Published on 1 June 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 10533/24
Abdullah SİBİRLİOĞLU against Türkiye
and 16 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 13 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against certain members of the Armed Forces for their alleged involvement in the attempted coup on the night of 15 July 2016 on account of their deployment to and acts on the Bosphorus Bridge[1] where the domestic courts concluded that the clashes between the putschist soldiers and the civilians and police officers claimed the lives of 34 individuals and caused injury to 318 others.
The applicants were Air Force Academy cadets and three privates from the Kuleli Military High School.
All the applicants were convicted of attempting to subvert the constitutional order by force under Article 309 § 1 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment (without the possibility of parole), while some of them were also convicted of murder and attempted murder, including multiple counts, and were sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment for each count.
The applicants mainly complain, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of the domestic courts’ failure to deliver a reasoned judgment, of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal’s failure to address their request for a hearing (except for the applicant in application no. 13020/24), and, under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, of the restrictions placed on their meetings with their lawyers by virtue of Decree Law no. 667. The applicants in applications nos. 10533/24, 10616/24, 8780/25 and 8608/25 further complain that the domestic courts’ unjustified rejection of their requests for the collection of further evidence entailed a breach of the principles of equality of arms and of an adversarial trial. Lastly, the applicant in application no. 13020/24 complained that the domestic courts failed to address a decisive defence argument, thereby breaching his right to a fair trial.
Some of the applicants (in applications nos. 7953/25, 7969/25, 7971/25, 7975/25, 7980/25, 8365/25, 8648/25, 8782/25 and 8785/25) further complained of a breach of Article 7 of the Convention on the basis of the following three grounds. First, they argued that the domestic courts had interpreted the elements of the offence under Article 309 § 1 of the Criminal Code in an unforeseeable and ambiguous manner. Second, they submitted that the domestic courts’ interpretation of the offence of attempting to subvert the constitutional order, as well as of the provisions on complicity, ran counter to the essence of those concepts and was, in any event, unduly extensive to their detriment. Third, the applicants contended that the domestic courts had convicted them without properly assessing the mental element of the offence.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons for their decision to convict the applicants of attempting to subvert the constitutional order under Article 309 § 1 of the Criminal Code, and to convict some of the applicants of murder and attempted murder? Did the trial court’s reasoned decision contain an individualised assessment in respect of the applicants (Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 83 and 84, 11 July 2017, and Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey, nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, §§ 127-28 and 191, 27 October 2020)?
2. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (except for the applicant in application no. 13020/24) owing to the Regional Court of Appeal’s alleged failure to address the applicants’ request for a hearing before it (see Deliktaş v. Türkiye, no. 25852/18, §§ 40-55, 12 December 2023, and compare Mahmut Onur Uçar v. Türkiye (dec.), no. 32565/23, §§ 70-74, 26 November 2024)?
3. Was the applicants’ right to have a confidential communication with their lawyers under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention restricted by virtue of the measures provided for by Article 6 of Legislative Decree no. 667? If so, what were the compelling reasons for such limitation? Did this restriction deprive the applicant of a fair hearing (see, for instance, Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, §§ 97 and 102, 2 November 2010; S. v. Switzerland, 28 November 1991, § 48, Series A no. 220; Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, § 58, ECHR 2001‑X; Rybacki v. Poland, no. 52479/99, § 61, 13 January 2009; and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, §§ 627-629 and 632-641, 25 July 2013)?
4. In respect of application no. 13020/24, did the domestic courts establish the relevant facts forming part of the applicant’s conviction after a proper examination of his submissions, arguments and the evidence adduced? In that connection, did they address the applicant’s specific arguments concerning the offences of murder and attempted murder, namely that he had fired three bullets into the air and had handed over the remaining bullets in the magazine of his rifle to the police, before convicting him of six counts of murder and thirty-seven counts of attempted murder (Moreira Ferreira, cited above, §§ 83 and 84, and Ayetullah Ay, cited above, §§ 127-28 and 191)?
5. In respect of applications nos. 10533/24, 10616/24, 8780/25 and 8608/25, has there been a breach of the principles of equality of arms and of an adversarial trial on account of the trial court’s refusal of the requests for the collection of further evidence, such as the requests that medical reports concerning the deceased and injured victims be sent to Istanbul University’s Forensic Medicine Institute or a similar institution in order to determine the nature of the injuries and the type of firearm from which the bullets were fired; the requests for an investigation into the type of ammunition and bullets used by the police that night; and the requests for expert opinions to be obtained on the circumstances of the injuries and deaths (see, for the relevant general principles, Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 139-68, 18 December 2018, and Gülağacı v. Turkey (dec.), no. 40259/07, §§ 35-40, 13 April 2021)?
6. In respect of applications nos. 7953/25, 7969/25, 7971/25, 7975/25, 7980/25, 8365/25, 8648/25, 8782/25 and 8785/25, what are the elements of the offence of attempting to subvert the constitutional order set out in Article 309 of the Criminal Code, and were those elements present in the applicants’ cases? In particular, did the domestic courts duly establish whether the material and mental elements of the relevant offence, as laid down in the case-law of the Court of Cassation, had been present in the applicants’ cases, as required by Article 7 of the Convention (see, for the relevant principles, K.-H.W. v. Germany ([GC], no. 37201/97, § 45, ECHR 2001‑II (extracts))?
The Government are further requested to submit the decisions of the Court of Cassation in which that court examined the restrictions imposed under Legislative Decree no. 667 on the fundamental right of suspects or accused persons to consult with their lawyers, including in particular those decisions in which the Court of Cassation quashed the judgments of the lower courts on that basis. In the same vein, the Government are invited to provide the relevant case-law of the Constitutional Court that has addressed the same issue under Article 6 of the Convention, including, in particular, the plenary judgment delivered in the case of Orhan Patarya (application no. 2019/42695), or any other judgment in which that court found a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial on account of the restrictions introduced by Decree Law no. 667.
Moreover, the Government are requested to submit to the Court the relevant domestic legal provisions or practice directions governing the principles and procedure by which requests for a hearing before the Regional Courts of Appeal and the Court of Cassation are examined, including for cases in which such requests result in a hearing being held by those courts.
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Nationality
Represented by
1.
10533/24
Sibirlioğlu v. Türkiye
01/04/2024
Abdullah SİBİRLİOĞLU
1995
Turkish
Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
2.
10616/24
Karaduran v. Türkiye
01/04/2024
Enes KARADURAN
1995
Turkish
Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
3.
13020/24
Tam v. Türkiye
18/04/2024
Murat TAM
1995
Turkish
Özge KARTAL
4.
7942/25
Erceylan v. Türkiye
05/03/2025
Fethullah ERCEYLAN
1996
Turkish
Özge KARTAL
5.
7953/25
Soydeğer v. Türkiye
05/03/2025
Muhammet SOYDEĞER
1994
Turkish
Özge KARTAL
6.
7969/25
Karalı v. Türkiye
05/03/2025
Hasan Alperen KARALI
1995
Turkish
Özge KARTAL
7.
7971/25
Karataş v. Türkiye
05/03/2025
İsa KARATAŞ
1996
Turkish
Özge KARTAL
8.
7975/25
Çelik v. Türkiye
05/03/2025
Seyhan ÇELİK
1994
Turkish
Özge KARTAL
9.
7980/25
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
05/03/2025
Vahit Samed YILMAZ
1995
Turkish
Özge KARTAL
10.
8292/25
Göknar v. Türkiye
24/02/2025
Ekrem GÖKNAR
1995
Turkish
Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
11.
8298/25
Yavuz v. Türkiye
05/03/2025
Mehmet Furkan YAVUZ
1995
Turkish
Özge KARTAL
12.
8365/25
Özen v. Türkiye
05/03/2025
Abdullah ÖZEN
1995
Turkish
Özge KARTAL
13.
8608/25
Gençel v. Türkiye
06/03/2025
Faruk GENÇEL
1996
Turkish
Özge KARTAL
14.
8648/25
Tepe v. Türkiye
06/03/2025
Muhammet Furkan TEPE
1996
Turkish
Özge KARTAL
15.
8780/25
Dizer v. Türkiye
07/03/2025
Ozan Tarık DİZER
1996
Turkish
Özge KARTAL
16.
8782/25
Şahin v. Türkiye
07/03/2025
Uğur ŞAHİN
1996
Turkish
Özge KARTAL
17.
8785/25
Tokmak v. Türkiye
07/03/2025
Mahmut TOKMAK
1994
Turkish
Özge KARTAL
[1] By a decision dated 25 July 2016, the Council of Ministers changed the name of the Bosphorus Bridge to “15 July Martyrs’ Bridge”.