14347/17;14626/17;41660/17;41894/17;43590/17;45007/17;49247/17;49743/17;61445/17;62123/17;63687/17;64047/17;71343/17;79841/17;83091/17;6833/18;9907/18;10612/18;10778/18;16030/18;19873/18;21049/18;22157/18;26332/18;29589/18;32404/18;43688/18;43956/18;45059/18;47603/18;54235/18;54713/18;59564/18;6970/19;9217/19;10884/19;11344/19;13104/19;15742/19;15783/19;15883/19;22696/19;23692/19;25975/19;26715/19;36192/19;36993/19;45663/19;46744/19;51877/19;54509/19;54772/19;61473/19;61485/19;62714/19;5767/20;7969/20;9343/20;10681/20;11500/20;11663/20;11664/20;12883/20;13576/20;13779/20;13824/20;14846/20;14874/20;14972/20;15740/20;16141/20;16243/20;16784/20;17012/20;17126/20;19143/20;19656/20;20126/20;20135/20;20587/20;21061/20;21062/20;21088/20;21123/20;21367/20;21551/20;21749/20;22243/20;22923/20;22952/20;22956/20;23007/20;23436/20;24030/20;25514/20;26039/20;26042/20;26146/20;26337/20;27067/20;29062/20;29753/20;29994/20;30003/20;30010/20;30329/20;32774/20;34445/20;34682/20;34959/20;36651/20;36837/20

SECOND SECTION CASE OF AYVAZ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Application nos. 14347/17 and 130 others) JUDGMENT (Revision) STRASBOURG 9 June 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ayvaz and Others v. Türkiye (request for revision of the judgment of 11 July 2023), The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Lorraine Schembri Orland, President, Davor Derenčinović, Gediminas Sagatys, judges, and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 May 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: procedure 1.The case originated in one hundred and thirty-one applications (nos.14347/17 and 130 others) 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 one hundred and thirty-one Turkish nationals (“the applicants”) on various dates. Their names and other details, as well as the date of the lodging of each application, are specified in the judgment delivered in the case on 11 July 2023. 2.The applications mainly concern the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants in the aftermath of the coup attempt of 15July 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. All the applicants were serving as judges or prosecutors at different types and/or levels of court at the material time. 3.In a judgment delivered on 11 July 2023, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of the initial pre-trial detention of the applicants. The Court also decided to award each of the applicants who had requested just satisfaction, which included the applicant in application no. 21551/20, a lump sum of 5,000euros (EUR), covering non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. 4.On 28 July 2023 the legal representative of the heirs of one of the applicants, Mr Mesut Güngör (application no. 21551/20), informed the Court that he had learned that the applicant had died on 8July 2023 and that his heirs wished to pursue the application. He accordingly requested revision of the judgment under Rule80 of the Rules of Court. 5.On 20 January 2026 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the Government four weeks within which they had the possibility to submit their observations on this request (Rule 80 § 4 read in conjunction with Rule 53 § 7 of the Rules of Court). Those observations were received on 24 February 2026. THE LAW THE REQUEST FOR REVISION 6.The representative of the deceased applicant’s heirs requested revision of the judgment of 11 July 2023, which the heirs had been unable to have executed because of the applicant’s death before the judgment had been delivered. 7.According to official documentation submitted to the Court, Nazan Güngör, Furkan Güngör and Emirhan Kerem Güngör are the heirs of the deceased applicant. They requested to receive the just satisfaction awarded to him. 8.The Government argued that the applicant had died on 8July 2023 but that neither his heirs nor his legal representative had informed the Court about his death in due time. The Government also referred to the parties’ duty to cooperate fully with the Court in the conduct of the proceedings (see Rule44A of the Rules of Court), and asked the Court to draw “the necessary conclusions”, within the meaning of Rule 44C of the Rules of Court, from the failure to inform the Court in a timely manner about the death of the applicant. The Court’s assessment 9.Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, in so far as relevant, provides: “1.A party may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court, within a period of six months after that party acquired knowledge of the fact, to revise that judgment. ...” 10.The Court notes at the outset that it appears from the documents submitted to it that Nazan Güngör, Furkan Güngör and Emirhan Kerem Güngör are the heirs of the deceased applicant. 11.Accordingly, the Court considers that these three heirs have standing to pursue the application in the deceased applicant’s stead (see, inter alia, M.Özel and Others v. Turkey (revision), nos. 14350/05, 15245/05 and16051/05, § 10, 31 March 2020; Cangöz and Others v. Turkey (revision), no.7469/06, § 11, 19 September 2017; Benzer and Others v.Turkey (revision), no. 23502/06, § 12, 13 January 2015; and Gülbahar Özer and Others v. Turkey (revision), no. 44125/06, § 8, 10 June 2014). The Court observes that they have expressed their intention to do so and requested that the judgment be revised. 12.As for the Government’s reference to Rule 44A and C of the Rules of Court, the Court observes that it has already examined and rejected similar arguments raised by the respondent Government in comparable cases (see,inter alia, M. Özel and Others, cited above, § 8; Cangöz and Others, cited above, § 9; Benzer and Others, cited above, § 13; and Gülbahar Özer and Others, cited above, § 9). The Court finds no particular circumstances in the instant case which would require it to depart from its finding in those cases. It finds it unnecessary, therefore, to draw any inferences from the failure to inform the Court at an earlier stage about the death of the applicant. 13.The Court considers that the death of the applicant constitutes “the discovery of a fact ... which, when [the] judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court”. It also constitutes a fact of “decisive influence” on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule80 §1, notably on the allocation of the amount awarded under Article41 of the Convention. 14.Moreover, having regard to its well-established case-law, according to which it usually granted in practice revision requests by heirs of applicants deceased during the procedure before the Court (see, among other authorities, Volchkova and Mironov v. Russia (just satisfaction) (revision), nos.45668/05 and 2292/06, §§ 8-9, 9 March 2021; Tkachenko v. Russia (revision), no.28046/05, §§ 11-14, 10 November 2020; M. Özel and Others, cited above, §§5-10; Cangöz and Others, cited above, §§ 5-12; Benzer and Others, cited above, §§ 5-14; and Gülbahar Özer and Others, cited above, §§ 5-10) and the fact that the request was, in any event, made within the six-month period after the death of the applicant, the Court considers that the judgment of 11July 2023 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. 15.The Court decides to award the heirs of the deceased applicant, namely Nazan Güngör, Furkan Güngör and Emirhan Kerem Güngör, jointly the sum of 5,000 euros (EUR) it had awarded to their, respectively, deceased husband (Nazan Güngör) and father (Furkan Güngör and Emirhan Kerem Güngör) covering non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. 16.The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to revise its judgment of 11July 2023 in so far as it concerns the claims made by the deceased applicant Mesut Güngör (application no.21551/20) under Article41 of the Convention; and accordingly, Holds that the respondent State is to pay jointly to the heirs of Mesut Güngör, namely Nazan Güngör, Furkan Güngör and Emirhan Kerem Güngör, 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, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; 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 9 June 2026, pursuant to Rule77§§2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Dorothee von ArnimLorraine Schembri Orland Deputy RegistrarPresident