT
1984
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

177.

36490/19

Öztürk v. Türkiye

28/06/2019

Bayram ÖZTÜRK
1984
Kocaeli
Turkish

Awarded

178.

36790/19

Çelik v. Türkiye

25/06/2019

Aykut ÇELİK
1971
Bursa
Turkish

Not awarded

179.

36858/19

Özbaşaran v. Türkiye

02/07/2019

Bülent ÖZBAŞARAN
1965
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

180.

37322/19

Şenel v. Türkiye

05/07/2019

Cemal ŞENEL
1985
Denizli
Turkish

Awarded

181.

38465/19

Duman v. Türkiye

08/07/2019

Esat DUMAN
1987
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

182.

38480/19

Kamacı v. Türkiye

12/07/2019

Celal KAMACI
1973
Çanakkale
Turkish

Awarded

183.

38496/19

Doğaner v. Türkiye

05/07/2019

Bayram DOĞANER
1980
Konya
Turkish

Awarded

184.

38641/19

Bülbül v. Türkiye

17/07/2019

Mustafa BÜLBÜL
1970
Osmaniye
Turkish

Not awarded

185.

39013/19

Yaman v. Türkiye

28/06/2019

Teoman YAMAN
1977
Düzce
Turkish

Not awarded

186.

39213/19

Yıldız v. Türkiye

09/07/2019

Hamza YILDIZ
1994
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish

Awarded

187.

39444/19

Kaptı v. Türkiye

27/06/2019

Alican KAPTI
1976
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

188.

39479/19

Kişi v. Türkiye

17/07/2019

Bekir KİŞİ
1987
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish

Awarded

189.

39663/19

Yaşar v. Türkiye

27/06/2019

Muhammed Sami YAŞAR
1975
Konya
Turkish

Awarded

190.

39926/19

Yıldız v. Türkiye

18/07/2019

Cengiz YILDIZ
1982
Kırıkkale
Turkish

Awarded

191.

39976/19

Ateştemur v. Türkiye

10/07/2019

Abdullah ATEŞTEMUR
1980
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

192.

40028/19

Saka v. Türkiye

19/07/2019

Ahmet Evren SAKA
1983
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

193.

40065/19

Kösmene v. Türkiye

05/07/2019

Ali Baz KÖSMENE
1974
Osmaniye
Turkish

Awarded

194.

40076/19

Sandık v. Türkiye

19/07/2019

Hakan SANDIK
1981
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

195.

40182/19

Bulduk v. Türkiye

12/07/2019

Muhittin BULDUK
1977
Kayseri
Turkish

Awarded

196.

40366/19

Yıldırım v. Türkiye

22/07/2019

Orhan YILDIRIM
1981
Balıkesir
Turkish

Awarded

197.

40391/19

Tiryakioğlu v. Türkiye

19/07/2019

Mehmet Akif TİRYAKİOĞLU
1983
Samsun
Turkish

Awarded

198.

40394/19

Kacır v. Türkiye

05/07/2019

Osman KACIR
1984
Çanakkale
Turkish

Awarded

199.

40474/19

Değirmenci v. Türkiye

11/07/2019

İsmail DEĞİRMENCİ
1985
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

200.

40495/19

Gökü v. Türkiye

17/07/2019

Gökhan GÖKÜ
1985
Mersin
Turkish

Awarded

201.

40554/19

Gökmağara v. Türkiye

11/07/2019

Yüksel GÖKMAĞARA
1984
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

202.

40565/19

Baltacı v. Türkiye

17/07/2019

Barış BALTACI
1977
Sivas
Turkish

Awarded

203.

40897/19

Karakaş v. Türkiye

17/07/2019

Sinan KARAKAŞ
1981
Antalya
Turkish

Awarded

204.

41634/19

Küçükkeskin v. Türkiye

23/07/2019

İsmail KÜÇÜKKESKİN
1984
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

205.

41812/19

Mavuş v. Türkiye

26/07/2019

Polat MAVUŞ
1973
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

206.

41873/19

Tüzün v. Türkiye

16/07/2019

Soner TÜZÜN
1984
Aksaray
Turkish

Awarded

207.

41888/19

Akın v. Türkiye

22/07/2019

Ertuğrul AKIN
1985
Antalya
Turkish

Awarded

208.

42415/19

Taş v. Türkiye

31/07/2019

Mehmet TAŞ
1985
Konya
Turkish

Awarded

209.

42460/19

Özsoy v. Türkiye

30/07/2019

Köksal ÖZSOY
1973
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

210.

42639/19

Narcı v. Türkiye

02/08/2019

Adnan NARCI
1968
Istanbul
Turkish

Awarded

211.

42711/19

Durmaz v. Türkiye

07/08/2019

Mustafa DURMAZ
1975
Ankara
Turkish

Awarded

212.

42925/19

İkiz v. Türkiye

24/07/2019

Mehmet İKİZ
1979
İzmir
Turkish

Awarded

213.

43185/19

Altunay v. Türkiye

07/08/2019

Uğur ALTUNAY
1987
Isparta
Turkish

Awarded