43382/19;43435/19;44081/19;44262/19;45131/19;45473/19;45907/19;45923/19;45949/19;46148/19;46538/19;46752/19;46756/19;46994/19;47008/19;47312/19;47604/19;47663/19;48028/19;49425/19;50745/19;51096/19;51099/19;51136/19;51159/19;51195/19;51326/19;51390/19;51534/19;51624/19;51636/19;51693/19;51791/19;51802/19;51925/19;51934/19;51962/19;52066/19;52453/19;52455/19;52941/19;53059/19;53244/19;53371/19;53376/19;53523/19;53604/19;54201/19;54379/19;54490/19;54581/19;54685/19;54836/19;54866/19;55247/19;55281/19;55329/19;55520/19;55817/19;56003/19;56011/19;56077/19;56192/19;56248/19;56711/19;56817/19;56994/19;57069/19;57133/19;57139/19;57319/19;57323/19;57452/19;58859/19;59167/19;59183/19;59193/19;61359/19;61683/19;61722/19;61802/19;62362/19;62382/19;62539/19;62557/19;62709/19;63046/19;63376/19;63635/19;64677/19;64712/19;64984/19;4/20;1114/20;1312/20;1491/20;1988/20;2116/20;2149/20;2469/20;2658/20;3397/20;4819/20;5223/20;5246/20;5497/20;5534/20;6032/20;6063/20;6150/20;6344/20;6629/20;6911/20;7075/20

SECOND SECTION CASE OF DENİZ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 43382/19 and 236 others)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 17 December 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Deniz 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.  Insofar 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 applicants’ 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. 43382/19 Deniz v. Türkiye 03/08/2019 Sadettin DENİZ İzmir Turkish Not awarded 2. 43435/19 Doğantürk v. Türkiye 08/08/2019 İbrahim Halil DOĞANTÜRK Kilis Turkish Awarded 3. 44081/19 Ünver v. Türkiye 24/07/2019 Yasin ÜNVER Antalya Turkish Awarded 4. 44262/19 Baran v. Türkiye 08/08/2019 Mustafa BARAN Isparta Turkish Awarded 5. 45131/19 Acar v. Türkiye 16/08/2019 Mehmet ACAR Aydın Turkish Awarded 6. 45473/19 Özer v. Türkiye 20/08/2019 Mustafa ÖZER Kocaeli Turkish Awarded 7. 45907/19 Akın v. Türkiye 19/08/2019 Ali AKIN İzmir Turkish Awarded 8. 45923/19 Burgaç v. Türkiye 15/08/2019 Mustafa BURGAÇ Osmaniye Turkish Awarded 9. 45949/19 Aksoy v. Türkiye 16/08/2019 Kasım AKSOY Ankara Turkish Awarded 10. 46148/19 Çevikgil v. Türkiye 20/08/2019 Harun ÇEVİKGİL İzmir Turkish Awarded 11. 46538/19 Yıldır v. Türkiye 21/08/2019 Aykut YILDIR Istanbul Turkish Not awarded 12. 46752/19 Akbaba v. Türkiye 22/08/2019 Eyüp AKBABA Osmaniye Turkish Awarded 13. 46756/19 Albayrak v. Türkiye 19/08/2019 Muhammed ALBAYRAK Giresun Turkish Awarded 14. 46994/19 Demir v. Türkiye 27/08/2019 Recep DEMİR Kocaeli Turkish Awarded 15. 47008/19 Kozan v. Türkiye 16/08/2019 Umut KOZAN Samsun Turkish Awarded 16. 47312/19 Çakır v. Türkiye 21/08/2019 Nazım ÇAKIR Şanlıurfa Turkish Awarded 17. 47604/19 Yıldırım v. Türkiye 21/08/2019 Salih YILDIRIM Samsun Turkish Awarded 18. 47663/19 Kılıç v. Türkiye 21/08/2019 Ruhi KILIÇ Bingöl Turkish Awarded 19. 48028/19 Sarıbek v. Türkiye 19/08/2019 Serkan SARIBEK Niğde Turkish Awarded 20. 49425/19 Kençi v. Türkiye 18/09/2019 Volkan KENÇİ Yozgat Turkish Awarded 21. 50745/19 Can v. Türkiye 05/09/2019 Erkan CAN Konya Turkish Not awarded 22. 51096/19 Mısır v. Türkiye 03/09/2019 Fatih MISIR Ankara Turkish Awarded 23. 51099/19 Korkmaz v. Türkiye 05/09/2019 Murat KORKMAZ İzmir Turkish Awarded 24. 51136/19 Karaca v. Türkiye 17/09/2019 İbrahim KARACA Çorum Turkish Awarded 25. 51159/19 Hoda v. Türkiye 06/09/2019 Ramazan HODA Bolu Turkish Awarded 26. 51195/19 Demir v. Türkiye 28/08/2019 Mehmet DEMİR Gaziantep Turkish Awarded 27. 51326/19 İpekçi v. Türkiye 04/09/2019 Cihan İPEKÇİ Yozgat Turkish Awarded 28. 51390/19 Aka v. Türkiye 25/09/2019 Şahseyin AKA Aydın Turkish Awarded 29. 51534/19 Elemen v. Türkiye 23/08/2019 Bünyamin ELEMEN Balıkesir Turkish Awarded 30. 51624/19 Orak v. Türkiye 16/09/2019 Zülküf ORAK Bursa Turkish Awarded 31. 51636/19 Sever v. Türkiye 19/09/2019 M. Abdullah SEVER Antakya Turkish Awarded 32. 51693/19 Duman v. Türkiye 17/09/2019 Rıza DUMAN Elazig Turkish Awarded 33. 51791/19 Eroğlu v. Türkiye 17/09/2019 Harun EROĞLU Eskişehir Turkish Not awarded 34. 51802/19 Doğan v. Türkiye 27/08/2019 Secattin DOĞAN Ankara Turkish Awarded 35. 51925/19 Gültekin v. Türkiye 13/09/2019 Recep GÜLTEKİN İzmir Turkish Awarded 36. 51934/19 Ulutepe v. Türkiye 28/08/2019 Sebahattin ULUTEPE Ordu Turkish Awarded 37. 51962/19 Birinci v. Türkiye 16/09/2019 Eyüp BİRİNCİ Antalya Turkish Awarded 38. 52066/19 Kaya v. Türkiye 24/09/2019 Halil İbrahim KAYA Aksaray Turkish Awarded 39. 52453/19 Demir v. Türkiye 23/09/2019 Resul DEMİR Ankara Turkish Awarded 40. 52455/19 Sayın v. Türkiye 26/09/2019 İbrahim SAYIN Istanbul Turkish Not awarded 41. 52941/19 Kösem v. Türkiye 20/09/2019 Burak Hamza KÖSEM Istanbul Turkish Awarded 42. 53059/19 Yaşa v. Türkiye 01/10/2019 Cihad YAŞA Manisa Turkish Awarded 43. 53244/19 Bayram v. Türkiye 30/09/2019 Fatih Mehmet BAYRAM Ankara Turkish Awarded 44. 53371/19 Yıldız v. Türkiye 03/10/2019 İlhami YILDIZ Istanbul Turkish Awarded 45. 53376/19 Meriç v. Türkiye 02/08/2019 Mehmet MERİÇ Kahramanmaraş Turkish Awarded 46. 53523/19 Mert v. Türkiye 17/09/2019 Eşref MERT Ankara Turkish Awarded 47. 53604/19 Polat v. Türkiye 09/10/2019 Adem POLAT Ankara Turkish Awarded 48. 54201/19 Tulgar v. Türkiye 03/09/2019 Ömer Faruk TULGAR Kocaeli Turkish Awarded 49. 54379/19 Tosun v. Türkiye 03/10/2019 Hidayet TOSUN Bolu Turkish Awarded 50. 54490/19 Şıla v. Türkiye 01/10/2019 Fatih Cihan ŞILA Appenweier Turkish Awarded 51. 54581/19 Gülten v. Türkiye 03/10/2019 Ömer Tolga GÜLTEN İzmir Turkish Awarded 52. 54685/19 Türkcan v. Türkiye 20/09/2019 Osman Kürşat TÜRKCAN Alphen aan den Rijn Turkish Awarded 53. 54836/19 Beytullah v. Türkiye 02/10/2019 Beytullah ŞAHİN Keskin Turkish Awarded 54. 54866/19 Ulusoy v. Türkiye 11/09/2019 Şakir ULUSOY Manisa Turkish Awarded 55. 55247/19 Ereroğlu v. Türkiye 13/09/2019 Orhan EREROĞLU Kayseri Turkish Awarded 56. 55281/19 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 19/09/2019 Fatih YILMAZ Manisa Turkish Awarded 57. 55329/19 Ergün v. Türkiye 11/10/2019 Ramazan ERGÜN Balıkesir Turkish Awarded 58. 55520/19 Balcı v. Türkiye 15/10/2019 Ahmet BALCI İzmir Turkish Not awarded 59. 55817/19 Arukan v. Türkiye 06/09/2019 Ali ARUKAN Kastamonu Turkish Awarded 60. 56003/19 Osman v. Türkiye 18/10/2019 Yıldırım OSMAN Ankara Turkish Awarded 61. 56011/19 Karaman v. Türkiye 09/10/2019 Ramazan KARAMAN Ankara Turkish Awarded 62. 56077/19 Buyur v. Türkiye 10/10/2019 Ercan BUYUR Kocaeli Turkish Not awarded 63. 56192/19 Biray v. Türkiye 29/08/2019 Mahmut BİRAY Mardin Turkish Awarded 64. 56248/19 Kama v. Türkiye 30/09/2019 Nasif Erdem KAMA Kırıkkale Turkish Awarded 65. 56711/19 Benli v. Türkiye 17/10/2019 Murat BENLİ Istanbul Turkish Awarded 66. 56817/19 Abit v. Türkiye 07/10/2019 Mahmut Sinan ABİT Bingöl Turkish Awarded 67. 56994/19 Baysal v. Türkiye 16/10/2019 Ercan BAYSAL Ankara Turkish Awarded 68. 57069/19 Doğruöz v. Türkiye 16/10/2019 İdris DOĞRUÖZ Ankara Turkish Awarded 69. 57133/19 Dikik v. Türkiye 17/10/2019 Mehmet Can DİKİK Muğla Turkish Awarded 70. 57139/19 Taşyağan v. Türkiye 09/10/2019 Esma TAŞYAĞAN Manisa Turkish Awarded 71. 57319/19 Kazancı v. Türkiye 09/10/2019 Melih KAZANCI Antalya Turkish Awarded 72. 57323/19 Zeytun v. Türkiye 16/10/2019 Fatih ZEYTUN Ankara Turkish Awarded 73. 57452/19 Öztürk v. Türkiye 10/10/2019 Osman ÖZTÜRK Ankara Turkish Awarded 74. 58859/19 Dikbaş v. Türkiye 24/10/2019 Sadreddin DİKBAŞ Afyonkarahisar Turkish Awarded 75. 59167/19 Başkurt v. Türkiye 11/11/2019 Şaban BAŞKURT Istanbul Turkish Awarded 76. 59183/19 Keleş v. Türkiye 25/10/2019 Celalettin KELEŞ Konya Turkish Awarded 77. 59193/19 Acar v. Türkiye 22/10/2019 İsmail ACAR İzmir Turkish Awarded 78. 61359/19 Pehlivan v. Türkiye 08/11/2019 Hüseyin PEHLİVAN Balıkesir Turkish Awarded 79. 61683/19 Ataç v. Türkiye 05/11/2019 Gafur ATAÇ Tekirdağ Turkish Awarded 80. 61722/19 Ayday v. Türkiye 12/11/2019 Abdulbaki AYDAY Ankara Turkish Awarded 81. 61802/19 Albayrak v. Türkiye 15/11/2019 Ahmet ALBAYRAK Ankara Turkish Not awarded 82. 62362/19 Şamasas v. Türkiye 13/11/2019 Nihat ŞAMASAS Adana Turkish Awarded 83. 62382/19 Özcan v. Türkiye 18/11/2019 Naci ÖZCAN Istanbul Turkish Awarded 84. 62539/19 Satılmış v. Türkiye 19/11/2019 İsmail SATILMIŞ Çorum Turkish Awarded 85. 62557/19 Doğan v. Türkiye 21/11/2019 Mehmet DOĞAN Gaziantep Turkish Awarded 86. 62709/19 Kayaalp v. Türkiye 29/11/2019 Abdullah KAYAALP Balıkesir Turkish Awarded 87. 63046/19 Atalay v. Türkiye 15/11/2019 İbrahim ATALAY Yozgat Turkish Awarded 88. 63376/19 Erdem v. Türkiye 27/11/2019 Mehmet Alper ERDEM Erzurum Turkish Awarded 89. 63635/19 İşbilen v. Türkiye 05/12/2019 İlhan İŞBİLEN Ankara Turkish Awarded 90. 64677/19 Şen v. Türkiye 03/12/2019 Nuri ŞEN Istanbul Turkish Awarded 91. 64712/19 Yükleyen v. Türkiye 04/12/2019 İsmail YÜKLEYEN Kayseri Turkish Awarded 92. 64984/19 Kaya v. Türkiye 03/12/2019 Harun KAYA Bursa Turkish Awarded 93. 4/20 Avcı v. Türkiye 19/11/2019 İlyas AVCI Mersin Turkish Awarded 94. 1114/20 Buzdağ v. Türkiye 10/12/2019 Ertan BUZDAĞ Zonguldak Turkish Awarded 95. 1312/20 Yorulmaz v. Türkiye 11/12/2019 Celal YORULMAZ Ankara Turkish Awarded 96. 1491/20 Özkan v. Türkiye 20/12/2019 Sait ÖZKAN İzmir Turkish Awarded 97. 1988/20 Tüten v. Türkiye 09/12/2019 Hasan TÜTEN Istanbul Turkish Awarded 98. 2116/20 Erten v. Türkiye 26/12/2019 Derviş ERTEN Gaziantep Turkish Awarded 99. 2149/20 Şanaral v. Türkiye 27/12/2019 Mesut ŞANARAL Balıkesir Turkish Awarded 100. 2469/20 Öz v. Türkiye 23/12/2019 Tanju ÖZ Adana Turkish Awarded 101. 2658/20 Ensaroğlu v. Türkiye 25/12/2019 Fatih ENSAROĞLU Ankara Turkish Awarded 102. 3397/20 Gürkan v. Türkiye 19/12/2019 Akif GÜRKAN Isparta Turkish Awarded 103. 4819/20 Turhal v. Türkiye 28/05/2020 Ali TURHAL Denizli Turkish Awarded 104. 5223/20 Akgül v. Türkiye 10/01/2020 Rıdvan AKGÜL İzmir Turkish Awarded 105. 5246/20 Dedeli v. Türkiye 16/01/2020 Ramazan DEDELİ Manisa Turkish Awarded 106. 5497/20 Bilgili v. Türkiye 27/12/2019 Ali Galip BİLGİLİ Isparta Turkish Awarded 107. 5534/20 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 20/01/2020 İhsan YILMAZ İzmir Turkish Awarded 108. 6032/20 Sel v. Türkiye 20/01/2020 Bilal SEL İzmir Turkish Awarded 109. 6063/20 Benli v. Türkiye 17/12/2019 Mustafa BENLİ Çorum Turkish Not awarded 110. 6150/20 Uçan v. Türkiye 15/01/2020 Musa Can UÇAN Diyarbakır Turkish Awarded 111. 6344/20 Ertuğrul v. Türkiye 10/01/2020 Murat ERTUĞRUL Balıkesir Turkish Awarded 112. 6629/20 Sağır v. Türkiye 20/12/2019 Mehmet SAĞIR Manisa Turkish Awarded 113. 6911/20 Akdağ v. Türkiye 31/12/2019 Rıdvan AKDAĞ Çorum Turkish Awarded 114. 7075/20 Şahin v. Türkiye 16/01/2020 Yunus ŞAHİN Istanbul Turkish Not awarded 115. 7085/20 Karaçoban v. Türkiye 20/01/2020 Eyüp KARAÇOBAN Balıkesir Turkish Awarded 116. 7438/20 Karataş v. Türkiye 31/01/2020 Erkan KARATAŞ İzmir Turkish Awarded 117. 7458/20 Karahasanoğlu v. Türkiye 03/02/2020 Mehmet Yücel KARAHASANOĞLU Ankara Turkish Awarded 118. 7841/20 Dalkılıç v. Türkiye 23/01/2020 Yakup DALKILIÇ Kırşehir Turkish Awarded 119. 7892/20 Yalçın v. Türkiye 04/02/2020 Recep Ali YALÇIN Denizli Turkish Awarded 120. 8094/20 Patırgan v. Türkiye 27/01/2020 Uğur PATIRGAN İzmir Turkish Awarded 121. 8117/20 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 28/01/2020 Ramazan YILMAZ Istanbul Turkish Awarded 122. 8209/20 Altun v. Türkiye 27/01/2020 Orhan ALTUN Istanbul Turkish Awarded 123. 8756/20 Ataç v. Türkiye 06/02/2020 Fatih ATAÇ İzmir Turkish Awarded 124. 9074/20 Özden v. Türkiye 10/02/2020 Selim ÖZDEN Ankara Turkish Awarded 125. 9255/20 Sakarya v. Türkiye 05/02/2020 Emre SAKARYA Ankara Turkish Awarded 126. 9406/20 Işıtan v. Türkiye 28/01/2020 Bilal IŞITAN Samsun Turkish Awarded 127. 10697/20 Eyilcim v. Türkiye 06/02/2020 Muzaffer EYİLCİM Bursa Turkish Awarded 128. 10741/20 Yazıcı v. Türkiye 10/02/2020 Süleyman YAZICI Samsun Turkish Awarded 129. 11022/20 Özoğlu v. Türkiye 22/02/2020 Arif ÖZOĞLU Istanbul Turkish Awarded 130. 11361/20 Bayram v. Türkiye 14/02/2020 Şerif Ahmet BAYRAM Samsun Turkish Awarded 131. 11432/20 Uçar v. Türkiye 13/02/2020 Yusuf UÇAR Antalya Turkish Not awarded 132. 11449/20 Çelik v. Türkiye 19/02/2020 Selami ÇELİK Istanbul Turkish Awarded 133. 11480/20 Aykutluğ v. Türkiye 14/02/2020 Ayhan AYKUTLUĞ Çankırı Turkish Awarded 134. 11533/20 Sarı v. Türkiye 14/02/2020 Feyzullah SARI Karabük Turkish Awarded 135. 12495/20 Orcan v. Türkiye 19/02/2020 Mevlüt ORCAN Kahramanmaraş Turkish Awarded 136. 13368/20 Zıraplı v. Türkiye 26/02/2020 Barış ZIRAPLI Konya Turkish Awarded 137. 13590/20 Çetinkaya v. Türkiye 06/03/2020 Bülent ÇETİNKAYA Ankara Turkish Awarded 138. 13866/20 Örnek v. Türkiye 05/03/2020 Faruk ÖRNEK Ankara Turkish Awarded 139. 14985/20 Boydak v. Türkiye 25/02/2020 Hacı BOYDAK Ankara Turkish Awarded 140. 15015/20 Polat v. Türkiye 04/03/2020 İbrahim POLAT Yozgat Turkish Awarded 141. 15142/20 Özer v. Türkiye 09/03/2020 Yusuf ÖZER Ankara Turkish Awarded 142. 15146/20 Malkoçoğlu v. Türkiye 09/03/2020 Murat MALKOÇOĞLU Ankara Turkish Awarded 143. 15172/20 Özçelik v. Türkiye 06/03/2020 Kadir ÖZÇELİK Samsun Turkish Awarded 144. 15891/20 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 13/03/2020 Veysel YILMAZ Istanbul Turkish Awarded 145. 16421/20 Pakel v. Türkiye 20/03/2020 Hakan PAKEL Manisa Turkish Awarded 146. 17017/20 Zorlu v. Türkiye 26/03/2020 Muhammed Şahin ZORLU Ankara Turkish Awarded 147. 17108/20 Karaduman v. Türkiye 24/03/2020 Mustafa KARADUMAN Balıkesir Turkish Awarded 148. 17617/20 Filizciler v. Türkiye 02/04/2020 Mesut FİLİZCİLER Balıkesir Turkish Awarded 149. 18031/20 Turan v. Türkiye 14/04/2020 Mesut TURAN Ankara Turkish Awarded 150. 18043/20 Kür v. Türkiye 20/04/2020 Mahmut KÜR Ankara Turkish Awarded 151. 18733/20 Altaylı v. Türkiye 30/04/2020 Enver ALTAYLI Ankara Turkish Awarded 152. 20183/20 Özünal v. Türkiye 14/05/2020 Lokman ÖZÜNAL Istanbul Turkish Awarded 153. 20198/20 Şamak v. Türkiye 14/05/2020 Edip ŞAMAK Istanbul Turkish Awarded 154. 21215/20 Taş v. Türkiye 15/05/2020 Veysel Özgel TAŞ Ankara Turkish Awarded 155. 21420/20 Arıcan v. Türkiye 06/05/2020 Ahmet ARICAN Ankara Turkish Not awarded 156. 22033/20 Ağırdaş v. Türkiye 01/06/2020 Hüseyin AĞIRDAŞ Karabük Turkish Awarded 157. 22081/20 Kılıç v. Türkiye 02/06/2020 Ertuğrul KILIÇ Istanbul Turkish Awarded 158. 23316/20 Ateş v. Türkiye 12/06/2020 Mustafa Alper ATEŞ Ankara Turkish Awarded 159. 23557/20 Doğan v. Türkiye 14/05/2020 Ali DOĞAN Manisa Turkish Awarded 160. 24777/20 Mert v. Türkiye 11/06/2020 Muhit MERT Ankara Turkish Awarded 161. 25863/20 Berk v. Türkiye 18/06/2020 Atilla BERK Samsun Turkish Awarded 162. 26179/20 İşlekel v. Türkiye 19/06/2020 Tahsin İŞLEKEL Istanbul Turkish Awarded 163. 26206/20 Tercan v. Türkiye 15/06/2020 Seydi TERCAN İzmir Turkish Awarded 164. 27276/20 Ergincan v. Türkiye 29/06/2020 Gökhan ERGİNCAN Istanbul Turkish Awarded 165. 27565/20 Pekşen v. Türkiye 17/06/2020 Celalettin PEKŞEN Sivas Turkish Awarded 166. 29289/20 Kolu v. Türkiye 30/06/2020 Sait KOLU Ankara Turkish Awarded 167. 29556/20 Kurnaz v. Türkiye 22/06/2020 Şenol KURNAZ Eskişehir Turkish Awarded 168. 30404/20 Düzgün v. Türkiye 08/07/2020 Ali Kemal DÜZGÜN Istanbul Turkish Awarded 169. 30427/20 Ayan v. Türkiye 23/06/2020 Burhan AYAN Istanbul Turkish Awarded 170. 33313/20 Akdeniz v. Türkiye 21/07/2020 Emrah AKDENİZ Kırıkkale Turkish Awarded 171. 35592/20 Demir v. Türkiye 12/08/2020 Barbaros DEMİR Ankara Turkish Awarded 172. 35710/20 Yıldırım v. Türkiye 12/08/2020 Ramazan YILDIRIM Ankara Turkish Awarded 173. 35796/20 Memiş v. Türkiye 05/08/2020 Ahmet MEMİŞ Istanbul Turkish Awarded 174. 35799/20 Benli v. Türkiye 09/07/2020 Ömer BENLİ Kahramanmaraş Turkish Awarded 175. 36386/20 Karagöz v. Türkiye 06/08/2020 Zeyit KARAGÖZ Ankara Turkish Awarded 176. 36433/20 Kol v. Türkiye 11/08/2020 Ümit KOL Kocaeli Turkish Awarded 177. 36468/20 Altun v. Türkiye 30/07/2020 Mehmet Akif ALTUN Ankara Turkish Awarded 178. 37452/20 Cenk v. Türkiye 14/08/2020 Hamza CENK Istanbul Turkish Awarded 179. 37752/20 Danışmaz v. Türkiye 17/08/2020 Kadir DANIŞMAZ Zonguldak Turkish Awarded 180. 38271/20 Kilimtepe v. Türkiye 28/08/2020 Heysem KİLİMTEPE İzmir Turkish Awarded 181. 38278/20 Gümüş v. Türkiye 27/08/2020 Muzaffer Taha GÜMÜŞ Ankara Turkish Awarded 182. 38387/20 Önder v. Türkiye 18/08/2020 Adaklı ÖNDER Antalya Turkish Awarded 183. 39243/20 Aydın v. Türkiye 31/08/2020 Harun AYDIN Kırıkkale Turkish Awarded 184. 40090/20 Tarlacı v. Türkiye 31/08/2020 Erkal TARLACI Kırıkkale Turkish Awarded 185. 40306/20 Karakaya v. Türkiye 08/09/2020 İlyas KARAKAYA Istanbul Turkish Awarded 186. 41063/20 Geçer v. Türkiye 04/09/2020 Mesut GEÇER Ankara Turkish Awarded 187. 41553/20 Gülaçtı v. Türkiye 01/09/2020 Emre GÜLAÇTI Istanbul Turkish Awarded 188. 42336/20 Kıyma v. Türkiye 11/09/2020 Nurettin KIYMA Istanbul Turkish Awarded 189. 43065/20 Uçar v. Türkiye 10/09/2020 Mürsel UÇAR Istanbul Turkish Awarded 190. 43715/20 Ayer v. Türkiye 29/09/2020 Hasan AYER Istanbul Turkish Awarded 191. 44052/20 Tekkoyun v. Türkiye 23/09/2020 İsmail TEKKOYUN Ankara Turkish Awarded 192. 44233/20 Tan v. Türkiye 24/09/2020 Harun TAN Amasya Turkish Awarded 193. 44816/20 Can v. Türkiye 03/09/2020 Hüzeyfe CAN Istanbul Turkish Awarded 194. 44975/20 Mungan v. Türkiye 02/10/2020 Nushet Şehmus MUNGAN Ankara Turkish Awarded 195. 45475/20 Keleş v. Türkiye 01/10/2020 Yusuf KELEŞ Istanbul Turkish Awarded 196. 45995/20 Erko v. Türkiye 14/10/2020 Taha ERKO Tekirdağ Turkish Awarded 197. 46060/20 Karagöz v. Türkiye 13/10/2020 Ömer Faruk KARAGÖZ Eskişehir Turkish Awarded 198. 46366/20 Kaya v. Türkiye 08/10/2020 Cafer Sadık KAYA Edirne Turkish Awarded 199. 46418/20 Özbulut v. Türkiye 09/10/2020 Bekir ÖZBULUT Mersin Turkish Awarded 200. 47271/20 Gökçöl v. Türkiye 19/10/2020 Yavuz GÖKÇÖL Istanbul Turkish Awarded 201. 48471/20 Şen v. Türkiye 09/10/2020 Ender ŞEN Ankara Turkish Awarded 202. 48701/20 Koçuk v. Türkiye 26/10/2020 Fahri KOÇUK Kırıkkale Turkish Awarded 203. 48703/20 Cambaztepe v. Türkiye 26/10/2020 Emre CAMBAZTEPE Ankara Turkish Awarded 204. 50285/20 Çiçek v. Türkiye 10/11/2020 Erdoğan ÇİÇEK Ankara Turkish Awarded 205. 50290/20 Türkmen v. Türkiye 10/11/2020 Ömer Faruk TÜRKMEN Ankara Turkish Awarded 206. 50359/20 Sevimli v. Türkiye 03/11/2020 Hasan SEVİMLİ Ankara Turkish Awarded 207. 50463/20 Demirsoy v. Türkiye 23/10/2020 Mahmut Murat DEMİRSOY Malatya Turkish Awarded 208. 50915/20 Doğan v. Türkiye 05/11/2020 Ömer DOĞAN Ankara Turkish Awarded 209. 52222/20 Uygun v. Türkiye 16/11/2020 Murat UYGUN Ankara Turkish Awarded 210. 52329/20 Pala v. Türkiye 02/11/2020 Abdullah PALA Adana Turkish Awarded 211. 53125/20 Türk v. Türkiye 18/11/2020 İsa TÜRK Yozgat Turkish Awarded 212. 55056/20 Arığ v. Türkiye 01/12/2020 Mustafa ARIĞ Istanbul Turkish Awarded 213. 55078/20 Dirlikli v. Türkiye 01/12/2020 Murat DİRLİKLİ Şırnak Turkish Awarded 214. 55104/20 Küçüker v. Türkiye 08/12/2020 Veysel KÜÇÜKER Burdur Turkish Awarded 215. 55142/20 Altuntaş v. Türkiye 27/11/2020 Murat Sinan ALTUNTAŞ Çorum Turkish Awarded 216. 24/21 Arı v. Türkiye 14/12/2020 Tolga ARI İzmir Turkish Awarded 217. 751/21 Bardakkaya v. Türkiye 11/12/2020 Resul BARDAKKAYA Ankara Turkish Awarded 218. 1684/21 Ünsür v. Türkiye 02/12/2020 Özgür ÜNSÜR Amasya Turkish Awarded 219. 2157/21 Ilker v. Türkiye 24/12/2020 Demirkıyık İLKER Manisa Turkish Awarded 220. 2491/21 Güler v. Türkiye 14/12/2020 Hakan GÜLER Ankara Turkish Awarded 221. 2555/21 Tulukcu v. Türkiye 22/12/2020 Seyit TULUKCU Karaman Turkish Awarded 222. 2879/21 Aydın v. Türkiye 22/12/2020 Yıldız AYDIN Rize Turkish Awarded 223. 3888/21 Makineci v. Türkiye 04/01/2021 Halil MAKİNECİ Afyonkarahisar Turkish Awarded 224. 4423/21 Avcı v. Türkiye 11/01/2021 Gültekin AVCI İzmir Turkish Awarded 225. 4510/21 Türk v. Türkiye 14/01/2021 Halil İbrahim TÜRK Ankara Turkish Awarded 226. 9370/21 Koral v. Türkiye 07/12/2020 Halil Özhan KORAL Ankara Turkish Awarded 227. 9964/21 Akar v. Türkiye 02/02/2021 Muhammed AKAR Ankara Turkish Awarded 228. 10053/21 Uzuntarla v. Türkiye 12/02/2021 Özcan UZUNTARLA Ankara Turkish Awarded 229. 17696/21 Şeker v. Türkiye 26/03/2021 Erhan ŞEKER Istanbul Turkish Awarded 230. 20258/21 Ergin v. Türkiye 06/04/2021 Mevlit ERGİN Tekirdağ Turkish Awarded 231. 23878/21 Aygün v. Türkiye 03/05/2021 Enver AYGÜN Ankara Turkish Awarded 232. 23942/21 Çavdar v. Türkiye 28/04/2021 Cafer ÇAVDAR Ankara Turkish Awarded 233. 24091/21 Akdeniz v. Türkiye 05/05/2021 Mustafa AKDENİZ Ankara Turkish Awarded 234. 26458/21 Akdeniz v. Türkiye 05/03/2021 Yasin AKDENİZ Ankara Turkish Awarded 235. 34205/21 İyigün v. Türkiye 02/06/2021 Cemal İYİGÜN Ankara Turkish Awarded 236. 37181/21 Topak v. Türkiye 25/06/2021 Eyyüp TOPAK Hatay Turkish Awarded 237. 44242/21 Ülker v. Türkiye 26/08/2021 Birol ÜLKER Denizli Turkish Awarded