CASE OF TURAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEYPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KŪRIS
Doc ref: • ECHR ID:
Document date: November 23, 2021
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
PARTLY CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE YÃœKSEL
120. In the present case, I voted with the other members of the Chamber to find a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as regards ordinary judges and prosecutors subject to Law no. 2802. Nevertheless, and with all due respect to my colleagues, I submit this concurring opinion to: (a) share the reasons for which I am unable to agree with the Chamber’s reasoning in reaching that conclusion; and (b) emphasise that the discord between the Court and the highest domestic courts on the question of the lawfulness of the detentions of ordinary judges and prosecutors subject to Law no. 2802 remains unresolved.
121. The Chamber’s reasoning in the present case follows the findings of the majority in Baş v. Turkey (no. 66448/17, 3 March 2020) in respect of the lawfulness of the pre-trial detention of an ordinary judge pursuant to Law no. 2802. In Baş the Court held by a majority that the Turkish national courts’ expansive interpretation of the scope of the concept of in flagrante delicto and their application of section 94 of Law no. 2802 was manifestly unreasonable and incompatible with Article 5 § 1. The Court held therefore that the applicant’s detention had been unlawful (see Baş , cited above, § 158).
122. In my partly dissenting opinion in Baş , I set out the reasons for my disagreement with the majority’s finding that the applicant’s detention was unlawful. The crux of my reasoning was that I did not share the majority’s view that the shortcomings in the applicant’s case amounted to such a “gross or obvious irregularity” (see Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 84, 9 July 2009) as to render the detention unlawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. With the utmost respect to my colleagues, I maintain that my view as set out in my partly dissenting opinion in Baş is the legally correct interpretation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the context of detentions pursuant to Law no. 2802.
123. In the present case, however, I made the decision to vote in favour of finding that the detention of the applicants subject to Law no. 2802 was unlawful and a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. While I maintain the validity of my view as expressed in my partly dissenting opinion in Baş , I cannot ignore the fact that the majority’s view in Baş is now final and is the settled law of the Court for the time being on the issues presented in the present application. As a judge of this Court who believes that applications before the Court should be dealt with in a manner that sustains judicial integrity and the coherence of its case-law, and without prejudice to my view as expressed in my partly dissenting opinion in Baş , I concur with the majority in the present case.
124. I would nevertheless like to stress that the divergence that has emerged between this Court and the highest courts of Turkey on the question whether the arrest and pre-trial detention of ordinary judges and prosecutors subject to Law no. 2802 have been effected in accordance with a “procedure prescribed by law”, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1, continues to persist (see, to this effect, the latest decision delivered by the Constitutional Court on 4 June 2020 in the case of Yıldırım Turan , referred to in paragraphs 37-43 of the present judgment). Bearing particularly in mind the high number of applications pending before the Court which raise the same legal issue, I consider that it falls to the Grand Chamber, as the highest judicial formation of the Court, to address this state of contradiction and to clarify and consolidate the Court’s position in this regard.
PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KŪRIS
1. I voted against point 5 of the operative part of the judgment. At the same time, I agree with the outcome, because, hard as I try, I am unable to propose any pragmatic alternative to the majority’s audacious decision to terminate the examination of the numerous applicants’ complaints under Article 5 § 1 (c), 5 § 3, 5 § 4 and 5 § 5 of the Convention. My disagreement thus concerns not the very outcome but the wording of operative point 5: had it been worded without using the formula “no need to examine”, which it now contains, and had it thus corresponded to the reasoning intended to substantiate it (paragraph 98 of the judgment), I would have voted for it (and whatever misgivings, if any, I might have had, I would have expressed them in a much shorter concurring opinion). Regrettably, the formula “no need to examine” is certainly not adequate for the extraordinary situation in which the Court has found itself in the present case. That formula had to be avoided – and it could have been avoided at no cost. It is most unfortunate. It is faulty. It is misleading, because its employment in the operative part suggests that the respective complaints are not meritorious.
But they certainly are.
I
2. The Court does not owe any examination of the admissibility, let alone of the merits, in response to all the complaints that it receives. There is a vast array of legal grounds – and good reasons – for leaving certain complaints, even whole applications, unexamined.
3. To begin with, some non-examination is rather routine. Quite a lot of the complaints submitted to the Court do not meet the admissibility criteria defined in Article 35 and must be rejected on these formal grounds. Others are struck out of the Court’s list of cases, when the Court establishes that they meet the conditions set out in Article 37.
4. Apart from the above, in the Court’s practice there are also some not so routine, indeed quite exceptional, cases where the applications (or at least some complaints) are left unexamined.
5. A telling example would be the so-called pilot-judgment procedure. It is undertaken when the Court finds a systemic (or structural) problem raised by the applicant’s individual case and underlying the violation found in it. In view of the growing number of similar applications and of the potential finding of an analogous violation in the respective cases, the examination of those similar applications which have not yet been communicated to the respondent Government is adjourned until that State adopts the general measures aimed at resolving that systemic (structural) problem which gave rise to the violation found in the pilot judgment, and only those applications which have already been communicated continue to be examined under the normal procedure (see, for example, Broniowski v. Poland (merits), [GC], no. 31443/96, ECHR 2004-V; and, in the Turkish context, Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey , no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012). After the successful implementation of the general measures required by the pilot judgment, the adjourned applications are struck out of the Court’s list of cases, and the pilot-judgment procedure is closed. This procedure is therefore designed to assist the member States in resolving, at national level, the systemic (structural) problems found by the Court, securing to all actual and potential victims of the respective deficiencies the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention, offering to them more rapid redress and easing the burden on the Court, which would otherwise have to take to judgment large numbers of applications which are similar in substance, as a rule, at the expense of other meritorious cases. The pilot-judgment procedure was conceived as a response to the growth in the Court’s caseload, caused by a series of cases deriving from the same systemic (structural) dysfunction, and to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the Convention machinery.
6. Alas, it does happen that the State fails to execute the pilot judgment. This may generate large numbers of follow-up applications which raise issues that are identical in substance to those raised in the case in which the pilot judgment was adopted. Perhaps the most well-known example of a pilot judgment which the respondent State failed to execute would be the one adopted in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04, 15 October 2009), which otherwise would have been an inconspicuous case. That failure led the Court to adopt what it called a “new approach” in dealing with the massive influx of as many as 12,143 Ivanov ‑ type follow-up applications, plus those of the five applicants specifically in the case of Burmych and Others v. Ukraine ((striking out) [GC], nos. 46852/13, 12 October 2017)). In Burmych and Others the Court proceeded in a thitherto unheard of and most extraordinary way. It concluded that the said Ivanov -type applications had to be dealt with in compliance with the respondent State’s obligation deriving from the pilot judgment adopted in Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov , struck them out of its list of cases, considering that the circumstances justified such a course, and transmitted them to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in order for them to be dealt with in the framework of the general measures of execution of the above-mentioned pilot judgment. At the same time the Court underlined that this strike-out decision was without prejudice to its power to restore to the list of its cases, pursuant to Article 37 § 2, the respective applications “or any other similar future applications, if the circumstances justify such a course”. The Court also envisaged that it might be appropriate to reassess the situation within two years from the delivery of the Burmych and Others judgment “with a view to considering whether in the meantime there have occurred circumstances such as to justify its exercising this power” (§ 223).
7. The Burmych and Others precedent was indeed instrumental for the purposes of substantially unclogging the Court’s docket. Whether it was in any way instrumental also to the applicants, who sought justice in Strasbourg, but were sent back to their domestic authorities against whose (in)action they had complained, and thus whether it fulfilled its purpose, is yet to be seen. It will have successfully served its purpose if those applicants, whose applications the Court resolved not to examine, have received any tangible satisfaction at the domestic level. It is reported that today, with four years having passed since the adoption of the judgment in Burmych and Others , there are more indications to the contrary. Be that as it may, the above-mentioned “reassessment of the situation” by the Court has not yet taken place.
But this is not my point here.
8. My point – pertinent to the present case – is that, as was rightly pointed out by the seven dissenters in Burmych and Others (Judges Yudkivska, Sajó, Bianku, Karakaş, De Gaetano, Laffranque and Motoc), that judgment was one of judicial policy . The approach of the dissenters (which, in my reading, underlies their whole joint dissenting opinion) is that, as a matter of principle, judicial policy considerations cannot be a substitute for legal reasoning and, consequently, a judgment based on judicial policy considerations alone is per se incompatible with the “legal interpretation of human rights” (see paragraph 1 of their opinion).
Ideally, yes. In real life, it depends. In an ideal world, judgments indeed should be substantiated solely or at least primarily by legal argument. But the world is not a perfect place. When one proclaims the august, majestic maxim that fiat iustitia, pereat mundus , one should also ask oneself: what would iustitia be in a mundus which periit ? What sense would iustitia make in such a mundus ? Would it make any practical sense at all? And would it be at all possible?
In Burmych and Others the Court considered that it was left with no choice other than to depart from the ideal(istic) standards of application-processing and to disengage itself from thousands of potentially meritorious applications, the examination of which would have paralysed its activities, while still providing some (even if not, as it seems to have turned out, efficient) redress procedure to the applicants at the domestic level. The Court reasoned that any alternative would have been worse. If Burmych and Others was not legally justifiable, then it was at least explicable and therefore defensible from the standpoint of the pressing need to secure the broader mission of the Court. That course was taken grudgingly, nolens volens , the Court being cognisant of the possibility of fallouts of all sorts.
9. It must be noted that the Burmych and Others judgment, just like the pilot judgments, does not contain the “no need to examine” (or its twin sister “not necessary to examine”) formula. Nowhere in the whole text. The Court did not see the complaints which it resolved not to examine as undeserving, i.e. not requiring examination. Not at all. Rather, it considered that those complaints merited examination, but could not be effectively examined by the Court in those circumstances. It struck the unexamined applications out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) and transmitted them to the Committee of Ministers “in order for them to be dealt with in the framework of the general measures of execution of the [relevant, unimplemented] pilot judgment” (point 4 of the operative part). Instead of using the formula “no need to examine”, the Court ratiocinated as to “whether it [was] justified to continue to examine [those] applications” (§ 175), i.e. employed the exact wording of Article 37 § 1 (c). But even the word “justified”, perhaps because it has a connotation of justice, the latter not being merely a formal legal term, does not appear in the operative part of the Burmych and Others judgment.
10. What makes the Burmych and Others precedent so pertinent to the present case is that in that judgment the Court legitimised judicial policy as the principal or, rather, the sole ground for one of its judgments. And it not only decided to refrain from examining the respective complaints, but also openly and transparently conceptualised that decision. Whoever reproaches the Court for that unclogging of its docket, at least cannot reproach it for being evasive as to the reasons underlying that decision. From then on, the Court’s resolve to leave certain complaints unexamined in principle can be substantiated – if not duly legally reasoned, then at least factually explained – by referring to judicial policy considerations pertaining to very exceptional circumstances occurring in the realm of real life, not in that of pure law . Such a course is, to put it mildly, not a neat one from the purely legal(istic) perspective. But now it is part of the Court’s case-law. Needless to say that the circumstances in which the Court’s recourse to this method is defensible must be exceptional, indeed extraordinary.
II
11. The pilot judgments and the Burmych and Others precedent concern non-examination of certain complaints (applications) in very exceptional situations. However, the Court routinely, having examined one or several complaints, resolves not to examine certain “other” complaints raised in the same application.
12. In particular situations the “no need to examine” approach is legally tenable and is legitimately professed by the Court. This is so when the “other” complaints, although formulated as separate, are interrelated, as they overlap with the complaint(s) already examined in that case. They overlap, because they either share the same factual background or invoke such provisions of the Convention which are interrelated. The overlapping of one or another kind allows or even requires the Court to treat such complaints as raising the same legal issue and not requiring their re ‑ examination from yet another angle, once that issue has already been examined from one angle, factual or legal.
13. A “factual overlap” of the complaints may prompt the Court to resolve that it would be pragmatic, and in that sense justified, not to examine anew what is essentially the same complaint, and that non ‑ examination would not be to the detriment of the applicant or of the development of Convention law.
The Court uses various techniques to establish, and various phraseologies to designate, this “factual overlap”. Those techniques and phraseologies are so diverse that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to arrange them in any typology. Here are a couple of very recent examples from their infinite variety. In Dareskizb Ltd. v. Armenia (no. 61737/08, § 93, 21 September 2021, not yet final), the Court decided that, having regard to its findings under Article 6 § 1 that the applicant company had been denied access to a court, it was “not necessary” to examine whether, in that case, there had been a violation of that Article also as regards the composition of that court. In C. v. Croatia (no. 80117/17, § 81, 8 October 2020), which concerned the right of a child to be heard in custody proceedings and the need to appoint a special guardian ad litem to protect the child’s interests, the Court held that the combination of flawed representation and the failure to duly present and hear the applicant’s views in the proceedings had irremediably undermined the decision-making process in the case and that obviated “the need ... to examine whether the applicant’s best interests were properly assessed by adopting the decision to grant custody to his father without any preparation or adaptation period or whether the enforcement of that decision had been compatible with Article 8”.
14. A typical example of a “legal overlap” is the interrelatedness of ostensibly separate complaints, by which the Court is requested to assess the same factual situation under two different provisions of the Convention, one of which subsumes (or absorbs) the other at least in part, e.g. under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13, respectively as lex specialis and lex generalis ; or Article 11, lex specialis , and Article 10, lex generalis . If a violation of the Convention based on its special provision is found, the re ‑ examination of the same matter under a general provision would normally be redundant.
15. In deciding whether to take that self-restricting course, the Court has a discretion that is not narrow. The case-law in which the second, third, etc., of the overlapping complaints are left unexamined is abundant.
In such cases the formula “no need to examine” (or “not necessary to examine”) means exactly what it says on the tin. It does not mislead or deceive, for it adequately represents the Court’s approach and reasons behind its resolve not to examine certain complaints.
16. In parallel, the formula “no need to examine” has been employed also in such instances where the examination of the applicants’ complaints clearly merited examination.
Roughly, all such cases in which the formula in question is employed fall into one of three categories.
17. The first category includes the politically sensitive cases, in which an applicant complains under Article 18. It happens that the Court, having found a violation of a Convention provision, nevertheless decides that it is “not necessary” to examine whether that violation resulted from a “hidden agenda”. If this question is answered in the affirmative (which is often too evident), this could trigger the formal finding of a violation of Article 18. This should be all the more so where the Court has found violations of not one but of several Convention provisions.
One example (indeed one out of many) of such regrettable over ‑ reluctance to examine the applicants’ well-founded complaints under Article 18 would be Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 51988/07, 13 December 2016), where the Court found violations of Articles 5 § 1, 6 § 1 and 11, which, in the Court’s own words, “had the effect of preventing and discouraging [the applicants] and others from ... actively engaging in opposition politics”. Then the Court pulled the brake. It concluded that “in view of this” it was “not necessary to examine whether ... there has been a violation of Article 18” (§ 55).
Such evasive judgments have been adopted in some politically sensitive cases against Russia and Turkey. Regarding Turkey (which is the respondent State in the present case), one could mention, for example, Şahin Alpay v. Turkey (no. 16538/17, 20 March 2018), Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey (no. 13237/17, 20 March 2018), or Atilla Taş v. Turkey (no. 72/17, 19 January 2021). I have made clear my disagreement with that approach in my partly dissenting opinions in Sabuncu v. Turkey (no. 23199/17, 10 November 2020) and Ahmet Hüsrev Altan v. Turkey (no. 13252/17, 13 April 2021).
Yet, here this matter is touched upon for the sake of comprehensiveness only. The applicants in the present case did not complain under Article 18. This category of “undeserving” complaints therefore can be put aside.
18. The second category of the Court’s indisposition to the examination of duly substantiated complaints includes the cases which are, so to say, more mundane – in that sense that they are not related to alleged ulterior political motives prohibited by Article 18. These are not instances where the non-examination of the complaints is justified owing to their “factual” or “legal overlapping”. They are left without examination solely because the Court has so decided , without providing (at least not explicitly) any reasons for such a course and often without such legitimate reasons being in place at all. The Court justifies this by the fact that it has already examined some of the applicant’s complaints (and, as a rule, has found violations of some Convention provisions), so, bluntly put, it should be enough.
In such cases, the (in)famous Câmpeanu formula is employed. I refer to the case of Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu ([GC], no. 47848/08, 17 July 2014). That judgment gave the name to the formula in question, for it was that judgment in which this approach was consolidated. The formula goes that the Court, having examined certain “main” legal questions raised by the applicants, leaves the “remaining” complaints unexamined. It is as if a dentist says to his patient: “I fixed the big holes, so please do not overburden me also with small holes, for you will survive somehow”. The examination of the “main” legal questions ostensibly justifies the non-examination of the others, even if they are not interrelated with those actually examined.
Like the Burmych and Others solution, the Câmpeanu formula stems from a certain pragmatism in such situations, where the Court has to economise its human, time and other resources, and the respective judicial policy considerations. Even so, Burmych and Others was adopted in a situation which hardly anyone would deny was a truly exceptional one. In that judgment, the Court’s stance is explained in great detail. One would find not the slightest trace of such open and detailed explanation either in Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu or in other judgments where the Câmpeanu formula is employed, in fact copy-pasted. That formula has become self-justifying. The seven dissenters in Burmych and Others criticised that judgment as being adopted for the sake of “momentary judicial convenience” (§ 39 of the joint dissenting opinion). Although there is a grain of truth – and not a tiny one at that – in such a characterisation, I would be quite reluctant to follow, at least to the end, that criticism regarding Burmych and Others itself, because, contrary to the assertions of those colleagues, that decision in fact did have something to do with “judicial economy, judicial efficiency, or the Brighton philosophy”. But I think that this characterisation would indeed be congenial if applied to the Câmpeanu -type (non-)findings. There is nothing behind the Câmpeanu formula, except mere “momentary judicial convenience”. Perhaps too momentary.
Luckily, the Câmpeanu formula is not accepted as a normal, justifiable judicial practice by all judges of the Court. On this I refer to Judge Pastor Vilanova’s partly dissenting opinion in Popov and Others v. Russia (no. 44560/11, 27 November 2018), Judge Bošnjak’s partly dissenting opinion in Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 41216/13, 12 March 2019), and my own partly dissenting opinion in the latter case. There is therefore some hope, however slim, that one day the Câmpeanu formula may be abandoned. But that may be only my wishful thinking.
19. The third category of cases in which the Court decides not to examine certain admissible “other” complaints includes judgments where the Court’s resolve not to examine them, because there is “no need” to do so, is not accompanied by any explicit, even if succinct, reasoning, which would at least somehow explain its self-restraint to the readership. Not even is the “main legal question” argument provided, as in Câmpeanu -type cases. This does not mean, in and of itself, that the non-examination would not be possible to justify. The problem is that readers are left to find out for themselves whether the Court’s determination not to examine those complaints is justified owing to their overlapping with the complaints already examined or is a result of the Court’s fiat .
Sometimes it is one, sometimes the other.
III
20. When thoroughly compared with previous solutions, the present case does not fall into any of the above-provided types of termination of the examination of admissible complaints.
I begin by comparing the present case with the cases in which pilot judgments have been adopted or which, like the very exceptional case of Burmych and Others , are related to an earlier pilot judgment. Then I will turn to the comparison of the present case with those in which the examination of “other” complaints was terminated on the basis that, in the Court’s own words, it was “not necessary”. I leave aside Article 18 cases, because, as already mentioned, the applicants in the present case did not complain under that Article. However, two other categories, the second and the third, merit at least a sentence or two. After that I will look into whether the present case bears any resemblance with those in which the examination of “other” complaints was terminated owing to the overlapping of the “undeserving” complaints with those already examined.
21. Firstly, the present judgment is not a pilot judgment. It does not mention any systemic (structural) problem, identified by the Court, in respect of which the respondent State must adopt any general measures rectifying the situation at the domestic level, and the examination of the relevant complaints has not been adjourned until the adoption of such measures; the Court has merely refused to examine them.
In addition, the complaints left unexamined in the present case are not those not yet communicated to the respondent Government. They were all duly communicated; therefore, even if this judgment had been a pilot judgment, the Court should have continued to examine them under the normal procedure. For the adjournment in the pilot-judgment procedure applies to complaints raised by “similar” applications, not those which have been submitted in precisely that case.
22. Nor does the present judgment bear any relation to a previous pilot judgment. The substantiation of the Court’s resolve to leave hundreds of well-reasoned applications unexamined, as provided in paragraph 98 of the judgment, refers to Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) ([GC], no. 14305/17, 22 December 2020), Alparslan Altan v. Turkey (no. 12778/17, 16 April 2019) and Baş v. Turkey (no. 66448/17, 3 March 2020 ) as the judgments in which legal issues raised by complaints left unexamined have been “addressed for the most part”. This is true. And yet, “for the most part” means “not all”. Moreover, “addressed” does not amount to the identification of a systemic (structural) problem. On top of that, those “legal issues” do not encompass the “factual issues” of the hundreds of applicants in the present case, which are at the root of their complaints. For those applicants did not apply to the Court for the reason that some “legal issues” could be “addressed” – they applied for the settlement of their “factual issues” with the domestic authorities.
23. Secondly, the present case is not a case of the Burmych and Others type. That case concerned a situation to which the Court’s approach was in many respects different from its approach to the situation examined – or, rather, not examined – in the present case. Burmych and Others clearly instructed the respondent State to implement the Court’s earlier pilot judgment, which the State had thus far failed to do. In the present case, there is nothing of that sort (and cannot be, because there is no related earlier pilot judgment). In Burmych and Others , the Court transmitted the non-examined applications – and thus the supervision over the State’s progress or lack thereof – to the Committee of Ministers. There is nothing of the kind in this case (and cannot be for the same reason). In Burmych and Others a possibility of reassessment of the situation is postulated. There is not a hint of anything like that in the present judgment.
Thus there is one essential difference between the present case and Burmych and Others . Burmych and Others may be figuratively compared to such necessary surgical amputation of a limb, where not only the person’s life is saved and, in addition, the hospital is sheltered from destruction, but also the ablated limb is replaced with a kind of prosthesis, however badly functioning, and the person is promised that one day the surgeon may revisit his condition. The present judgment rather looks like such an amputation where the loss of limb was not replaced by any surrogate, the surgeon sent the patient home for unattended treatment by someone who had allegedly inflicted the injuries on him, closed the hospital from within, and bade him farewell.
24. Furthermore, as mentioned above, Burmych and Others does not speak at all of complaints that do not require examination. The “no need to examine” formula is not used in that judgment – unlike in the present one.
25. Last but not least, in Burmych and Others the applications were struck out of the Court’s list of cases. In the present case they were not struck out – they were merely left unexamined. It is true that I do not find any realistic counter-arguments which would allow me to disagree with the majority that in the present case, like in Burmych and Others , there was a pressing need for the Court to depart from the ideal(istic) standards of application-processing so that the broader mission of the Court could be secured.
26. I therefore do not find the reference in paragraph 98 to Burmych and Others , very bare and thus unqualified as it is, to be particularly apt for the present situation. That judgment could certainly be referred to – but perhaps with more provisos, i.e. with considerations not only of the similarities between the situations (“constantly growing inflow of applications”), but of the difference in the Court’s approach to them. The reference as it stands now does not strengthen the reasoning – it weakens it. For none of the safeguards employed in that 2017 case have been imported into the present judgment. The “ mutatis mutandis ” caveat does not help. It only disguises the fact that the only resemblance of this judgment to Burmych and Others is that the Court has adopted it also under the duress of reality, in which it has been left with no other choice, if the long-term effectiveness of the Convention machinery is to be ensured.
27. On the other hand, when compared to Burmych and Others , the present judgment is more applicant-friendly in the sense that the applicants have won at least on one front: a violation of Article 5 § 1 has been found on account of the unlawfulness of their initial pre-trial detention. Not enough, but the five applicants in Burmych and Others did not receive even that.
28. I turn now to the cases in which the Court has substantiated the non-examination of “other” complaints by resorting to the formula “no need to examine” (or “not necessary to examine”).
29. Regarding the cases falling into the second above-mentioned category of employment of the formula “no need to examine”, the present case is fundamentally different, because the Câmpeanu formula is not used in this judgment. In fact, hardly anyone would say that in this judgment the “main” legal issues have been examined or that those not examined can be labelled as “secondary” in any sense.
30. As to the third above-mentioned category of cases, the difference between them and the present one is also essential, because in this judgment an explanation is provided as to why the “other” complaints are left unexamined. Whether or not that explanation will be accepted as satisfactory by the applicants and the broader readership is another matter.
31. It remains to be seen whether the unexamined complaints could be seen as overlapping with those actually examined.
But I am happy to be dispensed from the need to address this point, because this has been done by Judge Koskelo in her concurring opinion, joined by Judge Ranzoni. There it is convincingly shown that there is no overlapping of complaints. Indeed, the finding of a violation of Article 5 on account of a lack of basis in domestic law for the applicants’ detention does not, in and of itself, imply that there has also been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c), or that there has been no such violation.
In order to answer that question the applicants’ situation would have to be examined from the angle of Article 5 § 1 (c).
IV
32. To sum up, there clearly is a need to examine the complaints left without examination in the present case – even though in its operative part the Court has stated that there is no such need.
This is why I see point 5 of the operative part as misleading.
33. What is more, the said need is a pressing one, particularly in view of the fact that, as can be seen from the concurring opinion of my distinguished colleague, one could presume that more than just a few of the complaints submitted in the present case under Article 5 § 1 (c) might be very well founded, in the light of such cases as Alparslan Altan v. Turkey and Baş v. Turkey (both cited above) and the circumstances transpiring from them. I would only add that, on the balance of probabilities, the presumption that there was no sufficient factual basis for the detention of at least some of the applicants is not at all futile, especially given the fact that the applicants so massively detained without a requisite legal basis were judges and prosecutors.
34. The decision not to examine the lion’s share of the complaints is an acknowledgment of the limits to the Court’s capacity in the face of the massive influx of applications. The reference to “judicial policy” (paragraph 98) means that the non-examination of complaints is determined not by any tenets of any Articles of the Convention, but by such reality, against which usual legal institutional and procedural mechanisms are helpless, unless the Court allows itself the dubious luxury of extending the examination of these complaints for at least a decade (but more likely for even longer) or (another most unattractive alternative) to postpone the examination of other meritorious complaints, at least those against the same State.
In that context it should be mentioned that today there are thousands of cases pending against Turkey which concern detentions and criminal convictions handed down in the aftermath of the 2016 attempted coup d’état in that State. Every week their number increases by scores. The Court is in fact inundated with cases related to those events. In addition to that tsunami, there is a yet larger pool of pending unrelated cases against Turkey.
35. In such circumstances, the decision not to examine the complaints that consume the most time, effort and other resources is the only pragmatic way out. From the purely legal(istic) perspective, it is not a satisfactory one, and not easily defensible. But it can be explained by reference to reality . That decision is not a judicial fiat . That explanation is provided here in paragraph 98. It is fairly stated at the end of that paragraph that the Court “ decides not to examine the applicants’ remaining complaints under Article 5” (emphasis added), and that that decision has been adopted within the “exceptional context” of the case. There is not the slightest hint about the “remaining” complaints not meriting examination (“no need to examine”) – only the grudging acknowledgment of the impracticality and inappropriateness of such examination in the face of the need to ensure the Court’s overall long-standing mission. This is an expediency justification – not a fully-fledged justification in the purely legal sense, perhaps not in the moral sense either, but still some justification of the untoward, intrusive choice, where all alternatives were worse. And, as has been shown, since Burmych and Others judicial policy considerations in principle may provide some substantiation, and in that sense some justification, for the Court’s decision to leave certain complaints unexamined in certain extraordinary circumstances. This judgment is the application of that methodological principle, inapplicable in normal circumstances, but already entrenched in the Court’s case-law.
36. Whatever the explanation in paragraph 98, the “no need to examine” formula employed in point 5 of the operative part virtually brings it to naught. The findings of the operative part should be read in conjunction with the reasoning leading to them. But this particular finding does not correspond, either in letter or in spirit, to the explanation provided in paragraph 98. This is why I did not vote for it, even though I agree with the outcome of the non-examination of the “remaining” complaints.
37. What happened is that the Chamber took the standard formula (as shown, already used too indiscriminately in a number of cases) and applied it in the most non-standard situation – one never encountered before.
For the situation faced by the Court in the present case is unprecedented . It therefore commands an unprecedented solution. Usual tools would not work. That has been explained in paragraph 98 – and abandoned in point 5 of the operative part. But when a judgment is adopted, it is not the paragraphs of the reasoning part that are voted on, but the points of the operative part.
I cannot cease to wonder why four years ago the Grand Chamber found an adequate way of referring to the exceptionality of the situation in the operative part of Burmych and Others , whilst the Chamber has not followed the Grand Chamber’s example when formulating point 5 of the operative part of the present judgment.
V
38. There is a risk that some may read this judgment, by which so many complaints of so many applicants have been denied examination, as a signal that a member State can escape responsibility for violating the Convention en masse , since the Court may be flooded with complaints against that State to such an extent that it becomes unable to cope with them and decides not to examine them.
To be frank: if a regime decides to go rogue, it should do it in a big way . And if responsibility can be escaped by “doing it big”, why not give it a try?
39. Recently the Court dealt with an attempt to drastically increase the number of applications to the Court, unambiguously aimed at causing it to become “congested, saturated and flooded” and at “paralysing its operations” ( Zambrano v. France (dec.), no. 41994/21, § 36, 21 September 2021). In that case it was noted that the right of application was being abused by applicants pursuing a strategy of flooding the Court with a tsunami of applications and thus with the aim of paralysing it.
40. But what if a similar strategy is pursued not by a group of applicants, whatever their motives may be, but by the Government of a member State, seeking to escape responsibility for violations of the Convention?
The question remains, and even becomes more pertinent: can the course adopted in this case be adopted again in an increasing number of cases? How many times can this be before such situations are no longer regarded as “exceptional”?
41. To conclude, the situation encountered by the Court in the present case is indeed unprecedented and exceptional by all standards applicable hitherto, or at best – or, rather, worst – is comparable only to Burmych and Others . But a similar exceptionality in principle can be “repeated”. Thus, as in addition to this exceptional situation there may be others , a remedy or safeguard, or counterbalance must be found – and applied. Needless to say, that remedy or safeguard, or counterbalance, cannot and must not be judicial.
To that effect, I can but agree with Judge Koskelo that “[a]ny further conclusions remain for other bodies to consider”.
VI
42. I follow Judge Koskelo’s remarks as to the dubious categorisation, in Turkish law, of the offences allegedly committed by the applicants in the present case as “personal offences”. The contradiction between the judges and prosecutors allegedly receiving instructions from the supposedly illegal organisation’s hierarchy, on the one hand, and their alleged membership in that organisation being categorised as a “personal offence”, on the other, is striking. Indeed, “such an interpretation of domestic law appears neither reasonable nor consistent with the Convention requirements of foreseeability and legal certainty”.
43. In this context, I must admit that I should have been more critical in Baş (cited above), where the Chamber, of which I was part, stated that “it [was] not for the Court to determine into which category of offences the applicant’s alleged conduct [fell]” (§ 158).
Perhaps it was. Or at least that statement had to be accompanied by an appropriate proviso.
44. Finally, I seize this opportunity to admit that today I would also differently assess some of the other complaints in Baş , namely those under Article 5 § 4, regarding the restriction of Mr Baş’s access to the investigation file and the alleged lack of independence and impartiality of the magistrates’ courts.
Of course, this confession is post factum , but still offers some relief.
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant Year of Birth
Represented by
Applicant’s status at the time of pre-trial detention
1.
75805/16
Turan v. Turkey
24/11/2016
Ersin TURAN 1983
Bilal Eren MASKAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
2.
75794/16
DemirtaÅŸ v. Turkey
30/11/2016
Hasan DEMÄ°RTAÅž 1989
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
3.
6556/17
Kaşıkçı v. Turkey
20/01/2017
Muhammet Ali KAŞIKÇI 1979
Gülşen ZENGİN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
4.
11888/17
Küçük v. Turkey
06/01/2017
Bekir KÜÇÜK 1974
Sariye YEŞİL TOZKOPARAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
5.
12991/17
Erel v. Turkey
04/01/2017
Kemalettin EREL 1972
Karar Koray ATAK
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
6.
13875/17
Polater v. Turkey
09/01/2017
Yusuf Ziya POLATER 1983
Ä°smail GÃœLER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
7.
14126/17
Çetin v. Turkey
06/01/2017
İlker ÇETİN 1970
Semih ERKEN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
8.
15011/17
Ulupınar v. Turkey
02/02/2017
Aziz ULUPINAR 1982
Rukiye COÅžGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
9.
15048/17
Karademir v. Turkey
19/01/2017
Mehmet KARADEMÄ°R 1971
Karar Koray ATAK
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
10.
15066/17
Kılınç v. Turkey
16/01/2017
Bahadır KILINÇ 1972
Hanife Ruveyda KILINÇ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
11.
15098/17
Altıntaş v. Turkey
02/02/2017
Yusuf ALTINTAÅž 1975
Rukiye COÅžGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
12.
15124/17
Ulupınar v. Turkey
19/01/2017
Atilla ULUPINAR 1968
Pınar BAŞBUĞA
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
13.
15290/17
Dalkılıç v. Turkey
17/01/2017
Erdem DALKILIÇ 1978
Elvan BAÄž CANBAZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
14.
15494/17
Hamurcu v. Turkey
16/01/2017
Bayram HAMURCU 1989
Zehra KILIÇ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
15.
28551/17
CihangiroÄŸlu v. Turkey
29/03/2017
Bircan CÄ°HANGÄ°ROÄžLU 1973
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
16.
28570/17
Miralay v. Turkey
16/01/2017
Necati MÄ°RALAY 1980
Metin GÜÇLÜ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
17.
29073/17
Mercan v. Turkey
05/06/2018
Halil MERCAN 1985
Ä°hsan MAKAS
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
18.
31217/17
Efe v. Turkey
22/03/2017
Metin EFE 1976
Merve Elif GÃœRACAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
19.
33987/17
Kayı v. Turkey
17/01/2017
Halil Ä°brahim KAYI 1974
Rıza ALBAY
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
20.
34014/17
Kılıç v. Turkey
24/03/2017
Erdal KILIÇ 1974
Tufan YILMAZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
21.
34028/17
Yılmaz v. Turkey
23/03/2017
Serdar YILMAZ 1983
Tufan YILMAZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
22.
34357/17
Gündüz v. Turkey
18/04/2017
Kasım GÜNDÜZ 1990
Elif Nurbanu OR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
23.
36845/17
Ağrı v. Turkey
10/01/2017
UÄŸur AÄžRI 1978
Yasemin BAL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
24.
39593/17
Köksal v. Turkey
22/03/2017
Mustafa KÖKSAL 1978
Emre AKARYILDIZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
25.
40053/17
Gölyeri v. Turkey
16/05/2017
Murat GÖLYERI 1980
Merve Elif GÃœRACAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
26.
40097/17
Çokmutlu v. Turkey
05/05/2017
Metin ÇOKMUTLU 1983
Arife ASLAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
27.
40277/17
Evren v. Turkey
28/03/2017
Enver EVREN 1977
Fatih DÖNMEZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
28.
40565/17
Özen v. Turkey
15/03/2017
Gökhan ÖZEN 1988
Mustafa TEMEL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
29.
40937/17
Kaya v. Turkey
27/02/2017
Ömer KAYA 1980
Merve Elif GÃœRACAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
30.
41286/17
AydoÄŸmuÅŸ v. Turkey
31/03/2017
Tahir AYDOÄžMUÅž 1981
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
31.
41525/17
Özkan v. Turkey
13/04/2017
Mustafa ÖZKAN 1983
Osman BAÅžER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
32.
41770/17
Örer v. Turkey
07/04/2017
Vedat ÖRER 1973
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
33.
41772/17
Tosun v. Turkey
29/12/2016
Tahsin TOSUN 1980
Ä°hsan MAKAS
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
34.
41886/17
Alkan v. Turkey
06/04/2017
Gökhan ALKAN 1989
Fatma Aybike ÇINARGİL ŞAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
35.
42314/17
Tosun v. Turkey
18/04/2017
Kenan TOSUN 1987
Ä°hsan MAKAS
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
36.
43668/17
Teke v. Turkey
20/03/2017
Hasan Ali TEKE 1988
Sultan TEKE SOYDİNÇ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
37.
43681/17
Koçak v. Turkey
03/04/2017
ÇETİN KOÇAK 1980
Arzu BEYAZIT
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
38.
43710/17
Deliveli v. Turkey
31/03/2017
Hasan DELÄ°VELÄ° 1978
Emre AKARYILDIZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
39.
43715/17
Aydın v. Turkey
04/04/2017
Zafer AYDIN 1980
Emre AKARYILDIZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
40.
43733/17
Åžam v. Turkey
09/05/2017
Abdullah ÅžAM 1981
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
41.
43753/17
Eken v. Turkey
09/05/2017
Ä°smail EKEN 1976
Murat EKEN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
42.
44833/17
Yalvaç v. Turkey
02/05/2017
İbrahim YALVAÇ 1988
Arife ASLAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
43.
44867/17
Güvenç v. Turkey
24/05/2017
İsmail GÜVENÇ 1985
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
44.
44881/17
Kızıl v. Turkey
22/05/2017
Bahtiyar KIZIL 1986
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
45.
44907/17
Yalım v. Turkey
03/05/2017
Cemalettin YALIM 1971
Hasan Celil GÜNENÇ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
46.
45079/17
Danış v. Turkey
11/04/2017
Muhammed Arif DANIÅž 1986
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
47.
45080/17
Akgül v. Turkey
04/05/2017
Mustafa AKGÃœL 1973
Kürşat Orhan ŞIMŞEK
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
48.
45129/17
Bahadır v. Turkey
23/06/2017
Mehmet BAHADIR 1976
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
49.
46907/17
KurÅŸun v. Turkey
20/02/2017
Ömer Faruk KURŞUN 1977
Mehmet ARI (not lawyer)
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
50.
46938/17
TufanoÄŸlu v. Turkey
23/03/2017
Ä°shak TUFANOÄžLU 1987
Regaip DEMÄ°R
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
51.
47039/17
Acar v. Turkey
22/03/2017
Gürcan ACAR 1966
Tufan YILMAZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
52.
47043/17
Güven v. Turkey
24/03/2017
Saban GÃœVEN 1975
Tufan YILMAZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
53.
47050/17
ToptaÅŸ v. Turkey
16/03/2017
Sungur Alp TOPTAÅž 1991
Sultan TEKE SOYDINÇ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
54.
48156/17
Demir v. Turkey
04/05/2017
Åženol DEMÄ°R 1979
Rukiye COÅžGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
55.
48162/17
Özgeci v. Turkey
08/05/2017
Erhan ÖZGECİ 1981
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
56.
48592/17
Kaya v. Turkey
04/05/2017
Osman KAYA 1983
Özcan DUYGULU
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
57.
48704/17
Atça v. Turkey
29/03/2017
Zekeriya ATÇA 1980
Ahmet KARAHAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
58.
48724/17
Åženkal v. Turkey
28/03/2017
Yılmaz ŞENKAL 1969
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
59.
48755/17
Çetin v. Turkey
08/05/2017
Sadi ÇETİN 1984
Muhammed ÇETİN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
60.
48776/17
Genç v. Turkey
08/05/2017
Durmuş Ali GENÇ 1970
Rukiye COÅžGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
61.
48803/17
Türkmen v. Turkey
08/05/2017
Ali TÃœRKMEN 1982
Nilgün ARI
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
62.
49227/17
Berber v. Turkey
16/06/2017
Ä°dris BERBER 1977
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
63.
49233/17
Öğütalan v. Turkey
24/03/2017
Ersin ÖĞÜTALAN 1987
Sefanur BOZGÖZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
64.
49455/17
Uluca v. Turkey
28/03/2017
Ä°hsan ULUCA 1966
UÄŸur ALTUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
65.
49468/17
Aydemir v. Turkey
04/05/2017
Åžinasi Levent AYDEMÄ°R 1981
Necati TORUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
66.
49509/17
Salman v. Turkey
09/05/2017
OÄŸuz SALMAN 1976
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
67.
49880/17
Atlı v. Turkey
31/03/2017
Ragıp ATLI 1974
Zülküf ARSLAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
68.
49902/17
Kurt v. Turkey
22/03/2017
Levent KURT 1969
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
69.
52776/17
Ölmez v. Turkey
14/03/2018
Hayati ÖLMEZ 1980
Rukiye COÅžGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
70.
54540/17
Beydili v. Turkey
14/07/2017
Hasan BEYDÄ°LÄ° 1983
Ä°mdat BERKSOY
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
71.
54553/17
Aras v. Turkey
21/07/2017
Yunus ARAS 1988
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
72.
54899/17
Kökçam v. Turkey
20/02/2017
Mustafa KÖKÇAM 1961
Ahmet Faruk ACAR
Member of Supreme Administrative Court
73.
55003/17
Çağlar v. Turkey
26/05/2017
Sait ÇAĞLAR 1970
Fatma Zarife TUNÇ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
74.
55057/17
Var v. Turkey
19/04/2017
Selim VAR 1976
Tufan YILMAZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
75.
58516/17
Giden v. Turkey
03/02/2017
Yıldıray GİDEN 1983
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
76.
59572/17
Özgelen v. Turkey
11/04/2017
Mustafa Safa ÖZGELEN 1964
Elif Nurbanu OR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
77.
60292/17
DoÄŸan v. Turkey
03/02/2017
Mustafa DOÄžAN 1980
Mehmet ÇAVDAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
78.
60302/17
Karslı v. Turkey
08/02/2017
Hacı Serhat KARSLI 1983
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
79.
60326/17
Altun v. Turkey
10/01/2017
Hakan ALTUN 1976
Tufan YILMAZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
80.
60387/17
Hotalak v. Turkey
24/06/2017
Yusuf HOTALAK 1985
Harun IÅžIK
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
81.
61123/17
Öztürk v. Turkey
14/08/2017
Burhanettin ÖZTÜRK 1975
Åžeyma GÃœNEÅž
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
82.
61232/17
Gürkan v. Turkey
19/06/2017
Åžeref GÃœRKAN 1972
Önder ÖZDERYOL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
83.
61417/17
Topal v. Turkey
23/05/2017
Orhan Birkan TOPAL 1981
Esin TOPAL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
84.
61467/17
Hazar v. Turkey
22/05/2017
Zafer HAZAR 1974
Merve Elif GÃœRACAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
85.
61547/17
Günay v. Turkey
20/06/2017
Hüseyin GÜNAY 1972
Fatma HACIPAÅžALIOÄžLU
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
86.
62174/17
CoÅŸgun v. Turkey
12/05/2017
Mehmet COÅžGUN 1980
Rukiye COÅžGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
87.
62633/17
Kundakçı v. Turkey
30/06/2017
Mesut KUNDAKÇI 1969
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
88.
62638/17
Karanfil v. Turkey
30/06/2017
Vecdi KARANFÄ°L 1969
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
89.
62656/17
Çengil v. Turkey
30/01/2017
Birol ÇENGİL 1966
Osman ÇENGİL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
90.
62721/17
Åžahin v. Turkey
02/02/2017
Murat ÅžAHÄ°N 1988
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
91.
62723/17
Bozkurt v. Turkey
13/02/2017
Hüseyin BOZKURT 1977
Muhterem SAYAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
92.
62741/17
Canavcı v. Turkey
26/01/2017
Mehmet Ali CANAVCI 1978
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
93.
62761/17
Polat v. Turkey
19/05/2017
Engin POLAT 1987
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
94.
62891/17
Ekinci v. Turkey
09/06/2017
Hüseyin EKİNCİ 1969
Elkan ALBAYRAK
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
95.
62896/17
Ekinci v. Turkey
09/05/2017
Fatih EKÄ°NCÄ° 1983
Beyza Esma TUNA
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
96.
62906/17
Erol v. Turkey
10/05/2017
Muhammed Akif EROL 1970
Hasan Hüseyin EROL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
97.
63234/17
Uzunel v. Turkey
08/06/2017
Enes UZUNEL 1986
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
98.
63607/17
Günay v. Turkey
08/06/2017
Mehmet GÃœNAY 1978
Meryem GÃœNAY
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
99.
63610/17
Söyler v. Turkey
29/05/2017
Serdar SÖYLER 1984
Hüseyin YILDIZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
100.
63611/17
Can v. Turkey
27/05/2017
Fatih CAN 1977
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
101.
63621/17
Boztepe v. Turkey
25/05/2017
Ramazan BOZTEPE 1972
Merve Elif GÃœRACAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
102.
63708/17
Yıldız v. Turkey
30/05/2017
Enes YILDIZ 1988
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
103.
63718/17
Genç v. Turkey
01/06/2017
Yunus GENÇ 1975
Beyza Esma TUNA
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
104.
63827/17
ÅžimÅŸek v. Turkey
02/06/2017
Kemal ŞİMŞEK 1980
Muzaffer Derya ÇALIŞKAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
105.
64036/17
Buyuran v. Turkey
04/07/2017
Hasan Gazi BUYURAN 1969
Ä°hsan MAKAS
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
106.
64499/17
Yıldırım v. Turkey
13/07/2017
Resül YILDIRIM 1969
Enes Bahadır BAŞKÖY
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
107.
64545/17
AkbaÅŸ v. Turkey
18/04/2017
Talat AKBAÅž 1970
Hamit AKBAÅž
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
108.
66287/17
Erdurmaz v. Turkey
18/03/2017
Sertkan ERDURMAZ 1983
Tufan YILMAZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
109.
66475/17
Kaya v. Turkey
26/05/2017
Tayfun KAYA 1973
Mehmet KAYA
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
110.
66705/17
Reçber v. Turkey
24/05/2017
Suat REÇBER 1978
Ä°hsan MAKAS
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
111.
66829/17
Ãœnal v. Turkey
07/08/2017
Ãœmit ÃœNAL 1981
Recep BAKIRCI
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
112.
67664/17
Yönder v. Turkey
20/07/2017
Mehmet Murat YÖNDER 1969
Yücel ALKAN
Member of Court of Cassation
113.
68209/17
Sel v. Turkey
17/01/2017
Mehmet SEL 1976
Önder ÖZDERYOL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
114.
69379/17
Türkmen v. Turkey
08/08/2017
Necati TÃœRKMEN 1970
Merve Elif GÃœRACAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
115.
69443/17
Åžafak v. Turkey
25/08/2017
Ercan ÅžAFAK 1968
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
116.
69587/17
Birsen v. Turkey
07/07/2017
Ä°smail BÄ°RSEN 1984
Ä°shak IÅžIK
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
117.
70484/17
Gelgör v. Turkey
10/08/2017
Burhan GELGÖR 1970
Ahmet ÇORUM
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
118.
71053/17
Yazgan v. Turkey
08/08/2017
Mehmet YAZGAN 1988
Özge ALTINTOP
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
119.
71056/17
Girdi v. Turkey
28/08/2017
Seyfettin GÄ°RDÄ° 1988
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
120.
72345/17
Ekici v. Turkey
25/07/2017
Barbaros Hayrettin EKÄ°CÄ° 1989
Rukiye COÅžGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
121.
74901/17
Çalmuk v. Turkey
06/10/2017
Hüsnü ÇALMUK 1966
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
122.
76253/17
DemirbaÅŸ v. Turkey
14/10/2017
Samed DEMÄ°RBAÅž 1982
Ä°hsan MAKAS
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
123.
79800/17
Üzgör v. Turkey
01/11/2017
İsmail ÜZGÖR 1982
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
124.
82532/17
Kılınç v. Turkey
20/11/2017
Fatih KILINÇ 1977
Cem Kaya KARATÃœN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
125.
82536/17
Say v. Turkey
20/11/2017
Mehmet SAY 1974
Zeynep Sacide SERTER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
126.
83719/17
Kırıcı v. Turkey
27/10/2017
Muhittin KIRICI 1974
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
127.
83801/17
Uzun v. Turkey
20/11/2018
Fahri UZUN 1972
Mustafa TUNA
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
128.
83969/17
Özçelik v. Turkey
20/11/2017
Mustafa ÖZÇELİK 1979
Gülçin MOLA
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
129.
84000/17
Aydemir v. Turkey
16/10/2017
Ä°sa AYDEMÄ°R 1981
Elif Nurbanu OR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
130.
84242/17
BabayiÄŸit v. Turkey
29/11/2017
Yusuf BABAYİĞİT 1976
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
131.
84617/17
Babacan v. Turkey
13/11/2017
Hüseyin Güngör BABACAN 1966
Sümeyra Betül BABACAN ALKAN
Member of Court of Cassation
132.
84631/17
Atasoy v. Turkey
24/11/2017
Habib ATASOY 1969
Fatih DÖNMEZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
133.
537/18
Åžener v. Turkey
24/11/2017
Halil ÅžENER 1976
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
134.
1217/18
Asan v. Turkey
06/12/2017
Ä°dris ASAN 1964
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Member of Court of Cassation
135.
1226/18
Budak v. Turkey
06/12/2017
Mesut BUDAK 1969
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Member of Court of Cassation
136.
1542/18
Akkol v. Turkey
05/12/2017
Ä°smail AKKOL 1965
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
137.
6110/18
Candan v. Turkey
26/01/2018
Hasan CANDAN 1985
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
138.
6413/18
Gürakar v. Turkey
10/01/2018
Muhammed Salih GÃœRAKAR 1984
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
139.
6485/18
Akgedik v. Turkey
03/01/2018
Hasan AKGEDÄ°K 1979
Burcu HAS
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
140.
6487/18
Önal v. Turkey
18/01/2018
Yunus ÖNAL 1975
Betül Büşra ÖNAL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
141.
6538/18
TaÅŸer v. Turkey
16/01/2018
DurmuÅŸ TAÅžER 1970
Hanife Ruveyda KILINÇ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
142.
6812/18
Varol v. Turkey
19/01/2018
Ahmet Selçuk VAROL 1973
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
143.
6948/18
Aslan v. Turkey
23/01/2018
Veysel ASLAN 1968
Merve Elif GÃœRACAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
144.
8332/18
Erdagöz v. Turkey
02/02/2018
Özcan ERDAGÖZ 1981
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
145.
8416/18
BozkuÅŸ v. Turkey
25/01/2018
Bilal BOZKUÅž 1989
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
146.
8540/18
Demir v. Turkey
16/06/2017
Ahmet DEMÄ°R 1979
Utku CoÅŸkuner SAKARYA
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
147.
8543/18
Gümüş v. Turkey
16/06/2017
Mustafa Evren GÜMÜŞ 1981
Utku CoÅŸkuner SAKARYA
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
148.
8606/18
TurÄŸut v. Turkey
27/04/2017
Muhammed Davut TURÄžUT 1990
Xavier LABBEE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
149.
9818/18
Çolaker v. Turkey
26/01/2018
Mustafa ÇOLAKER 1974
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
150.
9824/18
Kahya v. Turkey
17/01/2018
Mustafa KAHYA 1972
Merve Elif GÃœRACAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
151.
9880/18
H.K. v. Turkey
29/01/2018
H.K. 1972
Duygu BUDAK
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
152.
9892/18
Güven v. Turkey
30/01/2018
Aziz GÃœVEN 1989
Nur EfÅŸan DEMÄ°REL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
153.
10030/18
Köseoğlu v. Turkey
24/01/2018
Bilal KÖSEOĞLU 1966
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Member of Court of Cassation
154.
10290/18
Çetin v. Turkey
19/09/2017
Yunus ÇETİN 1966
Cengiz VAROL
Member of Supreme Administrative Court
155.
10291/18
KaradaÄŸ v. Turkey
29/11/2017
Bilal KARADAÄž 1967
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Member of Court of Cassation
156.
10471/18
Tunçer v. Turkey
01/02/2018
Ömer TUNÇER 1983
Osman Fatih AKGÃœL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
157.
12041/18
Yula v. Turkey
28/02/2018
Ali YULA 1982
Emre AKARYILDIZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
158.
12574/18
Akbal v. Turkey
22/02/2018
Mehmet AKBAL 1971
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
159.
12594/18
AkdoÄŸan v. Turkey
09/02/2018
Mehmet Emin AKDOÄžAN 1981
Arzu BEYAZIT
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
160.
12629/18
ÅžimÅŸek v. Turkey
05/03/2018
Adnan ŞİMŞEK 1984
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
161.
12630/18
Dursun v. Turkey
05/03/2018
Hasan DURSUN 1981
Önder ÖZDERYOL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
162.
13823/18
Akan v. Turkey
16/03/2018
Selim AKAN 1988
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
163.
14627/18
Akkurt v. Turkey
09/03/2018
Ä°brahim AKKURT 1984
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
164.
14849/18
Boz v. Turkey
14/02/2018
Nazım BOZ 1985
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
165.
16029/18
NecipoÄŸlu v. Turkey
28/03/2018
Nazmi NECÄ°POÄžLU 1972
Levent ÇEŞME
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
166.
16296/18
Gülmez v. Turkey
23/03/2018
Hüseyin GÜLMEZ 1975
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
167.
16305/18
Aydın v. Turkey
22/03/2018
Muzaffer AYDIN 1971
Merve Elif GÃœRACAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
168.
16324/18
Temel v. Turkey
20/03/2018
Muhammed Zeki TEMEL 1978
Emre AKARYILDIZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
169.
16368/18
Gül v. Turkey
23/03/2018
Tevfik GÃœL 1983
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
170.
16386/18
Polat v. Turkey
02/03/2018
Halil POLAT 1984
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
171.
17174/18
Elibol v. Turkey
15/03/2018
Mert ELÄ°BOL 1980
Muhammet GÃœNEY
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
172.
17237/18
MertoÄŸlu v. Turkey
16/03/2018
Hakan MERTOÄžLU 1990
Hamza BARUT
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
173.
17315/18
Çetin v. Turkey
10/03/2018
Muharrem ÇETİN 1971
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
174.
17391/18
Kırım v. Turkey
13/03/2018
Kerim KIRIM 1971
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
175.
17544/18
Sönmez v. Turkey
04/04/2018
Sebati SÖNMEZ 1979
Havva ÖZEL KAPLAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
176.
17561/18
Toprak v. Turkey
01/03/2018
Muhammet TOPRAK 1984
Duygu BUDAK
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
177.
17576/18
Gül v. Turkey
23/02/2018
Olcay GÃœL 1977
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
178.
17637/18
Ä°kiz v. Turkey
02/04/2018
DurmuÅŸ Ali Ä°KÄ°Z 1979
Enes Malik KILIÇ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
179.
17754/18
Kulak v. Turkey
23/02/2018
Sercan CoÅŸkun KULAK 1983
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
180.
17828/18
Açıkgöz v. Turkey
04/04/2018
Bilal AÇIKGÖZ 1988
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
181.
17837/18
Uluçay v. Turkey
10/03/2018
Ömer ULUÇAY 1987
Mücahit AYDIN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
182.
17940/18
Yılmaz v. Turkey
05/01/2018
Yavuz YILMAZ 1971
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
183.
18063/18
Aker v. Turkey
06/04/2018
Ender Yakup AKER 1986
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
184.
18110/18
Gül v. Turkey
11/04/2018
Veysi GÃœL 1985
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
185.
18112/18
Bozlak v. Turkey
05/04/2018
Rafetcan BOZLAK 1990
Rukiye COÅžGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
186.
18200/18
Sarıgüzel v. Turkey
10/04/2018
Hacı SARIGÜZEL 1982
Mehmet GÃœL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
187.
18214/18
Ãœnal v. Turkey
20/02/2018
Sedat ÃœNAL 1982
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
188.
18695/18
Berber v. Turkey
30/03/2018
Selim BERBER 1976
Ahmet Aykut YILDIZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
189.
19228/18
Çeliktaş v. Turkey
05/03/2018
Şakir ÇELİKTAŞ 1986
Burcu HAS
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
190.
19230/18
Küçük v. Turkey
05/04/2018
Yalçın KÜÇÜK 1983
Mehtap SERT
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
191.
19445/18
Özen v. Turkey
12/04/2018
Edib Hüsnü ÖZEN 1981
Mehmet MIRZA
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
192.
20548/18
Güldallı v. Turkey
20/04/2018
Ömer GÜLDALLI 1985
Ahmet ÖZGÜL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
193.
21020/18
Metin v. Turkey
30/04/2018
Özgür METİN 1982
Ä°hsan MAKAS
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
194.
21064/18
Zengin v. Turkey
20/04/2018
Nihan ZENGÄ°N 1990
Adem KAPLAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
195.
21890/18
Erdem v. Turkey
02/05/2018
Yılmaz ERDEM 1975
Fatma (YILMAZ) KOCAEL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
196.
22009/18
Ünlü v. Turkey
20/04/2018
Halil ÜNLÜ 1985
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
197.
22013/18
Çakırca v. Turkey
03/05/2018
Kenan ÇAKIRCA 1983
Meryem GÃœNAY
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
198.
22033/18
Yavuz v. Turkey
24/04/2018
Yener YAVUZ 1971
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
199.
22087/18
Özen v. Turkey
27/04/2018
Murat ÖZEN 1976
Hilal YILMAZ PUSAT
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
200.
22088/18
Kaymaz v. Turkey
03/05/2018
Yusuf Samet KAYMAZ 1988
Mehmet Ertürk ERDEVİR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
201.
22200/18
Altun v. Turkey
07/05/2018
Osman ALTUN 1972
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
202.
22205/18
Güler v. Turkey
02/05/2018
Ercan GÃœLER 1978
Emre AKARYILDIZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
203.
22238/18
Budak v. Turkey
30/04/2018
Serhan BUDAK 1984
Burcu HAS
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
204.
23665/18
Akbaba v. Turkey
07/05/2018
Åžerafettin AKBABA 1983
Atıl KARADUMAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
205.
23858/18
Keskin v. Turkey
10/05/2018
Özcan KESKİN 1974
Ersayın IŞIK
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
206.
24205/18
Kantar v. Turkey
04/05/2018
Ä°smail KANTAR 1976
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
207.
24216/18
Erkaçal v. Turkey
30/04/2018
Taner ERKAÇAL 1978
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
208.
24222/18
Çakmakçı v. Turkey
02/05/2018
Murat Hikmet ÇAKMAKÇI 1970
Fatih DÖNMEZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
209.
24224/18
Altun v. Turkey
07/05/2018
Ali Rıza ALTUN 1978
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
210.
24227/18
Maraşlı v. Turkey
22/05/2018
Yusuf Cuma MARAÅžLI 1980
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
211.
24446/18
R.H. v. Turkey
14/05/2018
R.H. 1983
Emine Feyza ASLAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
212.
24636/18
Vural v. Turkey
17/05/2018
Muhammed Said VURAL 1991
Esad VURAL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
213.
24702/18
Åžahin v. Turkey
09/05/2018
Adnan ÅžAHÄ°N 1975
Ä°hsan MAKAS
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
214.
24762/18
DemirtaÅŸ v. Turkey
17/05/2018
Ä°brahim DEMÄ°RTAÅž 1969
Ali YILMAZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
215.
24876/18
Gökçek v. Turkey
16/02/2018
Erdoğan GÖKÇEK 1969
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
216.
25037/18
Karabacak v. Turkey
24/05/2018
Orhan KARABACAK 1978
Ä°hsan Can AKMARUL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
217.
25186/18
Özgül v. Turkey
21/05/2018
Ünver ÖZGÜL 1972
Duygu SEZEN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
218.
25195/18
KiriÅŸ v. Turkey
14/02/2018
Ahmet KÄ°RÄ°Åž 1965
Åžeyma GÃœNEÅž
Member of Court of Cassation
219.
25218/18
Kara v. Turkey
07/05/2018
Nazım KARA 1966
Ahmet KARA
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
220.
25228/18
Benli v. Turkey
18/05/2018
Esat Faruk BENLÄ° 1970
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
221.
25336/18
Ayyayla v. Turkey
23/05/2018
Hüseyin AYYAYLA 1973
Can GÃœZEL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
222.
25370/18
Durgun v. Turkey
25/05/2018
Metin DURGUN 1969
Ali DURGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
223.
25880/18
Dedetürk v. Turkey
30/05/2018
Serkan DEDETÃœRK 1977
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
224.
26281/18
Aksoy v. Turkey
24/05/2018
Ä°smail AKSOY 1970
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
225.
26414/18
ElieyioÄŸlu v. Turkey
30/05/2018
Aydın ELİEYİOĞLU 1980
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
226.
26419/18
Özata v. Turkey
30/05/2018
Bedri ÖZATA 1981
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
227.
26530/18
Kadıoğlu v. Turkey
24/05/2018
Yasin KADIOÄžLU 1978
Hatice YILMAZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
228.
26814/18
Yılmaz v. Turkey
22/05/2018
Sinan YILMAZ 1975
Emre AKARYILDIZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
229.
27022/18
Çelik v. Turkey
28/05/2018
Sabır ÇELİK 1974
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
230.
27057/18
Cihangir v. Turkey
30/05/2018
Nurullah CÄ°HANGÄ°R 1973
Merve Elif GÃœRACAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
231.
27073/18
Çimen v. Turkey
29/05/2018
Mustafa ÇİMEN 1981
Åžeyma LÄ°MON TALUY
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
232.
27092/18
Nas Çelik v. Turkey
28/05/2018
Seval NAS ÇELIK 1979
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
233.
27542/18
Yönder v. Turkey
05/06/2018
Muhammed YÖNDER 1983
Elif Nurbanu OR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
234.
27574/18
Bilgen v. Turkey
01/06/2018
Rasim Ä°sa BÄ°LGEN 1968
Hakan ÖZER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
235.
27581/18
Aygör v. Turkey
03/05/2018
Dursun AYGÖR 1965
Merve Elif GÃœRACAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
236.
27600/18
Yalçıntaş v. Turkey
11/04/2018
Habib Hüdai YALÇINTAŞ 1972
Rukiye COÅžGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
237.
27611/18
Saral v. Turkey
29/05/2018
Süleyman SARAL 1974
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
238.
27998/18
Güney v. Turkey
02/06/2018
Yusuf GÃœNEY 1979
Rukiye COÅžGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
239.
28050/18
Karaçavuş v. Turkey
15/05/2018
Ümit KARAÇAVUŞ 1981
Aykut ÖZDEMIR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
240.
28150/18
Yalçın v. Turkey
08/06/2018
Onur YALÇIN 1988
Mehmet SÃœRMEN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
241.
28481/18
Gödel v. Turkey
07/06/2018
Orhan GÖDEL 1971
Haydar YALÇINOĞLU
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
242.
28530/18
Ä°lgen v. Turkey
04/06/2018
Faik Ä°LGEN 1986
Nesibe Merve ARSLAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
243.
28538/18
Çelik v. Turkey
11/06/2018
Ahmet ÇELİK 1990
Rukiye COÅžGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
244.
28558/18
Arslan v. Turkey
06/06/2018
Fatih ARSLAN 1984
Kadir ÃœNAL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
245.
28636/18
Köse v. Turkey
13/04/2018
Eşref KÖSE 1974
Rukiye COÅžGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
246.
28690/18
Uluçay v. Turkey
07/06/2018
Ali ULUÇAY 1979
Ä°hsan MAKAS
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
247.
28739/18
Kırbaş v. Turkey
11/06/2018
SavaÅŸ KIRBAÅž 1969
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
248.
28746/18
Özcan v. Turkey
11/06/2018
Uğur ÖZCAN 1968
AyÅŸe Nur AYFER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
249.
29587/18
OkumuÅŸ v. Turkey
11/06/2018
Ali Mazhar OKUMUÅž 1976
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
250.
29762/18
Özdemir v. Turkey
12/06/2018
Kadir ÖZDEMİR 1974
Ahmet KARAHAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
251.
29931/18
Özbek v. Turkey
08/06/2018
Okan ÖZBEK 1989
Elif Nurbanu OR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
252.
30232/18
Kızıler v. Turkey
20/06/2018
Levent KIZILER 1986
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
253.
30234/18
Turgut v. Turkey
13/06/2018
Bayram TURGUT 1974
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
254.
30267/18
BasdaÅŸ v. Turkey
20/06/2018
Mustafa BASDAÅž 1973
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
255.
30287/18
Sonay v. Turkey
18/06/2018
Suat SONAY 1978
Fatma (YILMAZ) KOCAEL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
256.
30481/18
Alıcı v. Turkey
14/06/2018
Hasan ALICI 1976
Bünyamin TAPAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
257.
30497/18
Güngörmüş v. Turkey
13/06/2018
Hasan GÜNGÖRMÜŞ 1981
Muhammet GÃœNEY
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
258.
30502/18
CoÅŸar v. Turkey
19/06/2018
Ãœmit COÅžAR 1988
Elif Nurbanu OR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
259.
30517/18
Oktar v. Turkey
18/06/2018
Mehmet OKTAR 1985
Erdem OKTAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
260.
31880/18
Alper v. Turkey
25/06/2018
Cafer Tayyer ALPER
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
261.
31888/18
EroÄŸlu v. Turkey
25/06/2018
Hüseyin EROĞLU 1982
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
262.
31908/18
Gülver v. Turkey
19/06/2018
Hasan GÃœLVER 1970
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
263.
32352/18
Özden v. Turkey
11/06/2018
Salih ÖZDEN 1973
Rukiye COÅžGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
264.
32376/18
KaracaoÄŸlu v. Turkey
25/06/2018
Hasan KARACAOÄžLU 1990
Abdil TAÅž
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
265.
32412/18
Özdemir v. Turkey
27/06/2018
Mehmet Fatih ÖZDEMİR 1985
Mehmet Yasin BUHUR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
266.
32418/18
Temel v. Turkey
28/06/2018
Yusuf TEMEL 1990
Mustafa TEMEL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
267.
32431/18
Kahveci v. Turkey
25/06/2018
Yusuf KAHVECÄ° 1979
Köksal YAVUZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
268.
32449/18
Nedim v. Turkey
22/06/2018
Mercan NEDÄ°M 1985
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
269.
32599/18
Karakaya v. Turkey
25/06/2018
Murat KARAKAYA 1984
Muhammet GÃœNEY
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
270.
32605/18
Arıkan v. Turkey
25/06/2018
Ahmet ARIKAN 1972
Berivan YAKIÅžIR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
271.
32611/18
Kadıoğlu v. Turkey
25/06/2018
Ali KADIOÄžLU 1983
Muhammet GÃœNEY
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
272.
32906/18
Güverçin v. Turkey
25/06/2018
Sezgin GÜVERÇİN 1980
Karar Koray ATAK
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
273.
32945/18
Kır v. Turkey
13/06/2018
OÄŸuzhan KIR 1974
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
274.
32948/18
Altın v. Turkey
22/06/2018
Erkan ALTIN 1980
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
275.
32972/18
Hançerkıran v. Turkey
05/07/2018
Said Serhan HANÇERKIRAN 1977
Mustafa ASLAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
276.
32999/18
Keçeci v. Turkey
02/07/2018
Tuğrul KEÇECİ 1988
Mustafa ÖZBEK
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
277.
33007/18
EÅŸim v. Turkey
27/06/2018
Recep EŞİM 1972
Hacer SEZER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
278.
33112/18
Saz v. Turkey
27/06/2018
Murat SAZ 1974
Ali DURGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
279.
33417/18
Gül v. Turkey
04/07/2018
AyÅŸe NeÅŸe GÃœL 1968
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
280.
33474/18
DoÄŸan v. Turkey
02/07/2018
Cem DOÄžAN 1980
Naim DOÄžAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
281.
33501/18
Orhan v. Turkey
05/07/2018
Bilal ORHAN 1985
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
282.
33714/18
Dural v. Turkey
20/04/2018
Kasım DURAL 1981
Remziye ARSLAN KAYA
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
283.
33806/18
Söyler v. Turkey
26/04/2018
Abdülkerim Ziya SÖYLER 1979
Metin YÃœCESAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
284.
33941/18
Kandil v. Turkey
21/03/2018
Hamit Ali KANDÄ°L 1979
Adnan AYDIN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
285.
33967/18
Özdemir v. Turkey
21/06/2018
Dursun ÖZDEMİR 1979
Rukiye COÅžGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
286.
34161/18
Ä°lhan v. Turkey
11/05/2018
Mehmet Ä°LHAN 1981
Merve Elif GÃœRACAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
287.
34165/18
Yalçınkaya v. Turkey
03/05/2018
Ömer YALÇINKAYA 1977
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
288.
34198/18
Kelam v. Turkey
27/06/2018
Ali Arslan KELAM 1977
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
289.
34207/18
Albayrak v. Turkey
06/07/2018
Bülent ALBAYRAK 1970
Ä°hsan MAKAS
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
290.
34466/18
Yıldırım v. Turkey
29/06/2018
Bülent YILDIRIM 1978
Murat YILMAZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
291.
34538/18
Gençoğlu v. Turkey
04/07/2018
Hacer GENÇOĞLU 1990
Sultan TEKE SOYDİNÇ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
292.
34683/18
Öztürkeri v. Turkey
10/07/2018
Bekir ÖZTÜRKERİ 1989
Murat YILMAZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
293.
35036/18
Usta v. Turkey
13/07/2018
Onur USTA 1989
Hanifi BAYRI
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
294.
35163/18
Ak v. Turkey
14/07/2018
Hasan AK 1980
Emre AKARYILDIZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
295.
35179/18
Sil v. Turkey
10/05/2018
Ahmet SÄ°L 1985
Mehmet ARI (not lawyer)
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
296.
35181/18
Karanfil v. Turkey
31/05/2018
Kemal KARANFÄ°L 1972
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
297.
35328/18
Çağlayan v. Turkey
18/04/2018
Serkan ÇAĞLAYAN 1973
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
298.
35435/18
Yıldız v. Turkey
05/07/2018
Utku YILDIZ 1990
Elif Nurbanu OR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
299.
35487/18
Ayko v. Turkey
10/07/2018
Mehmet AYKO 1990
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
300.
35910/18
Yılmaz v. Turkey
10/07/2018
Abdurrahman YILMAZ 1968
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
301.
36216/18
Alaybay v. Turkey
20/07/2018
Hüseyin ALAYBAY 1973
Özhan KURT
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
302.
36388/18
Kurt v. Turkey
11/07/2018
Saltuk BuÄŸra KURT 1979
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
303.
36471/18
Akçalı v. Turkey
26/07/2018
Tamer AKÇALI 1972
Mehmet ARI (not lawyer)
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
304.
36545/18
Arslan v. Turkey
27/07/2018
Önder ARSLAN 1983
Yener ARSLAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
305.
36591/18
Çam v. Turkey
17/07/2018
Ali Rıza ÇAM 1971
Levent KAHYA
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
306.
36656/18
ÅžiÅŸman v. Turkey
12/07/2018
Sefa ŞİŞMAN 1978
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
307.
36666/18
Baytekin v. Turkey
03/04/2018
Ä°brahim BAYTEKÄ°N 1973
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
308.
36930/18
Kaya v. Turkey
03/07/2018
Mine KAYA 1969
Grégory THUAN DIT DIEUDONNÉ
Member of Court of Cassation
309.
37070/18
Maden v. Turkey
27/07/2018
Ahmet MADEN 1969
Fatma HACIPAÅžALIOÄžLU
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
310.
37257/18
Dertli v. Turkey
16/07/2018
Abdullah DERTLÄ° 1984
Emre AKARYILDIZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
311.
37346/18
Bulut v. Turkey
20/07/2018
Hikmet BULUT 1979
Emre AKARYILDIZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
312.
38144/18
Yırtıcı v. Turkey
31/07/2018
Asabil YIRTICI 1981
Merve Elif GÃœRACAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
313.
38851/18
Mangal v. Turkey
07/08/2018
Serkan MANGAL 1981
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
314.
39058/18
Cil v. Turkey
10/08/2018
Kamil CÄ°L 1977
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
315.
39092/18
Arslan v. Turkey
04/07/2018
Fatih ARSLAN 1980
Merve Elif GÃœRACAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
316.
39476/18
Altın v. Turkey
06/08/2018
Ömer Faruk ALTIN 1986
Hanifi BAYRI
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
317.
39755/18
Çetinkaya v. Turkey
17/08/2018
Mehmet ÇETİNKAYA 1989
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
318.
40120/18
Göçen v. Turkey
10/08/2018
Bilal GÖÇEN 1984
Zeynep Sacide SERTER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
319.
40643/18
BabaoÄŸlu v. Turkey
02/08/2018
Hüseyin BABAOĞLU 1981
Rabia Betül KAHRAMAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
320.
41131/18
Dedebali v. Turkey
13/08/2018
Rıza DEDEBALI 1984
Merve Elif GÃœRACAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
321.
41242/18
Özer v. Turkey
13/08/2018
Eyüp ÖZER 1982
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
322.
41432/18
Hamurcu v. Turkey
10/08/2018
Betül HAMURCU 1989
Zehra KILIÇ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
323.
42179/18
Solak v. Turkey
16/08/2018
Selami SOLAK 1982
Muhammet GÃœNEY
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
324.
42378/18
Karamete v. Turkey
29/08/2018
Abdullah KARAMETE 1982
Emre AKARYILDIZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
325.
42727/18
Hatal v. Turkey
19/07/2018
Ä°brahim HATAL 1970
İsmet ÇELİK
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
326.
43052/18
Gökoğlu v. Turkey
06/08/2018
Şükrü GÖKOĞLU 1971
Rukiye COÅžGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
327.
44227/18
Özyılmaz v. Turkey
28/08/2018
Muhteşem ÖZYILMAZ 1989
Mehmet ÖNCÜ (not lawyer)
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
328.
44388/18
Sabay v. Turkey
13/09/2018
Dursun SABAY 1977
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
329.
45116/18
Ä°pteÅŸ v. Turkey
17/08/2018
Gültekin İPTEŞ 1967
Rukiye COÅžGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
330.
45362/18
Çalıkan v. Turkey
25/09/2018
Abdullah Seçil ÇALIKAN 1985
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
331.
45455/18
EÄŸerci v. Turkey
07/09/2018
Ahmet EÄžERCÄ° 1969
Adem KAPLAN
Member of Supreme Administrative Court
332.
45460/18
Kul v. Turkey
07/09/2018
Süleyman KUL 1966
Mehmet ÖNCÜ (not lawyer)
Member of Court of Cassation
333.
45467/18
Uslu v. Turkey
07/09/2018
Mehmet USLU 1959
Adem KAPLAN
Member of Court of Cassation
334.
45480/18
TaÅŸdan v. Turkey
07/09/2018
Mehmet Nafi TAÅžDAN 1984
Hatice YILDIZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
335.
46203/18
Baba v. Turkey
25/09/2018
Ali Rıza BABA 1975
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
336.
46229/18
Buğuçam v. Turkey
21/09/2018
Ziya Bekir BUĞUÇAM 1980
Utku CoÅŸkuner SAKARYA
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
337.
46260/18
Yalçın v. Turkey
21/09/2018
Zeki YALÇIN 1974
Canan DANIÅž
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
338.
46264/18
Gençoğlu v. Turkey
26/09/2018
Mehmet GENÇOĞLU 1989
Sultan TEKE SOYDİNÇ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
339.
46414/18
Demirezici v. Turkey
26/09/2018
Mehmet Ali DEMÄ°REZÄ°CÄ° 1966
Süeda Esma ŞEN KARA
Member of Court of Cassation
340.
47130/18
Korkmaz v. Turkey
20/09/2018
Mahmut KORKMAZ 1980
Ä°hsan MAKAS
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
341.
47418/18
Sırlı v. Turkey
28/08/2018
Mustafa SIRLI 1973
Süleyman SARIBAŞ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
342.
47439/18
Çelik v. Turkey
25/09/2018
Metin ÇELİK 1983
Ramazan ZEREY
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
343.
47657/18
Musa v. Turkey
25/09/2018
Alperen MUSA 1983
Muhammet GÃœNEY
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
344.
48133/18
Yıldırım v. Turkey
03/10/2018
Bünyamin YILDIRIM 1988
Metin SÖNMEZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
345.
48158/18
Simavlı v. Turkey
27/09/2018
Mustafa SÄ°MAVLI 1965
Süleyman Serdar BALKANLI
Member of Court of Cassation
346.
48210/18
Ak v. Turkey
04/10/2018
Mustafa AK 1977
Burcu KÃœTAHYA
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
347.
48547/18
KocabeyoÄŸlu v. Turkey
08/10/2018
Hasan Nafi KOCABEYOÄžLU 1975
Mehmet ARI (not lawyer)
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
348.
49022/18
Alçık v. Turkey
05/10/2018
Ali ALÇIK 1964
Adem KAPLAN
Member of Court of Cassation
349.
49092/18
Tutar v. Turkey
28/09/2018
Galip Tuncay TUTAR 1964
Adem KAPLAN
Member of Supreme Administrative Court
350.
49260/18
Adalı v. Turkey
02/10/2018
Ercan ADALI 1973
Mehmet ÇAVDAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
351.
49461/18
Kaleli v. Turkey
10/10/2018
Temel KALELÄ° 1983
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
352.
49832/18
Ince v. Turkey
12/10/2018
Hüseyin İNCE 1972
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
353.
49843/18
Yardımcı v. Turkey
11/10/2018
Mehmet Murat YARDIMCI 1971
Mehmet ARI (not lawyer)
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
354.
49846/18
Aksoy v. Turkey
11/10/2018
Muharrem AKSOY 1976
Cabir Hulusi GÃœLDEN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
355.
50052/18
Koçtekin v. Turkey
15/10/2018
Okan KOÇTEKİN 1968
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
356.
50079/18
Aydın v. Turkey
12/10/2018
Turan AYDIN 1972
Zehra KILIÇ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
357.
50343/18
Dönmez v. Turkey
10/10/2018
Bekir DÖNMEZ 1977
Deniz UYSAL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
358.
51094/18
Alim v. Turkey
25/10/2018
Ãœmit ALIM 1979
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
359.
51105/18
Kaya v. Turkey
25/10/2018
Levent KAYA 1980
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
360.
51377/18
BaÅŸlar v. Turkey
27/10/2018
Yusuf BAÅžLAR 1981
Zehra KILIÇ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
361.
51430/18
Evğün v. Turkey
22/10/2018
Mustafa EVĞÜN 1979
Emre AKARYILDIZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
362.
51548/18
Fırat v. Turkey
18/10/2018
Bircan FIRAT 1974
Rukiye COÅžGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
363.
51920/18
Ä°ren v. Turkey
26/10/2018
Muzaffer Ä°REN 1974
Hüseyin UÇAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
364.
52171/18
YiÄŸit v. Turkey
16/10/2018
Nazım YİĞİT 1972
Ali DURGUN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
365.
52298/18
KarakuÅŸ v. Turkey
09/10/2018
Nuri KARAKUÅž 1978
Zeynep ÅžEN KARAKUÅž
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
366.
52471/18
Cambolat v. Turkey
29/10/2018
Ahmet CAMBOLAT 1979
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
367.
52535/18
ErmiÅŸ v. Turkey
24/10/2018
Ercan ERMÄ°Åž 1986
Duygu BUDAK
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
368.
52615/18
Vatan v. Turkey
26/10/2018
Zeki VATAN 1974
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
369.
52817/18
Yıldız v. Turkey
22/10/2018
Halil Ä°brahim YILDIZ 1985
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
370.
53077/18
Alada v. Turkey
05/11/2018
Zakir ALADA 1985
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
371.
53381/18
UÄŸurlu v. Turkey
01/11/2018
Ä°brahim UÄžURLU 1982
Burcu HAS
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
372.
53564/18
Erdemir v. Turkey
23/10/2018
Ahmet ERDEMÄ°R 1982
Sefanur BOZGÖZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
373.
53586/18
Ä°nceoÄŸlu v. Turkey
01/11/2018
Ä°smail Ä°NCEOÄžLU 1965
Ayşe Büşra İNCEOĞLU
Member of Court of Cassation
374.
53610/18
Çelik v. Turkey
08/11/2018
Abdullah ÇELİK 1981
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
375.
53682/18
Çeliktaş v. Turkey
12/11/2018
Sedat ÇELİKTAŞ 1977
Ahmet ÅžAHÄ°N
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
376.
53840/18
Özcan v. Turkey
06/11/2018
Lutfullah Sami ÖZCAN 1974
MenekÅŸe Merve TEKTEN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
377.
54260/18
Åžen v. Turkey
12/10/2018
Åžuayip ÅžEN 1966
Mehmet ÖNCÜ (not lawyer)
Member of Court of Cassation
378.
54263/18
Yılmaz v. Turkey
12/10/2018
Zekeriya YILMAZ 1965
Adem KAPLAN
Member of Court of Cassation
379.
54318/18
Cengiz v. Turkey
25/10/2018
Abdi CENGÄ°Z 1965
Zehra KILIÇ
Member of Court of Cassation
380.
54584/18
TaÅŸdelen v. Turkey
12/10/2018
ReÅŸat TAÅžDELEN 1963
Mehmet ÖNCÜ (not lawyer)
Member of Court of Cassation
381.
54844/18
Gürbüz v. Turkey
13/11/2018
Yasin GÃœRBÃœZ 1981
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
382.
54910/18
Sayıldı v. Turkey
16/11/2018
YeÅŸim SAYILDI 1972
Ahmet Serdar GÃœNEÅž
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
383.
54942/18
Yılmaz v. Turkey
31/10/2018
Erkan YILMAZ 1986
Sultan TEKE SOYDİNÇ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
384.
55500/18
Sayıldı v. Turkey
16/11/2018
Selçuk SAYILDI 1969
Ahmet Serdar GÃœNEÅž
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
385.
55596/18
Åž.D. v. Turkey
20/11/2018
Åž.D. 1977
Ä°brahim KOCAOÄžUL
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
386.
57177/18
Aydın v. Turkey
24/11/2018
Ä°lkay AYDIN 1982
Ä°smail GÃœLER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
387.
57198/18
Mutlu v. Turkey
10/11/2018
Levent MUTLU 1977
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
388.
57202/18
Palancı v. Turkey
13/11/2018
Erhan PALANCI 1987
Esat Selim ESEN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
389.
57504/18
Sarı v. Turkey
26/11/2018
Bozan SARI 1984
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
390.
57591/18
Özdemir v. Turkey
26/11/2018
Muzaffer ÖZDEMİR 1968
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Member of Court of Cassation
391.
57936/18
Çolaklar v. Turkey
07/12/2018
İlyas ÇOLAKLAR 1985
Murat GÃœNDEM
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
392.
58507/18
Özese v. Turkey
26/11/2018
Hasan Hüseyin ÖZESE 1960
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
393.
58514/18
Tapar v. Turkey
26/11/2018
Hacı Yusuf TAPAR 1989
Bünyamin TAPAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
394.
58522/18
Arabacı v. Turkey
17/11/2018
Kerem ARABACI 1972
İsmet ÇELİK
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
395.
58651/18
Demir v. Turkey
15/11/2018
Murat DEMÄ°R 1968
Muhammet GÃœNEY
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
396.
58875/18
Gül v. Turkey
28/11/2018
Hasan Basri GÃœL 1979
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
397.
58925/18
Bahadır v. Turkey
28/11/2018
Oktay BAHADIR 1982
Emre AKARYILDIZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
398.
59274/18
T.Ç. v. Turkey
03/12/2018
T.Ç. 1977
Abdullah BIRDIR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
399.
59555/18
Yıldız v. Turkey
07/12/2018
Hasan YILDIZ 1981
Åžerafettin AKTAÅž
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
400.
59840/18
Sakman v. Turkey
04/12/2018
Ahmet SAKMAN 1981
Serdar ÇELEBİ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
401.
59990/18
Kaya v. Turkey
30/11/2018
Mehmet KAYA 1972
Fatih ÅžAHÄ°NLER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
402.
233/19
Vural v. Turkey
11/12/2018
Hamdi VURAL 1978
Murat YILMAZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
403.
752/19
Sarıkaya v. Turkey
29/12/2018
Cebrail SARIKAYA 1976
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
404.
1641/19
Göktopal v. Turkey
14/12/2018
Bülent GÖKTOPAL 1979
Muhammet ATALAY
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
405.
1668/19
Kırmaz v. Turkey
05/12/2018
Fikret KIRMAZ 1980
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
406.
1779/19
Yumma v. Turkey
02/01/2019
Süleyman YUMMA 1970
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
407.
1843/19
Altınışık v. Turkey
01/12/2018
Kadir ALTINIÅžIK 1968
Handan CAN
Member of Court of Cassation
408.
1844/19
Aydın v. Turkey
14/11/2018
Mahmut AYDIN 1967
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
409.
2111/19
ErdoÄŸan v. Turkey
06/12/2018
Zekeriya ERDOÄžAN 1966
Handan CAN
Member of Court of Cassation
410.
2413/19
Demir v. Turkey
27/11/2018
Gökhan DEMİR 1986
Ä°mdat BERKSOY
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
411.
3078/19
Demiryürek v. Turkey
17/12/2018
Ahmet DEMÄ°RYÃœREK 1970
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
412.
3114/19
Yılmaz v. Turkey
05/12/2018
Mustafa YILMAZ 1967
Hilal YILMAZ PUSAT
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
413.
3660/19
Cenik v. Turkey
21/12/2018
Fatih CENÄ°K 1979
Tufan YILMAZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
414.
4149/19
TekelioÄŸlu v. Turkey
15/01/2019
Murat TEKELÄ°OÄžLU 1983
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
415.
4575/19
CuvoÄŸlu v. Turkey
04/01/2019
Mahmut CUVOÄžLU 1985
Tufan YILMAZ
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
416.
4995/19
Ertaşkın v. Turkey
10/01/2019
Sedat ERTAÅžKIN 1976
Zülküf ARSLAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
417.
5153/19
Bilici v. Turkey
11/01/2019
Hasan BÄ°LÄ°CÄ° 1986
Regaip DEMÄ°R
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
418.
5313/19
MemiÅŸ v. Turkey
08/01/2019
Yahya MEMÄ°Åž 1965
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Member of Court of Cassation
419.
5316/19
Aydın v. Turkey
21/01/2019
Mustafa AYDIN 1968
Mehmet ARI (not lawyer)
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
420.
5331/19
Åžen v. Turkey
12/01/2019
ÇETİN ŞEN 1965
Süeda Esma ŞEN KARA
Member of Court of Cassation
421.
6114/19
Åžen v. Turkey
10/01/2019
Mümin ŞEN 1977
Zeynep ÅžEN KARAKUÅž
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
422.
7306/19
Alıcı v. Turkey
24/01/2019
Burhan ALICI 1971
Ä°rem TATLIDEDE
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
423.
7432/19
Üzüm v. Turkey
16/01/2019
Åžahin ÃœZÃœM 1977
Ömer Faruk ERGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
424.
9927/19
Yıldırım v. Turkey
06/02/2019
Mecit YILDIRIM 1984
Hilal MET DUMAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
425.
10967/19
DoÄŸan v. Turkey
15/02/2019
Osman Ä°lter DOÄžAN 1971
Hüseyin AYGÜN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
426.
11047/19
Pınar v. Turkey
06/02/2019
Atilla PINAR 1973
Zülküf ARSLAN
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
427.
13015/19
Toklu v. Turkey
25/02/2019
Aykut TOKLU 1979
Merve Elif GÃœRACAR
Ordinary judge or public prosecutor
[1] For a full list of the complaints raised by the applicants, see the communication report of 17 May 2019 in the case of Altun v. Turkey (no. 60065/16) and 545 others.