I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in GÜMÜŞ v. TÜRKİYE and 152 other applications.
Information
- Judgment date: 2025-07-08
- Communication date: 2022-10-17
- Application number(s): 46997/17
- Country: TUR
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 5, 5-1-c, 6, 6-1, 8, 8-1
- 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: 0.861333
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
Published on 7 November 2022 The applications mainly concern the applicants’ arrest and pre-trial detention, on suspicion of membership of FETÖ/PDY (an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as “Fetullahist Terror Organisation / Parallel State Structure”), in the aftermath of the attempted coup d’état which took place on 15 July 2016.
The applicants complain of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on the basis of the following allegations (see the appended table for detailed information as to the specific complaints raised by each applicant): - They were detained in the absence of any suspicion that they committed an offence; - There were no relevant and sufficient reasons to justify their initial and/or continued pre-trial detention; - The length of their pre-trial detention was excessive; - The reviews of detention took place without a hearing and they were not notified of the opinion of the public prosecutor on those reviews; - Their access to the investigation files was restricted; - The objections to their detention or their requests for release were not examined or examined belatedly; - The decisions extending their pre-trial detention were not notified to them, or were notified with a delay, which prevented them from appealing against those decisions; - They did not benefit from effective legal assistance and facilities to challenge their detention, having particular regard to the fact that their communication with their lawyers was monitored by the prison authorities; - The time taken by the Constitutional Court to conduct its examination of their individual applications was excessive; - There was no compensatory remedy available in domestic law for the alleged violation of their rights under Article 5 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES On the basis of the complaints communicated in accordance with the list in the Appendix 1.
Can the applicants be considered to have been detained on the basis of “a reasonable suspicion”, for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, that they had committed an offence (see, in particular, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, § 32, Series A No.
182), taking into account, in particular, Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires “concrete evidence demonstrating the existence of strong suspicions” as to the commission of the offence?
Moreover, has the Constitutional Court based the existence of reasonable suspicion on evidence discovered after the decisions had been taken to detain the applicants (see, in particular, Baş v. Turkey, no.
66448/17, § 185, 3 March 2020)?
2.
(a) Did the applicants exhaust the remedies available in domestic law in relation to their complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
To the extent that the applicants’ complaints did not relate solely to the length of their pre-trial detention but also concerned the alleged failure of the domestic courts to provide relevant and sufficient reasons to justify their initial and continued pre-trial detention, can a compensation claim under Article 141 § 1(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure be regarded as an effective remedy in respect of those complaints (see Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no.
2) [GC], no.
14305/17, § 213, 22 December 2020)?
(b) Was the applicants’ pre-trial detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
In particular: (i) Did the judges, who ordered the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention and the prolongation of their detention, and who examined the objections lodged against those decisions, fulfil their obligation to provide relevant and sufficient grounds for the deprivation of liberty in question (see, in particular, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no.
23755/07, § 102, ECHR 2016 (extracts))?
(ii) Was the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
3.
Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective remedy by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their deprivation of liberty, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
In particular, the Government are invited to respond to the following complaints made by the applicants (to the extent that they concern remedies already sought at the time of the lodging of the complaints, as relevant): (i) the principle of equality of arms had not been respected, as the decisions to extend their detention and their objections to those decisions had been examined without a hearing and the prosecutors’ opinions had not been communicated to them (see, in particular, Baş, cited above, §§ 212-214, and Kocamış and Kurt v. Turkey, no.
227/13, §§ 34-35, 25 January 2022); (ii) they had been unable to challenge their detention in an effective manner because of the restriction imposed on their access to the investigation file (see, inter alia, Ceviz v. Turkey, no.
8140/08, § 41, 17 July 2012); (iii) their objections to their detention had not been examined or had been examined belatedly (see, for example, Shannon v. Latvia, no.
32214/03, §§ 67-74, 24 November 2009); (iv) the decisions to extend their detention had not been notified to them or had been notified with a delay, which had prevented them from lodging objections against those decisions (compare, for example, Voskuil v. the Netherlands, no.
64752/01, § 83, 22 November 2007); (v) they had had no effective legal assistance or facilities to challenge their detention, having particular regard to the fact that their communication with their lawyers had been monitored (see, mutatis mutandis, Černák v. Slovakia, no.
36997/08, § 78, 17 December 2013); (vi) the time taken by the Constitutional Court to examine their individual applications had been protracted (compare for the principles Kavala v. Turkey, no.
28749/18, §§ 181-184, 10 December 2019).
4.
Did the compensation remedy provided under Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure constitute an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in respect of complaints concerning (i) the lack of an oral hearing during the review of detention; (ii) the non‐notification or belated notification of the detention decision; and (iii) the lack of or delay in the examination of the objection against detention by the magistrates’ courts (compare, for example, Hebat Aslan and Firas Aslan v. Turkey, no.
15048/09, §§ 92-93, 28 October 2014)?
5.
Did the applicants have, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, an effective and enforceable right to obtain compensation for their detention, which they consider to have been contrary to Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and/or 4 (Kocamış and Kurt, cited above, §§ 36-40)?
APPENDIX List of applications No.
App.
no.
Case name Date of introduction Complaints 1.
46997/17 Gümüş v. Türkiye 27/02/2017 Lack of reasonable suspicion 2.
62892/17 Çelenli v. Türkiye 27/06/2017 Lack of reasonable suspicion 3.
72761/17 Şahin v. Türkiye 26/09/2017 Lack of reasonable suspicion Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities 4.
14646/18 Doğangün v. Türkiye 09/03/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion 5.
25922/18 Uzun v. Türkiye 11/05/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review 6.
42811/18 Tuğ v. Türkiye 27/08/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion 7.
45445/18 Akgün v. Türkiye 07/09/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 8.
47681/18 Saray v. Türkiye 04/09/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 9.
49217/18 Çekiç v. Türkiye 24/09/2018 Restriction of access to the investigation file 10.
57217/18 Tekin v. Türkiye 16/11/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 11.
3467/19 Özbey v. Türkiye 27/12/2018 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 12.
8045/19 Yayman v. Türkiye 04/01/2019 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 13.
15780/19 Karaman v. Türkiye 01/03/2019 Lack of reasonable suspicion 14.
19135/19 Gülak v. Türkiye 22/03/2019 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 15.
24217/19 Taşkın v. Türkiye 10/04/2019 Lack of reasonable suspicion 16.
25248/19 Taşkın v. Türkiye 16/04/2019 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 17.
30883/19 Ayar v. Türkiye 30/05/2019 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 18.
35143/19 Öksüz v. Türkiye 19/06/2019 Lack of reasonable suspicion 19.
44360/19 Ergitürk v. Türkiye 08/08/2019 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 20.
46997/19 Mengirkaon v. Türkiye 19/08/2019 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 21.
51126/19 Kale v. Türkiye 15/09/2019 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 22.
53150/19 Çiydem v. Türkiye 17/09/2019 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 23.
53570/19 Dönmez v. Türkiye 13/09/2019 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 24.
62097/19 Çeltekli v. Türkiye 20/11/2019 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review 25.
12023/20 Özdemir v. Türkiye 28/02/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 26.
19197/20 Gül v. Türkiye 27/04/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review 27.
23386/20 Aktaş v. Türkiye 14/05/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion 28.
25724/20 Özay v. Türkiye 15/06/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 29.
27345/20 Hasyiğit v. Türkiye 29/06/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review 30.
27634/20 Ünlü v. Türkiye 09/06/2020 Lack of hearing during the detention review 31.
27850/20 Çakar v. Türkiye 29/06/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 32.
29974/20 Yıldız v. Türkiye 12/07/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review 33.
32052/20 Acar v. Türkiye 06/07/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 34.
32540/20 Kalkan v. Türkiye 28/07/2020 Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection 35.
34462/20 Özay v. Türkiye 17/07/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release /objection 36.
34890/20 Arikan v. Türkiye 10/08/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review 37.
35863/20 Dikici v. Türkiye 08/07/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 38.
37167/20 Başaran v. Türkiye 19/08/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities 39.
38118/20 Orbuk v. Türkiye 20/08/2020 Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 40.
38355/20 Tokuç v. Türkiye 19/08/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 41.
41543/20 Kaynarcı v. Türkiye 03/09/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 42.
42818/20 Bozkan v. Türkiye 09/09/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 43.
43008/20 Acar v. Türkiye 11/09/2020 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 44.
43634/20 Ünal v. Türkiye 17/09/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 45.
44227/20 Deniz v. Türkiye 29/09/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 46.
44428/20 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 23/09/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 47.
44961/20 Yıldız v. Türkiye 29/09/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 48.
46355/20 İnkaya v. Türkiye 05/10/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review 49.
46565/20 Saçkan v. Türkiye 15/10/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review 50.
46580/20 Keserci v. Türkiye 07/10/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion 51.
46894/20 Çelik v. Türkiye 18/10/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 52.
47621/20 Güney v. Türkiye 21/10/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 53.
48662/20 Ercan v. Türkiye 22/10/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 54.
49051/20 Cengiz v. Türkiye 05/10/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 55.
49996/20 Kılıç v. Türkiye 03/11/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review 56.
50471/20 Cengiz v. Türkiye 30/10/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion 57.
51544/20 Yıldız v. Türkiye 20/11/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review 58.
51767/20 Sarı v. Türkiye 09/11/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 59.
54575/20 Yayla v. Türkiye 26/11/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review 60.
55482/20 Şimşek v. Türkiye 26/11/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 61.
55508/20 Dağlı v. Türkiye 01/12/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 62.
1432/21 Tekin v. Türkiye 17/12/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 63.
1489/21 Tahsin v. Türkiye 28/12/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 64.
2070/21 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 23/12/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion 65.
2103/21 Coşkun v. Türkiye 02/12/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 66.
3037/21 Kızılateş v. Türkiye 29/12/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 67.
4793/21 Petek v. Türkiye 30/12/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review 68.
5312/21 Şahin v. Türkiye 05/01/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 69.
5322/21 Vural v. Türkiye 05/01/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 70.
7415/21 Durmuş v. Türkiye 21/01/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion 71.
10055/21 Merdivan v. Türkiye 12/02/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 72.
10496/21 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 02/02/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release /objection 73.
10570/21 Aldemir v. Türkiye 05/02/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 74.
12994/21 Şeker v. Türkiye 22/02/2021 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 75.
13133/21 Arslan v. Türkiye 11/12/2020 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 76.
13144/21 İnanç v. Türkiye 23/02/2021 Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 77.
16765/21 Karapınar v. Türkiye 18/03/2021 Lack of hearing during the detention review 78.
17904/21 Şekerci v. Türkiye 05/03/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion 79.
22164/21 Kesik v. Türkiye 31/03/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review No effective remedy for compensation 80.
22579/21 Babalı v. Türkiye 19/02/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 81.
22855/21 Baysal v. Türkiye 27/04/2021 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review 82.
27427/21 Çalışır v. Türkiye 06/05/2021 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 83.
29495/21 Tanrıkulu v. Türkiye 31/05/2021 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review 84.
30632/21 Yaradanakul v. Türkiye 09/06/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 85.
31787/21 Koyuncu v. Türkiye 11/06/2021 Lack of hearing during the detention review 86.
33491/21 Çarık v. Türkiye 17/06/2021 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 87.
36518/21 Dikmen v. Türkiye 08/07/2021 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review 88.
38126/21 Yıldız v. Türkiye 24/06/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 89.
38520/21 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 29/06/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 90.
38708/21 Bacak v. Türkiye 29/06/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 91.
39518/21 Cevri v. Türkiye 18/06/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 92.
41652/21 Gölcü v. Türkiye 13/08/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities 93.
48380/21 Cesur v. Türkiye 24/09/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 94.
49294/21 Gökçelik v. Türkiye 17/09/2021 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 95.
50441/21 Cevheroğlu v. Türkiye 28/09/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 96.
51131/21 Öztürk v. Türkiye 07/10/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 97.
51294/21 Özkan v. Türkiye 06/10/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 98.
51434/21 Sezgin v. Türkiye 06/10/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 99.
51815/21 Dombaycı v. Türkiye 13/10/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 100.
55809/21 Çelik v. Türkiye 28/10/2021 Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Failure/delay in examining requests for release /objection 101.
56329/21 Yılmaz v. Türkiye 10/11/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 102.
57018/21 İyiiş v. Türkiye 12/11/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 103.
57556/21 Demirkart v. Türkiye 05/11/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 104.
58213/21 Aydoğan v. Türkiye 17/11/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release /objection Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 105.
58963/21 Demir v. Türkiye 24/11/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 106.
59124/21 Karagöz v. Türkiye 26/11/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure/delay in examining requests for release /objection 107.
59136/21 Bozkurt v. Türkiye 18/11/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 108.
59143/21 Fırat v. Türkiye 30/11/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 109.
60036/21 Güleryüz v. Türkiye 23/11/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 110.
60790/21 Beydilli v. Türkiye 09/12/2021 Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 111.
152/22 Kalın v. Türkiye 21/12/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 112.
217/22 Sirkecioğlu v. Türkiye 24/12/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 113.
222/22 Özcan v. Türkiye 24/12/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 114.
345/22 Bayçöl v. Türkiye 30/12/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 115.
1332/22 Damar v. Türkiye 24/12/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 116.
1645/22 Bulut v. Türkiye 09/11/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 117.
1895/22 Tuncer v. Türkiye 15/12/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 118.
2327/22 Güzel v. Türkiye 23/12/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion 119.
2408/22 Özcan v. Türkiye 30/12/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 120.
3026/22 Gün v. Türkiye 21/12/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion 121.
3065/22 İnan v. Türkiye 15/12/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 122.
3432/22 Şeker v. Türkiye 22/12/2021 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 123.
3615/22 Demirtaş v. Türkiye 13/01/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 124.
3729/22 Gençer v. Türkiye 14/01/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 125.
3745/22 Özer v. Türkiye 03/01/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion 126.
4568/22 Sipahi v. Türkiye 07/01/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 127.
4996/22 Aşkın v. Türkiye 31/12/2021 Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 128.
5891/22 Zengin v. Türkiye 21/01/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion 129.
6279/22 Bulut v. Türkiye 28/01/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 130.
6448/22 Uçar v. Türkiye 19/01/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion Delay in examination by the Constitutional Court 131.
7170/22 Kiriş v. Türkiye 19/01/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review 132.
7576/22 Beceren v. Türkiye 02/02/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 133.
7577/22 Boztürk v. Türkiye 02/02/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 134.
7583/22 Er v. Türkiye 02/02/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion 135.
7584/22 Deveci v. Türkiye 02/02/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion 136.
8993/22 Kocaoğlu v. Türkiye 04/02/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention 137.
8999/22 Ulukaya v. Türkiye 04/02/2022 Restriction of access to the investigation file Failure/delay in examining requests for release /objection Lack/difficulties of legal assistance/other facilities 138.
9101/22 Aşır v. Türkiye 08/02/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 139.
9653/22 Armutcu v. Türkiye 26/01/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in examining requests for release /objection 140.
9675/22 Yağcı v. Türkiye 10/02/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Failure to communicate the prosecutor’s opinion 141.
9931/22 Kılıç v. Türkiye 18/02/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file 142.
10501/22 Üzümcü v. Türkiye 28/01/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion 143.
10611/22 Sarıcı v. Türkiye 24/01/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 144.
11504/22 Bulduk v. Türkiye 21/02/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 145.
12356/22 Hepgül v. Türkiye 17/02/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 146.
12952/22 Başbilen v. Türkiye 28/02/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of hearing during the detention review 147.
13098/22 Şeker v. Türkiye 09/03/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion 148.
13619/22 Yıldırım v. Türkiye 03/03/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 149.
14013/22 Kondu v. Türkiye 14/03/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of hearing during the detention review Failure/delay in communicating decisions relating to detention 150.
14678/22 Altın v. Türkiye 11/03/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 151.
15013/22 Mercan v. Türkiye 21/03/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion Lack of hearing during the detention review 152.
15970/22 Karagöl Kiyat v. Türkiye 09/03/2022 Lack of reasonable suspicion 153.
16638/22 Çankal v. Türkiye 16/02/2022 Failure/delay in examining requests for release /objection Published on 7 November 2022 The applications mainly concern the applicants’ arrest and pre-trial detention, on suspicion of membership of FETÖ/PDY (an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as “Fetullahist Terror Organisation / Parallel State Structure”), in the aftermath of the attempted coup d’état which took place on 15 July 2016.
The applicants complain of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on the basis of the following allegations (see the appended table for detailed information as to the specific complaints raised by each applicant): - They were detained in the absence of any suspicion that they committed an offence; - There were no relevant and sufficient reasons to justify their initial and/or continued pre-trial detention; - The length of their pre-trial detention was excessive; - The reviews of detention took place without a hearing and they were not notified of the opinion of the public prosecutor on those reviews; - Their access to the investigation files was restricted; - The objections to their detention or their requests for release were not examined or examined belatedly; - The decisions extending their pre-trial detention were not notified to them, or were notified with a delay, which prevented them from appealing against those decisions; - They did not benefit from effective legal assistance and facilities to challenge their detention, having particular regard to the fact that their communication with their lawyers was monitored by the prison authorities; - The time taken by the Constitutional Court to conduct its examination of their individual applications was excessive; - There was no compensatory remedy available in domestic law for the alleged violation of their rights under Article 5 of the Convention.
Judgment
SECOND SECTIONCASE OF TÜZEMEN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
(Applications nos. 66683/16 and 116 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 July 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tüzemen and Others v. Türkiye,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Tim Eicke, President, Jovan Ilievski, Gediminas Sagatys, judges,and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 5 of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of an offence, the alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons when ordering and extending the pre-trial detention, the length of the pre-trial detention and the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the time, 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 the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
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 17 June 2025,
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 attempted coup d’état 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 attempted coup d’état (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 challenges brought by them against their detention were dismissed by the competent courts. 3. On various dates in the course of the ensuing criminal investigations and trials, the competent judicial authorities ordered the applicants’ continued detention. 4. It appears from the information and documents in the case files that, when ordering and extending the applicants’ pre-trial detention, the competent judicial authorities relied on various evidential grounds, including but not limited to: using the Bylock messaging system; witness statements indicating ties with FETÖ/PDY; sharing social media posts or participating in protests in favour of FETÖ/PDY; possession of pro-FETÖ/PDY publications; having intensive telephone contact with FETÖ/PDY suspects; suspension or dismissal from office; working in, or being a member of, institutions having ties with the organisation in question or an organisation shut down by the state‐of‐emergency legislative decrees; financing the FETÖ/PDY in view of their use of accounts in Bank Asya – a bank allegedly linked to FETÖ/PDY –; enrolling their children in an educational institution allegedly affiliated with the FETÖ/PDY; participating in journeys abroad with FETÖ/PDY suspects; provision of financial support, the details and nature of which are not provided, to FETÖ/PDY or to institutions with ties to FETÖ/PDY; attending or holding meetings (sohbet) the dates, nature or characteristics of which are not specified; staying in FETÖ/PDY residences; having in their possessions United States one‐dollar bills with an “F” serial number; and carrying out various other activities on the orders of the organisation. 5. It further appears from the case files that, in accordance with Articles 100 and 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”, for the text of these provisions see Kavala v. Turkey, no. 28749/18, §§ 71-72, 10 December 2019), the competent judicial authorities justified their decisions to deprive the applicants of their liberty not only on the basis of the existence of reasonable suspicion, but also on the grounds of the nature and the severity of the alleged offence of membership of an armed terrorist organisation and the fact that that offence was among the “catalogue” offences listed in Article 100 § 3 of the CCP. Without making an individualised assessment, they also relied on the state of the evidence and the risk of the applicants absconding and tampering with evidence and considered that detention would be a proportionate measure in the circumstances. 6. In the meantime, the applicants lodged one or more individual applications with the Constitutional Court in respect of the detention orders, complaining, inter alia, about the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence and the alleged lack of reasons to justify the decision to remand them in pre-trial detention, which were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court in summary fashion. 7. According to the latest information provided by the parties, most of the applicants were convicted of membership of an armed terrorist organisation by the courts of first instance on the basis of evidence that was present at the time of their detention or that appeared at a later stage in the proceedings. It further appears that some of the criminal proceedings are still pending before the appellate courts or the Constitutional Court. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
8. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. The Court 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, possession of certain pro-FETÖ/PDY publications, having in their possession 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 or other 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). Accordingly, in applications where the use of Bylock constituted the principal basis for the applicants’ detention, the Court finds that there was no reasonable suspicion, for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (c), that they had committed an offence. 13. As regards the other evidentiary elements relied upon by the national courts where the use of Bylock was not the central or sole factor, the Court recalls its finding in Taner Kılıç (§§ 104-05, cited above), that acts such as subscribing to the organisation’s lawful publications, enrolling children in legally operating schools allegedly affiliated with the organisation, or holding an account with Bank Asya were merely circumstantial and, in the absence of further probative elements, could not reasonably give rise to a suspicion of having committed the alleged offence. The Court further emphasised that such acts enjoy a presumption of legality unless supported by additional elements such as concrete evidence of the suspect’s intentional engagement with an organisation’s criminal activities (§ 105). In the light of these considerations, the Court finds that the additional elements relied upon in the present applications for ordering the applicants’ detention, such as the possession of specific one-dollar bills, social media activity, protests, contacts with other suspects, employment/membership in affiliated entities or dismissal from public service, likewise fall within the scope of acts which do not, per se, give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the applicants were members of a terrorist organisation. These factors do not carry any greater evidentiary weight than the circumstantial elements previously examined by the Court. The Court thus considers, a fortiori, that the other acts imputed to the applicants allegedly demonstrating an “organisational connection” (see paragraph 4 above) cannot reasonably be construed as evidence of membership of a terrorist organisation in the absence of further information substantiating such suspicions (compare Taner Kılıç, cited above, §§ 104-05 and the cases cited therein). 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 the detention orders do not refer to any statements setting out concrete and specific facts that may have given rise to a reasonable suspicion against the applicants concerned at the material time that they were members of a terrorist organisation. 14. The Court further notes that, when ordering the applicants’ initial pre‐trial detention, the magistrates’ 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. 15. 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 (compare 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 attempted coup d’état – 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. 16. As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 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
17. The applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos. 69572/17, 82344/17, 24217/19, 44360/19, 22579/21 and 51815/21, 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. 18. The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive. 19. 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. 69572/17, 82344/17, 24217/19, 44360/19, 22579/21 and 51815/21, 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 applications nos. 69572/17, 82344/17, 24217/19, 44360/19, 22579/21 and 51815/21 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 8 July 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Dorothee von Arnim Tim Eicke Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of cases:
No. Application no. Case name
Lodged on
ApplicantYear of BirthPlace of ResidenceNationality
Represented by
66683/16
Tüzemen v. Türkiye
26/10/2016
Ahmet TÜZEMEN1970ANKARATurkish
Hasan Hüseyin ERDOĞAN
15015/17
Sarıkılıç v. Türkiye
19/01/2017
Haydar SARIKILIÇ1974KocaeliTurkish
Betül Hamide CAN DEMİR
33945/17
Yıldırım v. Türkiye
15/03/2017
Haydar YILDIRIM1975KOCAELİTurkish
İlyas TEKİN
34109/17
Acıyan v. Türkiye
21/03/2017
Ahmetali ACIYAN1977KocaeliTurkish
Enes Malik KILIÇ
38334/17
Aydın v. Türkiye
21/03/2017
Mustafa AYDIN1972IstanbulTurkish
Ziya Metehan ARISOY
41278/17
Kökten v. Türkiye
04/05/2017
Kadir KÖKTEN1987IstanbulTurkish
Ziya Metehan ARISOY
41594/17
Ayvaz v. Türkiye
12/05/2017
Mehmet AYVAZ1988ELAZIĞTurkish
Hilal YILMAZ PUSAT
41597/17
Maksutoğlu v. Türkiye
19/05/2017
Ersin MAKSUTOĞLU1985IstanbulTurkish
Hilal YILMAZ PUSAT
42217/17
Kumcu v. Türkiye
03/03/2017
Erol KUMCU1972ManisaTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
42304/17
Bilici v. Türkiye
21/04/2017
Necati BİLİCİ1972MalatyaTurkish
42917/17
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
06/06/2017
Seher YILMAZ1972UşakTurkish
Gülhis YÖRÜK
46997/17
Gümüş v. Türkiye
27/02/2017
Adem GÜMÜŞ1969DenizliTurkish
Furkan GÜLER
58068/17
Kaşkar v. Türkiye
03/07/2017
Muhammet Emin KAŞKAR1968ÇanakkaleTurkish
Sinem KURAL
61086/17
Ütkür v. Türkiye
31/07/2017
Yasin ÜTKÜR1990ŞanlıurfaTurkish
Önder ÖZDERYOL
61973/17
Şahin v. Türkiye
20/04/2017
Hıdır ŞAHİN1957ElazığTurkish
Bülent Seçkin DÜZTAŞ
62138/17
Şahin v. Türkiye
26/04/2017
Ayhan ŞAHİN1975AntalyaTurkish
Teoman AYDOĞAN
62719/17
İlgen v. Türkiye
27/01/2017
Kasım İLGEN1981SamsunTurkish
Ümran TAŞ
62892/17
Çelenli v. Türkiye
27/06/2017
Engin ÇELENLİ1983KarabükTurkish
Muhammed Talha YILMAZ
63595/17
Uslu v. Türkiye
01/06/2017
Hasan USLU1976AnkaraTurkish
Hasan TOK
63893/17
Baruğ v. Türkiye
24/07/2017
Hasan Sami BARUĞ1953İzmirTurkish
Mine ÖZTÜRK
66688/17
Yıldırım v. Türkiye
24/01/2017
Fuat YILDIRIM1977KocaeliTurkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ
66791/17
Acar v. Türkiye
17/08/2017
Murat ACAR1971AnkaraTurkish
Gülhis YÖRÜK
68719/17
Akcan v. Türkiye
12/05/2017
Yakup AKCAN1980AydınTurkish
Büşra KURT KÜÇÜK
69571/17
Doğan v. Türkiye
21/07/2017
Hakan DOĞAN1979IstanbulTurkish
Dilara YILMAZ
69572/17
Avcı v. Türkiye
09/08/2017
Gürcan AVCI1984IstanbulTurkish
Salim Serdar YAĞCI
69826/17
Baştuğ v. Türkiye
09/08/2017
Suna BAŞTUĞ1978IstanbulTurkish
Dilara YILMAZ
69856/17
Aydoğdu v. Türkiye
18/08/2017
Uğur AYDOĞDU1974KırıkkaleTurkish
Dilara YILMAZ
69859/17
Aykan v. Türkiye
18/08/2017
Ali AYKAN1975KırıkkaleTurkish
Dilara YILMAZ
70500/17
Yardımcı v. Türkiye
25/08/2017
Serkan YARDIMCI1979AnkaraTurkish
Dilara YILMAZ
72761/17
Şahin v. Türkiye
26/09/2017
Ali Feyzullah ŞAHİN1978İzmirTurkish
Hasan TOK
79057/17
Çırak v. Türkiye
13/04/2017
Fatih Mehmet ÇIRAK1976KonyaTurkish
Elif KANDİLLİ
81692/17
Demir v. Türkiye
16/11/2017
Şenol DEMİR1975BoluTurkish
Esra ACAR
81896/17
Kömüşcü v. Türkiye
10/11/2017
Alparslan KÖMÜŞCÜ1967KastamonuTurkish
Harun ÇOKGÜNGÖR
82072/17
Genel v. Türkiye
21/11/2017
Hayrettin GENEL1974AnkaraTurkish
Utku Coşkuner SAKARYA
82304/17
Uludağ v. Türkiye
16/11/2017
Kültigin ULUDAĞ1982AnkaraTurkish
Nadir SEÇGİN
82315/17
Koç v. Türkiye
17/11/2017
Kenan KOÇ1983AnkaraTurkish
Ebubekir DEMİÇ
82344/17
Babalı v. Türkiye
29/11/2017
Tuncay BABALI1973AnkaraTurkish
Hakan YILDIRIM
84559/17
Soyaslan v. Türkiye
15/11/2017
Yunus SOYASLAN1974KırşehirTurkish
Lale KARADAŞ
84629/17
Yiğit v. Türkiye
23/11/2017
Deniz YİĞİT1984KırıkkaleTurkish
Utku Coşkuner SAKARYA
14646/18
Doğangün v. Türkiye
09/03/2018
Mustafa DOĞANGÜN1981KonyaTurkish
Cihat ÇITIR
26902/18
Şen v. Türkiye
25/05/2018
Halil ŞEN1974CorumTurkish
Adem KAPLAN
26903/18
Arslan v. Türkiye
25/05/2018
Fettah ARSLAN1972AnkaraTurkish
Adem KAPLAN
27028/18
Fidan v. Türkiye
31/05/2018
Hamdullah FİDAN1964KırşehirTurkish
Mehmet Sıddık KARAGÖZ
27050/18
Bölükbaşı v. Türkiye
25/05/2018
Ednan BÖLÜKBAŞI1973ElazığTurkish
27061/18
Ulusoy v. Türkiye
18/05/2018
Ferhat ULUSOY1968ÇankırıTurkish
Adem KAPLAN
28604/18
Çepik v. Türkiye
01/06/2018
Hüseyin ÇEPİK1968AnkaraTurkish
Adem KAPLAN
29590/18
Soylu v. Türkiye
13/06/2018
Uğur SOYLU1988KocaeliTurkish
Burak KABLAN
30260/18
Akıncı v. Türkiye
19/06/2018
Mustafa AKINCI1973BursaTurkish
Elif KARDEŞ
30529/18
Tanrıkulu v. Türkiye
22/06/2018
Murat TANRIKULU1985KütahyaTurkish
Mustafa SOYLU
32409/18
Esen v. Türkiye
28/06/2018
Muhammet ESEN1969DüzceTurkish
Levent MAZILIGÜNEY
39511/18
Üren v. Türkiye
10/08/2018
Mehmet Cemil ÜREN1972IspartaTurkish
Uğur ALTUN
39518/18
Keskin v. Türkiye
10/08/2018
Beytullah KESKİN1987AnkaraTurkish
Tuğba Nur KIYMAZ
39719/18
Yıldırım v. Türkiye
16/08/2018
Kahraman YILDIRIM1982KocaeliTurkish
Yasemin İŞLER
42811/18
Tuğ v. Türkiye
27/08/2018
Şerafettin TUĞ1963İzmirTurkish
Büşra Rahime CAN
45445/18
Akgün v. Türkiye
07/09/2018
Yasin AKGÜN1981AnkaraTurkish
Adem KAPLAN
47681/18
Saray v. Türkiye
04/09/2018
Ali SARAY1968İzmirTurkish
Aydilek SARAY
57217/18
Tekin v. Türkiye
16/11/2018
Seyfi TEKİN1986KahramanmaraşTurkish
Sümeyra DOBUR
3467/19
Özbey v. Türkiye
27/12/2018
Süleyman ÖZBEY1971YalovaTurkish
Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
19135/19
Gülak v. Türkiye
22/03/2019
Refik GÜLAK1976KocaeliTurkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
24217/19
Taşkın v. Türkiye
10/04/2019
Mustafa TAŞKIN1974TrabzonTurkish
35143/19
Öksüz v. Türkiye
19/06/2019
Zübeyir ÖKSÜZ1979KütahyaTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
44360/19
Ergitürk v. Türkiye
08/08/2019
Turgut ERGİTÜRK1972ÇorumTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
62097/19
Çeltekli v. Türkiye
20/11/2019
Mustafa ÇELTEKLİ1985BalıkesirTurkish
Muhammed Talha YILMAZ
19197/20
Gül v. Türkiye
27/04/2020
Mehmet GÜL1980OsmaniyeTurkish
Nurhan ÖZDURAN
23386/20
Aktaş v. Türkiye
14/05/2020
Deniz AKTAŞ1987KocaeliTurkish
Oğuz GÜNDÜZ
25724/20
Özay v. Türkiye
15/06/2020
Nazmi ÖZAY1972İzmirTurkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
27850/20
Çakar v. Türkiye
29/06/2020
Sabit ÇAKAR1954IstanbulTurkish
Adem UZAK
29974/20
Yıldız v. Türkiye
12/07/2020
Selçuk YILDIZ1982OsmaniyeTurkish
Abdullah AKSOY
32052/20
Acar v. Türkiye
06/07/2020
Halil ACAR1994AksarayTurkish
Cihat ÇITIR
34462/20
Özay v. Türkiye
17/07/2020
Hacer ÖZAY1978IstanbulTurkish
Emre AKARYILDIZ
34890/20
Arikan v. Türkiye
10/08/2020
Reşat ARIKAN1982BitlisTurkish
Kübra GÜLAÇTI
35863/20
Dikici v. Türkiye
08/07/2020
Mahmut DİKİCİ1991OsmaniyeTurkish
Dudu ERTUNÇ
37167/20
Başaran v. Türkiye
19/08/2020
Abdullah Sami BAŞARAN1972AnkaraTurkish
Utku Coşkuner SAKARYA
38355/20
Tokuç v. Türkiye
19/08/2020
Ömer TOKUÇ1982İzmirTurkish
Ahmet Salim ÇAKMAK
41543/20
Kaynarcı v. Türkiye
03/09/2020
Fuat KAYNARCI1974ÇankırıTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
43634/20
Ünal v. Türkiye
17/09/2020
Muammer ÜNAL1987AntalyaTurkish
Okan GÜNEL
44227/20
Deniz v. Türkiye
29/09/2020
Yılmaz DENİZ1968SivasTurkish
Tarık AVŞAR
44428/20
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
23/09/2020
Osman YILMAZ1968İzmirTurkish
Nafize GÜLCÜ
46355/20
İnkaya v. Türkiye
05/10/2020
Abdulkadir İNKAYA1959İzmirTurkish
46565/20
Saçkan v. Türkiye
15/10/2020
Hakan SAÇKAN1973İzmirTurkish
Arzu BEYAZIT
46894/20
Çelik v. Türkiye
18/10/2020
Necati ÇELİK1981OsmaniyeTurkish
Nazan ÇELİK
47621/20
Güney v. Türkiye
21/10/2020
Halil GÜNEY1990İzmirTurkish
Okan GÜNEL
49996/20
Kılıç v. Türkiye
03/11/2020
Mesut KILIÇ1983TekirdağTurkish
Zehra KILIÇ
51544/20
Yıldız v. Türkiye
20/11/2020
Mihdad YILDIZ1971SinopTurkish
Hakkı KAYNAR
51767/20
Sarı v. Türkiye
09/11/2020
Mesut SARI1989İzmirTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
54575/20
Yayla v. Türkiye
26/11/2020
Musa YAYLA1989KocaeliTurkish
Nuri TAN
1432/21
Tekin v. Türkiye
17/12/2020
Mehmet TEKİN1979AnkaraTurkish
2070/21
Yilmaz v. Türkiye
23/12/2020
Hüseyin YILMAZ1971MersinTurkish
Fatma Nur GÖKÇE UYSAL
2103/21
Coşkun v. Türkiye
02/12/2020
Halil COŞKUN1992ManisaTurkish
Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
3037/21
Kızılateş v. Türkiye
29/12/2020
Cumhur KIZILATEŞ1974AntalyaTurkish
Süeda KADIOĞLU
4793/21
Petek v. Türkiye
30/12/2020
Ertan PETEK1975MersinTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
5312/21
Şahin v. Türkiye
05/01/2021
Musa ŞAHİN1988KayseriTurkish
Hamdi Kenan SEVİNÇ
5322/21
Vural v. Türkiye
05/01/2021
Faruk VURAL1979AksarayTurkish
Mehmet ÖNCÜ
7415/21
Durmuş v. Türkiye
21/01/2021
Hüseyin DURMUŞ1974ManisaTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
10055/21
Merdivan v. Türkiye
12/02/2021
Saffet MERDİVAN1982AnkaraTurkish
Muhammet ÜSTÜN
22579/21
Babalı v. Türkiye
19/02/2021
Tuncay BABALI1973AnkaraTurkish
Hakan YILDIRIM
38520/21
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
29/06/2021
Ali YILMAZ1986AdanaTurkish
48380/21
Cesur v. Türkiye
24/09/2021
Kazım CESUR1989ZonguldakTurkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
51131/21
Öztürk v. Türkiye
07/10/2021
Eyup ÖZTÜRK1973KayseriTurkish
Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ
51434/21
Sezgin v. Türkiye
06/10/2021
İbrahim SEZGİN1988KırşehirTurkish
Enes Malik KILIÇ
51815/21
Dombaycı v. Türkiye
13/10/2021
Akın DOMBAYCI1975UşakTurkish
Elkan ALBAYRAK
59124/21
Karagöz v. Türkiye
26/11/2021
Mustafa KARAGÖZ1974AnkaraTurkish
60036/21
Güleryüz v. Türkiye
23/11/2021
Fatih GÜLERYÜZ1980AnkaraTurkish
Zümrüt ŞAHİN
217/22
Sirkecioğlu v. Türkiye
24/12/2021
İlyas SİRKECİOĞLU1985IstanbulTurkish
Mehmet ÇAVDAR
1332/22
Damar v. Türkiye
24/12/2021
Merve DAMAR1994IstanbulTurkish
Mehmet ÇAVDAR
2327/22
Güzel v. Türkiye
23/12/2021
Ejder GÜZEL1993İzmirTurkish
Muhammet DEMİR
2408/22
Özcan v. Türkiye
30/12/2021
Nalan ÖZCAN1995IstanbulTurkish
Mehmet ÇAVDAR
3026/22
Gün v. Türkiye
21/12/2021
Vahide Büşra GÜN1993IstanbulTurkish
Lütfullah GÜN
3615/22
Demirtaş v. Türkiye
13/01/2022
Serhat DEMİRTAŞ1972AydınTurkish
Orçun MUŞLU
3745/22
Özer v. Türkiye
03/01/2022
Ahmet ÖZER1984IstanbulTurkish
Mehmet ÖKSÜZ
7583/22
Er v. Türkiye
02/02/2022
Tuğba ER1986SakaryaTurkish
Ahmet EROL
9931/22
Kılıç v. Türkiye
18/02/2022
Sedat KILIÇ1982DiyarbakırTurkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ
11504/22
Bulduk v. Türkiye
21/02/2022
Oktay BULDUK1967IstanbulTurkish
Sümeyra BULDUK
12356/22
Hepgül v. Türkiye
17/02/2022
Cemil HEPGÜL1978İzmirTurkish
14013/22
Kondu v. Türkiye
14/03/2022
Ömer Faruk KONDU1968IstanbulTurkish
Emre AKARYILDIZ
14678/22
Altın v. Türkiye
11/03/2022
Nedim ALTIN1978AksarayTurkish
Mehmet ÖNCÜ
15013/22
Mercan v. Türkiye
21/03/2022
Serdar MERCAN1975ÇanakkaleTurkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF TÜZEMEN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
(Applications nos. 66683/16 and 116 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 July 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tüzemen and Others v. Türkiye,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Tim Eicke, President, Jovan Ilievski, Gediminas Sagatys, judges,and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 5 of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of an offence, the alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons when ordering and extending the pre-trial detention, the length of the pre-trial detention and the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the time, 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 the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
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 17 June 2025,
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 attempted coup d’état 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 attempted coup d’état (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 challenges brought by them against their detention were dismissed by the competent courts. 3. On various dates in the course of the ensuing criminal investigations and trials, the competent judicial authorities ordered the applicants’ continued detention. 4. It appears from the information and documents in the case files that, when ordering and extending the applicants’ pre-trial detention, the competent judicial authorities relied on various evidential grounds, including but not limited to: using the Bylock messaging system; witness statements indicating ties with FETÖ/PDY; sharing social media posts or participating in protests in favour of FETÖ/PDY; possession of pro-FETÖ/PDY publications; having intensive telephone contact with FETÖ/PDY suspects; suspension or dismissal from office; working in, or being a member of, institutions having ties with the organisation in question or an organisation shut down by the state‐of‐emergency legislative decrees; financing the FETÖ/PDY in view of their use of accounts in Bank Asya – a bank allegedly linked to FETÖ/PDY –; enrolling their children in an educational institution allegedly affiliated with the FETÖ/PDY; participating in journeys abroad with FETÖ/PDY suspects; provision of financial support, the details and nature of which are not provided, to FETÖ/PDY or to institutions with ties to FETÖ/PDY; attending or holding meetings (sohbet) the dates, nature or characteristics of which are not specified; staying in FETÖ/PDY residences; having in their possessions United States one‐dollar bills with an “F” serial number; and carrying out various other activities on the orders of the organisation. 5. It further appears from the case files that, in accordance with Articles 100 and 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”, for the text of these provisions see Kavala v. Turkey, no. 28749/18, §§ 71-72, 10 December 2019), the competent judicial authorities justified their decisions to deprive the applicants of their liberty not only on the basis of the existence of reasonable suspicion, but also on the grounds of the nature and the severity of the alleged offence of membership of an armed terrorist organisation and the fact that that offence was among the “catalogue” offences listed in Article 100 § 3 of the CCP. Without making an individualised assessment, they also relied on the state of the evidence and the risk of the applicants absconding and tampering with evidence and considered that detention would be a proportionate measure in the circumstances. 6. In the meantime, the applicants lodged one or more individual applications with the Constitutional Court in respect of the detention orders, complaining, inter alia, about the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence and the alleged lack of reasons to justify the decision to remand them in pre-trial detention, which were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court in summary fashion. 7. According to the latest information provided by the parties, most of the applicants were convicted of membership of an armed terrorist organisation by the courts of first instance on the basis of evidence that was present at the time of their detention or that appeared at a later stage in the proceedings. It further appears that some of the criminal proceedings are still pending before the appellate courts or the Constitutional Court. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
8. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. The Court 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, possession of certain pro-FETÖ/PDY publications, having in their possession 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 or other 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). Accordingly, in applications where the use of Bylock constituted the principal basis for the applicants’ detention, the Court finds that there was no reasonable suspicion, for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (c), that they had committed an offence. 13. As regards the other evidentiary elements relied upon by the national courts where the use of Bylock was not the central or sole factor, the Court recalls its finding in Taner Kılıç (§§ 104-05, cited above), that acts such as subscribing to the organisation’s lawful publications, enrolling children in legally operating schools allegedly affiliated with the organisation, or holding an account with Bank Asya were merely circumstantial and, in the absence of further probative elements, could not reasonably give rise to a suspicion of having committed the alleged offence. The Court further emphasised that such acts enjoy a presumption of legality unless supported by additional elements such as concrete evidence of the suspect’s intentional engagement with an organisation’s criminal activities (§ 105). In the light of these considerations, the Court finds that the additional elements relied upon in the present applications for ordering the applicants’ detention, such as the possession of specific one-dollar bills, social media activity, protests, contacts with other suspects, employment/membership in affiliated entities or dismissal from public service, likewise fall within the scope of acts which do not, per se, give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the applicants were members of a terrorist organisation. These factors do not carry any greater evidentiary weight than the circumstantial elements previously examined by the Court. The Court thus considers, a fortiori, that the other acts imputed to the applicants allegedly demonstrating an “organisational connection” (see paragraph 4 above) cannot reasonably be construed as evidence of membership of a terrorist organisation in the absence of further information substantiating such suspicions (compare Taner Kılıç, cited above, §§ 104-05 and the cases cited therein). 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 the detention orders do not refer to any statements setting out concrete and specific facts that may have given rise to a reasonable suspicion against the applicants concerned at the material time that they were members of a terrorist organisation. 14. The Court further notes that, when ordering the applicants’ initial pre‐trial detention, the magistrates’ 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. 15. 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 (compare 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 attempted coup d’état – 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. 16. As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 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
17. The applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos. 69572/17, 82344/17, 24217/19, 44360/19, 22579/21 and 51815/21, 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. 18. The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive. 19. 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. 69572/17, 82344/17, 24217/19, 44360/19, 22579/21 and 51815/21, 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 applications nos. 69572/17, 82344/17, 24217/19, 44360/19, 22579/21 and 51815/21 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 8 July 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Dorothee von Arnim Tim Eicke Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of cases:
No. Application no. Case name
Lodged on
ApplicantYear of BirthPlace of ResidenceNationality
Represented by
66683/16
Tüzemen v. Türkiye
26/10/2016
Ahmet TÜZEMEN1970ANKARATurkish
Hasan Hüseyin ERDOĞAN
15015/17
Sarıkılıç v. Türkiye
19/01/2017
Haydar SARIKILIÇ1974KocaeliTurkish
Betül Hamide CAN DEMİR
33945/17
Yıldırım v. Türkiye
15/03/2017
Haydar YILDIRIM1975KOCAELİTurkish
İlyas TEKİN
34109/17
Acıyan v. Türkiye
21/03/2017
Ahmetali ACIYAN1977KocaeliTurkish
Enes Malik KILIÇ
38334/17
Aydın v. Türkiye
21/03/2017
Mustafa AYDIN1972IstanbulTurkish
Ziya Metehan ARISOY
41278/17
Kökten v. Türkiye
04/05/2017
Kadir KÖKTEN1987IstanbulTurkish
Ziya Metehan ARISOY
41594/17
Ayvaz v. Türkiye
12/05/2017
Mehmet AYVAZ1988ELAZIĞTurkish
Hilal YILMAZ PUSAT
41597/17
Maksutoğlu v. Türkiye
19/05/2017
Ersin MAKSUTOĞLU1985IstanbulTurkish
Hilal YILMAZ PUSAT
42217/17
Kumcu v. Türkiye
03/03/2017
Erol KUMCU1972ManisaTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
42304/17
Bilici v. Türkiye
21/04/2017
Necati BİLİCİ1972MalatyaTurkish
42917/17
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
06/06/2017
Seher YILMAZ1972UşakTurkish
Gülhis YÖRÜK
46997/17
Gümüş v. Türkiye
27/02/2017
Adem GÜMÜŞ1969DenizliTurkish
Furkan GÜLER
58068/17
Kaşkar v. Türkiye
03/07/2017
Muhammet Emin KAŞKAR1968ÇanakkaleTurkish
Sinem KURAL
61086/17
Ütkür v. Türkiye
31/07/2017
Yasin ÜTKÜR1990ŞanlıurfaTurkish
Önder ÖZDERYOL
61973/17
Şahin v. Türkiye
20/04/2017
Hıdır ŞAHİN1957ElazığTurkish
Bülent Seçkin DÜZTAŞ
62138/17
Şahin v. Türkiye
26/04/2017
Ayhan ŞAHİN1975AntalyaTurkish
Teoman AYDOĞAN
62719/17
İlgen v. Türkiye
27/01/2017
Kasım İLGEN1981SamsunTurkish
Ümran TAŞ
62892/17
Çelenli v. Türkiye
27/06/2017
Engin ÇELENLİ1983KarabükTurkish
Muhammed Talha YILMAZ
63595/17
Uslu v. Türkiye
01/06/2017
Hasan USLU1976AnkaraTurkish
Hasan TOK
63893/17
Baruğ v. Türkiye
24/07/2017
Hasan Sami BARUĞ1953İzmirTurkish
Mine ÖZTÜRK
66688/17
Yıldırım v. Türkiye
24/01/2017
Fuat YILDIRIM1977KocaeliTurkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ
66791/17
Acar v. Türkiye
17/08/2017
Murat ACAR1971AnkaraTurkish
Gülhis YÖRÜK
68719/17
Akcan v. Türkiye
12/05/2017
Yakup AKCAN1980AydınTurkish
Büşra KURT KÜÇÜK
69571/17
Doğan v. Türkiye
21/07/2017
Hakan DOĞAN1979IstanbulTurkish
Dilara YILMAZ
69572/17
Avcı v. Türkiye
09/08/2017
Gürcan AVCI1984IstanbulTurkish
Salim Serdar YAĞCI
69826/17
Baştuğ v. Türkiye
09/08/2017
Suna BAŞTUĞ1978IstanbulTurkish
Dilara YILMAZ
69856/17
Aydoğdu v. Türkiye
18/08/2017
Uğur AYDOĞDU1974KırıkkaleTurkish
Dilara YILMAZ
69859/17
Aykan v. Türkiye
18/08/2017
Ali AYKAN1975KırıkkaleTurkish
Dilara YILMAZ
70500/17
Yardımcı v. Türkiye
25/08/2017
Serkan YARDIMCI1979AnkaraTurkish
Dilara YILMAZ
72761/17
Şahin v. Türkiye
26/09/2017
Ali Feyzullah ŞAHİN1978İzmirTurkish
Hasan TOK
79057/17
Çırak v. Türkiye
13/04/2017
Fatih Mehmet ÇIRAK1976KonyaTurkish
Elif KANDİLLİ
81692/17
Demir v. Türkiye
16/11/2017
Şenol DEMİR1975BoluTurkish
Esra ACAR
81896/17
Kömüşcü v. Türkiye
10/11/2017
Alparslan KÖMÜŞCÜ1967KastamonuTurkish
Harun ÇOKGÜNGÖR
82072/17
Genel v. Türkiye
21/11/2017
Hayrettin GENEL1974AnkaraTurkish
Utku Coşkuner SAKARYA
82304/17
Uludağ v. Türkiye
16/11/2017
Kültigin ULUDAĞ1982AnkaraTurkish
Nadir SEÇGİN
82315/17
Koç v. Türkiye
17/11/2017
Kenan KOÇ1983AnkaraTurkish
Ebubekir DEMİÇ
82344/17
Babalı v. Türkiye
29/11/2017
Tuncay BABALI1973AnkaraTurkish
Hakan YILDIRIM
84559/17
Soyaslan v. Türkiye
15/11/2017
Yunus SOYASLAN1974KırşehirTurkish
Lale KARADAŞ
84629/17
Yiğit v. Türkiye
23/11/2017
Deniz YİĞİT1984KırıkkaleTurkish
Utku Coşkuner SAKARYA
14646/18
Doğangün v. Türkiye
09/03/2018
Mustafa DOĞANGÜN1981KonyaTurkish
Cihat ÇITIR
26902/18
Şen v. Türkiye
25/05/2018
Halil ŞEN1974CorumTurkish
Adem KAPLAN
26903/18
Arslan v. Türkiye
25/05/2018
Fettah ARSLAN1972AnkaraTurkish
Adem KAPLAN
27028/18
Fidan v. Türkiye
31/05/2018
Hamdullah FİDAN1964KırşehirTurkish
Mehmet Sıddık KARAGÖZ
27050/18
Bölükbaşı v. Türkiye
25/05/2018
Ednan BÖLÜKBAŞI1973ElazığTurkish
27061/18
Ulusoy v. Türkiye
18/05/2018
Ferhat ULUSOY1968ÇankırıTurkish
Adem KAPLAN
28604/18
Çepik v. Türkiye
01/06/2018
Hüseyin ÇEPİK1968AnkaraTurkish
Adem KAPLAN
29590/18
Soylu v. Türkiye
13/06/2018
Uğur SOYLU1988KocaeliTurkish
Burak KABLAN
30260/18
Akıncı v. Türkiye
19/06/2018
Mustafa AKINCI1973BursaTurkish
Elif KARDEŞ
30529/18
Tanrıkulu v. Türkiye
22/06/2018
Murat TANRIKULU1985KütahyaTurkish
Mustafa SOYLU
32409/18
Esen v. Türkiye
28/06/2018
Muhammet ESEN1969DüzceTurkish
Levent MAZILIGÜNEY
39511/18
Üren v. Türkiye
10/08/2018
Mehmet Cemil ÜREN1972IspartaTurkish
Uğur ALTUN
39518/18
Keskin v. Türkiye
10/08/2018
Beytullah KESKİN1987AnkaraTurkish
Tuğba Nur KIYMAZ
39719/18
Yıldırım v. Türkiye
16/08/2018
Kahraman YILDIRIM1982KocaeliTurkish
Yasemin İŞLER
42811/18
Tuğ v. Türkiye
27/08/2018
Şerafettin TUĞ1963İzmirTurkish
Büşra Rahime CAN
45445/18
Akgün v. Türkiye
07/09/2018
Yasin AKGÜN1981AnkaraTurkish
Adem KAPLAN
47681/18
Saray v. Türkiye
04/09/2018
Ali SARAY1968İzmirTurkish
Aydilek SARAY
57217/18
Tekin v. Türkiye
16/11/2018
Seyfi TEKİN1986KahramanmaraşTurkish
Sümeyra DOBUR
3467/19
Özbey v. Türkiye
27/12/2018
Süleyman ÖZBEY1971YalovaTurkish
Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
19135/19
Gülak v. Türkiye
22/03/2019
Refik GÜLAK1976KocaeliTurkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
24217/19
Taşkın v. Türkiye
10/04/2019
Mustafa TAŞKIN1974TrabzonTurkish
35143/19
Öksüz v. Türkiye
19/06/2019
Zübeyir ÖKSÜZ1979KütahyaTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
44360/19
Ergitürk v. Türkiye
08/08/2019
Turgut ERGİTÜRK1972ÇorumTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
62097/19
Çeltekli v. Türkiye
20/11/2019
Mustafa ÇELTEKLİ1985BalıkesirTurkish
Muhammed Talha YILMAZ
19197/20
Gül v. Türkiye
27/04/2020
Mehmet GÜL1980OsmaniyeTurkish
Nurhan ÖZDURAN
23386/20
Aktaş v. Türkiye
14/05/2020
Deniz AKTAŞ1987KocaeliTurkish
Oğuz GÜNDÜZ
25724/20
Özay v. Türkiye
15/06/2020
Nazmi ÖZAY1972İzmirTurkish
Müjdat Fatih İÇEL
27850/20
Çakar v. Türkiye
29/06/2020
Sabit ÇAKAR1954IstanbulTurkish
Adem UZAK
29974/20
Yıldız v. Türkiye
12/07/2020
Selçuk YILDIZ1982OsmaniyeTurkish
Abdullah AKSOY
32052/20
Acar v. Türkiye
06/07/2020
Halil ACAR1994AksarayTurkish
Cihat ÇITIR
34462/20
Özay v. Türkiye
17/07/2020
Hacer ÖZAY1978IstanbulTurkish
Emre AKARYILDIZ
34890/20
Arikan v. Türkiye
10/08/2020
Reşat ARIKAN1982BitlisTurkish
Kübra GÜLAÇTI
35863/20
Dikici v. Türkiye
08/07/2020
Mahmut DİKİCİ1991OsmaniyeTurkish
Dudu ERTUNÇ
37167/20
Başaran v. Türkiye
19/08/2020
Abdullah Sami BAŞARAN1972AnkaraTurkish
Utku Coşkuner SAKARYA
38355/20
Tokuç v. Türkiye
19/08/2020
Ömer TOKUÇ1982İzmirTurkish
Ahmet Salim ÇAKMAK
41543/20
Kaynarcı v. Türkiye
03/09/2020
Fuat KAYNARCI1974ÇankırıTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
43634/20
Ünal v. Türkiye
17/09/2020
Muammer ÜNAL1987AntalyaTurkish
Okan GÜNEL
44227/20
Deniz v. Türkiye
29/09/2020
Yılmaz DENİZ1968SivasTurkish
Tarık AVŞAR
44428/20
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
23/09/2020
Osman YILMAZ1968İzmirTurkish
Nafize GÜLCÜ
46355/20
İnkaya v. Türkiye
05/10/2020
Abdulkadir İNKAYA1959İzmirTurkish
46565/20
Saçkan v. Türkiye
15/10/2020
Hakan SAÇKAN1973İzmirTurkish
Arzu BEYAZIT
46894/20
Çelik v. Türkiye
18/10/2020
Necati ÇELİK1981OsmaniyeTurkish
Nazan ÇELİK
47621/20
Güney v. Türkiye
21/10/2020
Halil GÜNEY1990İzmirTurkish
Okan GÜNEL
49996/20
Kılıç v. Türkiye
03/11/2020
Mesut KILIÇ1983TekirdağTurkish
Zehra KILIÇ
51544/20
Yıldız v. Türkiye
20/11/2020
Mihdad YILDIZ1971SinopTurkish
Hakkı KAYNAR
51767/20
Sarı v. Türkiye
09/11/2020
Mesut SARI1989İzmirTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
54575/20
Yayla v. Türkiye
26/11/2020
Musa YAYLA1989KocaeliTurkish
Nuri TAN
1432/21
Tekin v. Türkiye
17/12/2020
Mehmet TEKİN1979AnkaraTurkish
2070/21
Yilmaz v. Türkiye
23/12/2020
Hüseyin YILMAZ1971MersinTurkish
Fatma Nur GÖKÇE UYSAL
2103/21
Coşkun v. Türkiye
02/12/2020
Halil COŞKUN1992ManisaTurkish
Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
3037/21
Kızılateş v. Türkiye
29/12/2020
Cumhur KIZILATEŞ1974AntalyaTurkish
Süeda KADIOĞLU
4793/21
Petek v. Türkiye
30/12/2020
Ertan PETEK1975MersinTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
5312/21
Şahin v. Türkiye
05/01/2021
Musa ŞAHİN1988KayseriTurkish
Hamdi Kenan SEVİNÇ
5322/21
Vural v. Türkiye
05/01/2021
Faruk VURAL1979AksarayTurkish
Mehmet ÖNCÜ
7415/21
Durmuş v. Türkiye
21/01/2021
Hüseyin DURMUŞ1974ManisaTurkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
10055/21
Merdivan v. Türkiye
12/02/2021
Saffet MERDİVAN1982AnkaraTurkish
Muhammet ÜSTÜN
22579/21
Babalı v. Türkiye
19/02/2021
Tuncay BABALI1973AnkaraTurkish
Hakan YILDIRIM
38520/21
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
29/06/2021
Ali YILMAZ1986AdanaTurkish
48380/21
Cesur v. Türkiye
24/09/2021
Kazım CESUR1989ZonguldakTurkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
51131/21
Öztürk v. Türkiye
07/10/2021
Eyup ÖZTÜRK1973KayseriTurkish
Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ
51434/21
Sezgin v. Türkiye
06/10/2021
İbrahim SEZGİN1988KırşehirTurkish
Enes Malik KILIÇ
51815/21
Dombaycı v. Türkiye
13/10/2021
Akın DOMBAYCI1975UşakTurkish
Elkan ALBAYRAK
59124/21
Karagöz v. Türkiye
26/11/2021
Mustafa KARAGÖZ1974AnkaraTurkish
60036/21
Güleryüz v. Türkiye
23/11/2021
Fatih GÜLERYÜZ1980AnkaraTurkish
Zümrüt ŞAHİN
217/22
Sirkecioğlu v. Türkiye
24/12/2021
İlyas SİRKECİOĞLU1985IstanbulTurkish
Mehmet ÇAVDAR
1332/22
Damar v. Türkiye
24/12/2021
Merve DAMAR1994IstanbulTurkish
Mehmet ÇAVDAR
2327/22
Güzel v. Türkiye
23/12/2021
Ejder GÜZEL1993İzmirTurkish
Muhammet DEMİR
2408/22
Özcan v. Türkiye
30/12/2021
Nalan ÖZCAN1995IstanbulTurkish
Mehmet ÇAVDAR
3026/22
Gün v. Türkiye
21/12/2021
Vahide Büşra GÜN1993IstanbulTurkish
Lütfullah GÜN
3615/22
Demirtaş v. Türkiye
13/01/2022
Serhat DEMİRTAŞ1972AydınTurkish
Orçun MUŞLU
3745/22
Özer v. Türkiye
03/01/2022
Ahmet ÖZER1984IstanbulTurkish
Mehmet ÖKSÜZ
7583/22
Er v. Türkiye
02/02/2022
Tuğba ER1986SakaryaTurkish
Ahmet EROL
9931/22
Kılıç v. Türkiye
18/02/2022
Sedat KILIÇ1982DiyarbakırTurkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ
11504/22
Bulduk v. Türkiye
21/02/2022
Oktay BULDUK1967IstanbulTurkish
Sümeyra BULDUK
12356/22
Hepgül v. Türkiye
17/02/2022
Cemil HEPGÜL1978İzmirTurkish
14013/22
Kondu v. Türkiye
14/03/2022
Ömer Faruk KONDU1968IstanbulTurkish
Emre AKARYILDIZ
14678/22
Altın v. Türkiye
11/03/2022
Nedim ALTIN1978AksarayTurkish
Mehmet ÖNCÜ
15013/22
Mercan v. Türkiye
21/03/2022
Serdar MERCAN1975ÇanakkaleTurkish
Burhan DEMİRCİ