41527/17;54657/17;58608/17;70280/17;70796/17;70844/17;82734/17;1/18;10803/18;11789/18;12139/18;15597/18;16527/18;16767/18;18201/18;18261/18;20556/18;22093/18;22269/18;23446/18;23680/18;24651/18;25788/18;26359/18;26372/18;26432/18;28074/18;28548/18;29391/18;32414/18;32451/18;32456/18;32615/18;32850/18;32857/18;32866/18;32887/18;32952/18;32957/18;32964/18;33078/18;33476/18;33815/18;34038/18;34091/18;34499/18;34503/18;35070/18;35131/18;35190/18;35372/18;35479/18;35507/18;35944/18;36447/18;36948/18;37463/18;37655/18;37749/18;37791/18;37823/18;39054/18;46255/18;46897/18;48594/18;50262/18;55547/18;3515/19;5267/19;5409/19;6347/19;6968/19;9358/19;9448/19;10906/19;11363/19;11774/19;11791/19;12177/19;12528/19;12817/19;12989/19;13028/19;13232/19;14470/19;14486/19;14849/19;15198/19;15210/19;15461/19;15693/19;15979/19;15987/19;15998/19;16030/19;16039/19;16145/19;16429/19;16773/19;17177/19;17196/19;17499/19;17774/19;18571/19;18792/19;19083/19;19110/19;19206/19;19246/19;19548/19;19702/19;19837/19;202

SECOND SECTION CASE OF TAŞ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 41527/17 and 212 others)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 17 December 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Taş 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 the pre-trial detention, the alleged ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the lawfulness of detention, and the absence of a remedy to obtain compensation for the alleged breaches of their rights under Article 5 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 26 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 (further information regarding the events that unfolded after the coup attempt, including the details of the state of emergency declared by the Government and the ensuing notice of derogation given to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, as well as the legislative developments that followed the declaration of the state of emergency, may be found in Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, §§ 6‑14 and 109‑10, 3 March 2020). 2.  On various dates the applicants were arrested and placed in pre-trial detention, mainly on suspicion of membership of FETÖ/PDY, an offence punishable under Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see Baş, cited above, § 58). The challenges brought by them against their detention were dismissed by the competent courts. 3.  On various dates in the course of the ensuing criminal investigations and trials, the competent judicial authorities ordered the applicants’ continued detention. The applicants were held in pre-trial detention for periods ranging from one year to four years and eight months. 4.  It appears from the information and documents in the case files that, when ordering and extending the applicants’ pre-trial detention, the competent judicial authorities relied on various evidential grounds, including but not limited to: witness statements indicating ties with FETÖ/PDY; social media posts; possession of pro-FETÖ/PDY publications; working in, or being a member of, institutions having ties with the organisation in question or an organisation shut down by the state‑of‑emergency legislative decrees; provision of financial support to FETÖ/PDY or to institutions with ties to FETÖ/PDY; attending or holding meetings (sohbet); communication with senior executives of the organisation; ensuring communication between FETÖ/PDY members; staying in FETÖ/PDY houses; and carrying out various other activities on the orders of the organisation. 5.  It further appears from the case files that, in accordance with Articles 100 and 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”, for the text of these provisions see Kavala v. Turkey, no. 28749/18, §§ 71-72, 10 December 2019), the competent judicial authorities justified their decisions to deprive the applicants of their liberty not only on the basis of the existence of reasonable suspicion, but also on the grounds of the nature and the severity of the alleged offence of membership of an armed terrorist organisation and the fact that that offence was among the “catalogue” offences listed in Article 100 § 3 of the CCP. Without making an individualised assessment, they also relied on the state of the evidence and the risk of the applicants’ absconding and tampering with evidence and considered that detention would be a proportionate measure in the circumstances. Moreover, in the later stages of the proceedings, the competent judges took into account the time spent by the applicants in pre‑trial detention when deciding to extend their detention, without explaining the relevance of that factor to their decision. 6.  In the meantime, the applicants lodged one or more individual applications with the Constitutional Court in respect of the detention orders, complaining, inter alia, about the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence and the alleged lack of reasons to justify the decision to remand them in pre-trial detention, which were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court in summary fashion. 7.  According to the latest information provided by the parties, most of the applicants were convicted of membership of an armed terrorist organisation by the courts of first instance on the basis of evidence that was present at the time of their detention or that appeared at a later stage in the proceedings. It further appears that some of the criminal proceedings are still pending before the appellate courts or the Constitutional Court. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 8.  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 and 3 OF THE CONVENTION 9.  The applicants complained that there had been no specific evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that they had committed a criminal offence necessitating pre-trial detention. They further argued that the domestic courts had not provided relevant and sufficient reasons in their decisions ordering their placement in detention and their continued detention. They also maintained that the domestic authorities had failed to consider alternative measures to detention. In that connection, they alleged that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention. Admissibility 10.  The Government urged the Court to declare those complaints 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. The Government further claimed that some of the applicants had been granted compensation pursuant to Article 141 of the CCP and had therefore lost their victim status. They further requested the Court to declare the applications inadmissible as being an abuse of the right of application, in so far as the applicants had not informed the Court of the developments in their cases following the lodging of their applications. They also asked the Court to declare some applications inadmissible for the applicants’ failure to duly raise their complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention before the Turkish Constitutional Court. The Government lastly submitted that the applicants’ initial and continued pre-trial detention had complied with the domestic legislation and Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 11.  The Court notes that similar objections raised by the Government have already been dismissed in other cases against Türkiye (see, for instance, Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, §§ 212-14, 22 December 2020; Alparslan Altan v. Turkey, no. 12778/17, §§ 84-85, 16 April 2019; 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. Moreover, as regards the objections concerning the exhaustion of the individual application remedy before the Constitutional Court, an examination of the case files reveals that contrary to the Government’s claims, the applicants concerned have expressly raised their complaints pertaining to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in their application forms submitted to the Constitutional Court. 12.  The Court therefore considers that the applicants’ complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. MeritsAlleged lack of reasoning in the decisions ordering the applicants’ pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 3 of the Convention) 13.  As regards the merits, the Court recalls that according to its well‑established case-law under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the detainee has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the validity of his or her continued detention. The Court must further establish whether the national authorities gave relevant and sufficient reasons for the detention from the time of the first decision ordering detention on remand onwards. Those other grounds may be a risk of flight, a risk of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses or of evidence being tampered with, a risk of collusion, a risk of reoffending, or a risk of public disorder and the related need to protect the detainee (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 87-88 and 101‑02, 5 July 2016). Those risks must be duly substantiated, and the authorities’ reasoning on those points cannot be abstract, general or stereotyped (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 222, 28 November 2017). 14.  The Court notes that when ordering the applicants’ initial and continued pre-trial detention, the judicial authorities cited, in a formulaic manner, numerous pieces of evidence in support of their findings that there were concrete indications that the applicants had committed an offence (see paragraph 4 above). However, in the Court’s view, the national courts failed to demonstrate the link between the pieces of evidence they mentioned in the detention orders and the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” that the applicants had committed the offence of membership of an armed organisation they were suspected of. 15.  Even assuming that there was “reasonable suspicion” that an offence has been committed, decisions ordering pre-trial detention must contain relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the necessity of the detention. In that connection, the Court observes that in Türkiye, as required by the Convention, domestic law provides that the competent judicial authorities must put forward “relevant and sufficient” reasons when considering the need to place and keep a suspect in pre-trial detention. This is a procedural obligation laid down in Articles 100 and 101 of the CCP, which provide that decisions to place or keep a suspect in pre-trial detention must include legal and factual reasons (see Tuncer Bakırhan v. Turkey, no. 31417/19, §§ 23‑24, 14 September 2021). 16.  The Court notes in this regard that the competent courts relied on the following grounds for detention: the nature of the offence; the severity of the sentences prescribed by law for the offence concerned; the state of the evidence; the period spent in detention; the risk of the applicants’ absconding and tampering with evidence; and the finding that alternative measures to detention appeared insufficient (see paragraph 5 above). 17.  In so far as the detentions were justified on the basis of the “nature of the offence”, the Court notes that the domestic courts ruling on the applicants’ detention considered that they were accused of offences listed in Article 100 § 3 of the CCP (also referred to as the “catalogue” offences). As regards these “catalogue” offences, the Court observes that under Article 100 § 3 of the CCP, Turkish law provides that for certain offences there is a statutory presumption of the existence of grounds for detention (risk of absconding, tampering with evidence or putting pressure on witnesses, victims and other persons). In this connection, the Court reaffirms that any system of mandatory detention on remand is per se incompatible with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. Where the law provides for a presumption concerning the grounds for pre-trial detention, it must nevertheless be convincingly demonstrated that there are concrete facts warranting a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty. This is also the case where the judicial authorities justify the detention of a suspect by the nature of the offence in question or the severity of the potential sentence prescribed by law (compare also Tuncer Bakırhan, cited above, §§ 46-49). The Court therefore needs to examine whether the national courts carried out an individualised examination when ordering the applicants’ pre‑trial detention. 18.  As regards the other reasons given by the national courts for placing or keeping the applicants in pre-trial detention, the Court observes firstly that they entail a formulaic enumeration of the grounds for detention under domestic law in a general and abstract manner, such as the state of the evidence, the period spent in detention and the risk of the applicants’ absconding and tampering with evidence. While the Court is prepared to accept that, in view of the particular circumstances surrounding the attempted coup, the risk of the applicants’ absconding and/or tampering with evidence might justify the measure of detention, at least during the initial phase of the criminal investigation, it nevertheless observes that the subsequent decisions ordering the applicants’ continued pre-trial detention did not contain an individualised analysis in that respect. In the Court’s view, decisions worded in formulaic and stereotyped terms as in the present case can on no account be regarded as sufficient to justify a person’s continued pre-trial detention (see, mutatis mutandis, Şık v. Turkey, no. 53413/11, § 62, 8 July 2014). This is particularly so given that the applicants in the present case were remanded in pre-trial detention for periods ranging from one year to four years and eight months. 19.  The Court notes that it has already examined many cases in which it has found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention for similar reasons (see Tuncer Bakırhan, cited above, §§ 40‑58, and the cases cited therein; see also Kolay and Others v. Türkiye [Committee], no. 15231/17 and 283 others, §§ 11-19, 12 December 2023). In the present case, having regard to the grounds provided by the national judicial authorities, the Court considers that they ordered and extended the applicants’ pre-trial detention on grounds that cannot be regarded as “sufficient” to justify the measure in issue. 20.  The Court further considers that while the applicants were detained a short time after the coup attempt – which is undoubtedly a contextual factor that should be fully taken into account in interpreting and applying Article 5 of the Convention –, it is not established that the failure to comply with the requirements described above could be justified by the derogation notified by the Government of Türkiye under Article 15 of the Convention and had not gone beyond the “extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”. This is particularly so having regard to the duration of the applicants’ pre‑trial detention, which lasted at least one year in each case. The Court points out in this connection that the considerations giving rise to the application of Article 15 of the Convention have gradually become less forceful and relevant as the public emergency threatening the life of the nation, while still persisting, has declined in intensity, at which point the “exigency” criterion must be applied more stringently (see Baş, cited above, § 224, and the references cited in Kolay and Others, cited above, § 18). 21.  In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants. Alleged lack of reasonable suspicion that the applicants committed a criminal offence (Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention) 22.  Having regard to the particular circumstances of the present case (see paragraphs 14-15 above) and its findings under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 21 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to determine whether in the present case there was any objective information showing that the suspicion against the applicants was “reasonable” at the time of their initial detention (for a similar approach, see Tuncer Bakırhan, cited above, §§ 36-39; see also Kolay and Others, cited above, § 20). OTHER COMPLAINTS 23.  As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 of the Convention, the Court decides not to examine the admissibility and merits of those complaints, in view of its findings under Article 5 § 3 above and its considerations in Turan and Others (cited above, § 98). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 24.  Some of the applicants did not submit or failed to submit within the allotted time-limit, a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on that account (see the appended table indicating the applicants to whom no award is to be made). 25.  The remaining applicants requested varying amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage, submitting their claims within the time-limit allotted. The majority of them also claimed compensation in respect of pecuniary damage, as well as the legal costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. 26.  The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive. 27.  For the reasons set out in Turan and Others (cited above, §§ 102‑07), the Court rejects any claims for pecuniary damage and awards each of the applicants who submitted claims a lump sum of 3,000 euros in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount (see the last column of the appended table).   FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of an offence and the alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons when ordering and extending the pre-trial detention admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the absence of sufficient grounds for ordering and keeping the applicants in pre-trial detention; Holds that there is no need to examine separately the merits of the complaints under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints under Article 5 of the Convention; Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, to each of the applicants who submitted a claim for just satisfaction (see the appended table), EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, 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’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 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 Just satisfaction 1. 41527/17 Taş v. Türkiye 18/04/2017 Güven TAŞ Ankara Turkish Awarded 2. 54657/17 Büyükberber v. Türkiye 24/04/2017 Süleyman BÜYÜKBERBER Ankara Turkish Awarded 3. 58608/17 Öge v. Türkiye 24/07/2017 Ahmet ÖGE Aksaray Turkish Awarded 4. 70280/17 Üner v. Türkiye 21/07/2017 Süleyman ÜNER Ankara Turkish Awarded 5. 70796/17 Turhan v. Türkiye 24/08/2017 Hasan TURHAN Ankara Turkish Awarded 6. 70844/17 Söyler v. Türkiye 17/08/2017 Murat Cem SÖYLER Istanbul Turkish Awarded 7. 82734/17 Tosun v. Türkiye 31/10/2017 Bilal TOSUN Kırıkkale Turkish Awarded 8. 1/18 Harput v. Türkiye 04/12/2017 Şahabettin HARPUT Ankara Turkish Awarded 9. 10803/18 Cengiz v. Türkiye 29/01/2018 Atakan CENGİZ Balıkesir Turkish Awarded 10. 11789/18 Pilgir v. Türkiye 13/02/2018 Abdurrahim PİLGİR Antalya Turkish Awarded 11. 12139/18 Sürmeneli v. Türkiye 01/03/2018 Dursun SÜRMENELİ Trabzon Turkish Awarded 12. 15597/18 Gökçe v. Türkiye 28/03/2018 Abdulhamid GÖKÇE Vantaa Turkish Awarded 13. 16527/18 Tunç v. Türkiye 19/03/2018 Sami TUNÇ İzmir Turkish Awarded 14. 16767/18 Aktı v. Türkiye 23/03/2018 Yasin AKTI Aksaray Turkish Awarded 15. 18201/18 Kutlu v. Türkiye 15/03/2018 Tahsin KUTLU Kırıkkale Turkish Awarded 16. 18261/18 Temel v. Türkiye 09/04/2018 Mehmet TEMEL Afyonkarahisar Turkish Not awarded 17. 20556/18 Kocamış v. Türkiye 20/04/2018 Cumali KOCAMIŞ Adana Turkish Awarded 18. 22093/18 Şener v. Türkiye 30/04/2018 Özkan ŞENER Konya Turkish Awarded 19. 22269/18 Onarıcıoğlu v. Türkiye 30/04/2018 İsmail ONARICIOĞLU Konya Turkish Awarded 20. 23446/18 Nacar v. Türkiye 30/04/2018 Ahmet NACAR Tekirdağ Turkish Awarded 21. 23680/18 Çakmakkaya v. Türkiye 30/04/2018 Zeki ÇAKMAKKAYA Konya Turkish Awarded 22. 24651/18 Bayram v. Türkiye 27/12/2017 Yunus BAYRAM Ankara Turkish Awarded 23. 25788/18 Dağlı v. Türkiye 23/05/2018 Yusuf DAĞLI Kocaeli Turkish Awarded 24. 26359/18 Barak v. Türkiye 24/05/2018 Mustafa BARAK Kahramanmaraş Turkish Awarded 25. 26372/18 Aksoy v. Türkiye 28/05/2018 Cemal AKSOY Kahramanmaraş Turkish Awarded 26. 26432/18 Çalışkan v. Türkiye 24/05/2018 Mehmet ÇALIŞKAN Kahramanmaraş Turkish Awarded 27. 28074/18 Kıllı v. Türkiye 10/05/2018 Halil KILLI Afyonkarahisar Turkish Awarded 28. 28548/18 Öztaş v. Türkiye 04/06/2018 Recep ÖZTAŞ Kayseri Turkish Awarded 29. 29391/18 Kellegöz v. Türkiye 08/06/2018 Fatih KELLEGÖZ Çorum Turkish Awarded 30. 32414/18 Erdönmez v. Türkiye 29/06/2018 Erhan ERDÖNMEZ Keerbergen Turkish Awarded 31. 32451/18 Bakır v. Türkiye 21/06/2018 Mehmet BAKIR Osmaniye Turkish Not awarded 32. 32456/18 Yiğit v. Türkiye 22/06/2018 Harun YİĞİT Istanbul Turkish Awarded 33. 32615/18 Akpınar v. Türkiye 25/06/2018 İhsan Nuri AKPINAR Kırıkkale Turkish Awarded 34. 32850/18 Özdemir v. Türkiye 02/07/2018 Mehmet ÖZDEMIR Adana Turkish Awarded 35. 32857/18 Ekicioğlu v. Türkiye 26/06/2018 Dursun EKİCİOĞLU Karaman Turkish Awarded 36. 32866/18 Yaylagül v. Türkiye 17/05/2018 Kadir YAYLAGÜL Ankara Turkish Awarded 37. 32887/18 Günerigök v. Türkiye 05/07/2018 Taner GÜNERİGÖK Diyarbakır Turkish Awarded 38. 32952/18 Özyiğit v. Türkiye 25/06/2018 Ercan ÖZYİĞİT Ankara Turkish Awarded 39. 32957/18 Kırcılı v. Türkiye 25/06/2018 Lokman KIRCILI Kırıkkale Turkish Awarded 40. 32964/18 Uran v. Türkiye 26/06/2018 İlhan URAN İzmir Turkish Awarded 41. 33078/18 Çalışkan v. Türkiye 29/06/2018 Yalçın ÇALIŞKAN Afyonkarahisar Turkish Awarded 42. 33476/18 Özbeyli v. Türkiye 05/07/2018 Selçuk ÖZBEYLİ Kütahya Turkish Awarded 43. 33815/18 Kasımoglu v. Türkiye 10/05/2018 Hasan KASIMOĞLU Kocaeli Turkish Awarded 44. 34038/18 Karabulut v. Türkiye 11/05/2018 İbrahim Şahin KARABULUT Manisa Turkish Awarded 45. 34091/18 Aybek v. Türkiye 16/05/2018 Mehmet Ali AYBEK Kütahya Turkish Awarded 46. 34499/18 Akkurt v. Türkiye 11/07/2018 Mehmet Şirin AKKURT Osmaniye Turkish Awarded 47. 34503/18 Ünal v. Türkiye 13/07/2018 Burhan ÜNAL Ankara Turkish Awarded 48. 35070/18 Yıldız v. Türkiye 19/07/2018 Kemal YILDIZ Kırıkkale Turkish Awarded 49. 35131/18 Aslan v. Türkiye 06/07/2018 Mehmet ASLAN Manisa Turkish Awarded 50. 35190/18 Demirbaş v. Türkiye 15/05/2018 Erhan DEMİRBAŞ Çanakkale Turkish Awarded 51. 35372/18 Ilık v. Türkiye 16/07/2018 Abdullah ILIK Istanbul Turkish Awarded 52. 35479/18 Öktem v. Türkiye 11/07/2018 Selim ÖKTEM İzmir Turkish Awarded 53. 35507/18 Can v. Türkiye 06/07/2018 Birol CAN Klingenberg Turkish Awarded 54. 35944/18 İnanç v. Türkiye 13/07/2018 Murat İNANÇ Malatya Turkish Awarded 55. 36447/18 İldiz v. Türkiye 23/07/2018 Vedat İLDİZ Şanlıurfa Turkish Awarded 56. 36948/18 Aslan v. Türkiye 20/07/2018 Muhammet Lütfi ASLAN Konya Turkish Awarded 57. 37463/18 Güç v. Türkiye 27/07/2018 Bestami GÜÇ Hatay Turkish Not awarded 58. 37655/18 Sözen v. Türkiye 03/08/2018 Ömer Faruk SÖZEN Konya Turkish Awarded 59. 37749/18 Küçükkara v. Türkiye 30/07/2018 Feyzullah KÜÇÜKKARA Hatay Turkish Not awarded 60. 37791/18 Yıldırım v. Türkiye 24/07/2018 Ali YILDIRIM Antalya Turkish Awarded 61. 37823/18 Çoşkun v. Türkiye 02/07/2018 Ramazan ÇOŞKUN Hatay Turkish Awarded 62. 39054/18 Çaylı v. Türkiye 31/07/2018 Hamdi ÇAYLI Osmaniye Turkish Not awarded 63. 46255/18 Eğedemir v. Türkiye 18/09/2018 Nurettin EĞEDEMİR Ankara Turkish Awarded 64. 46897/18 Sevengül v. Türkiye 20/09/2018 Uğur SEVENGÜL Ordu Turkish Awarded 65. 48594/18 Denizci v. Türkiye 05/10/2018 Duran DENİZCİ Istanbul Turkish Awarded 66. 50262/18 Kazan v. Türkiye 28/09/2018 Gökhan KAZAN Ankara Turkish Awarded 67. 55547/18 Ünüvar v. Türkiye 05/10/2018 İmdat ÜNÜVAR İzmir Turkish Awarded 68. 3515/19 Demirel v. Türkiye 25/12/2018 Bekir DEMİREL Düzce Turkish Awarded 69. 5267/19 Alper v. Türkiye 11/01/2019 Emrah ALPER Istanbul Turkish Not awarded 70. 5409/19 Samiloglu Bezkun v. Türkiye 25/12/2018 Tansu SAMİLOGLU BEZKUN Bavaria Turkish Awarded 71. 6347/19 Sakman v. Türkiye 26/01/2019 Zeki SAKMAN Izmir Turkish Awarded 72. 6968/19 Canaz v. Türkiye 18/01/2019 Şaban CANAZ Samsun Turkish Awarded 73. 9358/19 Sarsık v. Türkiye 06/02/2019 Muhammet SARSIK Zonguldak Turkish Awarded 74. 9448/19 Atay v. Türkiye 01/02/2019 Önder ATAY Ağrı Turkish Not awarded 75. 10906/19 Saz v. Türkiye 14/02/2019 Cumali SAZ Hatay Turkish Awarded 76. 11363/19 Sumeli v. Türkiye 09/01/2019 Murat SUMELİ Trabzon Turkish Awarded 77. 11774/19 Bahçeci v. Türkiye 20/02/2019 Selim BAHÇECİ Elazig Turkish Awarded 78. 11791/19 Pala v. Türkiye 20/02/2019 İlhan PALA Ankara Turkish Awarded 79. 12177/19 Sarı v. Türkiye 19/02/2019 Mustafa SARI Mersin Turkish Not awarded 80. 12528/19 Samer v. Türkiye 22/02/2019 Taner SAMER Uşak Turkish Not awarded 81. 12817/19 Acaboğa v. Türkiye 01/03/2019 Efrahim ACABOĞA Tekirdağ Turkish Awarded 82. 12989/19 Işık v. Türkiye 22/02/2019 Ahmet IŞIK Osmaniye Turkish Awarded 83. 13028/19 Pekgenç v. Türkiye 21/02/2019 Recep PEKGENÇ Diyarbakır Turkish Not awarded 84. 13232/19 Çoban v. Türkiye 06/03/2019 Hüseyin ÇOBAN Samsun Turkish Awarded 85. 14470/19 Süt v. Türkiye 28/02/2019 Cem SÜT Çorum Turkish Awarded 86. 14486/19 Daştan v. Türkiye 11/03/2019 Yaşar DAŞTAN Bursa Turkish Not awarded 87. 14849/19 Noyan v. Türkiye 01/03/2019 Ömer Faruk NOYAN Manisa Turkish Awarded 88. 15198/19 Almalıoğlu v. Türkiye 28/02/2019 İsmail ALMALIOĞLU Sivas Turkish Awarded 89. 15210/19 Ata v. Türkiye 01/03/2019 Kamil ATA Istanbul Turkish Awarded 90. 15461/19 Bilgin v. Türkiye 11/03/2019 Bora BİLGİN Adana Turkish Not awarded 91. 15693/19 Erdoğan v. Türkiye 11/03/2019 Mehmet ERDOĞAN Manisa Turkish Awarded 92. 15979/19 Çendek v. Türkiye 18/02/2019 Akif ÇENDEK Ankara Turkish Awarded 93. 15987/19 Alagöz v. Türkiye 14/03/2019 Hakkı ALAGÖZ Antalya Turkish Awarded 94. 15998/19 Erşahin v. Türkiye 21/02/2019 Mustafa ERŞAHİN Karaman Turkish Awarded 95. 16030/19 Genç v. Türkiye 01/03/2019 Fatih GENÇ Ankara Turkish Awarded 96. 16039/19 Akmirza v. Türkiye 01/03/2019 Havva AKMİRZA Ankara Turkish Awarded 97. 16145/19 Yaprak v. Türkiye 28/02/2019 Emrullah YAPRAK Istanbul Turkish Awarded 98. 16429/19 Yalçın v. Türkiye 01/03/2019 Bekir YALÇIN Çorum Turkish Awarded 99. 16773/19 Apacık v. Türkiye 01/03/2019 Ahmet APACIK Elazığ Turkish Awarded 100. 17177/19 Kılıç v. Türkiye 04/03/2019 Hüseyin KILIÇ Kocaeli Turkish Awarded 101. 17196/19 İşlekoğlu v. Türkiye 07/03/2019 Emrullah İŞLEKOĞLU Düzce Turkish Awarded 102. 17499/19 Bayrak v. Türkiye 15/03/2019 İzzet BAYRAK Yozgat Turkish Awarded 103. 17774/19 Arvasi v. Türkiye 15/03/2019 Serhat ARVASİ Ankara Turkish Awarded 104. 18571/19 Uray v. Türkiye 22/03/2019 Erol URAY Manisa Turkish Awarded 105. 18792/19 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 29/03/2019 Murat YILMAZ Samsun Turkish Awarded 106. 19083/19 Diker v. Türkiye 20/03/2019 Muhammet DİKER İzmir Turkish Not awarded 107. 19110/19 Ahmetoğlu v. Türkiye 29/03/2019 Murat AHMETOĞLU Ankara Turkish Awarded 108. 19206/19 Akyar v. Türkiye 27/02/2019 Dursun AKYAR Afyonkarahisar Turkish Awarded 109. 19246/19 Topçak v. Türkiye 28/03/2019 Özgüraslan TOPÇAK Istanbul Turkish Awarded 110. 19548/19 Akçalı v. Türkiye 21/03/2019 Seyit Ahmet AKÇALI İstanbul Turkish Awarded 111. 19702/19 Hennep v. Türkiye 14/03/2019 Hayati HENNEP Amasya Turkish Awarded 112. 19837/19 Cankurt v. Türkiye 05/04/2019 Murat CANKURT Aydın Turkish Awarded 113. 20267/19 Erdoğan v. Türkiye 01/04/2019 Savaş ERDOĞAN Yozgat Turkish Awarded 114. 20573/19 Çışan v. Türkiye 29/03/2019 Adem ÇIŞAN Ankara Turkish Awarded 115. 20758/19 Pakdemirli v. Türkiye 05/04/2019 Mehmet PAKDEMİRLİ Manisa Turkish Awarded 116. 21005/19 Ayhan v. Türkiye 05/04/2019 Özgür AYHAN Istanbul Turkish Not awarded 117. 21010/19 Özkaya v. Türkiye 05/04/2019 Vahdettin ÖZKAYA Aksaray Turkish Awarded 118. 21263/19 Yaman v. Türkiye 03/04/2019 Mehmet YAMAN Hatay Turkish Awarded 119. 21448/19 Aydemir v. Türkiye 08/04/2019 Dursun AYDEMİR Ankara Turkish Awarded 120. 21651/19 Altun v. Türkiye 11/04/2019 Fethi ALTUN Şanlıurfa Turkish Awarded 121. 22070/19 Kınay v. Türkiye 15/04/2019 Sedat KINAY Sakarya Turkish Awarded 122. 22103/19 Çetin v. Türkiye 15/04/2019 Vedat ÇETİN Kocaeli Turkish Awarded 123. 22162/19 Karataş v. Türkiye 04/04/2019 İbrahim KARATAŞ Ankara Turkish Awarded 124. 22472/19 Canşı v. Türkiye 12/04/2019 İlhan CANŞI Şanlıurfa Turkish Awarded 125. 22628/19 Aktaş v. Türkiye 12/04/2019 Özkan AKTAŞ Manisa Turkish Not awarded 126. 23631/19 Şafak v. Türkiye 04/04/2019 Haydar ŞAFAK Çanakkkale Turkish Awarded 127. 23666/19 Dağdeviren v. Türkiye 09/04/2019 Murat DAĞDEVİREN Kocaeli Turkish Awarded 128. 23844/19 Baştürk v. Türkiye 06/04/2019 Mehmet BAŞTÜRK Niğde Turkish Awarded 129. 24548/19 Günaydın v. Türkiye 22/04/2019 Harun GÜNAYDIN Manisa Turkish Awarded 130. 24643/19 Tergek v. Türkiye 25/04/2019 Abdül Samed TERGEK Istanbul Turkish Awarded 131. 24789/19 Boran v. Türkiye 29/04/2019 Ahmet BORAN Elazığ Turkish Awarded 132. 25292/19 Boz v. Türkiye 27/04/2019 Mehmet BOZ Samsun Turkish Awarded 133. 25670/19 Halis v. Türkiye 08/05/2019 İlgun HALİS Ankara Turkish Awarded 134. 26071/19 Durmaz v. Türkiye 18/04/2019 Betül DURMAZ Bursa Turkish Awarded 135. 26091/19 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 02/05/2019 Muhamed YILMAZ Ankara Turkish Awarded 136. 26092/19 Altıparmak v. Türkiye 03/05/2019 Ömer ALTIPARMAK Ankara Turkish Awarded 137. 26100/19 Kıratlı v. Türkiye 30/04/2019 Mutlu KIRATLI Ankara Turkish Not awarded 138. 26906/19 Gece v. Türkiye 27/04/2019 Doğan GECE Ankara Turkish Awarded 139. 26942/19 Taşkaya v. Türkiye 09/05/2019 Ferdi TAŞKAYA Bursa Turkish Awarded 140. 26971/19 Çetin v. Türkiye 07/05/2019 Yakup ÇETİN Istanbul Turkish Not awarded 141. 26979/19 Erboğa v. Türkiye 07/05/2019 Mustafa ERBOĞA Tekirdağ Turkish Awarded 142. 27181/19 Güler v. Türkiye 03/05/2019 Osman GÜLER Hatay Turkish Awarded 143. 27503/19 Araç v. Türkiye 17/05/2019 Murat ARAÇ Ankara Turkish Awarded 144. 27662/19 Meydan v. Türkiye 03/05/2019 Nasuf MEYDAN Hatay Turkish Awarded 145. 27678/19 Koç v. Türkiye 09/05/2019 Anıl KOÇ Bolu Turkish Awarded 146. 27948/19 Taşkıran v. Türkiye 13/05/2019 Sadettin TAŞKIRAN Eskişehir Turkish Awarded 147. 28327/19 Yurtseven v. Türkiye 14/05/2019 Hasan YURTSEVEN Kırıkkale Turkish Awarded 148. 29107/19 Metin v. Türkiye 28/03/2019 Şenol METİN Samsun Turkish Awarded 149. 29172/19 Karakaş v. Türkiye 14/05/2019 Adem KARAKAŞ Çorum Turkish Awarded 150. 29637/19 Altuntepe v. Türkiye 02/05/2019 Beytullah ALTUNTEPE Ankara Turkish Awarded 151. 29681/19 Arslan v. Türkiye 07/05/2019 Enes ARSLAN Çanakkale Turkish Awarded 152. 30291/19 Baltaş v. Türkiye 06/05/2019 Süleyman BALTAŞ Aydın Turkish Awarded 153. 30315/19 Şimşek v. Türkiye 23/05/2019 Yakup ŞİMŞEK Istanbul Turkish Awarded 154. 30376/19 Karalar v. Türkiye 21/05/2019 Murat KARALAR Ankara Turkish Awarded 155. 30398/19 Sayan v. Türkiye 08/05/2019 Alişan SAYAN Kayseri Turkish Awarded 156. 30494/19 Ürkmez v. Türkiye 23/05/2019 Murat ÜRKMEZ Hatay Turkish Awarded 157. 30512/19 Aytaç v. Türkiye 21/05/2019 Gökhan AYTAÇ Bursa Turkish Awarded 158. 31637/19 Eker v. Türkiye 29/05/2019 Veysel EKER Mersin Turkish Awarded 159. 31712/19 Taşdöğen v. Türkiye 27/05/2019 Yaşar TAŞDÖĞEN Afyonkarahisar Turkish Awarded 160. 31797/19 Atabey v. Türkiye 28/05/2019 Ali ATABEY Tekirdağ Turkish Awarded 161. 32751/19 Kaya v. Türkiye 10/06/2019 Sezgin KAYA Karabük Turkish Awarded 162. 32766/19 Doğan v. Türkiye 17/05/2019 Bayram DOĞAN Kocaeli Turkish Not awarded 163. 33430/19 Küçükbay v. Türkiye 19/06/2019 Ahmet KÜÇÜKBAY İzmir Turkish Awarded 164. 33501/19 Kılıç v. Türkiye 12/06/2019 Ramazan KILIÇ Mersin Turkish Awarded 165. 33502/19 Uluçay v. Türkiye 12/06/2019 Sadık ULUÇAY Sivas Turkish Awarded 166. 33885/19 Kalkan v. Türkiye 28/05/2019 Arif KALKAN Kırıkkale Turkish Awarded 167. 33930/19 San v. Türkiye 23/05/2019 Abdülkerim SAN Kırıkkale Turkish Awarded 168. 34135/19 Erdoğan v. Türkiye 11/06/2019 Murat ERDOĞAN Kırklareli Turkish Awarded 169. 34605/19 Yiğit v. Türkiye 11/06/2019 Ali YİĞİT İzmir Turkish Awarded 170. 35092/19 Çınar v. Türkiye 28/06/2019 Ercan ÇINAR Zonguldak Turkish Awarded 171. 35306/19 Akkoç v. Türkiye 19/06/2019 Osman AKKOÇ Osmaniye Turkish Not awarded 172. 35908/19 Çetin v. Türkiye 21/06/2019 Aydın Yaşar ÇETİN Burdur Turkish Awarded 173. 36072/19 Kaya v. Türkiye 24/06/2019 Taner KAYA Aydın Turkish Awarded 174. 36088/19 Çevik v. Türkiye 14/06/2019 Muhammet ÇEVİK Manisa Turkish Awarded 175. 36184/19 Arıbaş v. Türkiye 21/06/2019 Yılmaz ARIBAŞ Aksaray Turkish Awarded 176. 36196/19 Bolat v. Türkiye 27/06/2019 Cumali BOLAT Ankara Turkish Awarded 177. 36490/19 Öztürk v. Türkiye 28/06/2019 Bayram ÖZTÜRK Kocaeli Turkish Awarded 178. 36790/19 Çelik v. Türkiye 25/06/2019 Aykut ÇELİK Bursa Turkish Not awarded 179. 36858/19 Özbaşaran v. Türkiye 02/07/2019 Bülent ÖZBAŞARAN İzmir Turkish Awarded 180. 37322/19 Şenel v. Türkiye 05/07/2019 Cemal ŞENEL Denizli Turkish Awarded 181. 38465/19 Duman v. Türkiye 08/07/2019 Esat DUMAN İzmir Turkish Awarded 182. 38480/19 Kamacı v. Türkiye 12/07/2019 Celal KAMACI Çanakkale Turkish Awarded 183. 38496/19 Doğaner v. Türkiye 05/07/2019 Bayram DOĞANER Konya Turkish Awarded 184. 38641/19 Bülbül v. Türkiye 17/07/2019 Mustafa BÜLBÜL Osmaniye Turkish Not awarded 185. 39013/19 Yaman v. Türkiye 28/06/2019 Teoman YAMAN Düzce Turkish Not awarded 186. 39213/19 Yıldız v. Türkiye 09/07/2019 Hamza YILDIZ Kahramanmaraş Turkish Awarded 187. 39444/19 Kaptı v. Türkiye 27/06/2019 Alican KAPTI Ankara Turkish Awarded 188. 39479/19 Kişi v. Türkiye 17/07/2019 Bekir KİŞİ Kahramanmaraş Turkish Awarded 189. 39663/19 Yaşar v. Türkiye 27/06/2019 Muhammed Sami YAŞAR Konya Turkish Awarded 190. 39926/19 Yıldız v. Türkiye 18/07/2019 Cengiz YILDIZ Kırıkkale Turkish Awarded 191. 39976/19 Ateştemur v. Türkiye 10/07/2019 Abdullah ATEŞTEMUR Ankara Turkish Awarded 192. 40028/19 Saka v. Türkiye 19/07/2019 Ahmet Evren SAKA Ankara Turkish Awarded 193. 40065/19 Kösmene v. Türkiye 05/07/2019 Ali Baz KÖSMENE Osmaniye Turkish Awarded 194. 40076/19 Sandık v. Türkiye 19/07/2019 Hakan SANDIK Istanbul Turkish Awarded 195. 40182/19 Bulduk v. Türkiye 12/07/2019 Muhittin BULDUK Kayseri Turkish Awarded 196. 40366/19 Yıldırım v. Türkiye 22/07/2019 Orhan YILDIRIM Balıkesir Turkish Awarded 197. 40391/19 Tiryakioğlu v. Türkiye 19/07/2019 Mehmet Akif TİRYAKİOĞLU Samsun Turkish Awarded 198. 40394/19 Kacır v. Türkiye 05/07/2019 Osman KACIR Çanakkale Turkish Awarded 199. 40474/19 Değirmenci v. Türkiye 11/07/2019 İsmail DEĞİRMENCİ Ankara Turkish Awarded 200. 40495/19 Gökü v. Türkiye 17/07/2019 Gökhan GÖKÜ Mersin Turkish Awarded 201. 40554/19 Gökmağara v. Türkiye 11/07/2019 Yüksel GÖKMAĞARA Istanbul Turkish Awarded 202. 40565/19 Baltacı v. Türkiye 17/07/2019 Barış BALTACI Sivas Turkish Awarded 203. 40897/19 Karakaş v. Türkiye 17/07/2019 Sinan KARAKAŞ Antalya Turkish Awarded 204. 41634/19 Küçükkeskin v. Türkiye 23/07/2019 İsmail KÜÇÜKKESKİN Ankara Turkish Awarded 205. 41812/19 Mavuş v. Türkiye 26/07/2019 Polat MAVUŞ Ankara Turkish Awarded 206. 41873/19 Tüzün v. Türkiye 16/07/2019 Soner TÜZÜN Aksaray Turkish Awarded 207. 41888/19 Akın v. Türkiye 22/07/2019 Ertuğrul AKIN Antalya Turkish Awarded 208. 42415/19 Taş v. Türkiye 31/07/2019 Mehmet TAŞ Konya Turkish Awarded 209. 42460/19 Özsoy v. Türkiye 30/07/2019 Köksal ÖZSOY Ankara Turkish Awarded 210. 42639/19 Narcı v. Türkiye 02/08/2019 Adnan NARCI Istanbul Turkish Awarded 211. 42711/19 Durmaz v. Türkiye 07/08/2019 Mustafa DURMAZ Ankara Turkish Awarded 212. 42925/19 İkiz v. Türkiye 24/07/2019 Mehmet İKİZ İzmir Turkish Awarded 213. 43185/19 Altunay v. Türkiye 07/08/2019 Uğur ALTUNAY Isparta Turkish Awarded