18809/18;22272/18;25383/18;26429/18;33468/18;35183/18;38501/18;38775/18;38848/18;38853/18;11885/19;16700/19;18495/19;18762/19;20728/19;20738/19;21904/19;21975/19;22078/19;22126/19;22778/19;24855/19;25525/19;25722/19;26315/19;26928/19;27026/19;27965/19;27968/19;29374/19;29601/19;30276/19;30518/19;32902/19;33160/19;33181/19;33197/19;33221/19;33251/19;35087/19;35370/19;37579/19;38036/19;40046/19;40215/19;41297/19;42519/19;42530/19;42701/19;43484/19;47671/19;49457/19;51539/19;55078/19;56066/19;56302/19;56374/19;57931/19;61585/19;61591/19;61926/19;266/20;1102/20;1169/20;2653/20;2907/20;3394/20;3550/20;3648/20;4180/20;6632/20;6644/20;6983/20;7368/20;10484/20;10695/20;10894/20;12068/20;13105/20;13266/20;13794/20;14917/20;15190/20;15690/20;15844/20;15862/20;16986/20;18710/20;19895/20;20161/20;20182/20;20224/20;20248/20;21070/20;21071/20;21072/20;21074/20;21076/20;21203/20;21205/20;21207/20;22918/20;22922/20;22960/20;23127/20;23604/20;23711/20;23731/20;24837/20;25505/20;26406/20;26547/20;28796/

SECOND SECTION CASE OF KESLER AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 18809/18 and 171 others) JUDGMENT (Revision) STRASBOURG 9 June 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kesler and Others v. Türkiye (request for revision of the judgment of 3 December 2024), The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Jovan Ilievski, President, Davor Derenčinović, Hugh Mercer, 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 seventy-two applications (nos.18809/18and 171 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 seventy-two Turkish nationals (“the applicants”) on various dates. Their names and other details, as well as the date of lodging of each application, are specified in the judgment delivered in the case on 3 December 2024. 2.The 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. 3.In a judgment delivered on 3 December 2024, the Court held that there had 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. The Court also decided to award each of the applicants who had requested just satisfaction, which included the applicants in applications nos. 33221/19 and 24047/21, 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. 4.On 14 July 2023, prior to the delivery of the judgment, the representative of one of the applicants, MrHakan Karasoy (application no.24047/21), had informed the Court that the applicant had died on 6February 2023 and that his heirs wished to pursue the application. However, that request was not considered by the Court in its judgment. 5.On 18 December 2024 and 21 December 2024 respectively, following the delivery of the judgment, the legal representatives of the heirs of two of the applicants, namely Mr Recep Altun and Mr Hakan Karasoy, informed the Court that the applicants had died on 21August 2024 and 6 February 2023, respectively, and that their heirs wished to pursue the applications. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment under Rule80 of the Rules of Court. 6.On 20 January 2026 the Court considered the requests for revision and decided to give the Government four weeks within which they had the possibility to submit their observations on these requests (Rule 80 § 4 read in conjunction with Rule 53 § 7 of the Rules of Court). Those observations were received on 19 February 2026. THE Law THE REQUESTS FOR REVISION 7.The representatives of the deceased applicants’ heirs requested revision of the judgment of 3 December 2024, which they had been unable to have executed because two of the applicants, Mr Recep Altun and Mr Hakan Karasoy, had died before the judgment had been adopted. 8.According to official documentation submitted to the Court, İlknur Altun and Talha Altun are the heirs of the deceased applicant Mr Recep Altun. They requested to receive the just satisfaction awarded to him. 9.According to official documentation, İsmail Karasoy and İntimaz Karasoy are the heirs of the deceased applicant Mr Hakan Karasoy. They requested to receive the just satisfaction awarded to him. 10.The Government argued that neither the heirs nor the legal representatives of the aforementioned applicants had informed the Court about the latter’s 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 Rule 44A 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 applicants. The Court’s assessment 11.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. ...” 12.The Court notes at the outset that it appears from the documents submitted to it that İlknur Altun and Talha Altun are the heirs of the deceased applicant Mr Recep Altun, and İsmail Karasoy and İntimaz Karasoy are the heirs of the deceased applicant Mr Hakan Karasoy. 13.Accordingly, the Court considers that these heirs have standing to pursue the applications in the deceased applicants’ 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. 14.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 cases 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 applicants. 15.The Court considers that the death of the applicants 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. 16.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 to the fact that on 14 July 2023 the heirs of the applicant Hakan Karasoy had informed the Court that he had died on 6 February 2023, namely before the delivery of the judgment, and that the request concerning the applicant Recep Altun was, in any event, made within the six-month period after the death of that applicant, the Court considers that the judgment of 3 December 2024 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. 17.The Court decides to award to the heirs of Mr Recep Altun, jointly, the amount it had previously awarded to Mr Recep Altun, namely 5,000euros(EUR), covering non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. Furthermore, it awards to the heirs of Mr Hakan Karasoy, jointly, EUR 5,000, covering non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. 18.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 3December 2024 in so far as it concerns the claims made by the deceased applicants Mr Recep Altun (application no.33221/19) and Mr Hakan Karasoy (application no. 24047/21) under Article41 of the Convention; and accordingly, Holds that the respondent State is to pay jointly to the heirs of Recep Altun (application no. 33221/19), namely İlknur Altun and Talha Altun, 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 the respondent State is to pay jointly to the heirs of Hakan Karasoy (application no. 24047/21), namely İsmail Karasoy and İntimaz Karasoy, 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 amounts 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 ArnimJovan Ilievski Deputy RegistrarPresident