Přehled
Rozsudek
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF TANYAŞ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
(Applications nos. 36167/18 and 239 others)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 November 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Tanyaş 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, 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 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. It further appears from the Government’s submissions that the detention orders of some applicants were based on their suspension or removal from their positions as judges or prosecutors by the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (Hakimler ve Savcılar Yüksek Kurulu – “the HSYK”) due to their suspected membership of the FETÖ/PDY. 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 v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, §§ 118-21, 3 March 2020, 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. The Court also observes from the information in the case files that some of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention was based on the decisions taken by the HSYK to suspend or remove them from office. The Court has already found that such decisions were not of a nature to constitute “reasonable suspicion” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) in respect of the offence attributed to them (see Baş, cited above, §§ 170-195).
11. 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). 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
12. 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
13. The applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos. 38532/19, 42022/19, 44066/19, 47075/19, 53060/19 and 53333/19, 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.
14. The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive.
15. 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. 38532/19, 42022/19, 44066/19, 47075/19, 53060/19 and 53333/19, 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. 38532/19, 42022/19, 44066/19, 47075/19, 53060/19 and 53333/19, 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 | Represented by |
36167/18 | Tanyaş v. Türkiye | 25/07/2018 | Levent TANYAŞ | Adem UZAK | |
36646/18 | Deveci v. Türkiye | 13/07/2018 | Uçar DEVECİ | Adem KAPLAN | |
36651/18 | Ünsal v. Türkiye | 13/07/2018 | Samet ÜNSAL | Adem KAPLAN | |
36652/18 | Daylan v. Türkiye | 13/07/2018 | Erkan DAYLAN | Adem KAPLAN | |
36653/18 | Şahin v. Türkiye | 13/07/2018 | Servet ŞAHİN | Adem KAPLAN | |
36654/18 | Çakmak v. Türkiye | 13/07/2018 | Numan ÇAKMAK | Adem KAPLAN | |
36655/18 | Karaca v. Türkiye | 13/07/2018 | Sefa KARACA | Adem KAPLAN | |
6158/19 | Aksu v. Türkiye | 17/12/2018 | Tahsin AKSU | Adem KAPLAN | |
14259/19 | Kıldan v. Türkiye | 04/03/2019 | Abdullah Oğuzhan KILDAN | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
16020/19 | Ercan v. Türkiye | 01/03/2019 | Hakan ERCAN | Adem KAPLAN | |
16036/19 | Aygün v. Türkiye | 01/03/2019 | Ramazan AYGÜN | Adem KAPLAN | |
16043/19 | Bolat v. Türkiye | 01/03/2019 | Bahadır BOLAT | Adem KAPLAN | |
16583/19 | Karapınar v. Türkiye | 20/03/2019 | Nurullah KARAPINAR | Adem UZAK | |
18485/19 | Boz v. Türkiye | 22/03/2019 | Bülent BOZ | Adem KAPLAN | |
18933/19 | Bıyık v. Türkiye | 22/03/2019 | Özay BIYIK | Adem KAPLAN | |
19536/19 | Cebeci v. Türkiye | 20/03/2019 | Şenol CEBECİ | Adem UZAK | |
22457/19 | Topal v. Türkiye | 12/04/2019 | Gazi TOPAL | Adem KAPLAN | |
22459/19 | Buldu v. Türkiye | 12/04/2019 | Ahmet BULDU | Adem KAPLAN | |
23366/19 | Kılıç v. Türkiye | 12/04/2019 | Yavuz KILIÇ | Adem KAPLAN | |
27176/19 | Yiğit v. Türkiye | 03/05/2019 | Songül YİĞİT | Adem KAPLAN | |
27186/19 | Yıldırım v. Türkiye | 03/05/2019 | Mehmet YILDIRIM | Adem KAPLAN | |
33902/19 | Sezer v. Türkiye | 28/05/2019 | Nuri SEZER | Adem KAPLAN | |
33907/19 | Akarsu v. Türkiye | 28/05/2019 | Cevdet AKARSU | Adem KAPLAN | |
33910/19 | Çiçek v. Türkiye | 28/05/2019 | Ramazan ÇİÇEK | Adem KAPLAN | |
33918/19 | Bozkurt v. Türkiye | 23/05/2019 | Ahmet BOZKURT | Adem KAPLAN | |
33922/19 | Akgül v. Türkiye | 23/05/2019 | Turgay AKGÜL | Adem KAPLAN | |
33925/19 | Bıyık v. Türkiye | 22/05/2019 | Yavuz BIYIK | Adem KAPLAN | |
35951/19 | Akyüz v. Türkiye | 25/06/2019 | İsa AKYÜZ | ||
36034/19 | Adanur v. Türkiye | 20/06/2019 | Salim ADANUR | Kadir ÖZTÜRK | |
36036/19 | Dokumacı v. Türkiye | 25/06/2019 | Fikret DOKUMACI | ||
36193/19 | Zeriğ v. Türkiye | 13/06/2019 | Ahmet ZERİĞ | Seçkin KESKİN | |
36250/19 | Kurtulmuş v. Türkiye | 12/06/2019 | Necati KURTULMUŞ | Arife YÜKSEKDAĞ ALTUNAY | |
36280/19 | Büyükyavuz v. Türkiye | 21/06/2019 | Ahmet Hulusi BÜYÜKYAVUZ | Halil İbrahim KEBEŞOĞLU | |
36436/19 | Yıldız v. Türkiye | 24/06/2019 | Şehadet YILDIZ | Agit FİDAN | |
36527/19 | Çakıcı v. Türkiye | 18/06/2019 | Durmuş ÇAKICI | Kamile KILDAN | |
36565/19 | Doğan v. Türkiye | 25/06/2019 | Bünyamin DOĞAN | Halime DOĞAN | |
36720/19 | Çizmeci v. Türkiye | 03/07/2019 | Ersan ÇİZMECİ | Mehmet MİRZA | |
37057/19 | Dızman v. Türkiye | 21/06/2019 | Gökhan DIZMAN | ||
37244/19 | Yılmaz v. Türkiye | 28/06/2019 | Kenan YILMAZ | ||
37274/19 | Aymaz v. Türkiye | 04/07/2019 | Muhammet Bekir AYMAZ | Hilal Tuğçe ŞAHİN | |
37369/19 | Özcan v. Türkiye | 05/07/2019 | Ömer ÖZCAN | ||
37970/19 | Özkaya v. Türkiye | 19/06/2019 | Ahmet ÖZKAYA | Ulviye Özge CAZ ÖZKAYA | |
38326/19 | Özer v. Türkiye | 11/07/2019 | Barış ÖZER | Kadir ÖZTÜRK | |
38530/19 | Aygün v. Türkiye | 04/07/2019 | İmdat AYGÜN | Ebubekir RENK | |
38532/19 | Arslan v. Türkiye | 12/07/2019 | Levent ARSLAN | ||
38548/19 | But v. Türkiye | 08/07/2019 | Halit BUT | Ercan KARACA | |
38674/19 | Sağbaş v. Türkiye | 08/07/2019 | Emrah SAĞBAŞ | Esra Nur AKYOL | |
39000/19 | Güneş v. Türkiye | 08/07/2019 | Ökkeş GÜNEŞ | ||
39010/19 | Kocagöz v. Türkiye | 10/07/2019 | Avni KOCAGÖZ | Esra Nur AKYOL | |
39320/19 | Gülmez v. Türkiye | 12/07/2019 | Ramazan GÜLMEZ | Recep ALTUN | |
39674/19 | Sağlam v. Türkiye | 19/06/2019 | Musa SAĞLAM | Melike Büşra URAL | |
39730/19 | Öztürk v. Türkiye | 30/05/2019 | Osman ÖZTÜRK | Kadir ÖZTÜRK | |
40121/19 | Alp v. Türkiye | 19/07/2019 | Ali ALP | ||
40196/19 | Şen v. Türkiye | 11/07/2019 | Murat ŞEN | Serra ŞEN | |
40269/19 | Dönmez v. Türkiye | 18/07/2019 | Oktay DÖNMEZ | ||
40891/19 | Sert v. Türkiye | 17/07/2019 | Metin SERT | Mehmet ÜNLÜ | |
40937/19 | Karka v. Türkiye | 22/07/2019 | İlhan KARKA | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
41070/19 | Pulgak v. Türkiye | 24/07/2019 | Abdullah PULGAK | Adem UZAK | |
41107/19 | Eken v. Türkiye | 23/07/2019 | Eyüp EKEN | Muhammed Talha YILMAZ | |
41330/19 | Ulukuş v. Türkiye | 23/07/2019 | Kanuni Süleyman ULUKUŞ | ||
41420/19 | Akdemir v. Türkiye | 24/07/2019 | İdris AKDEMİR | ||
41790/19 | Barlık v. Türkiye | 26/07/2019 | Şahin BARLIK | Arife YÜKSEKDAĞ ALTUNAY | |
41819/19 | Gider v. Türkiye | 02/08/2019 | Özgür GİDER | Serap ÇAKIR | |
41823/19 | Kanbur v. Türkiye | 26/07/2019 | Sami KANBUR | Mehmet YALÇIN | |
41838/19 | Demir v. Türkiye | 30/07/2019 | Ali DEMİR | ||
42006/19 | Şaştı v. Türkiye | 29/07/2019 | Bünyamin ŞAŞTI | Enes Malik KILIÇ | |
42022/19 | Hacıoğlu v. Türkiye | 05/07/2019 | Osman HACIOĞLU | ||
42027/19 | Suna v. Türkiye | 27/06/2019 | İsmail SUNA | ||
42101/19 | Yıldız v. Türkiye | 30/07/2019 | Veysel YILDIZ | Cengiz YILMAZ | |
42535/19 | Karaduman v. Türkiye | 01/08/2019 | Ümit KARADUMAN | Zeynep Rana EKİNCİ KOÇ | |
42537/19 | Yücel v. Türkiye | 31/07/2019 | Mustafa YÜCEL | Kadir ÖZTÜRK | |
42601/19 | Bal v. Türkiye | 01/08/2019 | Halil BAL | Memduh Remzi BAL | |
43027/19 | İpek v. Türkiye | 01/08/2019 | Cihat İPEK | Bilal İPEK | |
43166/19 | Andıç v. Türkiye | 05/08/2019 | Mehmet Ali ANDIÇ | ||
43248/19 | Cengiz v. Türkiye | 07/08/2019 | Filiz CENGİZ | Adem UZAK | |
43293/19 | Günaydın v. Türkiye | 02/08/2019 | Ahmet GÜNAYDIN | Büşra POLAT DURAN | |
44066/19 | Şen v. Türkiye | 07/08/2019 | Mustafa Emre ŞEN | ||
44070/19 | Dönmez v. Türkiye | 07/08/2019 | Murat DÖNMEZ | Üsame İNAN | |
44082/19 | Kızıltoprak v. Türkiye | 09/08/2019 | Yusuf KIZILTOPRAK | Bekir DÖNMEZ | |
44124/19 | Vardal v. Türkiye | 07/08/2019 | Fahri VARDAL | Kadir ÖZTÜRK | |
44297/19 | Sevilmiş v. Türkiye | 07/08/2019 | Halit SEVİLMİŞ | Mücahit AYDIN | |
44318/19 | Aydın v. Türkiye | 06/08/2019 | Şerif AYDIN | Mehmet AY | |
44335/19 | Şahin v. Türkiye | 09/08/2019 | Mustafa ŞAHİN | ||
44407/19 | Polat v. Türkiye | 07/08/2019 | Selçuk POLAT | Kadir ÖZTÜRK | |
44468/19 | Çora v. Türkiye | 21/08/2019 | Yüksel ÇORA | Fatma ÇORA | |
44525/19 | Şentürk v. Türkiye | 06/08/2019 | Şahin ŞENTÜRK | Ayşe ŞENTÜRK | |
44702/19 | Köse v. Türkiye | 08/08/2019 | Emin KÖSE | Ayşe Dudu KÖSE | |
45538/19 | Damarseçkin v. Türkiye | 27/08/2019 | Müjdat DAMARSEÇKİN | Adem UZAK | |
45675/19 | Vardi v. Türkiye | 15/08/2019 | Ömer VARDİ | Şeyma ALKAN | |
45678/19 | Mercan v. Türkiye | 15/08/2019 | Bayram Ali MERCAN | Mücahit AYDIN | |
45838/19 | Fesli v. Türkiye | 15/08/2019 | Muhammed Hamza FESLİ | Mehmet Fatih ARSLAN | |
46370/19 | Köken v. Türkiye | 06/08/2019 | Reşit KÖKEN | ||
46765/19 | Birlik v. Türkiye | 22/08/2019 | Eshat BİRLİK | Cihad KAVUT | |
46791/19 | Dursun v. Türkiye | 22/08/2019 | Zekeriya DURSUN | Lale KARADAŞ | |
47003/19 | Aksoy v. Türkiye | 23/08/2019 | Sinan AKSOY | Kadir ÖZTÜRK | |
47018/19 | Akdemir v. Türkiye | 22/08/2019 | Ahmet AKDEMİR | ||
47066/19 | Tek v. Türkiye | 21/08/2019 | Davut TEK | Melek AYDIN İSLAMOĞLU | |
47075/19 | Özgür v. Türkiye | 26/08/2019 | Veysel ÖZGÜR | ||
47276/19 | Alkan v. Türkiye | 20/08/2019 | Osman ALKAN | Kadir ÖZTÜRK | |
47281/19 | Avcı v. Türkiye | 26/08/2019 | Ali AVCI | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
47689/19 | Mıhçı v. Türkiye | 23/08/2019 | Özgür MIHÇI | Burcu HAS | |
47854/19 | Solak v. Türkiye | 20/08/2019 | Ahmet SOLAK | Kadir ÖZTÜRK | |
47861/19 | Göyce v. Türkiye | 01/07/2019 | Mustafa GÖYCE | Dudu ERTUNÇ | |
49038/19 | Dede v. Türkiye | 06/09/2019 | Salih DEDE | Havva ALAN ÖZCEL | |
49412/19 | Boğaz v. Türkiye | 10/09/2019 | Hasan BOĞAZ | Nurhan ÖZDURAN | |
49487/19 | Keklik v. Türkiye | 05/09/2019 | Adem KEKLİK | ||
50066/19 | Uzkut v. Türkiye | 10/09/2019 | Mehmet UZKUT | Kadir ÖZTÜRK | |
50227/19 | İslam v. Türkiye | 11/09/2019 | Ahmet İSLAM | ||
50698/19 | Ölçer v. Türkiye | 05/09/2019 | Nihat ÖLÇER | Ebubekir RENK | |
50753/19 | Acemli v. Türkiye | 02/09/2019 | Ali ACEMLİ | Şerif FİDAN | |
50809/19 | Odabaşı v. Türkiye | 05/09/2019 | Mehmet ODABAŞI | ||
51084/19 | Şahin v. Türkiye | 02/09/2019 | Hakan ŞAHİN | Eyyüp SAĞIR | |
51121/19 | Ulaş v. Türkiye | 12/09/2019 | Hilal ULAŞ | Adem UZAK | |
51142/19 | Önemli v. Türkiye | 11/09/2019 | Cihan ÖNEMLİ | Arife YÜKSEKDAĞ ALTUNAY | |
51151/19 | Cesur v. Türkiye | 05/09/2019 | Ramazan CESUR | Kadir ÖZTÜRK | |
51305/19 | Kızmaz v. Türkiye | 04/09/2019 | Ümit KIZMAZ | ||
51398/19 | Çay v. Türkiye | 13/09/2019 | Hasan ÇAY | Emre ÇAY | |
51483/19 | Telli v. Türkiye | 06/09/2019 | İrfan TELLİ | Ebubekir RENK | |
51499/19 | Göğüş v. Türkiye | 20/09/2019 | Ferudun GÖĞÜŞ | ||
51582/19 | Ekici v. Türkiye | 15/10/2019 | Erhan EKİCİ | Mehmet Ertuğrul TÜTÜNCÜ | |
51646/19 | Köprülü v. Türkiye | 10/09/2019 | Onur Murat KÖPRÜLÜ | Kadir ÖZTÜRK | |
51676/19 | Karabulut v. Türkiye | 19/09/2019 | Samet KARABULUT | Filiz KARABULUT | |
51818/19 | Kızılırmak v. Türkiye | 12/09/2019 | Yüksel KIZILIRMAK | Kadir ÖZTÜRK | |
52225/19 | Yıldız v. Türkiye | 16/09/2019 | Mehmet Fatih YILDIZ | Özcan AKINCI | |
52470/19 | Yeşil v. Türkiye | 27/09/2019 | Yaşar YEŞİL | Kadir ÖZTÜRK | |
52475/19 | Ağraş v. Türkiye | 23/09/2019 | Ahmet AĞRAŞ | ||
52553/19 | Özbey v. Türkiye | 24/09/2019 | Rahmi ÖZBEY | Büşra DEMİRCİ | |
52601/19 | Tuner v. Türkiye | 20/09/2019 | Bünyamin TUNER | Ahu TUNER | |
52612/19 | Aytunç v. Türkiye | 23/09/2019 | Ömer Faruk AYTUNÇ | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
52699/19 | Cingöz v. Türkiye | 22/08/2019 | Seyit CİNGÖZ | Kadir ÖZTÜRK | |
53053/19 | Eylek v. Türkiye | 01/10/2019 | Halil İbrahim EYLEK | ||
53060/19 | Köse v. Türkiye | 24/09/2019 | Mehmet Ali KÖSE | Kadir ÖZTÜRK | |
53103/19 | Erdoğmuş v. Türkiye | 01/10/2019 | Harun ERDOĞMUŞ | Ebubekir RENK | |
53308/19 | Korkmaz v. Türkiye | 20/09/2019 | Barış KORKMAZ | Leyla MESUTOĞLU | |
53333/19 | Güvercin v. Türkiye | 11/09/2019 | Hafit GÜVERCİN | İsmail GÜVERCİN | |
53351/19 | Türkmen v. Türkiye | 19/09/2019 | Mustafa TÜRKMEN | Kadir ÖZTÜRK | |
53369/19 | Soy v. Türkiye | 17/09/2019 | Enes İbrahim SOY | Ebubekir RENK | |
53524/19 | Koçak v. Türkiye | 23/09/2019 | Nadir KOÇAK | ||
53764/19 | Tuncel v. Türkiye | 23/09/2019 | Tuğrul TUNCEL | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
54386/19 | Akgün v. Türkiye | 26/09/2019 | İbrahim AKGÜN | ||
54501/19 | Demir v. Türkiye | 03/10/2019 | İmdat DEMİR | Kadir ÖZTÜRK | |
54525/19 | Kurt v. Türkiye | 04/10/2019 | Numan KURT | Erdal ÇELİK | |
54885/19 | Alparslan v. Türkiye | 27/08/2019 | Ali ALPARSLAN | Nurhan ÖZDURAN | |
55590/19 | Zorlu v. Türkiye | 05/09/2019 | Turgut ZORLU | ||
55778/19 | Öndem v. Türkiye | 25/09/2019 | Aliaddin ÖNDEM | Hatice ATMAZ DERİNCE | |
55822/19 | Kurt v. Türkiye | 03/09/2019 | Ali KURT | Zülal BÜKER | |
55875/19 | Yılmaz v. Türkiye | 11/10/2019 | Kerem YILMAZ | Esma YILMAZ | |
55949/19 | Duran v. Türkiye | 09/10/2019 | Abdullah DURAN | ||
55953/19 | Kıpçak v. Türkiye | 08/10/2019 | Barış KIPÇAK | Sultan KIPÇAK | |
56055/19 | Tuz v. Türkiye | 09/10/2019 | Alpaslan TUZ | Nurten TUZ | |
56063/19 | Başer v. Türkiye | 10/10/2019 | Cemil BAŞER | Hamide Nur ALKAÇ | |
56071/19 | Sağlam v. Türkiye | 09/10/2019 | Abdullah SAĞLAM | Şeyma ALKAN | |
56253/19 | Arslan v. Türkiye | 24/10/2019 | Abdullah ARSLAN | Adem UZAK | |
56261/19 | Deliktaş v. Türkiye | 23/10/2019 | Ramazan DELİKTAŞ | Adem UZAK | |
57778/19 | Kara v. Türkiye | 04/11/2019 | Mehmet KARA | Adem UZAK | |
59158/19 | Erol v. Türkiye | 11/11/2019 | Hasan EROL | Adem UZAK | |
59162/19 | Akar v. Türkiye | 11/11/2019 | Avni AKAR | Adem UZAK | |
59165/19 | Beyazdağ v. Türkiye | 11/11/2019 | Yakup BEYAZDAĞ | Adem UZAK | |
60006/19 | Yalçın v. Türkiye | 09/09/2019 | Abdusamet YALÇIN | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
62825/19 | Kanbur v. Türkiye | 22/11/2019 | İlhami KANBUR | Emine Pınar TEKİNŞEN | |
63004/19 | Erkan v. Türkiye | 18/11/2019 | Suna ERKAN | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
97/20 | Çağlı v. Türkiye | 09/12/2019 | Abdullah Çağatay ÇAĞLI | Adem KAPLAN | |
276/20 | Beygo v. Türkiye | 19/12/2019 | Hasan Ergün BEYGO | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
514/20 | Bayçöl v. Türkiye | 10/12/2019 | Figen BAYÇÖL | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
1135/20 | Oğuz v. Türkiye | 12/12/2019 | Hasan OĞUZ | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
1199/20 | Tozlu v. Türkiye | 27/11/2019 | Mustafa Ali TOZLU | Arife YÜKSEKDAĞ ALTUNAY | |
2487/20 | Kaya v. Türkiye | 24/12/2019 | Metin KAYA | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
2754/20 | Aydın v. Türkiye | 17/12/2019 | Ahmet AYDIN | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
4197/20 | Sevim v. Türkiye | 07/01/2020 | Mehmet SEVİM | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
4394/20 | Kara v. Türkiye | 06/01/2020 | Mustafa KARA | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
5498/20 | Altınbaş v. Türkiye | 13/01/2020 | Ufuk ALTINBAŞ | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
5980/20 | Akar v. Türkiye | 08/01/2020 | Fatih AKAR | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
7152/20 | Kılıç v. Türkiye | 13/01/2020 | Yaşar KILIÇ | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
7346/20 | Arslan v. Türkiye | 20/01/2020 | Halil İbrahim ARSLAN | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
9289/20 | Özkan v. Türkiye | 30/01/2020 | Cihan ÖZKAN | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
11485/20 | Ocak v. Türkiye | 03/02/2020 | Mehmet Zahit OCAK | Arife YÜKSEKDAĞ ALTUNAY | |
14837/20 | Ekinci v. Türkiye | 10/03/2020 | Yasin EKİNCİ | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
15016/20 | Tunçdemir v. Türkiye | 26/02/2020 | Derviş TUNÇDEMİR | Emine Pınar TEKİNŞEN | |
16028/20 | Dal v. Türkiye | 20/03/2020 | Arif DAL | Arife YÜKSEKDAĞ ALTUNAY | |
16390/20 | Durak v. Türkiye | 20/03/2020 | Hüseyin DURAK | Arife YÜKSEKDAĞ ALTUNAY | |
17625/20 | Gündem v. Türkiye | 25/03/2020 | Ahmet GÜNDEM | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
20189/20 | Arabacı v. Türkiye | 14/05/2020 | Murat ARABACI | Adem UZAK | |
20199/20 | Yüksel v. Türkiye | 14/05/2020 | Neyfel YÜKSEL | Adem UZAK | |
20849/20 | Özcan v. Türkiye | 13/02/2020 | Abdullah Himmet ÖZCAN | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
21264/20 | Türker v. Türkiye | 15/05/2020 | Türker TÜRKER | Emine Pınar TEKİNŞEN | |
21710/20 | Kaşağıcı v. Türkiye | 08/05/2020 | Hamdi KAŞAĞICI | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
24036/20 | Budak v. Türkiye | 08/05/2020 | Ali İhsan BUDAK | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
24076/20 | Girgin v. Türkiye | 22/05/2020 | Irmak GİRGİN | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
24378/20 | Türk v. Türkiye | 22/05/2020 | Yusuf TÜRK | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
26375/20 | Irmak v. Türkiye | 19/06/2020 | İsmail IRMAK | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
26420/20 | Gökçe v. Türkiye | 19/06/2020 | İbrahim GÖKÇE | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
26564/20 | Yumuşak v. Türkiye | 08/06/2020 | Hacı İbrahim YUMUŞAK | Arife YÜKSEKDAĞ ALTUNAY | |
27441/20 | Çelik v. Türkiye | 29/06/2020 | Ersan ÇELİK | Adem UZAK | |
28170/20 | Güzeldal v. Türkiye | 18/06/2020 | Metin GÜZELDAL | Arife YÜKSEKDAĞ ALTUNAY | |
28783/20 | Karabıyık v. Türkiye | 24/06/2020 | Metin KARABIYIK | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
30515/20 | Atalay v. Türkiye | 01/07/2020 | Ramazan ATALAY | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
30740/20 | Fırat v. Türkiye | 26/06/2020 | Halil İbrahim FIRAT | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
31639/20 | Sarı v. Türkiye | 09/07/2020 | Serkan SARI | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
31669/20 | Sünger v. Türkiye | 09/07/2020 | Özcan SÜNGER | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
33006/20 | Tekin v. Türkiye | 24/07/2020 | Ertuğrul TEKİN | Arife YÜKSEKDAĞ ALTUNAY | |
36114/20 | Yıldız v. Türkiye | 14/08/2020 | Mehmet YILDIZ | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
36196/20 | Tana v. Türkiye | 14/08/2020 | Erdem TANA | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
40620/20 | Karaoğlu v. Türkiye | 01/09/2020 | Ruhi KARAOĞLU | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
41450/20 | Şahin v. Türkiye | 01/09/2020 | Ali Kemal ŞAHİN | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
42218/20 | Çerkez v. Türkiye | 04/09/2020 | Kerim ÇERKEZ | Adem KAPLAN | |
42397/20 | Sert v. Türkiye | 11/09/2020 | Alper SERT | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
43529/20 | Gönül v. Türkiye | 29/09/2020 | Ertuğrul GÖNÜL | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
43558/20 | Gülüm v. Türkiye | 29/09/2020 | Mustafa GÜLÜM | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
43561/20 | Babaarslan v. Türkiye | 29/09/2020 | Recep BABAARSLAN | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
43571/20 | Tüccar v. Türkiye | 21/09/2020 | İsa TÜCCAR | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
43594/20 | Sönmez v. Türkiye | 29/09/2020 | Sultan SÖNMEZ | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
43662/20 | Arslan v. Türkiye | 21/09/2020 | Miray ARSLAN | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
45074/20 | Baloğlu v. Türkiye | 07/10/2020 | Remziye BALOĞLU | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
46052/20 | Önal v. Türkiye | 13/10/2020 | İsmail ÖNAL | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
46056/20 | Meme v. Türkiye | 13/10/2020 | Mehmet MEME | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
46057/20 | Manav v. Türkiye | 13/10/2020 | Yunus MANAV | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
46215/20 | Dere v. Türkiye | 14/10/2020 | Hamit DERE | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
46216/20 | Alp v. Türkiye | 14/10/2020 | Aziz ALP | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
46218/20 | Altun v. Türkiye | 14/10/2020 | Mustafa ALTUN | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
46367/20 | Satıcı v. Türkiye | 14/10/2020 | Cemil SATICI | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
46696/20 | Şahin v. Türkiye | 15/10/2020 | Niyazi ŞAHİN | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
46697/20 | Polat v. Türkiye | 15/10/2020 | Şeref POLAT | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
46698/20 | Tanat v. Türkiye | 15/10/2020 | Beytullah TANAT | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
46699/20 | Şahin v. Türkiye | 15/10/2020 | Doğan ŞAHİN | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
47268/20 | Kuzu v. Türkiye | 15/10/2020 | Turgay KUZU | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
47269/20 | Çakan v. Türkiye | 19/10/2020 | Sadi ÇAKAN | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
47270/20 | Kaçan v. Türkiye | 19/10/2020 | Hüseyin KAÇAN | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
47272/20 | Gülen v. Türkiye | 19/10/2020 | Selman GÜLEN | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
47273/20 | Temel v. Türkiye | 19/10/2020 | Mehmet Emin TEMEL | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
47275/20 | Barçağ v. Türkiye | 19/10/2020 | Kamil BARÇAĞ | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
47276/20 | Kaya v. Türkiye | 19/10/2020 | Vedat KAYA | Mehmet ÇAVDAR | |
50444/20 | Varlık v. Türkiye | 04/11/2020 | İbrahim VARLIK | Adem UZAK | |
52541/20 | Güler v. Türkiye | 23/10/2020 | Muammer GÜLER | Arife YÜKSEKDAĞ ALTUNAY | |
4504/21 | Becer v. Türkiye | 14/01/2021 | Fatih BECER | Emine Pınar TEKİNŞEN | |
4507/21 | Kurt v. Türkiye | 14/01/2021 | Günay KURT | Emine Pınar TEKİNŞEN | |
7659/21 | Çetin v. Türkiye | 22/01/2021 | Önder ÇETİN | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
14504/21 | Yamak v. Türkiye | 04/03/2021 | Hasan Hüseyin YAMAK | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
15772/21 | Aşuk v. Türkiye | 19/03/2021 | Adem AŞUK | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
17498/21 | Özyurt v. Türkiye | 19/03/2021 | Sadık ÖZYURT | Emre AKARYILDIZ | |
24942/21 | Gözel v. Türkiye | 22/04/2021 | Tuğbahan GÖZEL | Emre AKARYILDIZ |