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 (Revision) STRASBOURG 9 June 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Taş and Others v. Türkiye (request for revision of the judgment of 17December 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 two hundred and thirteen applications (nos.41527/17 and 212 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 two hundred and thirteen 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 17 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 17 December 2024, the Court declared admissible 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. It further held that there had 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, and that there was no need to examine separately the merits of the complaints under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention as well as the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints under Article5 of the Convention. The Court also decided to award each of the applicants who had requested compensation, which included the applicant in application no.6347/19, a lump sum of EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 4.On 12 January 2022, prior to the delivery of the judgment, the representative of one of the applicants, MrZeki Sakman (application no.6347/19), had informed the Court that the applicant had died on 26November 2020 and that his wife wished to pursue the application. However, that request was not considered by the Court in its judgment. 5.On 4 March 2025 the representative accordingly requested revision of the judgment under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, asserting that the Government could not disburse the just satisfaction awarded to the deceased applicant to his heir. 6.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 19 February 2026. THE LAW THE REQUEST FOR REVISION 7.The representative of the deceased applicant’s heir requested revision of the judgment of 17 December 2024, because the applicant Mr Zeki Sakman had died before the judgment had been adopted. He submitted that the applicant’s wife, Ms Ayşe Sakman, was an heir and should therefore receive the sums awarded to the deceased, but she had been unable to have the judgment executed because of the applicant’s death before the judgment had been adopted. 8.The Government argued that the applicant had died on 26 November 2020 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 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 applicant. Lastly, the Government argued that even if the Court considers otherwise, taking into account the fact that the revision request concerns solely the applicant’s wife Ayşe Sakman–among the applicant’s nine heirs according to the certificate of inheritance–she should only be awarded a sum of compensation corresponding to her inheritance share. 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 Ayşe Sakman is an heir of the deceased applicant. 11.Accordingly, the Court considers that his wife have standing to pursue the application in the deceased applicant’s stead (see, inter alia, M.Özel andOthers v. Turkey (revision), nos. 14350/05, 15245/05 and16051/05, §10, 31March 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 andOthers v.Turkey (revision), no. 44125/06, § 8, 10 June 2014). The Court observes that she has expressed her intention to do so in a letter submitted on 12January 2022, prior to the adoption of the judgment of 17 December 2024 by the Court. However, this request was not considered by the Court in the judgment. 12.The Court further observes that by a letter submitted on 4 March 2025, namely after the delivery of the judgment, she has also requested the revision of the judgment under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court to enable her to receive the just satisfaction awarded to her husband. 13.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 andOthers, 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. 14.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 Rule 80 § 1, notably on the allocation of the amount awarded under Article 41 of the Convention. 15.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 and2292/06, §§ 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), the Court considers that the judgment of 17 December 2024 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. The Court further observes that in the present case, the applicant’s heir notified the Court in any event within a period of six months after she acquired knowledge of the Court’s judgment (Rule80 §1; compare in this regard alsoE.B. and Others v.Austria (revision), nos. 31913/07 and 4 others, § 11, 14 June 2018). 16.As regards the Government’s argument that the deceased applicant’s wife, Ms Ayşe Sakman, should only be awarded a sum of compensation corresponding to her inheritance share, the Court notes that it has already ruled that the sum awarded to an applicant should be paid in full to the heir(s) wishing to pursue the application (see Gülbahar Özer and Others, cited above, §§3‑11). 17.Accordingly, the Court decides to award the wife of the deceased applicant, namely Ayşe Sakman, the sum of 3,000 euros (EUR) it had awarded to her deceased husband (Zeki Sakman) 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 17 December 2024 in so far as it concerns the claims made by the deceased applicant Zeki Sakman (application no. 6347/19) under Article 41 of the Convention; and accordingly, Holds that the respondent State is to pay to the wife of Zeki Sakman, namely Ayşe Sakman, within three months, EUR 3,000 (three 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 ArnimJovan Ilievski Deputy RegistrarPresident