SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 63130/15 Sedat AYDIN and others against Turkey and 31 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 12 March 2019 as a Chamber composed of:

Robert Spano, President, Paul Lemmens, Işıl Karakaş, Valeriu Griţco, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Arnfinn Bårdsen, Darian Pavli, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table ,

Having regard to the interim measures indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in applications nos. 3758/16, 4353/16, 4817/16 and 5237/16 on 18 January, 19 January, 21 January and 22 January 2016 respectively, and the decisions to lift those interim measures on 28 January, 28 January, 1 February and 3 February 2016 respectively,

Having regard to the decisions to grant priority to twenty-eight of the thirty-two applications under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,

Having regard to the partial decisions of 6 December 2016,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having regard to the comments submitted by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (“the Commissioner for Human Rights”),

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

A. Background to the events giving rise to the applications

B. The circumstances of the cases

5. The applicant in application no. 4817/16, Helin Ö nc ü , was shot and injured in Cizre, allegedly by members of the security forces. When attempts to provide her with medical assistance failed allegedly due to security reasons, on 21 January 2016 the applicant requested an interim measure from the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The Court accepted her request and indicated to the Government to take all measures within their power to protect the applicant ’ s right to life and physical integrity. The applicant was thereupon taken to a hospital by healthcare workers and received the necessary treatment.

6. The applicant in application no. 63133/15, Ä°rfan Uysal, was an employee of the Directorate for Water and Infrastructure of the Municipality of Cizre at the material time. He was shot in the arm, allegedly by members of the security forces, while he was working on a water valve near the Nur neighbourhood of Cizre. Despite various difficulties encountered, he was taken to a hospital by his colleagues, where his arm was amputated.

7. The applicant in application no. 4684/16, Faysal Sarıyıldız, was a local member of parliament (MP) at the material time. On 20 January 2016 Mr Sarıyıldız went to the Cudi neighbourhood of Cizre, with a group of people, in order to help the injured and to retrieve the bodies of the deceased. The group found the bodies of a number of persons, including those of Serhat Altun, Ahmet Tunç and Mehmet Kaplan, whose deaths are the subject matter of applications nos. 4353/16, 4552/16 and 4159/16. On their way back, the group came under fire, allegedly opened from armoured vehicles. Two of the group ’ s members were killed and ten others were injured. The applicant, who was not injured, took refuge in a building with the surviving members of the group. They were only able to leave the building, which was allegedly under continuous fire from the security forces, after some six hours.

8. The applicants in the remaining fourteen applications are individuals who were not able to leave their own homes, or the homes of others in which they had taken refuge, for lengthy periods of time as a result of the round-the-clock curfews. Most of them claim that their lives were endangered on account of the security operations conducted in residential areas, during which the security forces had allegedly used heavy weaponry despite the presence of civilians.

C. Domestic proceedings

9. The Court notes from the information submitted by the parties that most of the applicants had applied to the Constitutional Court for interim measures either before or shortly after lodging their applications with the Court. Many of the applicants had requested urgent access to medical facilities, whereas others had asked for the lifting of the curfews, arguing that the decisions to impose those curfews had no basis in domestic law and/or that their lives had been put at serious risk on account of the security operations conducted in urban centres during the curfews. The Court notes that all the requests for interim measures were rejected by the Constitutional Court, which held in a number of its decisions that the imposition of the curfews with a view to ensuring public order and safety of people ’ s lives and property could not be said to have been “unfounded” (see El ç i , cited above, § 12). It appears that an examination on the merits of those applications is still pending before the Constitutional Court.

10. While some of the applicants claimed that the public prosecutors had not carried out any investigations into the incidents which are the subject matter of the present applications, the information in the case-file reveals that investigations were opened into most of the deaths at issue. The Court observes that some of those investigations have in the meantime been closed by the public prosecutors, with a decision not to prosecute, while some others are still ongoing. It further appears from the information submitted by the parties that as from March 2017, a number of applicants have brought a second round of individual applications before the Constitutional Court, mainly to complain about the outcome of the criminal investigations. Those applications are also pending before the Constitutional Court for an examination on the merits.

D. Arrest and detention of the applicants ’ legal representative in applications nos. 63133/15, 2105/16, 4159/16, 4353/16, 4552/16, 4684/16, 4817/16, 5237/16, 5317/16, 5332/16, 5628/16, 6758/16, 8699/16, 9414/16 and 39419/16

12. In the early hours of 16 March 2016 the house of the applicants ’ legal representative Mr Ramazan Demir in Istanbul was raided by officers from the counter-terrorism department of the police and he was taken into custody.

13. In the evening of 17 March 2016 a prosecutor wanted to question him at the police station. Mr Demir refused to answer the prosecutor ’ s questions. During the questioning the prosecutor asked Mr Demir questions such as whether he had ever been imprisoned for a PKK-related offence; whether he had any relatives who had links to the PKK or who were in prison for PKK-related activities; whether he had visited any relatives or any of his clients in prison; whether he was a member of any association; whether he used social media; and details of all of his telephone lines. The public prosecutor also made the following notes: “... it is considered that [Mr DEMİR] will be meeting and conducting interviews with a person whom he named as ‘ Delegasyon ’ as part of his activities to weaken our country internally and in the international arena by making allegations of ... violations of human rights”.

14. After his questioning Mr Demir continued to be detained at the police station until he was brought before a judge on 19 March 2016 and his release on bail was ordered by the judge. When questioned by the judge, Mr Demir and the lawyers representing him referred to the above-mentioned accusations by the prosecutor and argued that the real reason for his arrest had been to prevent him from representing applicants before the European Court of Human Rights in cases concerning the curfews, in breach of Article 34 of the Convention.

15. Following an objection by the public prosecutor to his release, an arrest warrant was issued for Mr Demir on 22 March 2016.

16. On 6 April 2016 Mr Demir went to the courthouse and informed the judge that the reason why he had not surrendered immediately after the arrest warrant was because he had had to complete a number of application forms and submit them to the Court as he owed a duty to his clients to do so. The judge ordered his detention pending the institution of criminal proceedings against him.

17. On 14 April 2016 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court against Mr Ramazan Demir, along with forty-nine other people, on charges of membership of an armed terrorist organisation and disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation between the years 2013 and 2016. The public prosecutor accused Mr Demir of acting as a courier for the PKK to enable communication with the members of the organisation in prison, and praising the PKK on social media. The public prosecutor indicated that in one of his social media posts, Mr Demir had referred to the security operation conducted in Cizre during the curfews as a “blockade”.

E. Relevant domestic law

19. A description of the relevant domestic law has been set out in the cases of Elçi (cited above, §§ 19-21) and Ahmet Tunç and Others (cited above, §§ 58-63).

COMPLAINTS

A. Aydın and Others v. Turkey (no. 63130/15)

20. Under Article 2 of the Convention the applicants complained that the security forces had conducted their operations in complete disregard of the principles concerning the use of force and in so doing they had endangered the lives of the civilians in areas under curfew, including in Sur and Cizre where they lived. They also argued that the respondent State had failed in its obligation to take appropriate steps to safeguard their lives.

21. The applicants alleged that they had been deprived of their liberty as a result of the curfews, which had amounted to a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

22. They argued under Article 8 that they had had to take refuge in other people ’ s homes during the course of the security operations, which had interfered with their family lives.

23. The applicants also complained of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, without substantiating their claims.

B. Yavuzel and Others v. Turkey (no. 5317/16), Irmak v. Turkey (no. 5628/16) and Ahmet Tunç v. Turkey (no. 39419/16), Balcal and Others v. Turkey (no. 8699/16) and Karaduman and Çiçek v. Turkey (no. 6758/16)

24. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the State authorities had not taken the necessary measures to protect their relatives ’ right to life, that their relatives had been unlawfully killed as a result of the security operation carried out by the security forces and that no effective investigation had been conducted into their deaths.

25. The applicants complained that their suffering on account of the combination of factors (such as having to witness their relatives being burned to death; searching for the bodies of their relatives in a number of hospitals; inability of some of them to find the bodies of their loved ones; and their inability to give their relatives a burial for long periods of times during which the bodies deteriorated and lost their integrity) had amounted to inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

26. The applicants complained that the bodies of their relatives had not been handed over to them and that the family members had not been given the opportunity to organise and to be present during a funeral, in breach of their right to respect for their private lives within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. In addition, the applicants in applications nos. 5628/16 and 6758/16 complained that their inability to receive the bodies of their loved ones for a period of two to three weeks and to be present during their funerals had been in breach of their rights under Article 9 of the Convention.

27. Finally, under Article 34 of the Convention the applicants also alleged that their legal representative, Ramazan Demir, had been arrested and detained by the authorities on account of the cases he had brought before the Court in connection with the curfews, and contended that this had constituted a serious interference with their right of individual application .

C. Koç and Others v. Turkey (no. 8536/16)

28. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their relatives had been killed by the security forces, which had opened fire with heavy weapons without first evacuating civilians. They argued that the security forces ’ actions during the operations had not been proportionate, and that the State authorities had not taken any measures to prevent a breach of the right to life. Under the same provision and relying also on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants complained that no effective investigation had been carried out into the deaths of their relatives.

29. Under Article 3 of the Convention the applicants complained that the fear and anguish which their relatives must have suffered on account of hearing constant explosions and gunfire had amounted to ill-treatment.

D. Altun v. Turkey (no. 4353/16) and Karaman v. Turkey (no. 5237/16)

30. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their brother and son, Serhat Altun and Cihan Karaman, respectively, had lost their lives on account of the respondent State ’ s failure to fulfil its positive obligation to provide them with the necessary medical assistance. They also complained under the same provision that no effective investigation had been conducted into the deaths.

31. The applicant in application no. 4353/16 alleged that after he had been shot and injured, his brother had had to wait for a long time for medical assistance, which had never arrived. His brother ’ s suffering in such circumstances had amounted to ill ‑ treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

32. The applicant in application no. 5237/16 complained that his suffering on account of a combination of factors (such as the keeping of his son ’ s body in the basement for weeks during which it had decomposed and lost its integrity, their inability as a family to give him a burial, and finally, the national authorities ’ indifference to their calls for help to retrieve the body for many weeks) had amounted to inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. He further argued under Articles 8 and 9 that the body of his son had been kept in the basement for weeks and that they had therefore been unable to give him a burial in accordance with their religious convictions.

E. Paksoy v. Turkey (no. 3758/16)

35. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that Hüseyin Paksoy had lost his life on account of the respondent State ’ s failure to fulfil its positive obligation to provide him with medical assistance. They also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that no effective investigation had been conducted into his death.

36. The applicants argued that after he had been shot and injured, Hüseyin Paksoy had had to wait for a long time for medical assistance, during which time he must have suffered unbearable pain. His suffering in such circumstances had amounted to ill ‑ treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

37. The applicants alleged that their own right to liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention had been violated on account of the curfews.

38. The applicants lastly invoked Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention, without substantiating their claims under those provisions.

F. Uysal v. Turkey (no. 63133/15), Adem Tunç v. Turkey (no. 4552/16), Sarıyıldız v. Turkey (no. 4684/16), Öncü v. Turkey (no. 4817/16) and Geçim v. Turkey (no. 5332/16)

39. The applicants made the following complaints under Article 2 of the Convention:

- application no. 63133/15: (i) the security operations at issue had not been organised and conducted with a view to minimising the risk to the lives of civilians and the applicant had been targeted by the security forces while was on duty assigned by the Municipality of Cizre; (ii) no investigation had been conducted into his shooting even though he had made an official complaint to the prosecutor.

- application no. 4552/16: (i) the applicant ’ s father, Ahmet Tun ç, had been shot by members of the security forces and had lost his life when the authorities had failed to provide him with medical assistance; (ii) no investigation had been opened into the killing.

- application no. 4684/16: (i) the applicant ’ s life had been endangered on account of the unlawful use of force by the security forces; (ii) no effective investigation had been conducted into the incident.

- application no. 4817/16: (i) the applicant had been shot by members of the security forces and the national authorities had failed to offer her medical assistance in a timely manner even after the indication of an interim measure by the Court; (ii) no investigation had been opened into the shooting.

- application no. 5332/16: (i) the applicant ’ s son had disappeared in life-threatening circumstances in an area where hundreds of people had been killed unlawfully as a result of a security operation, which had been conducted in disregard of the lives of civilians, and it was likely that his son had also been killed; (ii) no steps had been taken to investigate his son ’ s disappearance. As explained in paragraph 4 above, the applicant ’ s son ’ s body was subsequently found by the authorities.

40. The applicant in application no. 5332/16 also complained under Article 3 that his suffering on account of his inability to search for his son and his helplessness in finding out what had happened to him had amounted to ill-treatment. Lastly, he complained under Article 5 of the Convention that he had been deprived of his right to liberty on account of the curfew because he had been unable to leave his house for months. He alleged in this connection that the curfew had been unlawful and that it had been applied so strictly that he had not even been able to go out and look for his son.

41. Finally, the applicants complained that the Government, by arresting and detaining their legal representative Mr Ramazan Demir, had acted in breach of their obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.

G. Oran v. Turkey (no. 1905/16), Seviktek v. Turkey (no. 2005/16), Ä°nan v. Turkey (no. 2105/16) and Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 4159/16)

42. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their relatives had been shot and injured by agents of the respondent State and had subsequently lost their lives because no steps had been taken to provide them with medical assistance. Under the same provision they also complained that no effective investigations had been conducted into the deaths.

43. The applicants in applications nos. 2105/16 and 4159/16 complained that the Government, by arresting and detaining their legal representative, had acted in breach of their obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.

H. Vesek v. Turkey (no. 63138/15), Eroğlu v. Turkey (no. 478/16), Görgöz v. Turkey (no. 480/16), Sultan and Süleyman Düzgün v. Turkey (no. 891/16), Bedri and Halime Düzgün v. Turkey (no. 901/16), Çağlak v. Turkey (no. 2200/16), Dağlı and Others v. Turkey (no. 6990/16) and Kaya v. Turkey (no. 9712/16)

44. With the exception of the applicant in application no. 9712/16, the applicants complained that the security operations conducted in the vicinity of their homes in Sur and Cizre had been carried out without having regard to the safety of the civilians living in those areas and had endangered their right to life, in breach of Article 2 of the Convention.

45. The applicants in all eight applications complained that they had effectively been imprisoned in their own homes for indefinite periods of time during the curfews, which had had no adequate legal basis in domestic law, and that their right to liberty and security within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention had thus been breached.

46. Lastly, the applicant in application no. 9712/16 complained that the curfews at issue had also breached Article 15 of the Convention.

I. Dolan v. Turkey (no. 9414/16), Seniha Sürer and Others v. Turkey (no. 10073/16), Cengiz Abiş and Others v. Turkey (no. 10079/16), Erkaplan v. Turkey (no. 10085/16) and Alpaydıncı and Others v. Turkey (no. 10088/16)

47. The applicants complained that their lives had been endangered as a result of the bombing of the buildings in which they had taken refuge by the security forces, in breach of Article 2 of the Convention. They argued that their survival had been fortuitous given the extent of the bombings. Under the same provision they also complained that no investigations had been conducted into the bombings.

48. The applicants complained that they had been deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 of the Convention as a result of the round-the-clock curfews, which had had no legal basis.

49. The applicant in application no. 9414/16 also complained that the Government, by arresting and detaining his legal representative Mr Ramazan Demir, had acted in breach of their obligations under Article 34 of the Convention.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

50. Given their similar factual and legal backgrounds, the Court decides that the applications should be joined, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

A. The parties ’ arguments

1. The Government

52. The Government argued mainly that the applicants ’ complaints should be declared inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies. Referring to the subsidiary nature of the Convention mechanism, the Government stated that the purpose of the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies was to afford the national authorities, and primarily the courts, the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations were submitted to the Convention institutions. The Government further noted that under the Court ’ s case-law, mere doubts regarding the effectiveness of a particular remedy did not exempt an applicant from the obligation to make use of that remedy.

53. Turning to the particular circumstances of the present case, the Government submitted that the national law provided the applicants with a number of effective remedies in relation to their complaints, such as (i) criminal-law remedies; (ii) administrative-law remedies, in particular an action for a full remedy pursuant to Article 125 of the Constitution and section 2 of the Administrative Procedure Act (Law no. 2577); and (iii) the remedy of an individual application to the Constitutional Court. The applicants had, however, applied to the Court before fully exhausting those available remedies.

54. The Government stressed that with effect from 23 September 2012, the Constitutional Court had begun to accept applications from individuals who had already exhausted all other available and ordinary remedies in relation to their complaints. The Court, in turn, had found that an individual application to the Constitutional Court offered, in principle, a direct and expeditious remedy for violations of the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention and that it had to be attempted in respect of any decision that had become final after 23 September 2012 (see, for instance, Uzun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10755/13, §§ 67 and 69-70, 30 April 2013, and Erol v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73290/13, 6 May 2014).

2. The applicants

56. The applicants submitted that the respondent Government bore the burden of proving that the remedies referred to by them were effective and accessible, that they were capable of providing adequate redress and that they offered reasonable prospects of success. According to the applicants, the Government had failed to discharge that burden. For example, although a great number of people affected by the curfews had embarked on exhausting the domestic remedies referred to by the Government, none of them had actually succeeded in obtaining redress.

57. Some of the applicants submitted that, in any event, no effective remedies existed in Turkey that were capable of providing redress for their complaints and argued that they should not be expected to exhaust remedies which only existed in theory. Referring mainly to the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Akdıvar and Others v. Turkey (16 September 1996, § 67, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ IV), these applicants claimed that there were special circumstances which rendered the domestic remedies ineffective and which therefore exempted them from having to exhaust the existing domestic remedies.

58. They argued in that connection that there was an administrative and judicial practice of impunity concerning the large-scale and systematic human rights violations that had been committed during the curfews, despite their gravity. They further claimed that there was no independent and impartial judicial system in Turkey to investigate the offences committed during the curfews (see, for similar arguments, Ahmet Tunç and Others , cited above, §§ 85-89).

B. Submissions of the Commissioner for Human Rights

60. The full text of the submissions made by the Commissioner for Human Rights in his capacity as an intervener in these applications can be consulted via the link provided in paragraph 3 above. His submissions, in so far as they concern the issue of domestic remedies, have been noted in paragraph 38 of Elçi (cited above) and paragraph 102 of Ahmet Tunç and Others v. Turkey (cited above).

C. The Court ’ s assessment

61. The Court reiterates at the outset the general principles developed in its case-law regarding the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, §§ 115-16, ECHR 2015), and notes in particular that in so far as there exists at the national level a remedy enabling the domestic courts to address, at least in substance, the argument of a violation of a given Convention right, that remedy should be used (see, mutatis mutandis , Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, § 75, 25 March 2014).

62. It must be stressed that the Court is concerned with the supervision of the implementation by Contracting States of their obligations under the Convention. It cannot, and must not, take the place of Contracting States, whose responsibility it is to ensure that the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined therein are respected and protected at the domestic level. The Court also cannot emphasise enough that it is not a court of first instance; it does not have the capacity, nor is it appropriate to its function as an international court, to adjudicate on large numbers of cases which require the finding of basic facts, which should, as a matter of principle and effective practice, be the domain of domestic jurisdiction (see Demopoulos and Others v. Turkey (dec.) [GC], nos. 46113/99 et al , § 69, ECHR 2010).

63. Turning to the case before it, the Court observes that while some of the applicants have not lodged any individual applications with the Constitutional Court in relation to their complaints, the applications lodged by the remaining applicants are still pending before that court for an examination on the merits. The Court recalls in this connection that it has found the procedure available in Turkey of an individual application to the Constitutional Court to be an effective remedy for violations of the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention, and has held that it offers prospects of appropriate redress for complaints under the Convention (see, for instance, the decisions in the cases of Uzun , cited above, §§ 67 and 69 ‑ 70; Erol , cited above, §§ 30 ‑ 33; and Zihni v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 59061/16, §§ 25-27, 29 November 2016).

64. In these circumstances, the applicants may not at the outset be considered to have exhausted the available domestic remedies in relation to their complaints at issue. The Court also notes, however, that the applicants consider the available domestic remedies, including the individual application remedy before the Constitutional Court, to be ineffective for the purposes of the present case, for the reasons stated in paragraphs 56-59 above. It therefore falls to the Court to determine whether the applicants were exempted from the obligation to exhaust the relevant domestic remedies in the present circumstances, on account of their inadequacy or ineffectiveness.

65. The Court recalls that the arguments raised by the applicants in respect of the alleged ineffectiveness of the domestic remedies, in particular the remedy before the Constitutional Court, have already been examined and rejected in the cases of Elçi (cited above, §§ 43-49 and §§ 52-55) and Ahmet Tunç and Others (cited above, §§ 103-130 and § 135, and the cases cited therein). The Court sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present case.

66. It therefore concludes that the complaints under this head must be rejected under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies.

67. Having made that finding, the Court also points out, however, that it retains the ultimate authority to supervise the implementation by Contracting States of their obligations under the Convention. The above finding does not prevent the applicants from lodging a new application before the Court in the event of any subsequent developments that may cast doubt on the effectiveness of the remedy of an individual application to the Constitutional Court, for example if the examination of their applications by that court is unduly prolonged, or if the Constitutional Court fails to examine their complaints in a manner that satisfies the requirements of the relevant provisions of the Convention (see Ahmet Tunç and Others , cited above, § 131).

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 34 OF THE CONVENTION

A. Complaint concerning the Government ’ s alleged failure to comply with the interim measures in applications nos. 4353/16 and 5237/16

68. As set out in paragraph 4 above, interim measures were sought from the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in respect of Serhat Altun and Cihan Karaman (applications nos. 4353/16 and 5237/16, respectively) in order to ensure their access to medical facilities. The Court accepted those requests and indicated to the respondent Government to take all measures within their power to protect the lives and physical integrity of the individuals in question. Following the deaths of those individuals, allegedly because of the Government ’ s failure to comply with the interim measures to take them to hospital, the Court lifted the interim measures.

70. The Government argued that the Court ’ s interim measure had been promptly notified to the national authorities in order for the necessary actions to be taken. It had, however, not been possible to send ambulances to the places where the injured persons were located, because of the trenches dug up, booby-traps set up and fire opened by members of terrorist organisations.

B. Complaint concerning the arrest and detention of the legal representative of the applicants in applications nos. 63133/15, 2105/16, 4159/16, 4353/16, 4552/16, 4684/16, 4817/16, 5237/16, 5317/16, 5332/16, 5628/16, 6758/16, 8699/16, 9414/16 and 39419/16

72. The applicants complained that the real reason for the arrest and detention of their legal representative, Mr Ramazan Demir, had been the applications he had brought before the Court in connection with the curfews, and that this had constituted a serious interference with their right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention.

73. The Government submitted that Mr Demir had been arrested and detained in connection with an investigation that had been initiated in 2011, long before he had started representing the applicants. Moreover, that investigation had concerned an entirely different matter and therefore had no connection to the present applications.

74. The applicants submitted in response that the investigation leading to Mr Demir ’ s arrest and detention had been opened in 2011, but had become dormant in 2014. They found it noteworthy that the investigation had then been revived in 2016, immediately after Mr Demir had started bringing the curfew cases before the Court with the associated requests for interim measures.

75. The Commissioner for Human Rights stated in his submissions that around the time of the revival of the investigation against Mr Demir, his Office had contacted the latter to organise a meeting during their visit to Turkey, to be able to obtain information directly from the lawyer who had lodged requests for interim measures with the Court. The Commissioner continued as follows:

“The Commissioner takes this situation, which indeed suggests that Mr Demir was arrested, whether primarily or incidentally, in connection with his legitimate role of bringing cases to the Court, very seriously. The Commissioner is also deeply concerned by the assertion of Mr Demir ’ s lawyers that this arrest and detention had an impact on the pursuit by the families in question of their applications to the Court and served as a deterrent.”

76. The Court notes that similar complaints have recently been reviewed and dismissed by the Court in the case of Ahmet Tunç and Others (cited above, §§ 151-152). The Court sees no reason to depart from the reasoning in that case and decides, therefore, not to pursue the matter on the present facts.

IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

77. A number of applicants also complained, without substantiating their claims, that Articles 14, 15 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention had been violated.

78. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the provisions invoked. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court,

Decides , unanimously, to join the applications;

Declares , by a majority, inadmissible the applicants ’ complaints under Article 34 of the Convention;

Declares , unanimously, inadmissible the remainder of the applications.

Done in English and notified in writing on 4 April 2019 .

Stanley Naismith Robert Spano Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Principal Representative

1

63130/15

29/12/2015

Sedat AYDIN

01/06/1969

Diyarbakır

Evin ÇAĞLI

01/01/1995

Şırnak

Osman KÃœLTÃœR

02/01/1955

Şırnak

Maşallah ÖZDEMİR

01/01/1937

Şırnak

Halise KULJA

08/07/1982

Şırnak

Nevroz YILMAZ

21/03/2000

Şırnak

Oya AYDIN GÖKTAŞ

2

63133/15

29/12/2015

Ä°rfan UYSAL

20/10/1986

Cizre

Ramazan DEM Ä° R

3

63138/15

12/01/2016

Ahmet VESEK

01/01/1949

Şırnak

Veysel VESEK

4

478/16

12/01/2016

Kasım EROĞLU

10/08/1981

Diyarbakır

Meral EROÄžLU

20/09/1984

Diyarbakır

Murat GÃœZEL

5

480/16

12/01/2016

Latife GÖRGÖZ

01/03/1966

Diyarbakır

Yeşim GÖRGÖZ

17/05/2001

Diyarbakır

Murat GÃœZEL

6

891/16

12/01/2016

Sultan DÃœZGÃœN

26/03/1987

Diyarbakır

Süleyman DÜZGÜN

06/05/1983

Diyarbakır

Murat GÃœZEL

7

901/16

12/01/2016

Bedri DÃœZGÃœN

01/04/1939

Diyarbakır

Halime DÃœZGÃœN

01/01/1950

Diyarbakır

Murat GÃœZEL

8

1905/16

10/01/2016

Mehmet ORAN

01/01/1964

Istanbul

Yunus MURATAKAN

9

2005/16

10/01/2016

Ayhan SEV Ä° KTEK

03/03/1986

Diyarbakır

Ramazan DEMÄ°R

10

2105/16

08/01/2016

Mehmet Ä°NAN

11/02/1983

Şırnak

Ramazan DEMÄ°R

11

2200/16

08/01/2016

Meliha ÇAĞLAK

20/05/1960

Diyarbakır

Cemile TURHALLI BALSAK

12

3758/16

16/01/2016

Zehide PAKSOY

01/01/1952

Şırnak

Mesut PAKSOY

15/08/1979

Şırnak

Mehmet PAKSOY

01/01/1949

Şırnak

Nuray ÖZDOĞAN

13

4159/16

19/01/2016

Abdullah KAPLAN

20/04/1988

Şırnak

Ramazan DEMÄ°R

14

4353/16

19/01/2016

Cemil ALTUN

01/01/1991

Van

Ramazan DEMÄ°R

15

4552/16

20/01/2016

Adem TUNÇ

19/01/1990

Şırnak

Ramazan DEMÄ°R

16

4684/16

20/01/2016

Faysal SARIYILDIZ

10/04/1975

Ankara

Ramazan DEMÄ°R

17

4817/16

21/01/2016

Helin ÖNCÜ

19/02/1995

Mardin

Ramazan DEMÄ°R

18

5237/16

22/01/2016

Mehmet Latif KARAMAN

01/03/1966

Siirt

Ramazan DEMÄ°R

19

5317/16

23/01/2016

Halil YAVUZEL

01/04/1964

Şanlıurfa

Ferit AKTAÅž

01/01/1969

Şanlıurfa

Selehattin ÃœRÃœN

10/03/1981

Şırnak

Fırat DUYMAK

30/11/1997

Şırnak

Ä°zzettin YILDIZ

05/03/1948

Diyarbakır

Rahmi BALIKES Ä° R

18/10/1976

Hakkari

Mehmet Salih ERBEK

13/04/1963

Siirt

Ramazan DEMÄ°R

20

5332/16

25/01/2016

Mehmet GEÇ İ M

05/01/1959

Şırnak

Ramazan DEMÄ°R

21

5628/16

26/01/2016

Hanifi IRMAK

04/04/1974

Diyarbakır

Ramazan DEMÄ°R

22

6758/16

29/01/2016

Ahmet KARADUMAN

20/12/1976

Şırnak

Salahattin Ç İ ÇEK

29/11/1958

Şırnak

Ramazan DEMÄ°R

23

6990/16

03/02/2016

Mehmet Senan DAÄžLI

01/09/1967

Şırnak

Melahat DAÄžLI

02/06/1971

Şırnak

Muhammed DAÄžLI

26/03/2002

Şırnak

Narin ZEREN

10/11/1988

Şırnak

Mehmet Åžirin ZEREN

05/02/1959

Şırnak

Gurbet ZEREN

01/01/1960

Şırnak

Zeynep ZEREN

16/08/1999

Şırnak

Mehmet ZEREN

20/03/1986

Şırnak

Mehmet Selim DEÄžER

01/02/1970

Şırnak

Emin KIRMIZIGÃœL

01/01/1959

Şırnak

Vecihe DEÄžER

01/03/1964

Şırnak

Medine KIRMIZIGÃœL

13/11/1971

Şırnak

Elif DEÄžER

07/09/1993

Şırnak

Cemile DEÄžER

10/08/1998

Şırnak

Suzan KIRMIZIGÃœL

27/08/1996

Şırnak

Dijvar DEÄžER

24/07/2006

Cizre

Zilan KIRMIZIGÃœL

13/04/1998

Şırnak

Renas DEÄžER

12/02/2003

Cizre

Jiyan KIRMIZIGÃœL

23/11/1999

Cizre

Ä°smail KIRMIZIGÃœL

25/03/2001

Şırnak

Helin KIRMIZIGÃœL

02/01/2004

Şırnak

Abdullah KIRMIZIGÃœL

21/12/2005

Şırnak

Öztürk TÜRKDOĞAN

24

8536/16

11/02/2016

Kemal KOÇ

05/09/1955

Mu ÄŸ la

Nermiye Ä°VEREND Ä°

01/01/1963

Şırnak

Zekiye ED Ä° N

11/11/1964

Şırnak

Berivan EDÄ°N

11/08/1992

Şırnak

Muhammed Ali EDÄ°N

04/10/2012

Şırnak

Arjin EDÄ°N

04/07/2014

Şırnak

Süleyman EDİN

14/06/2010

Şırnak

Sait B İ LG İ Ç

01/01/1962

Şırnak

Mehmet AKYOL

05/03/1968

Şırnak

Selim ÖZKÜL

04/02/1949

Şırnak

Süleyman TURGUT

03/02/1970

Istanbul

Mehmet Siraç ÖZGÜL

10/03/1956

Diyarbakır

Recep DEMÄ°R

13/07/1980

Mardin

Öztürk TÜRKDOĞAN

25

8699/16

12/02/2016

Mehmet BALCAL

01/01/1961

Şırnak

Mehmet Gürü AYAZ

25/11/1990

Şırnak

Mehmet ÇAĞDAVUL

03/07/1989

Şırnak

Abdullah ÇIKMAZ

01/04/1971

Şırnak

Abdulkerim ÖZBEK

08/07/1952

Şırnak

Osman TANKAN

10/11/1967

Şırnak

Mevlüt DADAK

04/04/1992

Şırnak

Ramazan DEMÄ°R

26

9414/16

17/02/2016

Mazlum DOLAN

22/01/1993

Diyarbakır

Ramazan DEMÄ°R

27

9712/16

18/02/2016

Fatma KAYA

13/04/1960

Diyarbakır

Mahmut ÇIFTÇI

28

10073/16

20/02/2016

Seniha SÃœRER

18/12/1957

Diyarbakır

Seda ARSLAN

05/07/1990

Diyarbakır

Elif Su ARSLAN

20/10/2015

Diyarbakır

Ramazan DEMÄ°R

29

10079/16

20/02/2016

Cengiz AB Ä° Åž

Diyarbakır

Emine AB Ä° Åž

Diyarbakır

Talat AB Ä° Åž

Diyarbakır

Yunus MURATAKAN

30

10085/16

21/02/2016

Hülya ERKAPLAN

01/06/1990

Diyarbakır

Yunus MURATAKAN

31

10088/16

21/02/2016

Mehmet Can ALPAYDINCI

Diyarbakır

Aynur ARSLAN

12/02/1970

Diyarbakır

Gulistan ARSLAN

Diyarbakır

Rojda ARSLAN

Diyarbakır

Muaz ARSLAN

Diyarbakır

Özgür ARSLAN

Diyarbakır

Yunus MURATAKAN

32

39419/16

23/01/2016

Ahmet TUNÇ

22/06/1943

Şırnak

Ramazan DEMÄ°R

[1] . https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/the-commissioner-intervenes-before-the-european-court-of-human-rights-in-a-group-of-cases-concerning-anti-terrorism-operations-in-south-eastern-turkey

[2] . https://rm.coe.int/ref/CommDH(2016)39