Published on 15 June 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 13899/23
Nagihan YAVUZ and Şuheda Sena ÖGÜTALAN against Türkiye
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 26 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings concerning the deployment, on the night of 15 July 2016, of several Air Force Academy cadets, certain military officers and privates, including the applicants, from a training camp located at the Yalova Airfield Command to Sabiha Gökçen International Airport. On the highway leading to the Airport, they were intercepted by police officers and a number of civilians, leading to an armed confrontation, after which they were arrested in the early hours of 16 July 2016.
All the applicants were, at the material time, twenty-one-year-old Air Force Academy cadets, save for the fifth applicant who was a military officer holding the rank of a Captain. They were convicted of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order under Article 309 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced to life imprisonment, save for the fifth applicant who was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment. Moreover, the fourth and fifth applicants were convicted of four counts of intentional killing along with nine counts of attempted killing under Article 82 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to different terms of imprisonment. On 26 May 2022 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment, with final effect.
On various dates the applicants lodged several applications with the Constitutional Court, which ultimately declared them inadmissible in summary decisions.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the first to fourth applicants complain that the domestic courts did not provide sufficient reasons in their judgments and that the domestic courts did not address their specific submissions and arguments.
The first, second and fifth applicants invoke Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention and complain of the restrictions placed on their meetings with their lawyers by virtue of Decree Law no. 667.
The third applicant alleges a breach of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention on the ground that the domestic courts refused to summon and hear defence witnesses, thereby impairing her ability to present her defence. In particular, this applicant complains of the domestic courts’ refusal to summon M.Ç., who, she argues, is a civilian who had accompanied her during the clashes and who could have provided crucial testimony regarding her conduct at the relevant time.
Lastly, the first to third applicants complain under Article 7 of the Convention of a violation of the principle of no punishment without law, on account of the manner in which the domestic courts had interpreted and applied Article 309 of the Criminal Code.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
IN RESPECT OF APPLICATIONS NOS. 13899/23, 18551/23 AND 19669/23
1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for the general principles, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 83‑84, 11 July 2017)? In particular,
(a) Did the domestic courts adequately explain the grounds on which they based their decisions and provide sufficient and individualised reasons for convicting the applicants in applications nos. 13899/23 and 18551/23 of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order under Article 309 of the Criminal Code, and the applicant in application no. 19669/23 of four counts of intentional killing along with nine counts of attempted killing under Article 82 of the Criminal Code? In particular, did the domestic courts state the grounds on which they established the applicants’ mens rea for the impugned offence?
(b) Did the domestic courts address the applicants’ specific, pertinent and important arguments and submissions? In particular, did they address;
(i) the applicants’ main defence submissions, including those concerning vis compulsiva, particularly, in the light of the allegations of death threats by superiors and the inability, in the circumstances of night-time armed clashes while wearing military uniforms, to surrender immediately to the police, when determining the mental element and their guilt?
(ii) the first three applicants’ submissions that (α) the expert reports indicate that the weapons in their possession had not been fired and that no trace of gunshot residue had been detected on their hands and that (β) they had not been aware of the attempted coup until minutes before disembarking from the buses on the highway since they had been in the training camp without any possibility to use mobile telephones?
(iii) the fourth applicant’s submissions concerning the domestic courts’ failure to establish a causal link between the presence of shell casings found at the scene and the deaths of E.D., İ.Y., M.D., V.K and injuries of Ü.C., F.P., A.B., İ.A., Y.E.K., B.G., F.Ö., M.K., and M.D.?
IN RESPECT OF APPLICATIONS NOS. 13899/23 AND 25434/24
2. 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 applicants of a fair hearing (see, for instance, 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; Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, §§ 97 and 102, 2 November 2010; and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, §§ 627-629 and 632‑641, 25 July 2013)?
IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION NO. 18551/23
3. Was the trial court’s rejection of the applicant’s request to summon witnesses compatible with Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see, for the general principles, Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 139-168, 18 December 2018)?
IN RESPECT OF APPLICATIONS NOS. 13899/23 AND 18551/23
4. 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 invited to submit copies of all the relevant documents concerning the applicants’ case, including but not limited to the minutes of all the hearings, the reasoned judgments of the domestic courts accompanied by translations, documentary evidence against the applicants, including all the expert reports, and the written submissions of the applicants as well as their lawyers throughout the proceedings.
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Applicant
Year of Birth
Nationality
Represented by
1.
13899/23
Yavuz and Öğütalan v. Türkiye
Nagihan YAVUZ
1995
Turkish
Şuheda Sena ÖĞÜTALAN
1995
Turkish
Mehmet ÖNCÜ
2.
18551/23
Gönüllü v. Türkiye
Nimet Ecem GÖNÜLLÜ
1995
Turkish
İlter AKSOYLU
3.
19669/23
Semiz v. Türkiye
Erkam SEMİZ
1994
Turkish
Emre AKSÖZ
4.
25434/24
Durak v. Türkiye
Hasan DURAK
1983
Turkish
Lale DEMİRKAZAN BEŞE