I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in PETLIN v. RUSSIA.
Information
- Judgment date: 2024-11-12
- Communication date: 2021-10-19
- Application number(s): 14829/12
- Country: RUS
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 5, 5-1-b, 6, 6-1, 6-3-d, 8, 8-1, P7-2
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention
Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.756726
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
In line with the court's judgment
In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment
: In opposition to the court's judgment
Communication text used for prediction
Published on 8 November 2021 The case concerns an allegedly disproportionate interference with the right to respect for the applicant’s private life on account of an interception of his telephone conversations ordered on 16 November 2010 on the ground that being a head of the regional branch of a political party “Yabloko” and after having participated in protest actions and criticised the Government, he could have publicly called for extremist activities.
The applicant found out about the taping of his phone on 9 December 2011 in the context of criminal proceedings initiated against him on charges of bribery where the domestic courts referred to the intercepted materials in order to secure his conviction.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.
Did the interception of the applicant’s telephone conversations ordered by the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court on 16 November 2010 violate his right to respect for his private life and correspondence under Article 8 of the Convention?
In particular, did the Regional Court verify whether there was a “reasonable suspicion” against the applicant and apply the test of “necessity in a democratic society”, and in particular assess whether the surveillance measures were proportionate to any legitimate aim pursued (see Moskalev v. Russia, no.
44045/05, §§ 41-44, 7 November 2017)?
2.
Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no.
59589/10, §§ 25-36, 7 November 2017)?
Published on 8 November 2021 The case concerns an allegedly disproportionate interference with the right to respect for the applicant’s private life on account of an interception of his telephone conversations ordered on 16 November 2010 on the ground that being a head of the regional branch of a political party “Yabloko” and after having participated in protest actions and criticised the Government, he could have publicly called for extremist activities.
The applicant found out about the taping of his phone on 9 December 2011 in the context of criminal proceedings initiated against him on charges of bribery where the domestic courts referred to the intercepted materials in order to secure his conviction.
Judgment
SECOND SECTIONCASE OF KESKIN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
(Applications nos. 36994/17 and 130 others)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 November 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Keskin 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, 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 15 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 the majority 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”), and/or their employment by and/or memberships in FETÖ/PDY-affiliated institutions and organisations. 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
4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 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, 3 March 2020, 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, 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. 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). At this juncture, it cannot be maintained, as the Government argued in their observations, that the fact that the applicants were not members of the judiciary had any bearing on the conclusion reached. 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. 11. 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
12. The applicants, except for the applicants in application nos. 71046/17, 4083/18, 12241/18, 18301/18, 22189/18, 45562/18, 50312/18, 27657/19, 30378/19, 35096/19 and 35290/19, 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. 13. The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive. 14. 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 application nos. 71046/17, 4083/18, 12241/18, 18301/18, 22189/18, 45562/18, 50312/18, 27657/19, 30378/19, 35096/19 and 35290/19 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,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, save for the applicants in application nos. 71046/17, 4083/18, 12241/18, 18301/18, 22189/18, 45562/18, 50312/18, 27657/19, 30378/19, 35096/19 and 35290/19, 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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 November 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
ApplicantYear of BirthPlace of ResidenceNationality
Represented by
1. 36994/17
Keskin v. Türkiye
30/03/2017
Mehmet KESKİN1982KocaeliTurkish
Timur ŞAHİN
2. 45108/17
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
01/06/2017
Adem YILMAZ1968IstanbulTurkish
3. 54634/17
Öğünlü v. Türkiye
21/06/2017
Bilal ÖĞÜNLÜ1979AnkaraTurkish
4. 59619/17
Acar v. Türkiye
15/05/2017
Serpil ACAR1978TekirdağTurkish
Dilara YILMAZ
5. 69561/17
Akbulut v. Türkiye
24/08/2017
Ahmet Müjdat AKBULUT1983ManisaTurkish
Akerke ABDYKALYKOVA ONAT
6. 71046/17
Kartal v. Türkiye
28/08/2017
Eyüp Sabri KARTAL1965İzmirTurkish
Necip Fazıl YILDIZ
7. 2714/18
Aslan v. Türkiye
19/12/2017
İbrahim Halil ASLAN1984ŞanlıurfaTurkish
8. 4083/18
İstemil v. Türkiye
01/12/2017
Hasan İSTEMİL1988AnkaraTurkish
9. 4699/18
Taşdemir v. Türkiye
13/07/2017
Reşit TAŞDEMİR1970SakaryaTurkish
Ahmet EROL
10. 11324/18
Yassıkaya v. Türkiye
20/02/2018
Mekke YASSIKAYA1975DenizliTurkish
Dilara YILMAZ
11. 11327/18
Özkan v. Türkiye
20/02/2018
Mehmet Ali ÖZKAN1960DenizliTurkish
Dilara YILMAZ
12. 11898/18
Dinç v. Türkiye
22/02/2018
Mustafa DİNÇ1980KonyaTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
13. 11982/18
Avcı v. Türkiye
05/03/2018
Servet AVCI1986ErzurumTurkish
Ömer Faruk YILDIRIM
14. 12166/18
Aktürk v. Türkiye
19/02/2018
Hüseyin AKTÜRK1983DenizliTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
15. 12241/18
Aycıl v. Türkiye
22/02/2018
Sultan AYCIL1991IstanbulTurkish
Recep SEYHAN
16. 12575/18
Saracoğlu v. Türkiye
02/03/2018
Fatih SARACOĞLU1978AnkaraTurkish
Ali ALAGÖZ
17. 14825/18
Doğan v. Türkiye
08/02/2018
Ömer DOĞAN1973TekirdağTurkish
Mehmet Ertürk ERDEVİR
18. 16112/18
Balcı v. Türkiye
14/03/2018
İbrahim BALCI1981KonyaTurkish
Güliz Rabia TEKİN
19. 16970/18
Balcan v. Türkiye
16/03/2018
Fatih BALCAN1977AnkaraTurkish
Tuğba Nur KIYMAZ
20. 17744/18
Bilgin v. Türkiye
16/02/2018
Zeynel BİLGİN1976TrabzonTurkish
Şeyma ALKAN
21. 18195/18
Oğuz v. Türkiye
15/03/2018
Arap OĞUZ1990ElazığTurkish
Mehmet EKİNOĞLU
22. 18301/18
Öztürk v. Türkiye
19/02/2018
Bekir ÖZTÜRK1981OsmaniyeTurkish
23. 19706/18
Uryan v. Türkiye
16/04/2018
Yıldırım URYAN1974AnkaraTurkish
Ulviye TURĞUT
24. 22037/18
Güngör v. Türkiye
30/04/2018
Hüseyin Zekeriya GÜNGÖR1982İzmirTurkish
Oğuzhan BOSTANOĞLU
25. 22189/18
Arıdal v. Türkiye
24/04/2018
Bayram ARIDAL1970İzmirTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
26. 23234/18
Bekci v. Türkiye
03/05/2018
Volkan BEKCİ1977IstanbulTurkish
Dilara YILMAZ
27. 24684/18
Özkan v. Türkiye
15/05/2018
Niyazi ÖZKAN1978AnkaraTurkish
28. 28009/18
Arslan v. Türkiye
06/06/2018
İbrahim ARSLAN1983TekirdağTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
29. 30478/18
Acar v. Türkiye
19/06/2018
Mevlüt ACAR1976IspartaTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
30. 32413/18
Aydın v. Türkiye
20/06/2018
Ahmet AYDIN1983KarsTurkish
Havva AYDIN
31. 33866/18
Ünlü v. Türkiye
05/07/2018
Mahmut Salih ÜNLÜ1978AnkaraTurkish
32. 35667/18
Erdoğan v. Türkiye
09/07/2018
Kamil ERDOĞAN1986ManisaTurkish
Abdullah TOMUR
33. 36239/18
Kablan v. Türkiye
21/07/2018
Yaşar KABLAN1975AnkaraTurkish
Üsame İNAN
34. 37279/18
Selimler v. Türkiye
26/07/2018
Veysel SELİMLER1963OsmaniyeTurkish
Mehmet ÜNLÜ
35. 37434/18
Özdemir v. Türkiye
26/07/2018
Melih Emre ÖZDEMİR1995ErzincanTurkish
36. 43243/18
Özdemir v. Türkiye
06/09/2018
Yüksel ÖZDEMİR1976MardinTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
37. 44785/18
Taş v. Türkiye
13/09/2018
Mehmet Emin TAŞ1982ŞanlıurfaTurkish
38. 45457/18
Şener v. Türkiye
17/09/2018
Metin ŞENER1974AnkaraTurkish
Hayrettin KESKİNSOY
39. 45562/18
Şahin v. Türkiye
03/09/2018
Servet ŞAHİN1980GaziantepTurkish
40. 46263/18
İçtin v. Türkiye
03/09/2018
Mustafa İÇTİN1973OsmaniyeTurkish
Şeyma ALKAN
41. 46359/18
Bulut v. Türkiye
12/09/2018
Necip BULUT1971İzmirTurkish
Tuba Nur BULUT
42. 48501/18
Özmen v. Türkiye
02/10/2018
İzzet ÖZMEN1974BursaTurkish
Ebubekir RENK
43. 50312/18
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
16/10/2018
Abdullah YILMAZ1987NetphenTurkish
44. 55620/18
Şimşek v. Türkiye
04/10/2018
Ömer ŞİMŞEK1988IstanbulTurkish
45. 57674/18
Taşkıran v. Türkiye
15/11/2018
Taşkın TAŞKIRAN1984IstanbulTurkish
Özlem TATAR
46. 3227/19
Çelik v. Türkiye
25/12/2018
Satı ÇELİK1984AnkaraTurkish
Şeyma MISIRLIOĞLU
47. 4584/19
Taştekin v. Türkiye
03/12/2018
Muhtesim TAŞTEKİN1979İzmirTurkish
Emrah BARAN
48. 5415/19
Yazar v. Türkiye
28/11/2018
Yusuf YAZAR1972OsmaniyeTurkish
49. 8329/19
Atasoy (Çetin) v. Türkiye
29/01/2019
Serap ATASOY (ÇETİN)1977TokatTurkish
Saniye EVĞÜN
50. 9501/19
Ay v. Türkiye
08/02/2019
Barış AY1991Akhisar - ManisaTurkish
Levent KOCAMAN
51. 13124/19
Altuntop v. Türkiye
22/02/2019
Halit ALTUNTOP1979KocaeliTurkish
52. 15777/19
Akdeniz v. Türkiye
26/02/2019
Buket AKDENİZ1989AmasyaTurkish
Mehmet ÖNCÜ
53. 16138/19
Aşula v. Türkiye
28/02/2019
Özgür AŞULA1979IstanbulTurkish
54. 16205/19
Karakuş v. Türkiye
13/03/2019
Fatih KARAKUŞ1975HatayTurkish
55. 17039/19
Kar v. Türkiye
07/03/2019
Bekir KAR1987AnkaraTurkish
56. 17088/19
Köylü v. Türkiye
07/03/2019
Mustafa KÖYLÜ1986KırşehirTurkish
57. 18851/19
Gülbaş v. Türkiye
09/01/2019
Cüneyt GÜLBAŞ1976IstanbulTurkish
58. 18859/19
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
26/03/2019
Ramazan YILMAZ1989IstanbulTurkish
Nimet ÖZDEMİR CAN
59. 19037/19
Akdeniz v. Türkiye
25/03/2019
İsmail AKDENİZ1983ErzurumTurkish
Nurefşan İRDEMEZ
60. 19113/19
Güder v. Türkiye
22/03/2019
Suat GÜDER1984AnkaraTurkish
Mehmet Arif YALÇINKAYA
61. 19129/19
Çınar v. Türkiye
29/03/2019
İbrahim ÇINAR1970SamsunTurkish
Mehmet ÖNCÜ
62. 19146/19
Yurdakul v. Türkiye
02/04/2019
İbrahim YURDAKUL1965IstanbulTurkish
63. 19174/19
Usta v. Türkiye
28/03/2019
Ayhan USTA1975TokatTurkish
64. 19507/19
Türkmenoğlu v. Türkiye
11/03/2019
İbrahim TÜRKMENOĞLU1978AfyonkarahisarTurkish
Halil İbrahim KEBEŞOĞLU
65. 19672/19
Şanlı v. Türkiye
27/03/2019
Sedat ŞANLI1985OsmaniyeTurkish
Mehmet Fatih ARSLAN
66. 19814/19
Burkay v. Türkiye
28/03/2019
İbrahim Halil BURKAY1983GaziantepTurkish
Çağrı Seyfettin GÖKDEMİR
67. 19861/19
Kart v. Türkiye
02/04/2019
İslam KART1979EskişehirTurkish
68. 19865/19
Pehlivan v. Türkiye
01/04/2019
Mahmut PEHLİVAN1973İzmirTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
69. 20314/19
Çevik v. Türkiye
20/03/2019
Metin ÇEVİK1977İzmirTurkish
Bahadır Gökhan KAYA
70. 21219/19
Coşkun v. Türkiye
19/03/2019
Süleyman COŞKUN1980NurtingenTurkish
Metehan USLUEROL
71. 21246/19
Erbay v. Türkiye
29/03/2019
Şükür ERBAY1990TrabzonTurkish
Vahdeddin VARLI
72. 21560/19
Barıt v. Türkiye
08/04/2019
Necmettin BARIT1988ElazığTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
73. 21578/19
Erbaş v. Türkiye
05/04/2019
Mustafa ERBAŞ1973AnkaraTurkish
74. 21702/19
Duman v. Türkiye
04/04/2019
Ali İhsan DUMAN1986İzmirTurkish
Merve Vildan DUMAN
75. 21900/19
Çavdar v. Türkiye
18/04/2019
Durmuş ÇAVDAR1974TokatTurkish
76. 21907/19
Balcı v. Türkiye
08/04/2019
Zafer BALCI1971YalovaTurkish
Enes Malik KILIÇ
77. 21954/19
Bircan v. Türkiye
12/04/2019
Mustafa BİRCAN1973TokatTurkish
Lale KARADAŞ
78. 21956/19
Kabadayı v. Türkiye
19/04/2019
Enes KABADAYI1993BalıkesirTurkish
79. 22387/19
Birgin v. Türkiye
15/04/2019
Beytullah BİRGİN1986AksarayTurkish
Mehmet ÖNCÜ
80. 23055/19
Durmaz v. Türkiye
16/04/2019
Musa DURMAZ1994YozgatTurkish
Mehmet Ali BULUT
81. 23952/19
Aslan v. Türkiye
26/03/2019
Engin ASLAN1977ÇorumTurkish
Ramazan GÜLTEKİN
82. 24306/19
Alpay v. Türkiye
09/04/2019
Zafer ALPAY1975IstanbulTurkish
Şefik KARAKIŞ
83. 24618/19
Çelik v. Türkiye
24/04/2018
İlham ÇELİK1986KocaeliTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
84. 24912/19
Yetkin v. Türkiye
04/04/2019
Ertuğrul YETKİN1974AdanaTurkish
85. 24971/19
Alioğlu v. Türkiye
20/04/2019
Burhan ALİOĞLU1988IstanbulTurkish
İrfan ALİOĞLU
86. 25006/19
Taşdelen v. Türkiye
22/04/2019
Ali Osman TAŞDELEN1984YozgatTurkish
İlyas ERDOĞAN
87. 25146/19
Er v. Türkiye
22/04/2019
Cazip ER1977AdanaTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
88. 25442/19
Keskinoğlu v. Türkiye
30/04/2019
Cevdet KESKİNOĞLU1978SamsunTurkish
Metin ATEŞOĞLU
89. 25829/19
Taylan v. Türkiye
25/04/2019
Arif TAYLAN1978KonyaTurkish
90. 27028/19
Yelkovan v. Türkiye
19/04/2019
Murat YELKOVAN1976KocaeliTurkish
Mesut Can TARIM
91. 27095/19
Yasinoğlu v. Türkiye
03/05/2019
Erdal YASİNOĞLU1985İzmirTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
92. 27143/19
Demir v. Türkiye
29/04/2019
İsmail DEMİR1990GaziantepTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
93. 27495/19
Batçık v. Türkiye
17/05/2019
Gökhan BATÇIK1988MolnlyckeTurkish
94. 27657/19
Şalış v. Türkiye
30/04/2019
Hüseyin ŞALIŞ1979WylieTurkish
95. 27661/19
Aykaç v. Türkiye
03/05/2019
Osman AYKAÇ1969AnkaraTurkish
96. 29324/19
İğde v. Türkiye
09/05/2019
Uğur İĞDE1976KayseriTurkish
Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ
97. 29325/19
Bildirici v. Türkiye
10/05/2019
Hüseyin BİLDİRİCİ1967BalıkesirTurkish
98. 29672/19
Yazar v. Türkiye
10/05/2019
Gültekin YAZAR1970ZonguldakTurkish
Songül YAZAR
99. 30010/19
Boyacıoğlu v. Türkiye
26/04/2019
Erol BOYACIOĞLU1993KarsTurkish
Fatma BABAYİĞİT
100. 30226/19
Hacımüftüoğlu v. Türkiye
02/05/2019
Semih HACIMÜFTÜOĞLU1976TrabzonTurkish
101. 30323/19
Karaosmanoğlu v. Türkiye
20/05/2019
Fatih KARAOSMANOĞLU1964AnkaraTurkish
Feyza Banu KARAOSMANOĞLU
102. 30357/19
Güzel v. Türkiye
02/05/2019
Armağan Süleyman GÜZEL1989ManisaTurkish
Zümrüt ŞAHİN
103. 30378/19
Usluer v. Türkiye
14/05/2019
Yunus USLUER1971KocaeliTurkish
Hakki ARDA
104. 30386/19
Koç v. Türkiye
16/05/2019
Ayhan KOÇ1981AnkaraTurkish
105. 30440/19
Gümüş v. Türkiye
21/05/2019
Sefer GÜMÜŞ1975MersinTurkish
Zafer ÖZER
106. 30473/19
Çevik v. Türkiye
10/05/2019
Ali ÇEVİK1980SinopTurkish
107. 30529/19
Akkaş v. Türkiye
22/05/2019
İsmet AKKAŞ1974KayseriTurkish
Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN
108. 30653/19
Kocatekin v. Türkiye
17/05/2019
Sevgi KOCATEKİN1977KocaeliTurkish
Elvan BAĞ CANBAZ
109. 30703/19
Şimşek v. Türkiye
22/05/2019
İmdat ŞİMŞEK1990BitlisTurkish
Gözde DEMİRBAŞ
110. 31079/19
Öztürk v. Türkiye
22/05/2019
Mustafa ÖZTÜRK1964TokatTurkish
111. 32627/19
Toptaş v. Türkiye
17/05/2019
Bilge Kağan TOPTAŞ
(formerly Bilge Kaan TOPTAŞ)1994MersinTurkish
Ali AVCI
112. 33114/19
Menzilci v. Türkiye
22/05/2019
Semih MENZİLCİ1969AydınTurkish
Esra Nur AKYOL
113. 33395/19
Arapoğlu v. Türkiye
21/05/2019
Miktat ARAPOĞLU1980YozgatTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
114. 33465/19
Ulusal v. Türkiye
11/06/2019
Murat ULUSAL1988AnkaraTurkish
115. 33950/19
Can v. Türkiye
22/06/2019
Hasan Basri CAN1965AfyonkarahisarTurkish
Naciye CAN
116. 34017/19
Uyar v. Türkiye
14/06/2019
Ramazan UYAR1977İzmirTurkish
117. 35042/19
Uğur v. Türkiye
01/07/2019
Murat UĞUR1976BoluTurkish
Said İsmail TÜRKOĞLU
118. 35050/19
Çelik v. Türkiye
01/07/2019
Seyit ÇELİK1983AksarayTurkish
Şeyma MISIRLIOĞLU
119. 35096/19
Ekici v. Türkiye
28/06/2019
Abdurrahman EKİCİ1981KahramanmaraşTurkish
Funda Nur GÜNAYDIN
120. 35149/19
Atik v. Türkiye
28/06/2019
Bahadır ATİK1983AnkaraTurkish
121. 35290/19
Aydın v. Türkiye
14/06/2019
Muhammed AYDIN1987BartınTurkish
122. 35443/19
Kaya v. Türkiye
13/06/2019
Ömür KAYA1976ÇorumTurkish
Özlem TATAR
123. 35644/19
Sarıboğa v. Türkiye
20/06/2019
Bahtiyar SARIBOĞA1975SamsunTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
124. 35831/19
Zengin v. Türkiye
28/05/2019
Cevdet ZENGİN1976İzmirTurkish
125. 33292/20
Güler v. Türkiye
17/07/2020
Ahmet GÜLER1974BoluTurkish
Merve Vildan DUMAN
126. 54377/20
Karapınar v. Türkiye
24/11/2020
Osman KARAPINAR1983MalatyaTurkish
127. 55414/20
Sevim v. Türkiye
26/11/2020
Necip Ercüment SEVİM1977AntalyaTurkish
İshak IŞIK
128. 55442/20
Koyuncu v. Türkiye
26/11/2020
Emre KOYUNCU1987MuğlaTurkish
İshak IŞIK
129. 1752/21
Şen v. Türkiye
11/12/2020
Erdal ŞEN1973SakaryaTurkish
Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
130. 21411/21
Ceyhan v. Türkiye
12/02/2021
İlyas CEYHAN1981BursaTurkish
Beyza CEYHAN
131. 45686/21
Tanrıverdi v. Türkiye
08/09/2021
Kamil TANRIVERDİ1994BoluTurkish
Muhammed Selim TÜRKOĞLU
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF KESKIN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
(Applications nos. 36994/17 and 130 others)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 November 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Keskin 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, 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 15 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 the majority 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”), and/or their employment by and/or memberships in FETÖ/PDY-affiliated institutions and organisations. 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
4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 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, 3 March 2020, 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, 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. 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). At this juncture, it cannot be maintained, as the Government argued in their observations, that the fact that the applicants were not members of the judiciary had any bearing on the conclusion reached. 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. 11. 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
12. The applicants, except for the applicants in application nos. 71046/17, 4083/18, 12241/18, 18301/18, 22189/18, 45562/18, 50312/18, 27657/19, 30378/19, 35096/19 and 35290/19, 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. 13. The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive. 14. 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 application nos. 71046/17, 4083/18, 12241/18, 18301/18, 22189/18, 45562/18, 50312/18, 27657/19, 30378/19, 35096/19 and 35290/19 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,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, save for the applicants in application nos. 71046/17, 4083/18, 12241/18, 18301/18, 22189/18, 45562/18, 50312/18, 27657/19, 30378/19, 35096/19 and 35290/19, 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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 November 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
ApplicantYear of BirthPlace of ResidenceNationality
Represented by
1. 36994/17
Keskin v. Türkiye
30/03/2017
Mehmet KESKİN1982KocaeliTurkish
Timur ŞAHİN
2. 45108/17
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
01/06/2017
Adem YILMAZ1968IstanbulTurkish
3. 54634/17
Öğünlü v. Türkiye
21/06/2017
Bilal ÖĞÜNLÜ1979AnkaraTurkish
4. 59619/17
Acar v. Türkiye
15/05/2017
Serpil ACAR1978TekirdağTurkish
Dilara YILMAZ
5. 69561/17
Akbulut v. Türkiye
24/08/2017
Ahmet Müjdat AKBULUT1983ManisaTurkish
Akerke ABDYKALYKOVA ONAT
6. 71046/17
Kartal v. Türkiye
28/08/2017
Eyüp Sabri KARTAL1965İzmirTurkish
Necip Fazıl YILDIZ
7. 2714/18
Aslan v. Türkiye
19/12/2017
İbrahim Halil ASLAN1984ŞanlıurfaTurkish
8. 4083/18
İstemil v. Türkiye
01/12/2017
Hasan İSTEMİL1988AnkaraTurkish
9. 4699/18
Taşdemir v. Türkiye
13/07/2017
Reşit TAŞDEMİR1970SakaryaTurkish
Ahmet EROL
10. 11324/18
Yassıkaya v. Türkiye
20/02/2018
Mekke YASSIKAYA1975DenizliTurkish
Dilara YILMAZ
11. 11327/18
Özkan v. Türkiye
20/02/2018
Mehmet Ali ÖZKAN1960DenizliTurkish
Dilara YILMAZ
12. 11898/18
Dinç v. Türkiye
22/02/2018
Mustafa DİNÇ1980KonyaTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
13. 11982/18
Avcı v. Türkiye
05/03/2018
Servet AVCI1986ErzurumTurkish
Ömer Faruk YILDIRIM
14. 12166/18
Aktürk v. Türkiye
19/02/2018
Hüseyin AKTÜRK1983DenizliTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
15. 12241/18
Aycıl v. Türkiye
22/02/2018
Sultan AYCIL1991IstanbulTurkish
Recep SEYHAN
16. 12575/18
Saracoğlu v. Türkiye
02/03/2018
Fatih SARACOĞLU1978AnkaraTurkish
Ali ALAGÖZ
17. 14825/18
Doğan v. Türkiye
08/02/2018
Ömer DOĞAN1973TekirdağTurkish
Mehmet Ertürk ERDEVİR
18. 16112/18
Balcı v. Türkiye
14/03/2018
İbrahim BALCI1981KonyaTurkish
Güliz Rabia TEKİN
19. 16970/18
Balcan v. Türkiye
16/03/2018
Fatih BALCAN1977AnkaraTurkish
Tuğba Nur KIYMAZ
20. 17744/18
Bilgin v. Türkiye
16/02/2018
Zeynel BİLGİN1976TrabzonTurkish
Şeyma ALKAN
21. 18195/18
Oğuz v. Türkiye
15/03/2018
Arap OĞUZ1990ElazığTurkish
Mehmet EKİNOĞLU
22. 18301/18
Öztürk v. Türkiye
19/02/2018
Bekir ÖZTÜRK1981OsmaniyeTurkish
23. 19706/18
Uryan v. Türkiye
16/04/2018
Yıldırım URYAN1974AnkaraTurkish
Ulviye TURĞUT
24. 22037/18
Güngör v. Türkiye
30/04/2018
Hüseyin Zekeriya GÜNGÖR1982İzmirTurkish
Oğuzhan BOSTANOĞLU
25. 22189/18
Arıdal v. Türkiye
24/04/2018
Bayram ARIDAL1970İzmirTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
26. 23234/18
Bekci v. Türkiye
03/05/2018
Volkan BEKCİ1977IstanbulTurkish
Dilara YILMAZ
27. 24684/18
Özkan v. Türkiye
15/05/2018
Niyazi ÖZKAN1978AnkaraTurkish
28. 28009/18
Arslan v. Türkiye
06/06/2018
İbrahim ARSLAN1983TekirdağTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
29. 30478/18
Acar v. Türkiye
19/06/2018
Mevlüt ACAR1976IspartaTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
30. 32413/18
Aydın v. Türkiye
20/06/2018
Ahmet AYDIN1983KarsTurkish
Havva AYDIN
31. 33866/18
Ünlü v. Türkiye
05/07/2018
Mahmut Salih ÜNLÜ1978AnkaraTurkish
32. 35667/18
Erdoğan v. Türkiye
09/07/2018
Kamil ERDOĞAN1986ManisaTurkish
Abdullah TOMUR
33. 36239/18
Kablan v. Türkiye
21/07/2018
Yaşar KABLAN1975AnkaraTurkish
Üsame İNAN
34. 37279/18
Selimler v. Türkiye
26/07/2018
Veysel SELİMLER1963OsmaniyeTurkish
Mehmet ÜNLÜ
35. 37434/18
Özdemir v. Türkiye
26/07/2018
Melih Emre ÖZDEMİR1995ErzincanTurkish
36. 43243/18
Özdemir v. Türkiye
06/09/2018
Yüksel ÖZDEMİR1976MardinTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
37. 44785/18
Taş v. Türkiye
13/09/2018
Mehmet Emin TAŞ1982ŞanlıurfaTurkish
38. 45457/18
Şener v. Türkiye
17/09/2018
Metin ŞENER1974AnkaraTurkish
Hayrettin KESKİNSOY
39. 45562/18
Şahin v. Türkiye
03/09/2018
Servet ŞAHİN1980GaziantepTurkish
40. 46263/18
İçtin v. Türkiye
03/09/2018
Mustafa İÇTİN1973OsmaniyeTurkish
Şeyma ALKAN
41. 46359/18
Bulut v. Türkiye
12/09/2018
Necip BULUT1971İzmirTurkish
Tuba Nur BULUT
42. 48501/18
Özmen v. Türkiye
02/10/2018
İzzet ÖZMEN1974BursaTurkish
Ebubekir RENK
43. 50312/18
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
16/10/2018
Abdullah YILMAZ1987NetphenTurkish
44. 55620/18
Şimşek v. Türkiye
04/10/2018
Ömer ŞİMŞEK1988IstanbulTurkish
45. 57674/18
Taşkıran v. Türkiye
15/11/2018
Taşkın TAŞKIRAN1984IstanbulTurkish
Özlem TATAR
46. 3227/19
Çelik v. Türkiye
25/12/2018
Satı ÇELİK1984AnkaraTurkish
Şeyma MISIRLIOĞLU
47. 4584/19
Taştekin v. Türkiye
03/12/2018
Muhtesim TAŞTEKİN1979İzmirTurkish
Emrah BARAN
48. 5415/19
Yazar v. Türkiye
28/11/2018
Yusuf YAZAR1972OsmaniyeTurkish
49. 8329/19
Atasoy (Çetin) v. Türkiye
29/01/2019
Serap ATASOY (ÇETİN)1977TokatTurkish
Saniye EVĞÜN
50. 9501/19
Ay v. Türkiye
08/02/2019
Barış AY1991Akhisar - ManisaTurkish
Levent KOCAMAN
51. 13124/19
Altuntop v. Türkiye
22/02/2019
Halit ALTUNTOP1979KocaeliTurkish
52. 15777/19
Akdeniz v. Türkiye
26/02/2019
Buket AKDENİZ1989AmasyaTurkish
Mehmet ÖNCÜ
53. 16138/19
Aşula v. Türkiye
28/02/2019
Özgür AŞULA1979IstanbulTurkish
54. 16205/19
Karakuş v. Türkiye
13/03/2019
Fatih KARAKUŞ1975HatayTurkish
55. 17039/19
Kar v. Türkiye
07/03/2019
Bekir KAR1987AnkaraTurkish
56. 17088/19
Köylü v. Türkiye
07/03/2019
Mustafa KÖYLÜ1986KırşehirTurkish
57. 18851/19
Gülbaş v. Türkiye
09/01/2019
Cüneyt GÜLBAŞ1976IstanbulTurkish
58. 18859/19
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
26/03/2019
Ramazan YILMAZ1989IstanbulTurkish
Nimet ÖZDEMİR CAN
59. 19037/19
Akdeniz v. Türkiye
25/03/2019
İsmail AKDENİZ1983ErzurumTurkish
Nurefşan İRDEMEZ
60. 19113/19
Güder v. Türkiye
22/03/2019
Suat GÜDER1984AnkaraTurkish
Mehmet Arif YALÇINKAYA
61. 19129/19
Çınar v. Türkiye
29/03/2019
İbrahim ÇINAR1970SamsunTurkish
Mehmet ÖNCÜ
62. 19146/19
Yurdakul v. Türkiye
02/04/2019
İbrahim YURDAKUL1965IstanbulTurkish
63. 19174/19
Usta v. Türkiye
28/03/2019
Ayhan USTA1975TokatTurkish
64. 19507/19
Türkmenoğlu v. Türkiye
11/03/2019
İbrahim TÜRKMENOĞLU1978AfyonkarahisarTurkish
Halil İbrahim KEBEŞOĞLU
65. 19672/19
Şanlı v. Türkiye
27/03/2019
Sedat ŞANLI1985OsmaniyeTurkish
Mehmet Fatih ARSLAN
66. 19814/19
Burkay v. Türkiye
28/03/2019
İbrahim Halil BURKAY1983GaziantepTurkish
Çağrı Seyfettin GÖKDEMİR
67. 19861/19
Kart v. Türkiye
02/04/2019
İslam KART1979EskişehirTurkish
68. 19865/19
Pehlivan v. Türkiye
01/04/2019
Mahmut PEHLİVAN1973İzmirTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
69. 20314/19
Çevik v. Türkiye
20/03/2019
Metin ÇEVİK1977İzmirTurkish
Bahadır Gökhan KAYA
70. 21219/19
Coşkun v. Türkiye
19/03/2019
Süleyman COŞKUN1980NurtingenTurkish
Metehan USLUEROL
71. 21246/19
Erbay v. Türkiye
29/03/2019
Şükür ERBAY1990TrabzonTurkish
Vahdeddin VARLI
72. 21560/19
Barıt v. Türkiye
08/04/2019
Necmettin BARIT1988ElazığTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
73. 21578/19
Erbaş v. Türkiye
05/04/2019
Mustafa ERBAŞ1973AnkaraTurkish
74. 21702/19
Duman v. Türkiye
04/04/2019
Ali İhsan DUMAN1986İzmirTurkish
Merve Vildan DUMAN
75. 21900/19
Çavdar v. Türkiye
18/04/2019
Durmuş ÇAVDAR1974TokatTurkish
76. 21907/19
Balcı v. Türkiye
08/04/2019
Zafer BALCI1971YalovaTurkish
Enes Malik KILIÇ
77. 21954/19
Bircan v. Türkiye
12/04/2019
Mustafa BİRCAN1973TokatTurkish
Lale KARADAŞ
78. 21956/19
Kabadayı v. Türkiye
19/04/2019
Enes KABADAYI1993BalıkesirTurkish
79. 22387/19
Birgin v. Türkiye
15/04/2019
Beytullah BİRGİN1986AksarayTurkish
Mehmet ÖNCÜ
80. 23055/19
Durmaz v. Türkiye
16/04/2019
Musa DURMAZ1994YozgatTurkish
Mehmet Ali BULUT
81. 23952/19
Aslan v. Türkiye
26/03/2019
Engin ASLAN1977ÇorumTurkish
Ramazan GÜLTEKİN
82. 24306/19
Alpay v. Türkiye
09/04/2019
Zafer ALPAY1975IstanbulTurkish
Şefik KARAKIŞ
83. 24618/19
Çelik v. Türkiye
24/04/2018
İlham ÇELİK1986KocaeliTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
84. 24912/19
Yetkin v. Türkiye
04/04/2019
Ertuğrul YETKİN1974AdanaTurkish
85. 24971/19
Alioğlu v. Türkiye
20/04/2019
Burhan ALİOĞLU1988IstanbulTurkish
İrfan ALİOĞLU
86. 25006/19
Taşdelen v. Türkiye
22/04/2019
Ali Osman TAŞDELEN1984YozgatTurkish
İlyas ERDOĞAN
87. 25146/19
Er v. Türkiye
22/04/2019
Cazip ER1977AdanaTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
88. 25442/19
Keskinoğlu v. Türkiye
30/04/2019
Cevdet KESKİNOĞLU1978SamsunTurkish
Metin ATEŞOĞLU
89. 25829/19
Taylan v. Türkiye
25/04/2019
Arif TAYLAN1978KonyaTurkish
90. 27028/19
Yelkovan v. Türkiye
19/04/2019
Murat YELKOVAN1976KocaeliTurkish
Mesut Can TARIM
91. 27095/19
Yasinoğlu v. Türkiye
03/05/2019
Erdal YASİNOĞLU1985İzmirTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
92. 27143/19
Demir v. Türkiye
29/04/2019
İsmail DEMİR1990GaziantepTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
93. 27495/19
Batçık v. Türkiye
17/05/2019
Gökhan BATÇIK1988MolnlyckeTurkish
94. 27657/19
Şalış v. Türkiye
30/04/2019
Hüseyin ŞALIŞ1979WylieTurkish
95. 27661/19
Aykaç v. Türkiye
03/05/2019
Osman AYKAÇ1969AnkaraTurkish
96. 29324/19
İğde v. Türkiye
09/05/2019
Uğur İĞDE1976KayseriTurkish
Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ
97. 29325/19
Bildirici v. Türkiye
10/05/2019
Hüseyin BİLDİRİCİ1967BalıkesirTurkish
98. 29672/19
Yazar v. Türkiye
10/05/2019
Gültekin YAZAR1970ZonguldakTurkish
Songül YAZAR
99. 30010/19
Boyacıoğlu v. Türkiye
26/04/2019
Erol BOYACIOĞLU1993KarsTurkish
Fatma BABAYİĞİT
100. 30226/19
Hacımüftüoğlu v. Türkiye
02/05/2019
Semih HACIMÜFTÜOĞLU1976TrabzonTurkish
101. 30323/19
Karaosmanoğlu v. Türkiye
20/05/2019
Fatih KARAOSMANOĞLU1964AnkaraTurkish
Feyza Banu KARAOSMANOĞLU
102. 30357/19
Güzel v. Türkiye
02/05/2019
Armağan Süleyman GÜZEL1989ManisaTurkish
Zümrüt ŞAHİN
103. 30378/19
Usluer v. Türkiye
14/05/2019
Yunus USLUER1971KocaeliTurkish
Hakki ARDA
104. 30386/19
Koç v. Türkiye
16/05/2019
Ayhan KOÇ1981AnkaraTurkish
105. 30440/19
Gümüş v. Türkiye
21/05/2019
Sefer GÜMÜŞ1975MersinTurkish
Zafer ÖZER
106. 30473/19
Çevik v. Türkiye
10/05/2019
Ali ÇEVİK1980SinopTurkish
107. 30529/19
Akkaş v. Türkiye
22/05/2019
İsmet AKKAŞ1974KayseriTurkish
Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAŞİN
108. 30653/19
Kocatekin v. Türkiye
17/05/2019
Sevgi KOCATEKİN1977KocaeliTurkish
Elvan BAĞ CANBAZ
109. 30703/19
Şimşek v. Türkiye
22/05/2019
İmdat ŞİMŞEK1990BitlisTurkish
Gözde DEMİRBAŞ
110. 31079/19
Öztürk v. Türkiye
22/05/2019
Mustafa ÖZTÜRK1964TokatTurkish
111. 32627/19
Toptaş v. Türkiye
17/05/2019
Bilge Kağan TOPTAŞ
(formerly Bilge Kaan TOPTAŞ)1994MersinTurkish
Ali AVCI
112. 33114/19
Menzilci v. Türkiye
22/05/2019
Semih MENZİLCİ1969AydınTurkish
Esra Nur AKYOL
113. 33395/19
Arapoğlu v. Türkiye
21/05/2019
Miktat ARAPOĞLU1980YozgatTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
114. 33465/19
Ulusal v. Türkiye
11/06/2019
Murat ULUSAL1988AnkaraTurkish
115. 33950/19
Can v. Türkiye
22/06/2019
Hasan Basri CAN1965AfyonkarahisarTurkish
Naciye CAN
116. 34017/19
Uyar v. Türkiye
14/06/2019
Ramazan UYAR1977İzmirTurkish
117. 35042/19
Uğur v. Türkiye
01/07/2019
Murat UĞUR1976BoluTurkish
Said İsmail TÜRKOĞLU
118. 35050/19
Çelik v. Türkiye
01/07/2019
Seyit ÇELİK1983AksarayTurkish
Şeyma MISIRLIOĞLU
119. 35096/19
Ekici v. Türkiye
28/06/2019
Abdurrahman EKİCİ1981KahramanmaraşTurkish
Funda Nur GÜNAYDIN
120. 35149/19
Atik v. Türkiye
28/06/2019
Bahadır ATİK1983AnkaraTurkish
121. 35290/19
Aydın v. Türkiye
14/06/2019
Muhammed AYDIN1987BartınTurkish
122. 35443/19
Kaya v. Türkiye
13/06/2019
Ömür KAYA1976ÇorumTurkish
Özlem TATAR
123. 35644/19
Sarıboğa v. Türkiye
20/06/2019
Bahtiyar SARIBOĞA1975SamsunTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
124. 35831/19
Zengin v. Türkiye
28/05/2019
Cevdet ZENGİN1976İzmirTurkish
125. 33292/20
Güler v. Türkiye
17/07/2020
Ahmet GÜLER1974BoluTurkish
Merve Vildan DUMAN
126. 54377/20
Karapınar v. Türkiye
24/11/2020
Osman KARAPINAR1983MalatyaTurkish
127. 55414/20
Sevim v. Türkiye
26/11/2020
Necip Ercüment SEVİM1977AntalyaTurkish
İshak IŞIK
128. 55442/20
Koyuncu v. Türkiye
26/11/2020
Emre KOYUNCU1987MuğlaTurkish
İshak IŞIK
129. 1752/21
Şen v. Türkiye
11/12/2020
Erdal ŞEN1973SakaryaTurkish
Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
130. 21411/21
Ceyhan v. Türkiye
12/02/2021
İlyas CEYHAN1981BursaTurkish
Beyza CEYHAN
131. 45686/21
Tanrıverdi v. Türkiye
08/09/2021
Kamil TANRIVERDİ1994BoluTurkish
Muhammed Selim TÜRKOĞLU