15659/20;16027/20;16033/20;16045/20;16046/20;16061/20;16110/20;16180/20;16384/20;16392/20;16442/20;16447/20;16487/20;16566/20;16573/20;16781/20;16843/20;16844/20;16852/20;16862/20;16904/20;16912/20;16946/20;16947/20;17015/20;17398/20;17441/20;17478/20;17693/20;17919/20;17968/20;18743/20;19024/20;19145/20;19180/20;20046/20;20426/20;20843/20;20850/20;20990/20;21194/20;21320/20;21419/20;21462/20;21730/20;21770/20;22976/20;23035/20;23055/20;23075/20;23153/20;23317/20;23361/20;23687/20;23691/20;23894/20;24024/20;24050/20;24103/20;24275/20;24405/20;24639/20;24659/20;24843/20;25219/20;25520/20;25546/20;25785/20;26804/20;26836/20;26901/20;27091/20;27142/20;27268/20;27271/20;27404/20;27911/20;28026/20;28357/20;28890/20;28936/20;29075/20;29970/20;30009/20;30118/20;30681/20;31092/20;31315/20;31502/20;31504/20;32063/20;32952/20;33282/20;33405/20;33601/20;33767/20;33856/20;34393/20;34693/20;34765/20;34783/20;34904/20;35674/20;35719/20;35753/20;35889/20;36161/20;38352/20;38459/20;39043/20;39961/20;4

SECOND SECTION CASE OF SERT AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 15659/20 and 206 others)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 3 December 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sert and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Pauliine Koskelo, President,  Jovan Ilievski,  Davor Derenčinović, 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 Turkey, 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 12 November 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. 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 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, cited above, §§ 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. 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.  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). At this juncture, it cannot be maintained, as the Government argued in their observations, that the fact that the applicants were not members of the judiciary had any bearing on the conclusion reached. 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 11.  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 12.  The applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos. 17398/20, 21419/20, 32063/20, 39043/20, 41885/20, 47622/20, 51256/20, 51814/20, 41/21, 1386/21, 1969/21, 2000/21, 3082/21, 3454/21, 37266/21 and 39745/21, 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. 13.  The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive. 14.  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. 17398/20, 21419/20, 32063/20, 39043/20, 41885/20, 47622/20, 51256/20, 51814/20, 41/21, 1386/21, 1969/21, 2000/21, 3082/21, 3454/21, 37266/21 and 39745/21, 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 applicant, with the exception of the applicants in applications nos. 17398/20, 21419/20, 32063/20, 39043/20, 41885/20, 47622/20, 51256/20, 51814/20, 41/21, 1386/21, 1969/21, 2000/21, 3082/21, 3454/21, 37266/21 and 39745/21, 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’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 December 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 Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 15659/20 Sert v. Türkiye 12/03/2020 İzzetdin SERT Aydın Turkish Turgay KALE 2. 16027/20 Ateş v. Türkiye 20/03/2020 Kenan ATEŞ Konya Turkish   3. 16033/20 Demirci v. Türkiye 18/03/2020 Mehmet DEMİRCİ Hatay Turkish Ali Berk SABANOGLU 4. 16045/20 Ateş v. Türkiye 18/03/2020 Ramazan ATEŞ İzmir Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 5. 16046/20 Cebesoy v. Türkiye 20/03/2020 Halil CEBESOY Manisa Turkish   6. 16061/20 Karakuş v. Türkiye 16/03/2020 Özcan KARAKUŞ Konya Turkish İlyas KARATAŞ 7. 16110/20 Kiremit v. Türkiye 20/03/2020 Ahmet KİREMİT Aksaray Turkish Akerke ABDYKALYKOVA ONAT 8. 16180/20 Yuvarlak v. Türkiye 19/03/2020 İlhan YUVARLAK İstanbul Turkish Yeliz HANOĞLU 9. 16384/20 Topdemir v. Türkiye 17/03/2020 Mehmet TOPDEMİR Ankara Turkish Hacer TOPDEMİR 10. 16392/20 Uyanık v. Türkiye 26/03/2020 Mustafa UYANIK Mersin Turkish Akil SIRKINTI 11. 16442/20 Tekin v. Türkiye 20/03/2020 Mustafa TEKİN Konya Turkish Leyla MESUTOĞLU 12. 16447/20 Doğan v. Türkiye 19/03/2020 Tuncay DOĞAN Ankara Turkish Mustafa SOYLU 13. 16487/20 Alemdar v. Türkiye 27/03/2020 Ender ALEMDAR Zonguldak Turkish Erdi KOSTİK 14. 16566/20 Telo v. Türkiye 13/03/2020 Cihat TELO Kocaeli Turkish Şule Şükran TELO 15. 16573/20 Keskin v. Türkiye 13/03/2020 Yener KESKİN Kayseri Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 16. 16781/20 Kiremit v. Türkiye 26/03/2020 Zehra KİREMİT Aksaray Turkish Akerke ABDYKALYKOVA ONAT 17. 16843/20 Kenru v. Türkiye 26/03/2020 Cumali KENRU Adana Turkish Akil SIRKINTI 18. 16844/20 Alpay v. Türkiye 26/03/2020 Ekrem ALPAY Ankara Turkish   19. 16852/20 Özcan v. Türkiye 16/03/2020 Mehmet Ali ÖZCAN Konya Turkish İhsan MAKAS 20. 16862/20 Aslan v. Türkiye 23/03/2020 Tunçay ASLAN Bursa Turkish   21. 16904/20 Balık v. Türkiye 09/04/2020 Onur BALIK Kocaeli Turkish Davut UĞUR 22. 16912/20 Sevinç v. Türkiye 27/03/2020 Bılal SEVİNÇ Ankara Turkish   23. 16946/20 Karadayi v. Türkiye 02/04/2020 Halil KARADAYI Balıkesir Turkish Huseyin KARADAYI 24. 16947/20 Buldu v. Türkiye 19/03/2020 Furkan BULDU Antalya Turkish   25. 17015/20 Ak v. Türkiye 14/04/2020 Aydın AK Kütahya Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 26. 17398/20 Aygün v. Türkiye 09/04/2020 Maruf AYGÜN Batman Turkish   27. 17441/20 Akyol v. Türkiye 03/04/2020 Aytaç AKYOL Kırşehir Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ 28. 17478/20 Bozdağ v. Türkiye 03/04/2020 Veysel BOZDAĞ Denizli Turkish Enes Malik KILIÇ 29. 17693/20 Horozcu v. Türkiye 03/04/2020 Ali HOROZCU Burdur Turkish Zülal BÜKER 30. 17919/20 Demir v. Türkiye 13/04/2020 Fatih DEMİR Giresun Turkish Levent MAZILIGÜNEY 31. 17968/20 Keskin v. Türkiye 17/04/2020 Ali KESKİN Trabzon Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 32. 18743/20 Yükler v. Türkiye 21/04/2020 Murat YÜKLER Kilis Turkish   33. 19024/20 Sağlık v. Türkiye 22/04/2020 Ahmet Faruk SAĞLIK Samsun Turkish Muhammed Nuh POLAT 34. 19145/20 Orhan v. Türkiye 07/05/2020 Yalçın ORHAN İzmir Turkish Mustafa ORHAN 35. 19180/20 Adem v. Türkiye 06/05/2020 Muzaffer ADEM Aydın Turkish   36. 20046/20 Gülenç v. Türkiye 19/03/2020 Murat GÜLENÇ Manisa Turkish Gönül GÜLENÇ 37. 20426/20 Altun v. Türkiye 30/04/2020 Sadullah ALTUN İstanbul Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 38. 20843/20 İlter v. Türkiye 30/04/2020 Ramazan İLTER İstanbul Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 39. 20850/20 Gözütok v. Türkiye 12/05/2020 Mevlüt GÖZÜTOK Yalova Turkish Hülya GÖZÜTOK 40. 20990/20 Tezcan v. Türkiye 28/04/2020 Ertan TEZCAN Konya Turkish Sema TEZCAN 41. 21194/20 Lafcı v. Türkiye 06/05/2020 Burak LAFCI Mersin Turkish Halime LAFCI 42. 21320/20 Tekin v. Türkiye 08/04/2020 Ali TEKİN Isparta Turkish Muhammed Talha YILMAZ 43. 21419/20 Öztürk v. Türkiye 05/05/2020 Mehmet ÖZTÜRK Bursa Turkish Filiz SELVİ ÖZTÜRK 44. 21462/20 Koçoğlu v. Türkiye 29/04/2020 Muammer Mecid KOÇOĞLU Balıkesir Turkish Hilal BALIKÇI 45. 21730/20 Aktunç v. Türkiye 27/04/2020 Arslan AKTUNÇ Konya Turkish Samet YILMAZ 46. 21770/20 Adiyeke v. Türkiye 11/05/2020 Ümran ADİYEKE Siirt Turkish Mehmet SATICI 47. 22976/20 Ateş v. Türkiye 21/05/2020 Ramazan ATEŞ Afyonkarahisar Turkish Ali ATEŞ 48. 23035/20 Taşcı v. Türkiye 08/06/2020 Faruk Aydın TAŞCI İzmir Turkish   49. 23055/20 Şaşmaz v. Türkiye 22/05/2020 Yusuf ŞAŞMAZ İstanbul Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 50. 23075/20 Demir v. Türkiye 22/05/2020 Osman DEMİR Bursa Turkish   51. 23153/20 Özkan v. Türkiye 08/05/2020 Murat ÖZKAN Bolu Turkish Fatma ÖZTÜRK 52. 23317/20 Meydan v. Türkiye 13/05/2020 Muzaffer MEYDAN Balıkesir Turkish Hakan EFE 53. 23361/20 Ayva v. Türkiye 27/05/2020 Ali AYVA Ankara Turkish   54. 23687/20 Baysal v. Türkiye 13/05/2020 Ali İhsan BAYSAL Balıkesir Turkish Mustafa ÇABAS 55. 23691/20 Yumurtacı v. Türkiye 15/05/2020 Murat YUMURTACI Karabük Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 56. 23894/20 Dal v. Türkiye 27/05/2020 Adem DAL Erzincan Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 57. 24024/20 Ataş v. Türkiye 29/05/2020 Aşkın ATAŞ Sivas Turkish Muhammed Mustafa GÜRSOY 58. 24050/20 Gökalp v. Türkiye 03/06/2020 Halim GÖKALP Ankara Turkish   59. 24103/20 Çiçek v. Türkiye 29/05/2020 Mustafa ÇİÇEK Samsun Turkish Tahir EREN 60. 24275/20 Adıgüzel v. Türkiye 01/06/2020 Remzi ADIGÜZEL İstanbul Turkish Fikret ADIGÜZEL 61. 24405/20 Yorulmaz v. Türkiye 15/05/2020 Tümay YORULMAZ Eskişehir Turkish   62. 24639/20 Baydovan v. Türkiye 10/06/2020 Mustafa BAYDOVAN Mersin Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ 63. 24659/20 Arslan v. Türkiye 21/05/2020 Metin ARSLAN Eskisehir Turkish Ulviye Özge CAZ ÖZKAYA 64. 24843/20 Atlar v. Türkiye 10/06/2020 Yusuf ATLAR Hatay Turkish   65. 25219/20 Ulaş v. Türkiye 05/06/2020 İdris ULAŞ Ankara Turkish   66. 25520/20 Tercan v. Türkiye 05/06/2020 Muhittin TERCAN Bursa Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 67. 25546/20 Akbaba v. Türkiye 24/06/2020 Mahmut Temur AKBABA Aydın Turkish   68. 25785/20 Kılıç v. Türkiye 19/06/2020 Yavuz KILIÇ Aydın Turkish Ömer Faruk YILDIRIM 69. 26804/20 Karabacak v. Türkiye 09/06/2020 Ensar KARABACAK Balıkesir Turkish Burcu HAS 70. 26836/20 Güngör v. Türkiye 11/06/2020 Faruk GÜNGÖR Aksaray Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 71. 26901/20 Kardaş v. Türkiye 11/06/2020 Ömer KARDAŞ Erzurum Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 72. 27091/20 Gültekin v. Türkiye 24/06/2020 Abdurrezzak GÜLTEKİN Aydın Turkish Funda GÜLTEKİN 73. 27142/20 Batmaz v. Türkiye 18/06/2020 Gonca BATMAZ Kütahya Turkish Ayten İZMIRLİ 74. 27268/20 Kaya v. Türkiye 19/06/2020 Alican KAYA Balıkesir Turkish Burcu HAS 75. 27271/20 Yavuz v. Türkiye 12/06/2020 Bilal YAVUZ Ankara Turkish Hakan EFE 76. 27404/20 Özcan v. Türkiye 05/06/2020 Hasan ÖZCAN İzmir Turkish Yunus Cevher KAVÇAKAR 77. 27911/20 Sözen v. Türkiye 01/07/2020 Yaşar SÖZEN Samsun Turkish Tolga UÇAR 78. 28026/20 Yalçın v. Türkiye 19/06/2020 Osman YALÇIN İstanbul Turkish Sümeyye Sema COŞAN 79. 28357/20 Şenocak v. Türkiye 10/06/2020 Fevzi Cem ŞENOCAK Samsun Turkish   80. 28890/20 Çevik v. Türkiye 01/07/2020 Murat ÇEVİK Kayseri Turkish Beytullah ÖZTÜRK 81. 28936/20 Kavçakar v. Türkiye 10/06/2020 Emre KAVÇAKAR Burdur Turkish Yunus Cevher KAVÇAKAR 82. 29075/20 Uğur v. Türkiye 23/06/2020 Bekir UĞUR Konya Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 83. 29970/20 Kenben v. Türkiye 25/06/2020 Osman KENBEN İstanbul Turkish Hurşit KENBEN 84. 30009/20 Özen v. Türkiye 08/07/2020 Mehmet ÖZEN Konya Turkish Sefanur BOZGÖZ 85. 30118/20 Polat v. Türkiye 23/06/2020 Ahmet POLAT İzmir Turkish Nurullah TEKİN 86. 30681/20 Ançaza v. Türkiye 08/07/2020 Halil İbrahim ANÇAZA Kocaeli Turkish Enes Malik KILIÇ 87. 31092/20 Çalışkan v. Türkiye 03/07/2020 Mehmet ÇALIŞKAN İzmir Turkish Özlem SUZAN 88. 31315/20 Polat v. Türkiye 06/07/2020 Yusuf POLAT Ankara Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 89. 31502/20 Çakmak v. Türkiye 09/07/2020 Abdulbaki ÇAKMAK Ankara Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ 90. 31504/20 Bulcun v. Türkiye 14/07/2020 Tamer BULCUN Kırıkkale Turkish Muhammet Uğur DEMİRKAN 91. 32063/20 Kazan v. Türkiye 27/07/2020 Zübeyir KAZAN İstanbul Turkish   92. 32952/20 Artantaş v. Türkiye 24/07/2020 Yasemin ARTANTAŞ İstanbul Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 93. 33282/20 Kavak v. Türkiye 23/07/2020 İsmail KAVAK İstanbul Turkish Nurullah YILDIRIM 94. 33405/20 İncebacak v. Türkiye 21/07/2020 Elif İNCEBACAK Çankırı Turkish Feyzullah ALTAŞ 95. 33601/20 Esgiyer v. Türkiye 17/06/2020 Hacı Mustafa ESGİYER Basselland Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 96. 33767/20 Altuntaş v. Türkiye 22/07/2020 Abdullah ALTUNTAŞ Ankara Turkish İsmail ALTUNTAŞ 97. 33856/20 Abbas v. Türkiye 29/07/2020 Ersin ABBAS Tokat Turkish Seher YETİSGEN 98. 34393/20 Çetin v. Türkiye 14/07/2020 Nurullah ÇETİN Kayseri Turkish Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ 99. 34693/20 Zengin v. Türkiye 16/07/2020 Yasin ZENGİN Elazığ Turkish Elif Süeda ÖZDEMİR 100. 34765/20 Doğanay v. Türkiye 17/07/2020 Ali DOĞANAY Konya Turkish   101. 34783/20 Bedir v. Türkiye 17/07/2020 Mehmet BEDİR Çorum Turkish   102. 34904/20 Çelik v. Türkiye 07/07/2020 Saniye ÇELİK Konya Turkish Leyla MESUTOĞLU 103. 35674/20 Çakmak v. Türkiye 29/07/2020 Fatih ÇAKMAK Mersin Turkish Merve Vildan DUMAN 104. 35719/20 Karaçalıoğlu v. Türkiye 08/07/2020 Hulusi KARAÇALIOĞLU Ankara Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 105. 35753/20 Işık v. Türkiye 04/08/2020 Mehmet IŞIK Adıyaman Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 106. 35889/20 Öngün v. Türkiye 08/07/2020 Mustafa ÖNGÜN Trabzon Turkish   107. 36161/20 Pınar v. Türkiye 29/07/2020 Hasan Hüseyin PINAR Manisa Turkish Akkız KARDEŞLER 108. 38352/20 Akkuş v. Türkiye 17/08/2020 Yıldırım AKKUŞ Bursa Turkish Ebubekir RENK 109. 38459/20 Yildiz v. Türkiye 12/08/2020 İsa YILDIZ Adana Turkish Belma KAYRAN 110. 39043/20 Büyüköz v. Türkiye 18/08/2020 Muammer BÜYÜKÖZ Yozgat Turkish Yakup ŞAHİN 111. 39961/20 Bal v. Türkiye 25/08/2020 Mehmet BAL Bursa Turkish   112. 41545/20 Taşboğaz v. Türkiye 01/09/2020 Eyüp TAŞBOĞAZ İstanbul Turkish Burak ÇAĞ 113. 41551/20 Acar v. Türkiye 28/08/2020 Kamil ACAR Uşak Turkish Halil ÇETİN 114. 41885/20 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 19/08/2020 Ferhat YILMAZ Giresun Turkish Murat YILMAZ 115. 42199/20 Kaya v. Türkiye 03/09/2020 Rıdvan KAYA Antalya Turkish Nurgül YAYMAN YILMAZ 116. 43040/20 Taymaz v. Türkiye 15/09/2020 Seyit Ahmet TAYMAZ Ankara Turkish Bekir DÖNMEZ 117. 43099/20 Kurşun v. Türkiye 10/09/2020 Günal KURŞUN Ankara Turkish Özlem YILDIZ 118. 43205/20 Tuşan v. Türkiye 18/09/2020 Zülfükar TUŞAN Hatay Turkish Esma TUŞAN 119. 43230/20 Aydın v. Türkiye 15/09/2020 Bekir AYDIN Konya Turkish Güliz Rabia TEKİN 120. 43239/20 Şimşek v. Türkiye 11/09/2020 Nejdet ŞİMŞEK Sivas Turkish Büşra KURT KÜÇÜK 121. 43660/20 Güneri v. Türkiye 24/09/2020 Erol GÜNERI Balıkesir Turkish   122. 43990/20 Likoğlu v. Türkiye 16/09/2020 Fatih LİKOĞLU Afyonkarahisar Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 123. 44002/20 Polat v. Türkiye 15/09/2020 Bünyamin POLAT Eskişehir Turkish Hüseyin Mahir ERDOĞMUŞ 124. 44088/20 Yüksel v. Türkiye 03/09/2020 Mehmet YÜKSEL Gaziantep Turkish Murat İLHAN 125. 44928/20 Kara v. Türkiye 21/09/2020 Ender KARA Manisa Turkish Asım Burak GÜNEŞ 126. 45251/20 Yiğit v. Türkiye 02/10/2020 İrfan YİĞİT Balıkesir Turkish Vildan YİĞİT 127. 45836/20 Dokuz v. Türkiye 30/09/2020 Abdullah DOKUZ Niğde Turkish Rabiye DOKUZ 128. 46468/20 Can v. Türkiye 08/10/2020 Turan CAN Düzce Turkish Coşkun TAŞKIN 129. 46879/20 Çoban v. Türkiye 08/10/2020 Fatih ÇOBAN Aydın Turkish İshak IŞIK 130. 47307/20 Kör v. Türkiye 14/10/2020 Hüseyin KÖR Çorum Turkish Kazım DEMİR 131. 47348/20 Polat v. Türkiye 13/10/2020 Sedat POLAT Adana Turkish Akil SIRKINTI 132. 47378/20 Kanat v. Türkiye 12/10/2020 Orhan KANAT Kütahya Turkish Memnune Melike AKYILDIZ 133. 47622/20 Şenyurt v. Türkiye 22/10/2020 Şenol ŞENYURT İstanbul Turkish   134. 47812/20 Gülek v. Türkiye 16/10/2020 Gökay Ersel GÜLEK İstanbul Turkish Şahin BULUT 135. 47814/20 Kurt v. Türkiye 19/10/2020 Ali KURT Sivas Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 136. 48952/20 Emeç v. Türkiye 28/08/2020 Hüseyin EMEÇ Hatay Turkish   137. 48982/20 Kanak v. Türkiye 20/10/2020 Süleyman KANAK Mersin Turkish Burcu HAS 138. 49075/20 Toruk v. Türkiye 27/10/2020 Mevlüt TORUK Bolu Turkish Hamdi Kenan SEVİNÇ 139. 50616/20 Akan v. Türkiye 23/10/2020 İsmail Deniz AKAN Samsun Turkish   140. 50844/20 Abanoz v. Türkiye 05/11/2020 Celal ABANOZ Trabzon Turkish Orçun MUŞLU 141. 51010/20 Şahin v. Türkiye 02/11/2020 Seyfullah ŞAHİN Yozgat Turkish Hülya ŞAHİN 142. 51256/20 Çelen v. Türkiye 04/11/2020 Bilal ÇELEN İstanbul Turkish Emrullah POLAT 143. 51444/20 Oruç v. Türkiye 04/11/2020 Özkan ORUÇ İzmir Turkish Safiye YILMAZ 144. 51510/20 Keklik v. Türkiye 05/11/2020 Ömür KEKLİK Malatya Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 145. 51814/20 Tutal v. Türkiye 09/11/2020 Cahit TUTAL Konya Turkish   146. 51915/20 Uçar v. Türkiye 17/09/2020 Fikret UÇAR Kayseri Turkish   147. 52181/20 Özsarı v. Türkiye 24/06/2020 İbrahim ÖZSARI Karabük Turkish   148. 52221/20 Duran v. Türkiye 09/11/2020 İsmet DURAN Konya Turkish Leyla MESUTOĞLU 149. 52331/20 Kara v. Türkiye 26/10/2020 Fikret KARA Kırıkkale Turkish   150. 52597/20 Çınar v. Türkiye 16/11/2020 Kadir ÇINAR Kahramanmaraş Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 151. 52743/20 Yalçın v. Türkiye 17/11/2020 Mustafa YALÇIN Zonguldak Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 152. 52952/20 Bal v. Türkiye 21/07/2020 Ahmet BAL Konya Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ 153. 53047/20 Erdoğdu v. Türkiye 27/11/2020 Necmi ERDOĞDU Adana Turkish Safiyye Nur SABUNCU KARAKURT 154. 53162/20 İncebacak v. Türkiye 08/07/2020 Yüksel İNCEBACAK Kastamonu Turkish Feyzullah ALTAŞ 155. 54849/20 Önce v. Türkiye 15/10/2020 Kemal ÖNCE Adana Turkish   156. 55290/20 Çiftçi v. Türkiye 30/11/2020 Turgay ÇİFTÇİ Kocaeli Turkish Enes Malik KILIÇ 157. 55510/20 Gün v. Türkiye 24/11/2020 Ramazan GÜN Konya Turkish Leyla MESUTOĞLU 158. 41/21 Pakır v. Türkiye 03/12/2020 Abdullah PAKIR Konya Turkish   159. 1202/21 Ciğerci v. Türkiye 18/12/2020 Zafer CİĞERCİ Kayseri Turkish   160. 1386/21 Aydemir v. Türkiye 26/11/2020 Gültekin AYDEMİR İstanbul Turkish   161. 1622/21 Atasever v. Türkiye 22/12/2020 Ramazan ATASEVER Bursa Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 162. 1916/21 Gündüz v. Türkiye 21/12/2020 İbrahim GÜNDÜZ Kocaeli Turkish Enes Malik KILIÇ 163. 1969/21 Karaduman v. Türkiye 22/12/2020 Levent KARADUMAN İstanbul Turkish   164. 2000/21 Bat v. Türkiye 10/12/2020 Suphi BAT İstanbul Turkish   165. 2344/21 Durmaz v. Türkiye 25/12/2020 Cüneyt DURMAZ Ankara Turkish   166. 2526/21 Mirici v. Türkiye 24/12/2020 Şahin MİRİCİ Mersin Turkish   167. 3082/21 Bozkurt v. Türkiye 30/12/2020 Hüseyin BOZKURT Mersin Turkish Adnan ZEYBEK 168. 3107/21 Tokatlı v. Türkiye 16/12/2020 Mehmet TOKATLI Ankara Turkish   169. 3196/21 Kaya v. Türkiye 08/12/2020 Hasan KAYA İstanbul Turkish   170. 3454/21 Bozkurt v. Türkiye 28/12/2020 Selçuk BOZKURT İstanbul Turkish   171. 3606/21 Kodal v. Türkiye 23/12/2020 Ahmet KODAL Ordu Turkish Hamide Nur ALKAÇ 172. 3867/21 Gökmen v. Türkiye 30/12/2020 Bilgin GÖKMEN Ankara Turkish Zeynep Sena GÖKMEN 173. 3891/21 Bozkurt v. Türkiye 31/12/2020 Mustafa BOZKURT İzmir Turkish Ahmet Selim BURAK 174. 4313/21 Hacımustafaoğlu v. Türkiye 30/12/2020 Hasan HACIMUSTAFAOĞLU Bartin Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 175. 6002/21 Şahin v. Türkiye 07/01/2021 İzzet ŞAHİN Kocaeli Turkish İrem TATLIDEDE 176. 6115/21 Yoldaş v. Türkiye 25/08/2020 Hamit YOLDAŞ Giresun Turkish   177. 7448/21 Salbaş v. Türkiye 28/01/2021 Hasan SALBAŞ Bolu Turkish Said İsmail TÜRKOĞLU 178. 7862/21 Özcan v. Türkiye 28/01/2021 Faruk ÖZCAN Hakkari Turkish Seyhan DEMİR 179. 8613/21 Şahin v. Türkiye 26/01/2020 Gül Ahmet ŞAHİN Ankara Turkish Mustafa SOYLU 180. 8879/21 Buğdaylıgil v. Türkiye 02/02/2021 Himmet BUĞDAYLIGIL İzmir Turkish Seçkin KESKİN 181. 9312/21 Kırtay v. Türkiye 09/12/2020 Cuma Gökhan KIRTAY Mersin Turkish Abdullah KIRTAY 182. 9428/21 Çakmak v. Türkiye 21/01/2021 Dursun ÇAKMAK Konya Turkish Şeyma ALKAN 183. 9763/21 Dal v. Türkiye 11/02/2021 Mustafa DAL İzmir Turkish Halil ÇETİN 184. 9942/21 Ağaçdan v. Türkiye 03/12/2020 Ebubekir AĞAÇDAN Ankara Turkish Naciye Refia ÇOKER 185. 11322/21 Çalış v. Türkiye 04/12/2020 Hamit ÇALIŞ Uşak Turkish Burcu HAS 186. 12213/21 Canbolat v. Türkiye 11/02/2021 Hasan CANBOLAT Kayseri Turkish Hasan Hüseyin GEZGİN 187. 12500/21 Kaya v. Türkiye 09/01/2021 Aydın KAYA Ankara Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 188. 12986/21 Orhan v. Türkiye 04/03/2021 Hüseyin ORHAN Düzce Turkish Derya ORHAN 189. 13843/21 Çatkaya v. Türkiye 23/02/2021 Remzi ÇATKAYA Kars Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 190. 14559/21 Topcan v. Türkiye 04/03/2021 Cafer TOPCAN Aydın Turkish Orçun MUŞLU 191. 14583/21 Genç v. Türkiye 03/03/2021 Abdullah GENÇ Kırıkkale Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 192. 14885/21 Kaya v. Türkiye 08/07/2020 Orhan KAYA Rize Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 193. 16689/21 Acar v. Türkiye 10/03/2021 İsmail ACAR Balçova Turkish   194. 18714/21 Doğan v. Türkiye 25/03/2021 Şerafettin DOĞAN İstanbul Turkish Sümeyye Sema COŞAN 195. 19144/21 İnci v. Türkiye 01/04/2021 Ahmet İNCİ Adıyaman Turkish Gülnihal YILMAZ 196. 21770/21 Gündoğdu v. Türkiye 05/04/2021 Mustafa GÜNDOĞDU Manisa Turkish Fatma BABAYİĞİT 197. 22115/21 Çete v. Türkiye 16/04/2021 Mehmet ÇETE İzmir Turkish   198. 24675/21 Uyanık v. Türkiye 07/05/2021 İbrahim Emre UYANIK Bursa Turkish   199. 26131/21 Demir v. Türkiye 22/04/2021 Şinasi DEMİR Zonguldak Turkish   200. 36015/21 Yalçın v. Türkiye 02/07/2021 Rahmetullah YALÇIN Antalya Turkish Serra YAĞMUR ERGÜÇ 201. 36762/21 Çandik v. Türkiye 07/07/2021 Yasin ÇANDİK ALTINDAG / ANKARA Turkish Muhammed Mustafa GÜRSOY 202. 37266/21 Karakoç v. Türkiye 13/07/2021 Hasan KARAKOÇ Kırıkkale Turkish   203. 38533/21 Karapınar v. Türkiye 01/07/2021 Kürşat Turan KARAPINAR İstanbul Turkish Emre AKARYILDIZ 204. 38710/21 Ersöyleyen v. Türkiye 24/06/2021 Zekeriya ERSÖYLEYEN Kayseri Turkish Ayşe AYAZMA 205. 39726/21 Pehlivan v. Türkiye 04/08/2021 Zafer PEHLİVAN Kırşehir Turkish Ayşenur Banu PEHLİVAN 206. 39745/21 Adam v. Türkiye 16/07/2021 Abdülmecit ADAM Gaziantep Turkish Bülent Seçkin DÜZTAŞ 207. 43989/21 Baktır v. Türkiye 09/08/2021 Ahmet Beyhan BAKTIR Kayseri Turkish