BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> KAPLAN AND OTHERS v. TURKIYE - 49484/17 (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security : Second Section Committee) [2024] ECHR 821 (22 October 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2024/821.html Cite as: [2024] ECHR 821 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
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
I. 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.
II. 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.
III. 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,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. 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;
3. 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;
4. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants' remaining complaints under Article 5 of the Convention;
5. 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;
6. 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:
|
Application no. |
Case name |
Lodged on |
Applicant |
Represented by | |
|
1. |
49484/17 |
Kaplan v. Türkiye |
13/04/2017 |
Ömer KAPLAN |
Sümeyye KAPLAN |
|
2. |
61090/17 |
Karataş v. Türkiye |
05/08/2017 |
Mehmet KARATAŞ |
Zernişan KARATAŞ |
|
3. |
61722/17 |
Şeker v. Türkiye |
11/05/2017 |
Serkan ŞEKER |
Hasan GÜR |
|
4. |
69796/17 |
Taşdemir v. Türkiye |
09/08/2017 |
Ersin TAŞDEMİR |
Budak YILDIRIM |
|
5. |
70617/17 |
Bozkurt v. Türkiye |
05/09/2017 |
Ünal BOZKURT |
Hilal ZAMBAKCI |
|
6. |
74831/17 |
İleri v. Türkiye |
09/10/2017 |
Ferda İLERİ |
Bedia Kübra İLERİ |
|
7. |
84563/17 |
Kaya v. Türkiye |
27/11/2017 |
Nurullah KAYA |
Mehmet ÖNCÜ |
|
8. |
82/18 |
Koçyiğit v. Türkiye |
28/11/2017 |
Atilla KOÇYİĞİT |
Hakkı KAYNAR |
|
9. |
3458/18 |
Dur v. Türkiye |
04/01/2018 |
Bahattin DUR |
Sebahattin DUR |
|
10. |
6946/18 |
Özkan v. Türkiye |
12/01/2018 |
İlyas ÖZKAN |
Hüseyin Mahir ERDOĞMUŞ |
|
11. |
10288/18 |
Ertem v. Türkiye |
31/01/2018 |
Yusuf ERTEM |
Burak ÇOLAK |
|
12. |
10773/18 |
Ulukapı v. Türkiye |
07/02/2018 |
Ömer ULUKAPI |
Mehmet Turgay BİLGE |
|
13. |
12045/18 |
Özgür v. Türkiye |
02/03/2018 |
Güray ÖZGÜR | |
|
14. |
16810/18 |
Açlan v. Türkiye |
30/03/2018 |
Yener AÇLAN |
Gülhis YÖRÜK |
|
15. |
17289/18 |
Arslanbay v. Türkiye |
29/03/2018 |
Davut ARSLANBAY |
Hatice ARSLANBAY |
|
16. |
17687/18 |
Evgin v. Türkiye |
06/04/2018 |
Coșkun EVGİN |
Nurgül YAYMAN YILMAZ |
|
17. |
18046/18 |
Harmancı v. Türkiye |
13/04/2018 |
Fatih Mehmet HARMANCI | |
|
18. |
18692/18 |
Sekizkardeş v. Türkiye |
03/04/2018 |
Ahmet Metin SEKİZKARDEŞ |
Mehmet ÖNCÜ |
|
19. |
20355/18 |
Doğdu v. Türkiye |
17/04/2018 |
Yusuf DOĞDU |
Faruk DEMİRKAPI |
|
20. |
21909/18 |
Karayeğen v. Türkiye |
02/05/2018 |
İbrahim KARAYEĞEN |
Mehmet ÖNCÜ |
|
21. |
23493/18 |
Çevik v. Türkiye |
30/04/2018 |
Metin ÇEVİK |
Nurten ÇEVİK |
|
22. |
23568/18 |
Akkuzey v. Türkiye |
25/04/2018 |
Harun AKKUZEY | |
|
23. |
23758/18 |
Ballı v. Türkiye |
07/05/2018 |
Bahtiyar BALLI |
Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ |
|
24. |
23822/18 |
Özcan v. Türkiye |
03/05/2018 |
Efrahim ÖZCAN |
Büşra KURT KÜÇÜK |
|
25. |
23912/18 |
Özkökeli v. Türkiye |
04/05/2018 |
Hakan ÖZKÖKELİ |
Rana Nuran ODABAŞI |
|
26. |
23919/18 |
Özdemir v. Türkiye |
04/05/2018 |
İsmail ÖZDEMİR |
Kadir ÖZTÜRK |
|
27. |
24612/18 |
Sazil v. Türkiye |
15/05/2018 |
Selami SAZİL |
Sinan TUMLUKOLÇU |
|
28. |
24900/18 |
Parlak v. Türkiye |
18/05/2018 |
Celil PARLAK |
Mustafa DEMİR |
|
29. |
24919/18 |
Bozdağ v. Türkiye |
17/05/2018 |
Ertuğrul BOZDAĞ |
İsmail Hakkı BAYAR |
|
30. |
25066/18 |
Bayraktar v. Türkiye |
15/05/2018 |
Eyüp BAYRAKTAR |
Engin SEMİN |
|
31. |
25241/18 |
Tekeci v. Türkiye |
15/05/2018 |
Hüseyin TEKECİ |
Dilara YILMAZ |
|
32. |
25253/18 |
Mete v. Türkiye |
18/05/2018 |
Cihan METE |
Özgün METE |
|
33. |
25893/18 |
Eroğlu v. Türkiye |
28/05/2018 |
Muhammet EROĞLU |
Yasemin Berna ASLANBAY |
|
34. |
26402/18 |
Karlı v. Türkiye |
26/05/2018 |
Veli KARLI |
Emre KOZANDAĞI |
|
35. |
27732/18 |
Uçkan v. Türkiye |
28/05/2018 |
Murat UÇKAN |
Elif KANDİLLİ |
|
36. |
29785/18 |
Güzel v. Türkiye |
08/06/2018 |
Ebubekir GÜZEL |
İhsan MAKAS |
|
37. |
32458/18 |
Dağdeviren v. Türkiye |
28/06/2018 |
Ümit DAĞDEVİREN |
Ahmet KOCABAŞ |
|
38. |
32460/18 |
Beydoğan v. Türkiye |
22/06/2018 |
Turgut Ayhan BEYDOĞAN | |
|
39. |
32462/18 |
Dalkes v. Türkiye |
21/06/2018 |
Mehmet DALKES | |
|
40. |
32465/18 |
Peker v. Türkiye |
22/06/2018 |
Muhammed Enes PEKER |
Seyyit Hasan PEKER |
|
41. |
32617/18 |
Özdemir v. Türkiye |
25/06/2018 |
Kamil ÖZDEMİR |
Zühal YÜZÜAK ÖZDEMİR |
|
42. |
32874/18 |
Kafa v. Türkiye |
22/06/2018 |
Yusuf KAFA | |
|
43. |
32910/18 |
Doğan v. Türkiye |
02/07/2018 |
Selami DOĞAN |
Mustafa DOĞAN |
|
44. |
32949/18 |
Kalkan v. Türkiye |
04/07/2018 |
Adil KALKAN |
Havva Züleyha ARSLAN |
|
45. |
32965/18 |
Erken v. Türkiye |
26/06/2018 |
Hasan ERKEN |
Şükran ERKEN |
|
46. |
32970/18 |
Hasırcı v. Türkiye |
04/07/2018 |
Cengiz HASIRCI |
Şahin HASIRCI |
|
47. |
33003/18 |
Persil v. Türkiye |
26/06/2018 |
Yıldıray PERSİL |
İsmet ÇELİK |
|
48. |
33009/18 |
Sezer v. Türkiye |
02/07/2018 |
Fatih SEZER | |
|
49. |
33043/18 |
Harmankaya v. Türkiye |
26/06/2018 |
Recep HARMANKAYA |
Nazlı HARMANKAYA DİNÇER |
|
50. |
33046/18 |
Erdoğdu v. Türkiye |
26/06/2018 |
Salih ERDOĞDU |
Leyla MESUTOĞLU |
|
51. |
33156/18 |
Arslan v. Türkiye |
18/06/2018 |
Yılmaz ARSLAN |
Furkan ARSLAN |
|
52. |
33330/18 |
Kablan v. Türkiye |
11/07/2018 |
Ali KABLAN |
Ahmet KOCABAŞ |
|
53. |
33836/18 |
Demir v. Türkiye |
16/03/2018 |
Mehmet DEMİR |
Belma KAYRAN |
|
54. |
33856/18 |
Taç v. Türkiye |
03/07/2018 |
Ahmet TAÇ |
Furkan BURHAN |
|
55. |
33857/18 |
Koçlar v. Türkiye |
09/07/2018 |
Mehmet KOÇLAR |
Ahmet KOCABAŞ |
|
56. |
33862/18 |
Akbey v. Türkiye |
05/07/2018 |
Mehmet Ümit AKBEY | |
|
57. |
33972/18 |
Erdemir v. Türkiye |
28/06/2018 |
Nesli Zeynep ERDEMİR |
Melda ALBUZ |
|
58. |
34180/18 |
Toygar v. Türkiye |
07/07/2018 |
Alperen TOYGAR |
Çiğdem DERDİYOK KUBULAN |
|
59. |
34184/18 |
Demir v. Türkiye |
07/07/2018 |
Ahmet DEMİR |
Çiğdem DERDİYOK KUBULAN |
|
60. |
34190/18 |
Cebeci v. Türkiye |
03/07/2018 |
Abdullah CEBECİ |
Yavuz YEŞİLYURT |
|
61. |
34413/18 |
Kaplan v. Türkiye |
26/02/2018 |
Yalçın KAPLAN |
Lale KARADAŞ |
|
62. |
34565/18 |
Güngör v. Türkiye |
17/07/2018 |
Akif GÜNGÖR |
Tuğba Nur KIYMAZ |
|
63. |
34765/18 |
Gülümser v. Türkiye |
16/07/2018 |
Semih GÜLÜMSER |
Çiğdem DERDİYOK KUBULAN |
|
64. |
35118/18 |
Uçar v. Türkiye |
10/07/2018 |
Mehmet Emin UÇAR | |
|
65. |
35188/18 |
Şimşek v. Türkiye |
06/07/2018 |
Taner ŞİMŞEK |
Kamile KILDAN |
|
66. |
35191/18 |
Çatal v. Türkiye |
07/07/2018 |
Ümit ÇATAL |
Bülent BANAZILI |
|
67. |
35293/18 |
Aktaş v. Türkiye |
16/07/2018 |
Halil AKTAŞ |
Büşra DİNÇER |
|
68. |
35427/18 |
Yapan v. Türkiye |
05/07/2018 |
Murat YAPAN |
Ahmet ÖZDİN |
|
69. |
35446/18 |
Taşdemir v. Türkiye |
03/07/2018 |
Hüseyin TAŞDEMİR |
Muhammed Mustafa GÜRSOY |
|
70. |
35548/18 |
Danış v. Türkiye |
18/07/2018 |
Bilal DANIŞ | |
|
71. |
35621/18 |
Aydın v. Türkiye |
12/07/2018 |
Yavuz AYDIN |
İshak IŞIK |
|
72. |
35642/18 |
Yivli v. Türkiye |
20/07/2018 |
Hayati YİVLİ |
Halil ŞAHİN |
|
73. |
35661/18 |
Sarıca v. Türkiye |
13/07/2018 |
Ahmet SARICA |
Bilal Eren MASKAN |
|
74. |
35671/18 |
Gürler v. Türkiye |
09/07/2018 |
Mücahit GÜRLER |
Ömer Yasin KORU |
|
75. |
35694/18 |
Karagülmez v. Türkiye |
13/07/2018 |
Fevzi KARAGÜLMEZ |
Hidayet KARAGÜLMEZ |
|
76. |
35707/18 |
Tokar v. Türkiye |
11/07/2018 |
Mustafa TOKAR |
Hatice Kübra EKİCİ |
|
77. |
35958/18 |
Sarı v. Türkiye |
23/07/2018 |
Mustafa SARI |
Ömer MANTI |
|
78. |
36107/18 |
Bağcı v. Türkiye |
24/07/2018 |
Süleyman BAĞCI |
Kadir ÖZTÜRK |
|
79. |
36169/18 |
Can v. Türkiye |
24/07/2018 |
Engin CAN |
Mehmet Ertürk ERDEVİR |
|
80. |
36236/18 |
Tümer v. Türkiye |
16/07/2018 |
Yusuf TÜMER |
Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ |
|
81. |
36275/18 |
Kurt v. Türkiye |
16/07/2018 |
Halil KURT |
Enes ÖZTÜRK |
|
82. |
36369/18 |
Gençer v. Türkiye |
17/07/2018 |
Muhammed Fatih GENÇER |
Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ |
|
83. |
36636/18 |
Demir v. Türkiye |
11/07/2018 |
Nevzat DEMİR |
Şeyma MISIRLIOĞLU |
|
84. |
37106/18 |
Ayık v. Türkiye |
06/07/2018 |
Kağan Serhan AYIK |
Süleyman Serdar BALKANLI |
|
85. |
37242/18 |
Avcu v. Türkiye |
18/07/2018 |
Arif AVCU |
Kübra KAZANCI TOSUN |
|
86. |
37271/18 |
Erol v. Türkiye |
02/08/2018 |
Mustafa EROL |
Ahmet EROL |
|
87. |
37342/18 |
Üzel v. Türkiye |
02/08/2018 |
Ferhat ÜZEL |
Özgür KUMAŞ |
|
88. |
37483/18 |
Yılmaz v. Türkiye |
26/07/2018 |
Suat YILMAZ | |
|
89. |
37723/18 |
Kambur v. Türkiye |
30/07/2018 |
Vedat KAMBUR |
Hüseyin ÖZÇELİK |
|
90. |
37838/18 |
Ulusu v. Türkiye |
03/08/2018 |
Mustafa ULUSU |
Kadir ÖZTÜRK |
|
91. |
38511/18 |
Gülver v. Türkiye |
06/08/2018 |
Murat GÜLVER |
Burhan DEMİRCİ |
|
92. |
38636/18 |
Şahin v. Türkiye |
02/08/2018 |
Ömer ŞAHİN |
Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ |
|
93. |
38707/18 |
Akbacak v. Türkiye |
06/08/2018 |
Muhammet AKBACAK |
Özgür KUMAŞ |
|
94. |
38766/18 |
Mayda v. Türkiye |
03/08/2018 |
Yusuf MAYDA |
Veysel MAYDA |
|
95. |
38788/18 |
Akın v. Türkiye |
06/08/2018 |
Nilgün AKIN |
Nilgün ÖĞÜNÇLÜ |
|
96. |
38829/18 |
Yollu v. Türkiye |
30/07/2018 |
Mustafa YOLLU |
Gökmen İLHAN |
|
97. |
38953/18 |
Karakaş v. Türkiye |
09/08/2018 |
Niyazi KARAKAŞ |
Asım Burak GÜNEŞ |
|
98. |
38978/18 |
Aşık v. Türkiye |
03/08/2018 |
Ökkeş AŞIK | |
|
99. |
39008/18 |
Çeken v. Türkiye |
09/08/2018 |
Selim ÇEKEN | |
|
100. |
39038/18 |
Tunç v. Türkiye |
03/08/2018 |
Selami TUNÇ |
İsmail ÇELİK |
|
101. |
39098/18 |
Ünal v. Türkiye |
11/07/2018 |
Ömer ÜNAL |
Nazike ÜNAL |
|
102. |
41128/18 |
Yayla v. Türkiye |
09/08/2018 |
Sadık YAYLA |
Nihat KILIÇ |
|
103. |
42382/18 |
Çetintaş v. Türkiye |
04/09/2018 |
Ümit ÇETİNTAŞ |
Esra GURLAŞ |
|
104. |
43239/18 |
Tümüklü v. Türkiye |
08/09/2018 |
Tayfun TÜMÜKLÜ |
Yakup GÖNEN |
|
105. |
43957/18 |
Akpınar v. Türkiye |
05/09/2018 |
Adem AKPINAR | |
|
106. |
44166/18 |
Karagöz v. Türkiye |
11/09/2018 |
Tevfik KARAGÖZ |
Hanifi BAYRI |
|
107. |
45288/18 |
Şahin v. Türkiye |
19/09/2018 |
Kemal ŞAHİN |
Fatih ŞAHİNLER |
|
108. |
45911/18 |
Şeker v. Türkiye |
22/09/2018 |
Emrah ŞEKER |
Arzu Sema YALÇIN |
|
109. |
50048/18 |
Demirtaş v. Türkiye |
12/10/2018 |
Şaban DEMİRTAŞ |
Betül KAYA |
|
110. |
53396/18 |
Coşkun v. Türkiye |
31/10/2018 |
Ahmet Atilla COŞKUN |
Ayşe ARAS KÜÇÜKDEVLET |
|
111. |
58245/18 |
Orhan v. Türkiye |
22/11/2018 |
İlhan ORHAN | |
|
112. |
2270/19 |
Erdoğuş v. Türkiye |
30/11/2018 |
Şemun ERDOĞUŞ | |
|
113. |
2275/19 |
Uludağ v. Türkiye |
19/12/2018 |
Mehmet ULUDAĞ |
Meryem YAŞAR KARAYAZGAN |
|
114. |
2514/19 |
Salman v. Türkiye |
17/12/2018 |
Halit SALMAN |
Tevfik KARTAL |
|
115. |
4188/19 |
Soytekin v. Türkiye |
11/01/2019 |
Tanju SOYTEKİN |
Ahmet EROL |
|
116. |
6739/19 |
Sertkaya v. Türkiye |
24/01/2019 |
Nureda SERTKAYA | |
|
117. |
6822/19 |
Çetin v. Türkiye |
17/01/2019 |
İlhan ÇETİN |
Ahmet Can DEMİRCİ |
|
118. |
6904/19 |
Özçimen v. Türkiye |
16/01/2019 |
İbrahim ÖZÇİMEN |
Nezahat ÖZÇİMEN |
|
119. |
7441/19 |
Söker v. Türkiye |
16/01/2019 |
Ğarip SÖKER |
İrem GÜNEŞ (DANACIOĞLU) |
|
120. |
12039/19 |
Alaf v. Türkiye |
19/02/2019 |
Bayram ALAF | |
|
121. |
12470/19 |
Bulut v. Türkiye |
22/02/2019 |
Mehmet Ali BULUT |
Akif Fikri TOMAN |
|
122. |
12701/19 |
Kuş v. Türkiye |
20/02/2019 |
Sebahattin KUŞ |
Adem DEMİREL |
|
123. |
12712/19 |
Keskin v. Türkiye |
19/02/2019 |
Halit KESKİN |
Elif Nurbanu OR |
|
124. |
13014/19 |
Ekici v. Türkiye |
21/02/2019 |
İkram EKİCİ |
Suat Erhan DAYIOĞLU |
|
125. |
13224/19 |
Eken v. Türkiye |
26/02/2019 |
Fatih EKEN |
Muhammed Talha YILMAZ |
|
126. |
14154/19 |
Mert v. Türkiye |
02/03/2019 |
Ramazan MERT |
Ahmet ZEYBEKOĞLU |
|
127. |
14269/19 |
Yeni v. Türkiye |
01/03/2019 |
Ünsal YENİ |
Zeynep Sedef ÖZDOĞAN |
|
128. |
14495/19 |
Çağlı v. Türkiye |
11/03/2019 |
Bilal ÇAĞLI |
İsmail KAPLAN |
|
129. |
14500/19 |
Günay v. Türkiye |
25/02/2019 |
Habip GÜNAY |
Sema GÜNAY |
|
130. |
14949/19 |
Biçer v. Türkiye |
07/03/2019 |
Osman BİÇER |
Selma BİÇER |
|
131. |
15202/19 |
Akdın v. Türkiye |
07/03/2019 |
Murat AKDIN |
Büşra KURT KÜÇÜK |
|
132. |
15308/19 |
Kahraman v. Türkiye |
25/02/2019 |
Ferhat KAHRAMAN |
Enes Burak ÖZDEMİR |
|
133. |
16007/19 |
Çelik v. Türkiye |
15/03/2019 |
Mehmet ÇELİK |
Ulviye Özge CAZ ÖZKAYA |
|
134. |
16290/19 |
Dalan v. Türkiye |
04/03/2019 |
Mustafa DALAN |
Ahmet Aykut YILDIZ |
|
135. |
16685/19 |
Sucu v. Türkiye |
21/03/2019 |
Mehmet Alim SUCU |
Tuğba Nur KIYMAZ |
|
136. |
16909/19 |
Günerigök v. Türkiye |
08/03/2019 |
Hamza GÜNERİGÖK |
Arafat SAV |
|
137. |
17210/19 |
Demirağ v. Türkiye |
14/03/2019 |
Mustafa DEMIRAĞ |
Merve Vildan DUMAN |
|
138. |
17275/19 |
Karabudak v. Türkiye |
15/03/2019 |
İlhan KARABUDAK |
Kadriye Nur AYTAÇ |
|
139. |
18420/19 |
Demirci v. Türkiye |
15/03/2019 |
Yakup DEMİRCİ |
Kadir ÖZTÜRK |
|
140. |
18424/19 |
Köse v. Türkiye |
12/03/2019 |
Hasan KÖSE | |
|
141. |
18452/19 |
Soykan v. Türkiye |
29/03/2019 |
Sinan SOYKAN |
İshak IŞIK |
|
142. |
18475/19 |
Özer v. Türkiye |
26/03/2019 |
Mustafa ÖZER |
Fatma Nur TARAMIŞ |
|
143. |
18628/19 |
Yavuz v. Türkiye |
26/03/2019 |
Zeynal YAVUZ |
Neslihan ÖZATLI SOĞUK |
|
144. |
18747/19 |
Sertçe v. Türkiye |
25/03/2019 |
Selahattin SERTÇE |
Lale KARADAŞ |
|
145. |
20131/19 |
Selvi v. Türkiye |
01/04/2019 |
Abdullah SELVİ |
Şirin DEMİR |
|
146. |
20295/19 |
Uzekmek v. Türkiye |
11/04/2019 |
Hüseyin UZEKMEK |
Savaş Barış PEKER |
|
147. |
20316/19 |
Kaya v. Türkiye |
06/04/2019 |
Fatih Mehmet KAYA |
Cemile Sabine DOĞAN |
|
148. |
21147/19 |
Şener v. Türkiye |
26/02/2019 |
İsmail ŞENER |
Vahide ŞENER |
|
149. |
21166/19 |
Bağlan v. Türkiye |
12/04/2019 |
Süleyman BAĞLAN |
Begüm Merve AÇIKGÖZ |
|
150. |
21212/19 |
Koka v. Türkiye |
22/03/2019 |
İhsan KOKA |
Nurgül YAYMAN YILMAZ |
|
151. |
21243/19 |
Kayhan v. Türkiye |
11/04/2019 |
Akın KAYHAN |
Hüseyin TÜRKMEN |
|
152. |
21537/19 |
Uzal v. Türkiye |
29/03/2019 |
Muharrem UZAL | |
|
153. |
21665/19 |
Yıldırım v. Türkiye |
03/04/2019 |
Mahmut YILDIRIM |
Kübra YILDIRIM |
|
154. |
21696/19 |
Çiçek v. Türkiye |
16/04/2019 |
Bedretin ÇİÇEK |
Melek KOÇYİĞİT |
|
155. |
22197/19 |
Taştan v. Türkiye |
16/04/2019 |
Halil TAŞTAN |
Gülistan TAŞTAN |
|
156. |
22341/19 |
Köse v. Türkiye |
19/04/2019 |
Davut KÖSE |
Ayşe KÖSE |
|
157. |
22882/19 |
Yiğit v. Türkiye |
17/04/2019 |
Orhan YİĞİT |
Fatih İNCELER |
|
158. |
23652/19 |
Arıöz v. Türkiye |
12/04/2019 |
Mahmut İlker ARIÖZ |
Ahmet Oğuz ÖZMEN |
|
159. |
24558/19 |
Şener v. Türkiye |
25/04/2019 |
Bülent ŞENER |
Mehmet Fatih İÇER |
|
160. |
24961/19 |
Sözen v. Türkiye |
30/04/2019 |
Yusuf SÖZEN |
Ekrem KAYA |
|
161. |
27557/19 |
Çıtız v. Türkiye |
07/05/2019 |
Nezih ÇITIZ |
Mehmet Sıddık KARAGÖZ |
|
162. |
27781/19 |
L.T. v. Türkiye |
10/05/2019 |
L.T. |
Arzu DEMİRCİ |
|
163. |
27956/19 |
Görüşen v. Türkiye |
06/05/2019 |
Hüseyin GÖRÜŞEN |
Mehmet Fatih İÇER |
|
164. |
27979/19 |
Eroğlu v. Türkiye |
14/05/2019 |
Murat EROĞLU |
İrem GÜNEŞ (DANACIOĞLU) |
|
165. |
29371/19 |
Akyol v. Türkiye |
24/04/2019 |
Yusuf AKYOL |
Esra Nur AKYOL |
|
166. |
30306/19 |
Özdemir v. Türkiye |
27/05/2019 |
Galip ÖZDEMİR |
Mine ÖZTÜRK |
|
167. |
30320/19 |
Demir v. Türkiye |
22/05/2019 |
Hakan DEMİR |
Aslıhan EKER |
|
168. |
30361/19 |
Gürsu v. Türkiye |
20/05/2019 |
Emrah GÜRSU |
Abdullah GÜRSU |
|
169. |
33066/19 |
Terzi v. Türkiye |
21/05/2019 |
Murat TERZİ |
Kadir ÖZTÜRK |
|
170. |
33099/19 |
Çimentepe v. Türkiye |
31/05/2019 |
Mahir ÇİMENTEPE |
Utku Coşkuner SAKARYA |
|
171. |
33785/19 |
Demirci v. Türkiye |
16/05/2019 |
Zeki DEMİRCİ |
Mehmet Emin DEMİRCİ |
|
172. |
35017/19 |
Kömürcü v. Türkiye |
02/07/2019 |
Halim KÖMÜRCÜ |
Zeyt Enes KÖMÜRCÜ |
|
173. |
35208/19 |
Ayaz v. Türkiye |
14/06/2019 |
Harun AYAZ |
Alperen ORAK |
|
174. |
35390/19 |
Kılıç v. Türkiye |
21/06/2019 |
Bekir KILIÇ |
Kadir ÖZTÜRK |
|
175. |
36063/19 |
Gürçay v. Türkiye |
22/06/2019 |
Özcan GÜRÇAY |
Merve GÜRÇAY |
|
176. |
36119/19 |
Gülmez v. Türkiye |
29/05/2019 |
Ömer GÜLMEZ |
Mustafa GÜLMEZ |
|
177. |
36167/19 |
Cevri v. Türkiye |
19/06/2019 |
Adem CEVRİ |
Mehmet Sıddık KARAGÖZ |
|
178. |
36225/19 |
Acartürk v. Türkiye |
03/07/2019 |
Ertuğrul ACARTÜRK |
Bedirhan ACARTÜRK |
|
179. |
36532/19 |
Genç v. Türkiye |
25/06/2019 |
Abdurrahman GENÇ |
Hamdi YAKUT |
|
180. |
37003/19 |
Yavuz v. Türkiye |
02/07/2019 |
Serkan YAVUZ |
Zaliha VARLI |
|
181. |
38657/19 |
Kayaaltı v. Türkiye |
18/07/2019 |
Yalçın KAYAALTI | |
|
182. |
40373/19 |
Kurak v. Türkiye |
18/07/2019 |
Nurevşan KURAK |
Gülsüm EKİNCİ |
|
183. |
46761/19 |
Akdemir v. Türkiye |
02/09/2019 |
Tayfur AKDEMİR |
Tuğba Nur KIYMAZ |
|
184. |
48665/19 |
Kenan v. Türkiye |
13/09/2019 |
Hayrettin KENAN |
Burak ÇAĞ |
|
185. |
50842/19 |
Çöpcü v. Türkiye |
27/08/2019 |
Selami ÇÖPCÜ |
Ünver ÖZGÜL |
|
186. |
52327/19 |
Yeşilbaş v. Türkiye |
03/09/2019 |
Mehmet YEŞİLBAŞ |
Nihat KILIÇ |
|
187. |
53305/19 |
Aygün v. Türkiye |
27/09/2019 |
Hulusi AYGÜN |
Veysel MALKOÇ |
|
188. |
53731/19 |
Gezgin v. Türkiye |
07/10/2019 |
Mustafa GEZGİN |
Gültekin AKKURT |
|
189. |
56692/19 |
Uşan v. Türkiye |
16/10/2019 |
Osman Asım UŞAN |
Kadir ÖZTÜRK |
|
190. |
59970/19 |
Karakurt v. Türkiye |
07/11/2019 |
Bilal KARAKURT |
Çiğdem DERDİYOK KUBULAN |
|
191. |
61190/19 |
Toparlak v. Türkiye |
08/11/2019 |
Cemcenker TOPARLAK |
Yakup GÖNEN |
|
192. |
62700/19 |
Özer v. Türkiye |
29/11/2019 |
Mehmet ÖZER |
Sumru AKTAŞ |
|
193. |
1379/20 |
Kaan v. Türkiye |
17/12/2019 |
İsmail KAAN |
İsa KAYA |
|
194. |
2913/20 |
Pala v. Türkiye |
26/12/2019 |
Zeynep PALA |
Merve TURAN TÜRKOĞLU |
|
195. |
5593/20 |
Çelik v. Türkiye |
15/01/2020 |
Safa ÇELİK |
Yakup GÖNEN |
|
196. |
7005/20 |
Cuma v. Türkiye |
17/01/2020 |
Ahmet CUMA |
Zeynep Sedef ÖZDOĞAN |
|
197. |
7583/20 |
Çetin v. Türkiye |
27/01/2020 |
Emre ÇETİN |
Ahmet EROL |
|
198. |
8206/20 |
Etgül v. Türkiye |
24/01/2020 |
Sezgin ETGÜL |
Özcan BARUT |
|
199. |
8725/20 |
Gülümser v. Türkiye |
07/02/2020 |
Ahmet GÜLÜMSER |
Budak YILDIRIM |
|
200. |
11513/20 |
Çelikkaya v. Türkiye |
19/02/2020 |
Ahmet ÇELİKKAYA |
Mebruke Şeyma ÇELİKKAYA |
|
201. |
19533/20 |
Ünal v. Türkiye |
11/05/2020 |
Ali ÜNAL |
Hatice YILMAZ |
|
202. |
19966/20 |
Ekinci v. Türkiye |
13/08/2020 |
Harun EKİNCİ |
Özcan BARUT |
|
203. |
23623/20 |
Çakır v. Türkiye |
15/05/2020 |
Feyhan ÇAKIR |
Levent KAHYA |
|
204. |
24400/20 |
Döşer v. Türkiye |
15/06/2020 |
Taha Murat DÖŞER |
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ |
|
205. |
25204/20 |
Bülbül v. Türkiye |
05/06/2020 |
Yusuf BÜLBÜL |
İsa KAYA |
|
206. |
26138/20 |
Trakyalı v. Türkiye |
18/06/2020 |
Halil TRAKYALI |
Levent KAHYA |
|
207. |
30992/20 |
Tatoğlu v. Türkiye |
06/07/2020 |
Yakup TATOĞLU |
Melda ALBUZ |
|
208. |
34736/20 |
Mercan v. Türkiye |
07/08/2020 |
Yusuf MERCAN |
Kübra KAZANCI TOSUN |
|
209. |
36649/20 |
Karakoç v. Türkiye |
07/08/2020 |
Mustafa KARAKOÇ |
Özcan AKINCI |
|
210. |
43535/20 |
Aydın v. Türkiye |
28/09/2020 |
Fahrittin AYDIN |
Mebruke Şeyma ÇELİKKAYA |
|
211. |
43956/20 |
Dündar v. Türkiye |
24/09/2020 |
Caner DÜNDAR |
Hasan TOK |
|
212. |
46450/20 |
Kocagümüş v. Türkiye |
09/10/2020 |
Gülsüm KOCAGÜMÜŞ |
Kadriye TÜMEN |
|
213. |
50838/20 |
Bukan v. Türkiye |
05/11/2020 |
Mesut BUKAN |
Mehmet ÖNCÜ |
|
214. |
51282/20 |
Güçlü v. Türkiye |
15/11/2019 |
Aykut GÜÇLÜ |
Okan GÜNEL |
|
215. |
51931/20 |
Altun v. Türkiye |
18/08/2020 |
Harun ALTUN |
Yakup GÖNEN |
|
216. |
53937/20 |
Çaputcu v. Türkiye |
13/11/2020 |
Mehmet ÇAPUTCU |
Muhammet Taha SEVİLİ |
|
217. |
54367/20 |
Bilgiç v. Türkiye |
30/11/2020 |
Mustafa BİLGİÇ |
Hamit Serdar YILMAZ |
|
218. |
142/21 |
Deyer v. Türkiye |
02/12/2020 |
Selim DEYER |
Okan GÜNEL |
|
219. |
2607/21 |
Sevinç v. Türkiye |
22/12/2020 |
Murat SEVİNÇ |
Kadriye TÜMEN |
|
220. |
14169/21 |
Demirhan v. Türkiye |
10/03/2021 |
Nazife DEMİRHAN |
Kübra GÜLAÇTI |
|
221. |
20454/21 |
Güler v. Türkiye |
06/04/2021 |
Yakup GÜLER |
Numan ZEMHERİ |
|
222. |
21688/21 |
Doğan v. Türkiye |
08/04/2021 |
Betül DOĞAN |
Tufan YILMAZ |
|
223. |
39388/21 |
Gül v. Türkiye |
16/07/2021 |
Abdulkadir GÜL |
Asiye KÜÇÜKBALCI |
