49484/17;61090/17;61722/17;69796/17;70617/17;74831/17;84563/17;82/18;3458/18;6946/18;10288/18;10773/18;12045/18;16810/18;17289/18;17687/18;18046/18;18692/18;20355/18;21909/18;23493/18;23568/18;23758/18;23822/18;23912/18;23919/18;24612/18;24900/18;24919/18;25066/18;25241/18;25253/18;25893/18;26402/18;27732/18;29785/18;32458/18;32460/18;32462/18;32465/18;32617/18;32874/18;32910/18;32949/18;32965/18;32970/18;33003/18;33009/18;33043/18;33046/18;33156/18;33330/18;33836/18;33856/18;33857/18;33862/18;33972/18;34180/18;34184/18;34190/18;34413/18;34565/18;34765/18;35118/18;35188/18;35191/18;35293/18;35427/18;35446/18;35548/18;35621/18;35642/18;35661/18;35671/18;35694/18;35707/18;35958/18;36107/18;36169/18;36236/18;36275/18;36369/18;36636/18;37106/18;37242/18;37271/18;37342/18;37483/18;37723/18;37838/18;38511/18;38636/18;38707/18;38766/18;38788/18;38829/18;38953/18;38978/18;39008/18;39038/18;39098/18;41128/18;42382/18;43239/18;43957/18;44166/18;45288/18;45911/18;50048/18;53396/18;58245/18;2270/1

SECOND SECTION CASE OF KAPLAN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 49484/17 and 222 others)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 22 October 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kaplan and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Pauliine Koskelo, President,  Lorraine Schembri Orland,  Frédéric Krenc, judges, and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein; the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 5 of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of an offence, the alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons when ordering and extending the pre-trial detention, the length of pre-trial detention, the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the lawfulness of detention and the absence of a remedy to obtain compensation to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their then Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, 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 1 October 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.  The present applications mainly concern the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants in the aftermath of the coup attempt of 15 July 2016, on suspicion of their membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation / Parallel State Structure” (Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması, hereinafter referred to as “FETÖ/PDY”), which was considered by the authorities to be behind the coup attempt (for further background information see Akgün v. Turkey, no. 19699/18, §§ 3-9 and §§ 106-07, 20 July 2021). 2.  On various dates, the applicants were arrested and placed in pre-trial detention, mainly on suspicion of membership of the FETÖ/PDY, an offence punishable under Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, § 58, 3 March 2020). The detention orders relied principally on the nature of the alleged offence, the state of the evidence and the potential sentence. It was also noted that investigations into the coup attempt were being conducted across the country, that statements had not yet been taken from all the suspects and that the alleged offence was among the “catalogue” offences listed in Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) (for the text of Article 100 of the CCP, as relevant, see Baş, cited above, § 61). It appears from the initial detention orders and the documents available in the case files that most of the applicants were identified as users of the ByLock messaging system. Moreover, some of the applicants were suspected of being affiliated with the FETÖ/PDY based on witness statements, or of financing the FETÖ/PDY in view of their use of accounts in Bank Asya – a bank allegedly linked to FETÖ/PDY –, possession of pro-FETÖ/PDY publications and/or United States one-dollar bills with an “F” serial number (denoting the initial of the forename “Fetullah”), sharing social media posts or participating in protests in favour of FETÖ/PDY, having intensive telephone contact with FETÖ/PDY suspects, their suspension or dismissal from office, and/or their employment by and/or memberships in FETÖ/PDY-affiliated institutions and organisations. It further appears from the Government’s submissions that the detention orders of some applicants were based on their suspension or removal from their positions as judges or prosecutors by the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (Hakimler ve Savcılar Yüksek Kurulu – “the HSYK”) due to their suspected membership of the FETÖ/PDY. The challenges brought by the applicants against their detention, including by reason of the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion of having committed the offence imputed to them, were dismissed, including by the Constitutional Court. 3.  According to the latest information provided by the parties, most of the applicants were convicted of membership of a terrorist organisation by the first instance courts. It appears that, in some of the applications, the criminal proceedings are still pending before appeal courts or the Constitutional Court. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 4.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 5.  The applicants complained that there had been no specific evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, that they had committed a criminal offence necessitating, in particular, their initial pre-trial detention. 6.  The Government urged the Court to declare this complaint inadmissible in respect of the applicants who had not made use of the compensatory remedy under Article 141 of the CCP, or whose compensation claims were still pending. They further asked the Court to declare the applications inadmissible for abuse of the right of application to the extent that the applicants had not informed the Court of the developments in their cases following the lodging of their applications. 7.  The Court notes that similar objections have already been dismissed in other cases against Türkiye (see, for instance, Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, §§ 118-21, and Turan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 75805/16 and 426 others, §§ 57-64, 23 November 2021), and sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present case. The Court therefore considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 8.  The Court notes that, when ordering the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention, the magistrate’s courts sought to justify their decisions by making a general reference to Article 100 of the CCP and the potential sentence, as well as to “the evidence in the file”. However, in doing so, they simply cited the wording of the provision in question, without actually specifying what the evidence in question entailed and why it constituted a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question. The Court refers in this connection to its findings in the judgment of Baş (cited above, §§ 190‑95), according to which the vague and general references to the wording of Article 100 of the CCP and to the evidence in the file cannot be regarded as sufficient to justify the “reasonableness” of the suspicion on which the applicants’ detention was supposed to have been based, in the absence either of a specific assessment of the individual items of evidence in the file, or of any information available in the file at the material time that could have justified the suspicion against the applicants, or of any other kinds of verifiable material or facts. 9.  The Court further notes that the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention orders were mainly based on information indicating their use of the ByLock messaging system, banking activities considered as financing the FETÖ/PDY, subscriptions to certain pro-FETÖ/PDY publications, having in their possessions United States one‑dollar bills with an “F” serial number, sharing social media posts or participating in protests in favour of FETÖ/PDY, having intensive telephone contact with FETÖ/PDY suspects, their suspension or dismissal from office, and/or their employment by and/or memberships in FETÖ/PDY-affiliated institutions and organisations. To the extent that the detention orders have taken into account the applicants’ alleged use of the ByLock messaging system, the Court notes that it has already found that the use of ByLock alone was not of a nature to constitute “reasonable suspicion” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) in respect of the offence attributed to the applicants (see Akgün v. Turkey, no. 19699/18, §§ 151-85, 20 July 2021, and Taner Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 208/18, §§ 102-03 and 106-09, 31 May 2022). The Court also notes that as regards some of the applicants, the Government have referred to the existence of witness statements justifying the measures in question. It observes, however, that there are no statements in the case files referring to concrete and specific facts that may have given rise to a reasonable suspicion against the applicants concerned at the material time. The Court further considers, as relevant, that the other acts imputed to the applicants (see paragraph 2 above) were merely circumstantial elements which, in the absence of any other information capable of justifying the suspicions in question, benefited from the presumption of legality and cannot reasonably be regarded as constituting a body of evidence demonstrating the applicants’ membership of a terrorist organisation (compare Taner Kılıç, cited above, §§ 104-05 and the cases cited therein). 10.  The Court also observes that, to the extent that some applicants’ initial pre-trial detention was based on the decisions taken by the HSYK to suspend or remove them from office, the Court has already found that such decisions were not of a nature to constitute “reasonable suspicion” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) in respect of the offence attributed to them (see Baş, cited above, §§ 170-195). 11.  Since the Government have not provided any other indications, “facts” or “information” capable of satisfying it that the applicants were “reasonably suspected”, at the time of their initial detention, of having committed the alleged offence, the Court finds that the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (c) regarding the “reasonableness” of a suspicion justifying detention have not been satisfied (see Baş, cited above, § 195, and Taner Kılıç, cited above, §§ 114-16). It finally considers that while the applicants were detained a short time after the coup attempt – that is, the event that prompted the declaration of the state of emergency and the notice of derogation by Türkiye –, which is undoubtedly a contextual factor that should be fully taken into account in interpreting and applying Article 5 of the Convention in the present case, the measure at issue cannot be said to have been strictly required by the exigencies of the situation (compare Baş, cited above, §§ 115-16 and §§ 196‑201). It therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER COMPLAINTS 12.  As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention, the Court decides not to examine them, in view of its findings under Article 5 § 1 above and its considerations in the case of Turan and Others (cited above, § 98). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.  The applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos. 61722/17, 69796/17, 20355/18, 33857/18, 33862/18, 36369/18, 37106/18, 37342/18, 37483/18, 38707/18, 38829/18, 39008/18, 43957/18, 18424/19, 21243/19, 36063/19, 36119/19, 53305/19 and 19533/20 requested compensation in varying amounts in respect of non‑pecuniary damage within the time-limit allotted. Most of the applicants in question also claimed pecuniary damage, as well as the legal costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. 14.  The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive. 15.  For the reasons put forth in Turan and Others (cited above, §§ 102‑07), the Court rejects any claims for pecuniary damage and awards each of the applicants, save for the applicants in applications nos. 61722/17, 69796/17, 20355/18, 33857/18, 33862/18, 36369/18, 37106/18, 37342/18, 37483/18, 38707/18, 38829/18, 39008/18, 43957/18, 18424/19, 21243/19, 36063/19, 36119/19, 53305/19 and 19533/20, a lump sum of 5,000 euros (EUR), covering non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, concerning the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion, at the time of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention, that they had committed an offence, admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of reasonable suspicion, at the time of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention, that they had committed an offence; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ remaining complaints under Article 5 of the Convention; Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, save for the applicants in applications nos. 61722/17, 69796/17, 20355/18, 33857/18, 33862/18, 36369/18, 37106/18, 37342/18, 37483/18, 38707/18, 38829/18, 39008/18, 43957/18, 18424/19, 21243/19, 36063/19, 36119/19, 53305/19 and 19533/20, within three months, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount, which is to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 October 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Dorothee von Arnim Pauliine Koskelo  Deputy Registrar President     APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 49484/17 Kaplan v. Türkiye 13/04/2017 Ömer KAPLAN Ludwigsburg Turkish Sümeyye KAPLAN 2. 61090/17 Karataş v. Türkiye 05/08/2017 Mehmet KARATAŞ Kilis Turkish Zernişan KARATAŞ 3. 61722/17 Şeker v. Türkiye 11/05/2017 Serkan ŞEKER Adana Turkish Hasan GÜR 4. 69796/17 Taşdemir v. Türkiye 09/08/2017 Ersin TAŞDEMİR Istanbul Turkish Budak YILDIRIM 5. 70617/17 Bozkurt v. Türkiye 05/09/2017 Ünal BOZKURT Konya Turkish Hilal ZAMBAKCI 6. 74831/17 İleri v. Türkiye 09/10/2017 Ferda İLERİ Ankara Turkish Bedia Kübra İLERİ 7. 84563/17 Kaya v. Türkiye 27/11/2017 Nurullah KAYA Çorum Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ 8. 82/18 Koçyiğit v. Türkiye 28/11/2017 Atilla KOÇYİĞİT Ankara Turkish Hakkı KAYNAR 9. 3458/18 Dur v. Türkiye 04/01/2018 Bahattin DUR Erzurum Turkish Sebahattin DUR 10. 6946/18 Özkan v. Türkiye 12/01/2018 İlyas ÖZKAN Eskişehir Turkish Hüseyin Mahir ERDOĞMUŞ 11. 10288/18 Ertem v. Türkiye 31/01/2018 Yusuf ERTEM Ankara Turkish Burak ÇOLAK 12. 10773/18 Ulukapı v. Türkiye 07/02/2018 Ömer ULUKAPI Konya Turkish Mehmet Turgay BİLGE 13. 12045/18 Özgür v. Türkiye 02/03/2018 Güray ÖZGÜR Bursa Turkish   14. 16810/18 Açlan v. Türkiye 30/03/2018 Yener AÇLAN Adıyaman Turkish Gülhis YÖRÜK 15. 17289/18 Arslanbay v. Türkiye 29/03/2018 Davut ARSLANBAY Samsun Turkish Hatice ARSLANBAY 16. 17687/18 Evgin v. Türkiye 06/04/2018 Coșkun EVGİN Antalya Turkish Nurgül YAYMAN YILMAZ 17. 18046/18 Harmancı v. Türkiye 13/04/2018 Fatih Mehmet HARMANCI Ankara Turkish   18. 18692/18 Sekizkardeş v. Türkiye 03/04/2018 Ahmet Metin SEKİZKARDEŞ Istanbul Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ 19. 20355/18 Doğdu v. Türkiye 17/04/2018 Yusuf DOĞDU Ankara Turkish Faruk DEMİRKAPI 20. 21909/18 Karayeğen v. Türkiye 02/05/2018 İbrahim KARAYEĞEN Istanbul Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ 21. 23493/18 Çevik v. Türkiye 30/04/2018 Metin ÇEVİK Kütahya Turkish Nurten ÇEVİK 22. 23568/18 Akkuzey v. Türkiye 25/04/2018 Harun AKKUZEY Keskin / Kırıkkale Turkish   23. 23758/18 Ballı v. Türkiye 07/05/2018 Bahtiyar BALLI Istanbul Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 24. 23822/18 Özcan v. Türkiye 03/05/2018 Efrahim ÖZCAN Istanbul Turkish Büşra KURT KÜÇÜK 25. 23912/18 Özkökeli v. Türkiye 04/05/2018 Hakan ÖZKÖKELİ Afyonkarahisar Turkish Rana Nuran ODABAŞI 26. 23919/18 Özdemir v. Türkiye 04/05/2018 İsmail ÖZDEMİR Kayseri Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 27. 24612/18 Sazil v. Türkiye 15/05/2018 Selami SAZİL Osmaniye Turkish Sinan TUMLUKOLÇU 28. 24900/18 Parlak v. Türkiye 18/05/2018 Celil PARLAK Konya Turkish Mustafa DEMİR 29. 24919/18 Bozdağ v. Türkiye 17/05/2018 Ertuğrul BOZDAĞ Ankara Turkish İsmail Hakkı BAYAR 30. 25066/18 Bayraktar v. Türkiye 15/05/2018 Eyüp BAYRAKTAR Kütahya Turkish Engin SEMİN 31. 25241/18 Tekeci v. Türkiye 15/05/2018 Hüseyin TEKECİ Tekirdağ Turkish Dilara YILMAZ 32. 25253/18 Mete v. Türkiye 18/05/2018 Cihan METE Konya Turkish Özgün METE 33. 25893/18 Eroğlu v. Türkiye 28/05/2018 Muhammet EROĞLU Çankaya Turkish Yasemin Berna ASLANBAY 34. 26402/18 Karlı v. Türkiye 26/05/2018 Veli KARLI Onikişubat / Kahramanmaraş Turkish Emre KOZANDAĞI 35. 27732/18 Uçkan v. Türkiye 28/05/2018 Murat UÇKAN Van Turkish Elif KANDİLLİ 36. 29785/18 Güzel v. Türkiye 08/06/2018 Ebubekir GÜZEL Osmaniye Turkish İhsan MAKAS 37. 32458/18 Dağdeviren v. Türkiye 28/06/2018 Ümit DAĞDEVİREN Denizli Turkish Ahmet KOCABAŞ 38. 32460/18 Beydoğan v. Türkiye 22/06/2018 Turgut Ayhan BEYDOĞAN Voorhees Turkish   39. 32462/18 Dalkes v. Türkiye 21/06/2018 Mehmet DALKES Sakarya Turkish   40. 32465/18 Peker v. Türkiye 22/06/2018 Muhammed Enes PEKER Mersin Turkish Seyyit Hasan PEKER 41. 32617/18 Özdemir v. Türkiye 25/06/2018 Kamil ÖZDEMİR Çanakkale Turkish Zühal YÜZÜAK ÖZDEMİR 42. 32874/18 Kafa v. Türkiye 22/06/2018 Yusuf KAFA Afyonkarahisar Turkish   43. 32910/18 Doğan v. Türkiye 02/07/2018 Selami DOĞAN Kirıkkale Turkish Mustafa DOĞAN 44. 32949/18 Kalkan v. Türkiye 04/07/2018 Adil KALKAN Yozgat Turkish Havva Züleyha ARSLAN 45. 32965/18 Erken v. Türkiye 26/06/2018 Hasan ERKEN Kırıkkale Turkish Şükran ERKEN 46. 32970/18 Hasırcı v. Türkiye 04/07/2018 Cengiz HASIRCI Eskişehir Turkish Şahin HASIRCI 47. 33003/18 Persil v. Türkiye 26/06/2018 Yıldıray PERSİL Ankara Turkish İsmet ÇELİK 48. 33009/18 Sezer v. Türkiye 02/07/2018 Fatih SEZER Bursa Turkish   49. 33043/18 Harmankaya v. Türkiye 26/06/2018 Recep HARMANKAYA Konya Turkish Nazlı HARMANKAYA DİNÇER 50. 33046/18 Erdoğdu v. Türkiye 26/06/2018 Salih ERDOĞDU Adana Turkish Leyla MESUTOĞLU 51. 33156/18 Arslan v. Türkiye 18/06/2018 Yılmaz ARSLAN Ankara Turkish Furkan ARSLAN 52. 33330/18 Kablan v. Türkiye 11/07/2018 Ali KABLAN Denizli Turkish Ahmet KOCABAŞ 53. 33836/18 Demir v. Türkiye 16/03/2018 Mehmet DEMİR Adana Turkish Belma KAYRAN 54. 33856/18 Taç v. Türkiye 03/07/2018 Ahmet TAÇ Kütahya Turkish Furkan BURHAN 55. 33857/18 Koçlar v. Türkiye 09/07/2018 Mehmet KOÇLAR Denizli Turkish Ahmet KOCABAŞ 56. 33862/18 Akbey v. Türkiye 05/07/2018 Mehmet Ümit AKBEY Istanbul Turkish   57. 33972/18 Erdemir v. Türkiye 28/06/2018 Nesli Zeynep ERDEMİR İzmir Turkish Melda ALBUZ 58. 34180/18 Toygar v. Türkiye 07/07/2018 Alperen TOYGAR Mersin Turkish Çiğdem DERDİYOK KUBULAN 59. 34184/18 Demir v. Türkiye 07/07/2018 Ahmet DEMİR Mersin Turkish Çiğdem DERDİYOK KUBULAN 60. 34190/18 Cebeci v. Türkiye 03/07/2018 Abdullah CEBECİ Istanbul Turkish Yavuz YEŞİLYURT 61. 34413/18 Kaplan v. Türkiye 26/02/2018 Yalçın KAPLAN Ankara Turkish Lale KARADAŞ 62. 34565/18 Güngör v. Türkiye 17/07/2018 Akif GÜNGÖR Ankara Turkish Tuğba Nur KIYMAZ 63. 34765/18 Gülümser v. Türkiye 16/07/2018 Semih GÜLÜMSER Bursa Turkish Çiğdem DERDİYOK KUBULAN 64. 35118/18 Uçar v. Türkiye 10/07/2018 Mehmet Emin UÇAR Osmaniye Turkish   65. 35188/18 Şimşek v. Türkiye 06/07/2018 Taner ŞİMŞEK Antalya Turkish Kamile KILDAN 66. 35191/18 Çatal v. Türkiye 07/07/2018 Ümit ÇATAL Malatya Turkish Bülent BANAZILI 67. 35293/18 Aktaş v. Türkiye 16/07/2018 Halil AKTAŞ Mülheim Turkish Büşra DİNÇER 68. 35427/18 Yapan v. Türkiye 05/07/2018 Murat YAPAN Zonguldak Turkish Ahmet ÖZDİN 69. 35446/18 Taşdemir v. Türkiye 03/07/2018 Hüseyin TAŞDEMİR Şanlıurfa Turkish Muhammed Mustafa GÜRSOY 70. 35548/18 Danış v. Türkiye 18/07/2018 Bilal DANIŞ İzmir Turkish   71. 35621/18 Aydın v. Türkiye 12/07/2018 Yavuz AYDIN Antalya Turkish İshak IŞIK 72. 35642/18 Yivli v. Türkiye 20/07/2018 Hayati YİVLİ Ankara Turkish Halil ŞAHİN 73. 35661/18 Sarıca v. Türkiye 13/07/2018 Ahmet SARICA Denizli Turkish Bilal Eren MASKAN 74. 35671/18 Gürler v. Türkiye 09/07/2018 Mücahit GÜRLER Odunpazarı / ESKİŞEHİR Turkish Ömer Yasin KORU 75. 35694/18 Karagülmez v. Türkiye 13/07/2018 Fevzi KARAGÜLMEZ Ankara Turkish Hidayet KARAGÜLMEZ 76. 35707/18 Tokar v. Türkiye 11/07/2018 Mustafa TOKAR Van Turkish Hatice Kübra EKİCİ 77. 35958/18 Sarı v. Türkiye 23/07/2018 Mustafa SARI Ankara Turkish Ömer MANTI 78. 36107/18 Bağcı v. Türkiye 24/07/2018 Süleyman BAĞCI Konya Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 79. 36169/18 Can v. Türkiye 24/07/2018 Engin CAN Tekirdağ Turkish Mehmet Ertürk ERDEVİR 80. 36236/18 Tümer v. Türkiye 16/07/2018 Yusuf TÜMER Ankara Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 81. 36275/18 Kurt v. Türkiye 16/07/2018 Halil KURT Kütahya Turkish Enes ÖZTÜRK 82. 36369/18 Gençer v. Türkiye 17/07/2018 Muhammed Fatih GENÇER Antalya Turkish Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ 83. 36636/18 Demir v. Türkiye 11/07/2018 Nevzat DEMİR Tokat Turkish Şeyma MISIRLIOĞLU 84. 37106/18 Ayık v. Türkiye 06/07/2018 Kağan Serhan AYIK Ankara Turkish Süleyman Serdar BALKANLI 85. 37242/18 Avcu v. Türkiye 18/07/2018 Arif AVCU Çorum Turkish Kübra KAZANCI TOSUN 86. 37271/18 Erol v. Türkiye 02/08/2018 Mustafa EROL Ankara Turkish Ahmet EROL 87. 37342/18 Üzel v. Türkiye 02/08/2018 Ferhat ÜZEL Ankara Turkish Özgür KUMAŞ 88. 37483/18 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 26/07/2018 Suat YILMAZ Ankara Turkish   89. 37723/18 Kambur v. Türkiye 30/07/2018 Vedat KAMBUR Manisa Turkish Hüseyin ÖZÇELİK 90. 37838/18 Ulusu v. Türkiye 03/08/2018 Mustafa ULUSU Manisa Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 91. 38511/18 Gülver v. Türkiye 06/08/2018 Murat GÜLVER Yalova Turkish Burhan DEMİRCİ 92. 38636/18 Şahin v. Türkiye 02/08/2018 Ömer ŞAHİN Eskişehir Turkish Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ 93. 38707/18 Akbacak v. Türkiye 06/08/2018 Muhammet AKBACAK Ankara Turkish Özgür KUMAŞ 94. 38766/18 Mayda v. Türkiye 03/08/2018 Yusuf MAYDA Ankara Turkish Veysel MAYDA 95. 38788/18 Akın v. Türkiye 06/08/2018 Nilgün AKIN Kayseri Turkish Nilgün ÖĞÜNÇLÜ 96. 38829/18 Yollu v. Türkiye 30/07/2018 Mustafa YOLLU Çanakkale Turkish Gökmen İLHAN 97. 38953/18 Karakaş v. Türkiye 09/08/2018 Niyazi KARAKAŞ Manisa Turkish Asım Burak GÜNEŞ 98. 38978/18 Aşık v. Türkiye 03/08/2018 Ökkeş AŞIK Ankara Turkish   99. 39008/18 Çeken v. Türkiye 09/08/2018 Selim ÇEKEN Kocaeli Turkish   100. 39038/18 Tunç v. Türkiye 03/08/2018 Selami TUNÇ Kocaeli Turkish İsmail ÇELİK 101. 39098/18 Ünal v. Türkiye 11/07/2018 Ömer ÜNAL Zonguldak Turkish Nazike ÜNAL 102. 41128/18 Yayla v. Türkiye 09/08/2018 Sadık YAYLA Uşak Turkish Nihat KILIÇ 103. 42382/18 Çetintaş v. Türkiye 04/09/2018 Ümit ÇETİNTAŞ Ankara Turkish Esra GURLAŞ 104. 43239/18 Tümüklü v. Türkiye 08/09/2018 Tayfun TÜMÜKLÜ Çorum Turkish Yakup GÖNEN 105. 43957/18 Akpınar v. Türkiye 05/09/2018 Adem AKPINAR Eskişehir Turkish   106. 44166/18 Karagöz v. Türkiye 11/09/2018 Tevfik KARAGÖZ İzmir Turkish Hanifi BAYRI 107. 45288/18 Şahin v. Türkiye 19/09/2018 Kemal ŞAHİN Istanbul Turkish Fatih ŞAHİNLER 108. 45911/18 Şeker v. Türkiye 22/09/2018 Emrah ŞEKER Tokat Turkish Arzu Sema YALÇIN 109. 50048/18 Demirtaş v. Türkiye 12/10/2018 Şaban DEMİRTAŞ Düzce Turkish Betül KAYA 110. 53396/18 Coşkun v. Türkiye 31/10/2018 Ahmet Atilla COŞKUN Osmaniye Turkish Ayşe ARAS KÜÇÜKDEVLET 111. 58245/18 Orhan v. Türkiye 22/11/2018 İlhan ORHAN Malatya Turkish   112. 2270/19 Erdoğuş v. Türkiye 30/11/2018 Şemun ERDOĞUŞ İzmir Turkish   113. 2275/19 Uludağ v. Türkiye 19/12/2018 Mehmet ULUDAĞ Istanbul Turkish Meryem YAŞAR KARAYAZGAN 114. 2514/19 Salman v. Türkiye 17/12/2018 Halit SALMAN Afyonkarahisar Turkish Tevfik KARTAL 115. 4188/19 Soytekin v. Türkiye 11/01/2019 Tanju SOYTEKİN İzmit Turkish Ahmet EROL 116. 6739/19 Sertkaya v. Türkiye 24/01/2019 Nureda SERTKAYA Tekirdağ Turkish   117. 6822/19 Çetin v. Türkiye 17/01/2019 İlhan ÇETİN Afyonkarahisar Turkish Ahmet Can DEMİRCİ 118. 6904/19 Özçimen v. Türkiye 16/01/2019 İbrahim ÖZÇİMEN Düzce Turkish Nezahat ÖZÇİMEN 119. 7441/19 Söker v. Türkiye 16/01/2019 Ğarip SÖKER Ankara Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ (DANACIOĞLU) 120. 12039/19 Alaf v. Türkiye 19/02/2019 Bayram ALAF Ankara Turkish   121. 12470/19 Bulut v. Türkiye 22/02/2019 Mehmet Ali BULUT İzmir Turkish Akif Fikri TOMAN 122. 12701/19 Kuş v. Türkiye 20/02/2019 Sebahattin KUŞ Ankara Turkish Adem DEMİREL 123. 12712/19 Keskin v. Türkiye 19/02/2019 Halit KESKİN Ankara Turkish Elif Nurbanu OR 124. 13014/19 Ekici v. Türkiye 21/02/2019 İkram EKİCİ Antalya Turkish Suat Erhan DAYIOĞLU 125. 13224/19 Eken v. Türkiye 26/02/2019 Fatih EKEN Konya Turkish Muhammed Talha YILMAZ 126. 14154/19 Mert v. Türkiye 02/03/2019 Ramazan MERT Afyonkarahisar Turkish Ahmet ZEYBEKOĞLU 127. 14269/19 Yeni v. Türkiye 01/03/2019 Ünsal YENİ Aydın Turkish Zeynep Sedef ÖZDOĞAN 128. 14495/19 Çağlı v. Türkiye 11/03/2019 Bilal ÇAĞLI Denizli Turkish İsmail KAPLAN 129. 14500/19 Günay v. Türkiye 25/02/2019 Habip GÜNAY Düzce Turkish Sema GÜNAY 130. 14949/19 Biçer v. Türkiye 07/03/2019 Osman BİÇER Çorum Turkish Selma BİÇER 131. 15202/19 Akdın v. Türkiye 07/03/2019 Murat AKDIN Aydın Turkish Büşra KURT KÜÇÜK 132. 15308/19 Kahraman v. Türkiye 25/02/2019 Ferhat KAHRAMAN Çankırı Turkish Enes Burak ÖZDEMİR 133. 16007/19 Çelik v. Türkiye 15/03/2019 Mehmet ÇELİK Ankara Turkish Ulviye Özge CAZ ÖZKAYA 134. 16290/19 Dalan v. Türkiye 04/03/2019 Mustafa DALAN Kastamonu Turkish Ahmet Aykut YILDIZ 135. 16685/19 Sucu v. Türkiye 21/03/2019 Mehmet Alim SUCU Mersin Turkish Tuğba Nur KIYMAZ 136. 16909/19 Günerigök v. Türkiye 08/03/2019 Hamza GÜNERİGÖK Adana Turkish Arafat SAV 137. 17210/19 Demirağ v. Türkiye 14/03/2019 Mustafa DEMIRAĞ Bolu Turkish Merve Vildan DUMAN 138. 17275/19 Karabudak v. Türkiye 15/03/2019 İlhan KARABUDAK İzmir Turkish Kadriye Nur AYTAÇ 139. 18420/19 Demirci v. Türkiye 15/03/2019 Yakup DEMİRCİ Kars Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 140. 18424/19 Köse v. Türkiye 12/03/2019 Hasan KÖSE İzmir Turkish   141. 18452/19 Soykan v. Türkiye 29/03/2019 Sinan SOYKAN Antalya Turkish İshak IŞIK 142. 18475/19 Özer v. Türkiye 26/03/2019 Mustafa ÖZER İzmir Turkish Fatma Nur TARAMIŞ 143. 18628/19 Yavuz v. Türkiye 26/03/2019 Zeynal YAVUZ Mersin Turkish Neslihan ÖZATLI SOĞUK 144. 18747/19 Sertçe v. Türkiye 25/03/2019 Selahattin SERTÇE Istanbul Turkish Lale KARADAŞ 145. 20131/19 Selvi v. Türkiye 01/04/2019 Abdullah SELVİ Afyon Turkish Şirin DEMİR 146. 20295/19 Uzekmek v. Türkiye 11/04/2019 Hüseyin UZEKMEK Sakarya Turkish Savaş Barış PEKER 147. 20316/19 Kaya v. Türkiye 06/04/2019 Fatih Mehmet KAYA Ankara Turkish Cemile Sabine DOĞAN 148. 21147/19 Şener v. Türkiye 26/02/2019 İsmail ŞENER Istanbul Turkish Vahide ŞENER 149. 21166/19 Bağlan v. Türkiye 12/04/2019 Süleyman BAĞLAN Hatay Turkish Begüm Merve AÇIKGÖZ 150. 21212/19 Koka v. Türkiye 22/03/2019 İhsan KOKA Antalya Turkish Nurgül YAYMAN YILMAZ 151. 21243/19 Kayhan v. Türkiye 11/04/2019 Akın KAYHAN Uşak Turkish Hüseyin TÜRKMEN 152. 21537/19 Uzal v. Türkiye 29/03/2019 Muharrem UZAL Sinop Turkish   153. 21665/19 Yıldırım v. Türkiye 03/04/2019 Mahmut YILDIRIM Düzce Turkish Kübra YILDIRIM 154. 21696/19 Çiçek v. Türkiye 16/04/2019 Bedretin ÇİÇEK Şanlıurfa Turkish Melek KOÇYİĞİT 155. 22197/19 Taştan v. Türkiye 16/04/2019 Halil TAŞTAN Şanlıurfa Turkish Gülistan TAŞTAN 156. 22341/19 Köse v. Türkiye 19/04/2019 Davut KÖSE Uşak Turkish Ayşe KÖSE 157. 22882/19 Yiğit v. Türkiye 17/04/2019 Orhan YİĞİT Samsun Turkish Fatih İNCELER 158. 23652/19 Arıöz v. Türkiye 12/04/2019 Mahmut İlker ARIÖZ Niğde Turkish Ahmet Oğuz ÖZMEN 159. 24558/19 Şener v. Türkiye 25/04/2019 Bülent ŞENER Samsun Turkish Mehmet Fatih İÇER 160. 24961/19 Sözen v. Türkiye 30/04/2019 Yusuf SÖZEN Turkish Ekrem KAYA 161. 27557/19 Çıtız v. Türkiye 07/05/2019 Nezih ÇITIZ Elazığ Turkish Mehmet Sıddık KARAGÖZ 162. 27781/19 L.T. v. Türkiye 10/05/2019 L.T. İzmir Turkish Arzu DEMİRCİ 163. 27956/19 Görüşen v. Türkiye 06/05/2019 Hüseyin GÖRÜŞEN Gaziantep Turkish Mehmet Fatih İÇER 164. 27979/19 Eroğlu v. Türkiye 14/05/2019 Murat EROĞLU Ankara Turkish İrem GÜNEŞ (DANACIOĞLU) 165. 29371/19 Akyol v. Türkiye 24/04/2019 Yusuf AKYOL Aydın Turkish Esra Nur AKYOL 166. 30306/19 Özdemir v. Türkiye 27/05/2019 Galip ÖZDEMİR İzmir Turkish Mine ÖZTÜRK 167. 30320/19 Demir v. Türkiye 22/05/2019 Hakan DEMİR İzmir Turkish Aslıhan EKER 168. 30361/19 Gürsu v. Türkiye 20/05/2019 Emrah GÜRSU Elazığ Turkish Abdullah GÜRSU 169. 33066/19 Terzi v. Türkiye 21/05/2019 Murat TERZİ Ankara Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 170. 33099/19 Çimentepe v. Türkiye 31/05/2019 Mahir ÇİMENTEPE Ankara Turkish Utku Coşkuner SAKARYA 171. 33785/19 Demirci v. Türkiye 16/05/2019 Zeki DEMİRCİ Keçiören Turkish Mehmet Emin DEMİRCİ 172. 35017/19 Kömürcü v. Türkiye 02/07/2019 Halim KÖMÜRCÜ Manisa Turkish Zeyt Enes KÖMÜRCÜ 173. 35208/19 Ayaz v. Türkiye 14/06/2019 Harun AYAZ Ankara Turkish Alperen ORAK 174. 35390/19 Kılıç v. Türkiye 21/06/2019 Bekir KILIÇ Kahramanmaraş Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 175. 36063/19 Gürçay v. Türkiye 22/06/2019 Özcan GÜRÇAY Istanbul Turkish Merve GÜRÇAY 176. 36119/19 Gülmez v. Türkiye 29/05/2019 Ömer GÜLMEZ Yozgat Turkish Mustafa GÜLMEZ 177. 36167/19 Cevri v. Türkiye 19/06/2019 Adem CEVRİ Gaziantep Turkish Mehmet Sıddık KARAGÖZ 178. 36225/19 Acartürk v. Türkiye 03/07/2019 Ertuğrul ACARTÜRK Aydın Turkish Bedirhan ACARTÜRK 179. 36532/19 Genç v. Türkiye 25/06/2019 Abdurrahman GENÇ Denizli Turkish Hamdi YAKUT 180. 37003/19 Yavuz v. Türkiye 02/07/2019 Serkan YAVUZ Antalya Turkish Zaliha VARLI 181. 38657/19 Kayaaltı v. Türkiye 18/07/2019 Yalçın KAYAALTI Aydın Turkish   182. 40373/19 Kurak v. Türkiye 18/07/2019 Nurevşan KURAK Malatya Turkish Gülsüm EKİNCİ 183. 46761/19 Akdemir v. Türkiye 02/09/2019 Tayfur AKDEMİR Ankara Turkish Tuğba Nur KIYMAZ 184. 48665/19 Kenan v. Türkiye 13/09/2019 Hayrettin KENAN Istanbul Turkish Burak ÇAĞ 185. 50842/19 Çöpcü v. Türkiye 27/08/2019 Selami ÇÖPCÜ Samsun Turkish Ünver ÖZGÜL 186. 52327/19 Yeşilbaş v. Türkiye 03/09/2019 Mehmet YEŞİLBAŞ Ordu Turkish Nihat KILIÇ 187. 53305/19 Aygün v. Türkiye 27/09/2019 Hulusi AYGÜN Tekirdağ Turkish Veysel MALKOÇ 188. 53731/19 Gezgin v. Türkiye 07/10/2019 Mustafa GEZGİN Denizli Turkish Gültekin AKKURT 189. 56692/19 Uşan v. Türkiye 16/10/2019 Osman Asım UŞAN Aydın Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 190. 59970/19 Karakurt v. Türkiye 07/11/2019 Bilal KARAKURT Bursa Turkish Çiğdem DERDİYOK KUBULAN 191. 61190/19 Toparlak v. Türkiye 08/11/2019 Cemcenker TOPARLAK Samsun Turkish Yakup GÖNEN 192. 62700/19 Özer v. Türkiye 29/11/2019 Mehmet ÖZER Istanbul Turkish Sumru AKTAŞ 193. 1379/20 Kaan v. Türkiye 17/12/2019 İsmail KAAN İzmir Turkish İsa KAYA 194. 2913/20 Pala v. Türkiye 26/12/2019 Zeynep PALA Malatya Turkish Merve TURAN TÜRKOĞLU 195. 5593/20 Çelik v. Türkiye 15/01/2020 Safa ÇELİK Istanbul Turkish Yakup GÖNEN 196. 7005/20 Cuma v. Türkiye 17/01/2020 Ahmet CUMA Aydın Turkish Zeynep Sedef ÖZDOĞAN 197. 7583/20 Çetin v. Türkiye 27/01/2020 Emre ÇETİN Istanbul Turkish Ahmet EROL 198. 8206/20 Etgül v. Türkiye 24/01/2020 Sezgin ETGÜL Diyarbakır Turkish Özcan BARUT 199. 8725/20 Gülümser v. Türkiye 07/02/2020 Ahmet GÜLÜMSER Istanbul Turkish Budak YILDIRIM 200. 11513/20 Çelikkaya v. Türkiye 19/02/2020 Ahmet ÇELİKKAYA Bolu Turkish Mebruke Şeyma ÇELİKKAYA 201. 19533/20 Ünal v. Türkiye 11/05/2020 Ali ÜNAL Trabzon Turkish Hatice YILMAZ 202. 19966/20 Ekinci v. Türkiye 13/08/2020 Harun EKİNCİ Ankara Turkish Özcan BARUT 203. 23623/20 Çakır v. Türkiye 15/05/2020 Feyhan ÇAKIR İzmir Turkish Levent KAHYA 204. 24400/20 Döşer v. Türkiye 15/06/2020 Taha Murat DÖŞER Istanbul Turkish Cahit ÇİFTÇİ 205. 25204/20 Bülbül v. Türkiye 05/06/2020 Yusuf BÜLBÜL İzmir Turkish İsa KAYA 206. 26138/20 Trakyalı v. Türkiye 18/06/2020 Halil TRAKYALI Manisa Turkish Levent KAHYA 207. 30992/20 Tatoğlu v. Türkiye 06/07/2020 Yakup TATOĞLU Düzce Turkish Melda ALBUZ 208. 34736/20 Mercan v. Türkiye 07/08/2020 Yusuf MERCAN Yozgat Turkish Kübra KAZANCI TOSUN 209. 36649/20 Karakoç v. Türkiye 07/08/2020 Mustafa KARAKOÇ Elazığ Turkish Özcan AKINCI 210. 43535/20 Aydın v. Türkiye 28/09/2020 Fahrittin AYDIN Bolu Turkish Mebruke Şeyma ÇELİKKAYA 211. 43956/20 Dündar v. Türkiye 24/09/2020 Caner DÜNDAR Ankara Turkish Hasan TOK 212. 46450/20 Kocagümüş v. Türkiye 09/10/2020 Gülsüm KOCAGÜMÜŞ İzmir Turkish Kadriye TÜMEN 213. 50838/20 Bukan v. Türkiye 05/11/2020 Mesut BUKAN Ankara Turkish Mehmet ÖNCÜ 214. 51282/20 Güçlü v. Türkiye 15/11/2019 Aykut GÜÇLÜ Ankara Turkish Okan GÜNEL 215. 51931/20 Altun v. Türkiye 18/08/2020 Harun ALTUN Ankara Turkish Yakup GÖNEN 216. 53937/20 Çaputcu v. Türkiye 13/11/2020 Mehmet ÇAPUTCU Muğla Turkish Muhammet Taha SEVİLİ 217. 54367/20 Bilgiç v. Türkiye 30/11/2020 Mustafa BİLGİÇ Kastamonu Turkish Hamit Serdar YILMAZ 218. 142/21 Deyer v. Türkiye 02/12/2020 Selim DEYER Eskişehir Turkish Okan GÜNEL 219. 2607/21 Sevinç v. Türkiye 22/12/2020 Murat SEVİNÇ İzmir Turkish Kadriye TÜMEN 220. 14169/21 Demirhan v. Türkiye 10/03/2021 Nazife DEMİRHAN İzmir Turkish Kübra GÜLAÇTI 221. 20454/21 Güler v. Türkiye 06/04/2021 Yakup GÜLER Ankara Turkish Numan ZEMHERİ 222. 21688/21 Doğan v. Türkiye 08/04/2021 Betül DOĞAN Gebze Turkish Tufan YILMAZ 223. 39388/21 Gül v. Türkiye 16/07/2021 Abdulkadir GÜL Ankara Turkish Asiye KÜÇÜKBALCI