SECOND SECTION
CASE OF TÜZEMEN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
(Applications nos. 66683/16 and 116 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 July 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Tüzemen and Others v. Türkiye,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Tim Eicke, President,
Jovan Ilievski,
Gediminas Sagatys, 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 and the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the time, 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 the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
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 17 June 2025,
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 attempted coup d’état 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 attempted coup d’état (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 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.
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: using the Bylock messaging system; witness statements indicating ties with FETÖ/PDY; sharing social media posts or participating in protests in favour of FETÖ/PDY; possession of pro-FETÖ/PDY publications; having intensive telephone contact with FETÖ/PDY suspects; suspension or dismissal from office; 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; financing the FETÖ/PDY in view of their use of accounts in Bank Asya – a bank allegedly linked to FETÖ/PDY –; enrolling their children in an educational institution allegedly affiliated with the FETÖ/PDY; participating in journeys abroad with FETÖ/PDY suspects; provision of financial support, the details and nature of which are not provided, to FETÖ/PDY or to institutions with ties to FETÖ/PDY; attending or holding meetings (sohbet) the dates, nature or characteristics of which are not specified; staying in FETÖ/PDY residences; having in their possessions United States one‑dollar bills with an “F” serial number; 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.
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
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS8. 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 CONVENTION9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The Court notes that similar objections have already been dismissed in other cases against Türkiye (see, for instance, Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, §§ 118-21, 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.
12. The Court 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, possession of certain pro-FETÖ/PDY publications, having in their possession United States one‑dollar bills with an “F” serial number, sharing social media posts or participating in protests in favour of FETÖ/PDY, having intensive telephone or other contact with FETÖ/PDY suspects, their suspension or dismissal from office, 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). Accordingly, in applications where the use of Bylock constituted the principal basis for the applicants’ detention, the Court finds that there was no reasonable suspicion, for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (c), that they had committed an offence.
13. As regards the other evidentiary elements relied upon by the national courts where the use of Bylock was not the central or sole factor, the Court recalls its finding in Taner Kılıç (§§ 104-05, cited above), that acts such as subscribing to the organisation’s lawful publications, enrolling children in legally operating schools allegedly affiliated with the organisation, or holding an account with Bank Asya were merely circumstantial and, in the absence of further probative elements, could not reasonably give rise to a suspicion of having committed the alleged offence. The Court further emphasised that such acts enjoy a presumption of legality unless supported by additional elements such as concrete evidence of the suspect’s intentional engagement with an organisation’s criminal activities (§ 105). In the light of these considerations, the Court finds that the additional elements relied upon in the present applications for ordering the applicants’ detention, such as the possession of specific one-dollar bills, social media activity, protests, contacts with other suspects, employment/membership in affiliated entities or dismissal from public service, likewise fall within the scope of acts which do not, per se, give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the applicants were members of a terrorist organisation. These factors do not carry any greater evidentiary weight than the circumstantial elements previously examined by the Court. The Court thus considers, a fortiori, that the other acts imputed to the applicants allegedly demonstrating an “organisational connection” (see paragraph 4 above) cannot reasonably be construed as evidence of membership of a terrorist organisation in the absence of further information substantiating such suspicions (compare Taner Kılıç, cited above, §§ 104-05 and the cases cited therein). 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 the detention orders do not refer to any statements setting out concrete and specific facts that may have given rise to a reasonable suspicion against the applicants concerned at the material time that they were members of a terrorist organisation.
14. The Court further notes that, when ordering the applicants’ initial pre‑trial detention, the magistrates’ 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.
15. 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 (compare Baş, cited above, § 195, and Taner Kılıç, cited above, §§ 114-16). It finally considers that while the applicants were detained a short time after the attempted coup d’état – 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 COMPLAINTS16. As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 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
17. The applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos. 69572/17, 82344/17, 24217/19, 44360/19, 22579/21 and 51815/21, 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.
18. The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive.
19. 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. 69572/17, 82344/17, 24217/19, 44360/19, 22579/21 and 51815/21, 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. 69572/17, 82344/17, 24217/19, 44360/19, 22579/21 and 51815/21 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’ claim for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 July 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Dorothee von Arnim Tim Eicke
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of cases:
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
66683/16
Tüzemen v. Türkiye
26/10/2016
Ahmet TÜZEMEN
1970
ANKARA
Turkish
Hasan Hüseyin ERDOĞAN
15015/17
Sarıkılıç v. Türkiye
19/01/2017
Haydar SARIKILIÇ
1974
Kocaeli
Turkish
Betül Hamide CAN DEMİR
33945/17
Yıldırım v. Türkiye
15/03/2017
Haydar YILDIRIM
1975
KOCAELİ
Turkish
İlyas TEKİN
34109/17
Acıyan v. Türkiye
21/03/2017
Ahmetali ACIYAN
1977
Kocaeli
Turkish
Enes Malik KILIÇ
38334/17
Aydın v. Türkiye
21/03/2017
Mustafa AYDIN
1972
Istanbul
Turkish
Ziya Metehan ARISOY
41278/17
Kökten v. Türkiye
04/05/2017
Kadir KÖKTEN
1987
Istanbul
Turkish
Ziya Metehan ARISOY
41594/17
Ayvaz v. Türkiye
12/05/2017
Mehmet AYVAZ
1988
ELAZIĞ
Turkish
Hilal YILMAZ PUSAT
41597/17
Maksutoğlu v. Türkiye
19/05/2017
Ersin MAKSUTOĞLU
1985
Istanbul
Turkish
Hilal YILMAZ PUSAT
42217/17
Kumcu v. Türkiye
03/03/2017
Erol KUMCU
1972
Manisa
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
42304/17
Bilici v. Türkiye
21/04/2017
Necati BİLİCİ
1972
Malatya
Turkish
42917/17
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
06/06/2017
Seher YILMAZ
1972
Uşak
Turkish
Gülhis YÖRÜK
46997/17
Gümüş v. Türkiye
27/02/2017
Adem GÜMÜŞ
1969
Denizli
Turkish
Furkan GÜLER
58068/17
Kaşkar v. Türkiye
03/07/2017
Muhammet Emin KAŞKAR
1968
Çanakkale
Turkish
Sinem KURAL
61086/17
Ütkür v. Türkiye
31/07/2017
Yasin ÜTKÜR
1990
Şanlıurfa
Turkish
Önder ÖZDERYOL
61973/17
Şahin v. Türkiye
20/04/2017
Hıdır ŞAHİN
1957
Elazığ
Turkish
Bülent Seçkin DÜZTAŞ
62138/17
Şahin v. Türkiye
26/04/2017
Ayhan ŞAHİN
1975
Antalya
Turkish
Teoman AYDOĞAN
62719/17
İlgen v. Türkiye
27/01/2017
Kasım İLGEN
1981
Samsun
Turkish
Ümran TAŞ
62892/17
Çelenli v. Türkiye
27/06/2017
Engin ÇELENLİ
1983
Karabük
Turkish
Muhammed Talha YILMAZ
63595/17
Uslu v. Türkiye
01/06/2017
Hasan USLU
1976
Ankara
Turkish
Hasan TOK
63893/17
Baruğ v. Türkiye
24/07/2017
Hasan Sami BARUĞ
1953
İzmir
Turkish
Mine ÖZTÜRK
66688/17
Yıldırım v. Türkiye
24/01/2017
Fuat YILDIRIM
1977
Kocaeli
Turkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ
66791/17
Acar v. Türkiye
17/08/2017
Murat ACAR
1971
Ankara
Turkish
Gülhis YÖRÜK
68719/17
Akcan v. Türkiye
12/05/2017
Yakup AKCAN
1980
Aydın
Turkish
Büşra KURT KÜÇÜK
69571/17
Doğan v. Türkiye
21/07/2017
Hakan DOĞAN
1979
Istanbul
Turkish
Dilara YILMAZ
69572/17
Avcı v. Türkiye
09/08/2017
Gürcan AVCI
1984
Istanbul
Turkish
Salim Serdar YAĞCI
69826/17
Baştuğ v. Türkiye
09/08/2017
Suna BAŞTUĞ
1978
Istanbul
Turkish
Dilara YILMAZ
69856/17
Aydoğdu v. Türkiye
18/08/2017
Uğur AYDOĞDU
1974
Kırıkkale
Turkish
Dilara YILMAZ
69859/17
Aykan v. Türkiye
18/08/2017
Ali AYKAN
1975
Kırıkkale
Turkish
Dilara YILMAZ
70500/17
Yardımcı v. Türkiye
25/08/2017
Serkan YARDIMCI
1979
Ankara
Turkish
Dilara YILMAZ
72761/17
Şahin v. Türkiye
26/09/2017
Ali Feyzullah ŞAHİN
1978
İzmir
Turkish
Hasan TOK
79057/17
Çırak v. Türkiye
13/04/2017
Fatih Mehmet ÇIRAK
1976
Konya
Turkish
Elif KANDİLLİ
81692/17
Demir v. Türkiye
16/11/2017
Şenol DEMİR
1975
Bolu
Turkish
Esra ACAR
81896/17
Kömüşcü v. Türkiye
10/11/2017
Alparslan KÖMÜŞCÜ
1967
Kastamonu
Turkish
Harun ÇOKGÜNGÖR
82072/17
Genel v. Türkiye
21/11/2017
Hayrettin GENEL
1974
Ankara
Turkish
Utku Coşkuner SAKARYA
82304/17
Uludağ v. Türkiye
16/11/2017
Kültigin ULUDAĞ
1982
Ankara
Turkish
Nadir SEÇGİN
82315/17
Koç v. Türkiye
17/11/2017
Kenan KOÇ
1983
Ankara
Turkish
Ebubekir DEMİÇ
82344/17
Babalı v. Türkiye
29/11/2017
Tuncay BABALI
1973
Ankara
Turkish
Hakan YILDIRIM
84559/17
Soyaslan v. Türkiye
15/11/2017
Yunus SOYASLAN
1974
Kırşehir
Turkish
Lale KARADAŞ
84629/17
Yiğit v. Türkiye
23/11/2017
Deniz YİĞİT
1984
Kırıkkale
Turkish
Utku Coşkuner SAKARYA
14646/18
Doğangün v. Türkiye
09/03/2018
Mustafa DOĞANGÜN
1981
Konya
Turkish
Cihat ÇITIR
26902/18
Şen v. Türkiye
25/05/2018
Halil ŞEN
1974
Corum
Turkish
Adem KAPLAN
26903/18
Arslan v. Türkiye
25/05/2018
Fettah ARSLAN
1972
Ankara
Turkish
Adem KAPLAN
27028/18
Fidan v. Türkiye
31/05/2018
Hamdullah FİDAN
1964
Kırşehir
Turkish
Mehmet Sıddık KARAGÖZ
27050/18
Bölükbaşı v. Türkiye
25/05/2018
Ednan BÖLÜKBAŞI
1973
Elazığ
Turkish
27061/18
Ulusoy v. Türkiye
18/05/2018
Ferhat ULUSOY
1968
Çankırı
Turkish
Adem KAPLAN
28604/18
Çepik v. Türkiye
01/06/2018
Hüseyin ÇEPİK
1968
Ankara
Turkish
Adem KAPLAN
29590/18
Soylu v. Türkiye
13/06/2018
Uğur SOYLU
1988
Kocaeli
Turkish
Burak KABLAN
30260/18
Akıncı v. Türkiye
19/06/2018
Mustafa AKINCI
1973
Bursa
Turkish
Elif KARDEŞ
30529/18
Tanrıkulu v. Türkiye
22/06/2018
Murat TANRIKULU
1985
Kütahya
Turkish
Mustafa SOYLU
32409/18
Esen v. Türkiye
28/06/2018
Muhammet ESEN
1969
Düzce
Turkish
Levent MAZILIGÜNEY
39511/18
Üren v. Türkiye
10/08/2018
Mehmet Cemil ÜREN
1972
Isparta
Turkish
Uğur ALTUN
39518/18
Keskin v. Türkiye
10/08/2018
Beytullah KESKİN
1987
Ankara
Turkish
Tuğba Nur KIYMAZ
39719/18
Yıldırım v. Türkiye
16/08/2018
Kahraman YILDIRIM
1982
Kocaeli
Turkish
Yasemin İŞLER
42811/18
Tuğ v. Türkiye
27/08/2018
Şerafettin TUĞ
1963
İzmir
Turkish
Büşra Rahime CAN
45445/18
Akgün v. Türkiye
07/09/2018
Yasin AKGÜN
1981
Ankara
Turkish
Adem KAPLAN
47681/18
Saray v. Türkiye
04/09/2018
Ali SARAY
1968
İzmir
Turkish
Aydilek SARAY
57217/18
Tekin v. Türkiye
16/11/2018
Seyfi TEKİN
1986
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish
Sümeyra DOBUR
3467/19
Özbey v. Türkiye
27/12/2018
Süleyman ÖZBEY
1971
Yalova
Turkish
Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
19135/19
Gülak v. Türkiye
22/03/2019
Refik GÜLAK
1976
Kocaeli
Turkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
24217/19
Taşkın v. Türkiye
10/04/2019
Mustafa TAŞKIN
1974
Trabzon
Turkish
35143/19
Öksüz v. Türkiye
19/06/2019
Zübeyir ÖKSÜZ
1979
Kütahya
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
44360/19
Ergitürk v. Türkiye
08/08/2019
Turgut ERGİTÜRK
1972
Çorum
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
62097/19
Çeltekli v. Türkiye
20/11/2019
Mustafa ÇELTEKLİ
1985
Balıkesir
Turkish
Muhammed Talha YILMAZ
19197/20
Gül v. Türkiye
27/04/2020
Mehmet GÜL
1980
Osmaniye
Turkish
Nurhan ÖZDURAN
23386/20
Aktaş v. Türkiye
14/05/2020
Deniz AKTAŞ
1987
Kocaeli
Turkish
Oğuz GÜNDÜZ
25724/20
Özay v. Türkiye
15/06/2020
Nazmi ÖZAY
1972
İzmir
Turkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
27850/20
Çakar v. Türkiye
29/06/2020
Sabit ÇAKAR
1954
Istanbul
Turkish
Adem UZAK
29974/20
Yıldız v. Türkiye
12/07/2020
Selçuk YILDIZ
1982
Osmaniye
Turkish
Abdullah AKSOY
32052/20
Acar v. Türkiye
06/07/2020
Halil ACAR
1994
Aksaray
Turkish
Cihat ÇITIR
34462/20
Özay v. Türkiye
17/07/2020
Hacer ÖZAY
1978
Istanbul
Turkish
Emre AKARYILDIZ
34890/20
Arikan v. Türkiye
10/08/2020
Reşat ARIKAN
1982
Bitlis
Turkish
Kübra GÜLAÇTI
35863/20
Dikici v. Türkiye
08/07/2020
Mahmut DİKİCİ
1991
Osmaniye
Turkish
Dudu ERTUNÇ
37167/20
Başaran v. Türkiye
19/08/2020
Abdullah Sami BAŞARAN
1972
Ankara
Turkish
Utku Coşkuner SAKARYA
38355/20
Tokuç v. Türkiye
19/08/2020
Ömer TOKUÇ
1982
İzmir
Turkish
Ahmet Salim ÇAKMAK
41543/20
Kaynarcı v. Türkiye
03/09/2020
Fuat KAYNARCI
1974
Çankırı
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
43634/20
Ünal v. Türkiye
17/09/2020
Muammer ÜNAL
1987
Antalya
Turkish
Okan GÜNEL
44227/20
Deniz v. Türkiye
29/09/2020
Yılmaz DENİZ
1968
Sivas
Turkish
Tarık AVŞAR
44428/20
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
23/09/2020
Osman YILMAZ
1968
İzmir
Turkish
Nafize GÜLCÜ
46355/20
İnkaya v. Türkiye
05/10/2020
Abdulkadir İNKAYA
1959
İzmir
Turkish
46565/20
Saçkan v. Türkiye
15/10/2020
Hakan SAÇKAN
1973
İzmir
Turkish
Arzu BEYAZIT
46894/20
Çelik v. Türkiye
18/10/2020
Necati ÇELİK
1981
Osmaniye
Turkish
Nazan ÇELİK
47621/20
Güney v. Türkiye
21/10/2020
Halil GÜNEY
1990
İzmir
Turkish
Okan GÜNEL
49996/20
Kılıç v. Türkiye
03/11/2020
Mesut KILIÇ
1983
Tekirdağ
Turkish
Zehra KILIÇ
51544/20
Yıldız v. Türkiye
20/11/2020
Mihdad YILDIZ
1971
Sinop
Turkish
Hakkı KAYNAR
51767/20
Sarı v. Türkiye
09/11/2020
Mesut SARI
1989
İzmir
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
54575/20
Yayla v. Türkiye
26/11/2020
Musa YAYLA
1989
Kocaeli
Turkish
Nuri TAN
1432/21
Tekin v. Türkiye
17/12/2020
Mehmet TEKİN
1979
Ankara
Turkish
2070/21
Yilmaz v. Türkiye
23/12/2020
Hüseyin YILMAZ
1971
Mersin
Turkish
Fatma Nur GÖKÇE UYSAL
2103/21
Coşkun v. Türkiye
02/12/2020
Halil COŞKUN
1992
Manisa
Turkish
Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
3037/21
Kızılateş v. Türkiye
29/12/2020
Cumhur KIZILATEŞ
1974
Antalya
Turkish
Süeda KADIOĞLU
4793/21
Petek v. Türkiye
30/12/2020
Ertan PETEK
1975
Mersin
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
5312/21
Şahin v. Türkiye
05/01/2021
Musa ŞAHİN
1988
Kayseri
Turkish
Hamdi Kenan SEVİNÇ
5322/21
Vural v. Türkiye
05/01/2021
Faruk VURAL
1979
Aksaray
Turkish
Mehmet ÖNCÜ
7415/21
Durmuş v. Türkiye
21/01/2021
Hüseyin DURMUŞ
1974
Manisa
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
10055/21
Merdivan v. Türkiye
12/02/2021
Saffet MERDİVAN
1982
Ankara
Turkish
Muhammet ÜSTÜN
22579/21
Babalı v. Türkiye
19/02/2021
Tuncay BABALI
1973
Ankara
Turkish
Hakan YILDIRIM
38520/21
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
29/06/2021
Ali YILMAZ
1986
Adana
Turkish
48380/21
Cesur v. Türkiye
24/09/2021
Kazım CESUR
1989
Zonguldak
Turkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
51131/21
Öztürk v. Türkiye
07/10/2021
Eyup ÖZTÜRK
1973
Kayseri
Turkish
Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ
51434/21
Sezgin v. Türkiye
06/10/2021
İbrahim SEZGİN
1988
Kırşehir
Turkish
Enes Malik KILIÇ
51815/21
Dombaycı v. Türkiye
13/10/2021
Akın DOMBAYCI
1975
Uşak
Turkish
Elkan ALBAYRAK
59124/21
Karagöz v. Türkiye
26/11/2021
Mustafa KARAGÖZ
1974
Ankara
Turkish
60036/21
Güleryüz v. Türkiye
23/11/2021
Fatih GÜLERYÜZ
1980
Ankara
Turkish
Zümrüt ŞAHİN
217/22
Sirkecioğlu v. Türkiye
24/12/2021
İlyas SİRKECİOĞLU
1985
Istanbul
Turkish
Mehmet ÇAVDAR
1332/22
Damar v. Türkiye
24/12/2021
Merve DAMAR
1994
Istanbul
Turkish
Mehmet ÇAVDAR
2327/22
Güzel v. Türkiye
23/12/2021
Ejder GÜZEL
1993
İzmir
Turkish
Muhammet DEMİR
2408/22
Özcan v. Türkiye
30/12/2021
Nalan ÖZCAN
1995
Istanbul
Turkish
Mehmet ÇAVDAR
3026/22
Gün v. Türkiye
21/12/2021
Vahide Büşra GÜN
1993
Istanbul
Turkish
Lütfullah GÜN
3615/22
Demirtaş v. Türkiye
13/01/2022
Serhat DEMİRTAŞ
1972
Aydın
Turkish
Orçun MUŞLU
3745/22
Özer v. Türkiye
03/01/2022
Ahmet ÖZER
1984
Istanbul
Turkish
Mehmet ÖKSÜZ
7583/22
Er v. Türkiye
02/02/2022
Tuğba ER
1986
Sakarya
Turkish
Ahmet EROL
9931/22
Kılıç v. Türkiye
18/02/2022
Sedat KILIÇ
1982
Diyarbakır
Turkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ
11504/22
Bulduk v. Türkiye
21/02/2022
Oktay BULDUK
1967
Istanbul
Turkish
Sümeyra BULDUK
12356/22
Hepgül v. Türkiye
17/02/2022
Cemil HEPGÜL
1978
İzmir
Turkish
14013/22
Kondu v. Türkiye
14/03/2022
Ömer Faruk KONDU
1968
Istanbul
Turkish
Emre AKARYILDIZ
14678/22
Altın v. Türkiye
11/03/2022
Nedim ALTIN
1978
Aksaray
Turkish
Mehmet ÖNCÜ
15013/22
Mercan v. Türkiye
21/03/2022
Serdar MERCAN
1975
Çanakkale
Turkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ