Lexploria

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF AYVAZ AND OTHERS v. TÃœRKÄ°YE

(Applications nos. 14347/17 and 130 others â€“ see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

11 July 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Ayvaz and Others v. TÃ¼rkiye,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Pauliine Koskelo , President , Lorraine Schembri Orland, Davor DerenÄinoviÄ‡ , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications against the Republic of TÃ¼rkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (â€œthe Conventionâ€) by one hundred thirty-one Turkish nationals, whose relevant details are listed in the appended table (â€œthe applicantsâ€), on the various dates indicated therein;

the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 5 of the Convention concerning the lawfulness and length of pre-trial detention and the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of an offence, the alleged lack of prompt information of the reasons for the applicantsâ€™ arrest and of any charge against them, the alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons when ordering and extending the pre-trial detention, as well as the ineffectiveness of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention, the absence of a remedy to obtain compensation and under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the lawfulness of the searches conducted by the authorities to the Turkish Government (â€œthe Governmentâ€) represented by their Agent, Mr HacÄ± Ali AÃ§Ä±kgÃ¼l, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of TÃ¼rkiye, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;

the partiesâ€™ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 20 June 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The present applications mainly concern the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants in the aftermath of the coup attempt of 15 July 2016, on suspicion of their membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the â€œFetullahist Terror Organisation / Parallel State Structureâ€ ( FetullahÃ§Ä± TerÃ¶r Ã–rgÃ¼tÃ¼ / Paralel Devlet YapÄ±lanmasÄ± , hereinafter referred to as â€œFETÃ–/PDYâ€), which was considered by the authorities to be behind the coup attempt (further information regarding the events that unfolded after the coup attempt, including the details of the state of emergency declared by the respondent Government and the ensuing notice of derogation given to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, as well as the legislative developments that followed the declaration of the state of emergency, may be found in the case of BaÅŸ v. Turkey , no. 66448/17, Â§Â§ 6 â€‘ 14 and Â§Â§ 109-110, 3 March 2020). All of the applicants were serving as judges or prosecutors at different types and/or levels of court at the material time.

2. On 16 July 2016 the Ankara chief public prosecutorâ€™s office initiated a criminal investigation into, inter alios , the suspected members of FETÃ–/PDY within the judiciary, including members of high courts, in accordance with the provisions of the ordinary law, on the ground that there had been a case of discovery in flagrante delicto falling within the jurisdiction of the assize courts (further information regarding the orders issued by the chief public prosecutorâ€™s office within the context of that investigation, as well as the ensuing suspensions and dismissals of judges and prosecutors suspected of being members of FETÃ–/PDY, may be found in BaÅŸ , cited above, Â§Â§ 9-10 and 15-21).

3. Following their arrest and detention in police custody on the orders of the regional and provincial prosecutorsâ€™ offices, the applicants were placed in pre-trial detention on various dates, mainly on suspicion of membership of the FETÃ–/PDY, an offence punishable under Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see BaÅŸ , cited above, Â§ 58). The pre-trial detention decisions were issued by the magistratesâ€™ courts located at the respective places of the applicantsâ€™ arrest. In the majority of the decisions, it was noted specifically that the criminal investigation was governed by the ordinary rules, given that the offence of which the suspects were accused, namely membership of an armed terrorist organisation, was a â€œcontinuing offenceâ€ and that there was a case of discovery in flagrante delicto governed by the relevant provisions of domestic law (see BaÅŸ , cited above, Â§ 67, and Turan and Others v. Turkey , nos. 75805/16 and 426 others, Â§Â§ 30-31, 23 November 2021).

4. According to the latest information provided by the parties, most of the applicants were convicted of membership of a terrorist organisation by the first instance courts, and a few were acquitted. It appears that, for the most part, the appeal proceedings are still pending.

5. In the meantime, the applicants lodged individual applications with the Constitutional Court in respect of, inter alia , the alleged violation of their right to liberty and security on various accounts, including the alleged unlawfulness of their detention by reason of the disregard of the procedural safeguards afforded to members of the judiciary in domestic law, all of which were declared inadmissible (compare also Turan and Others , cited above, Â§Â§ 26-27).

THE COURTâ€™S ASSESSMENT

6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

7 . The Government argued that the applicant in application no. 36993/19 had submitted his complaints to another procedure of international investigation or settlement within the meaning of Article 35 Â§ 2 (b) of the Convention, namely the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (the â€œWGADâ€), and invited the Court to dismiss the application as being inadmissible. In this connection, they referred to a letter entitled â€œjoint urgent appealâ€, relating to the detention of and the criminal charges against the applicant, along with twelve other individuals similarly charged with membership of the FETÃ–/PDY, signed by the Vice-Chair of the WGAD and four UN Special Rapporteurs. The letter, which had been sent to the Turkish Government on 4 May 2018 and which invited the latter to submit their observations on, inter alia , the applicantâ€™s detention, concluded as follows:

â€œLastly, we would like to inform your Excellencyâ€™s Government that after having transmitted an urgent appeal such as this to the Government, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention may also transmit the individual cases to the Government through its regular procedure in order to render an opinion on whether the deprivation of liberty was arbitrary or not. The present communication in no way prejudges any opinion the Working Group may render. The Government is expected to respond separately to the present urgent appeal and to the communication of the Working Group under its regular procedure.â€

8. The applicant contested the Governmentâ€™s argument. He explained that despite having lodged an application before the WGAD, he had subsequently withdrawn it. In this regard, he provided copies of two e-mails dated 4 January and 11 March 2022 that he had submitted to the WGAD to request the discontinuation of his application, to which he had not received any reply to date.

9. The Court has previously examined the procedure before the WGAD and concluded that this Working Group was indeed a â€œprocedure of international investigation or settlementâ€ within the meaning of Article 35 Â§ 2 (b) of the Convention (see Peraldi v. France (dec.), no. 2096/05, 7 April 2009, and Sabuncu and Others v. Turkey , no. 23199/17, Â§ 112, 10 November 2020; see for the â€œurgent actionâ€ procedure of the WGAD also Kavala v. Turkey , no. 28749/18, Â§Â§ 78-79, 10 December 2019).

10. Admittedly, and as indicated in the aforementioned letter (see paragraph 7 above), an urgent appeal may give rise to the opening of a regular procedure, in the context of which the WGAD is called upon to issue an opinion as to whether or not the deprivation of liberty was arbitrary (compare also Kavala , cited above, Â§ 93). However, there is nothing in the case file to indicate that the WGAD has actually opened such a procedure in respect of the present applicant, or that it has rendered such an opinion (compare in this latter respect also Peraldi , cited above). The Court further notes that the applicantâ€™s allegation that he had subsequently withdrawn his application before the WGAD has not been contested by the Government.

11. The Governmentâ€™s objection under Article 35 Â§ 2 (b) of the Convention must accordingly be dismissed.

12. The applicants complained under Article 5 Â§ 1 of the Convention that they had been placed in pre-trial detention in breach of the domestic laws governing the arrest and pre-trial detention of the members of the judiciary and disputed that there had been a case of discovery in flagrante delicto for the purposes of section 94 of Law no. 2802 on judges and prosecutors and section 46 of the Court of Cassation Act (Law no. 2797) (see BaÅŸ v. Turkey , no. 66448/17, Â§ 67, 3 March 2020, and Turan and Others v. Turkey , nos. 75805/16 and 426 others, Â§Â§ 30-31, 23 November 2021).

13. The Government claimed that seven of the applicants, namely those in applications nos. 45059/18, 62714/19, 11664/20, 22923/20, 36837/20, 37234/20 and 50209/20, had not duly exhausted the available domestic remedies in relation to their complaint under Article 5 Â§ 1, as they had not made use of the individual application remedy before the Constitutional Court. They further invited the Court to declare this complaint inadmissible in respect of all applicants for the reasons that they had raised in the case of Turan and Others (cited above, Â§ 55).

14. Firstly, an examination of the case files of the seven applicants mentioned above reveals that contrary to the Governmentâ€™s claim, they have expressly raised their complaints under Article 5 Â§ 1 of the Convention in the application forms submitted to the Constitutional Court. Secondly, as for the remaining objections relating to all applicants, the Court notes that similar objections raised by the Government have already been dismissed in the case of Turan and Others (cited above, Â§Â§ 57-64) and sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present case. The Court therefore considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 Â§ 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

15. The Court further considers, having regard to its findings in the cases of BaÅŸ and Turan and Others (both cited above, Â§Â§ 143-158 and Â§Â§ 79-96, respectively), that the pre-trial detention of the applicants had not taken place in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law within the meaning of Article 5 Â§ 1 of the Convention and that, therefore, there has been a violation of Article 5 Â§ 1 on account of the unlawfulness of the applicantsâ€™ initial pre-trial detention. Moreover, while the applicants were detained a short time after the coup attempt â€“ that is, the event that prompted the declaration of the state of emergency and the notice of derogation by TÃ¼rkiye â€“, which is undoubtedly a contextual factor that should be fully taken into account in interpreting and applying Article 5 of the Convention in the present case, the measure at issue cannot be said to have been strictly required by the exigencies of the situation (see BaÅŸ , cited above, Â§Â§ 115-116 and Â§Â§ 159-162, and Turan and Others , cited above, Â§Â§ 91 and 95).

16. As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 Â§Â§ 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Article 8 of the Convention, the Court decides not to examine them, in view of its findings under Article 5 Â§ 1 above and its considerations in the case of Turan and Others (cited above, Â§ 98).

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

17. The applicants, except for those in applications nos. 61445/17, 64047/17, 13104/19, 15783/19, 15883/19, 26715/19, 36192/19, 51877/19, 22923/20 and 41241/20, requested compensation in varying amounts in respect of non â€‘ pecuniary damage within the time-limit allotted. Most of the applicants in question also claimed pecuniary damage, corresponding mainly to their loss of earnings resulting from their dismissal, as well as the legal costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.

18. The Government contested the applicantsâ€™ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive.

19. For the reasons put forth in Turan and Others (cited above, Â§Â§ 102 â€‘ 107), the Court rejects any claims for pecuniary damage and awards each of the applicants, save for those in applications nos. 61445/17, 64047/17, 13104/19, 15783/19, 15883/19, 26715/19, 36192/19, 51877/19, 22923/20 and 41241/20, a lump sum of 5,000 euros (EUR), covering non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, save for those in applications nos. 61445/17, 64047/17, 13104/19, 15783/19, 15883/19, 26715/19, 36192/19, 51877/19, 22923/20 and 41241/20, within three months, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount, which is to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 July 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 Â§Â§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Dorothee von Arnim Pauliine Koskelo Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases:

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

1.

14347/17

Ayvaz v. TÃ¼rkiye

27/01/2017

Emre AYVAZ 1985 Denizli Turkish

Mehmet Ã–NCÃœ

2.

14626/17

AydÄ±n v. TÃ¼rkiye

12/01/2017

Serkan AYDIN 1977 Ankara Turkish

Memnune AKYILDIZ

3.

41660/17

Uslu v. TÃ¼rkiye

17/05/2017

Mustafa USLU 1984 DÃ¼zce Turkish

Ramazan SÃ–YLER

4.

41894/17

Turhal v. TÃ¼rkiye

07/04/2017

Ramazan TURHAL 1978 Sinop Turkish

Derya Ã‡ELÄ°K

5.

43590/17

AydoÄŸan v. TÃ¼rkiye

04/04/2017

BÃ¼lent AYDOÄžAN 1977 Ankara Turkish

Erhan Ã–ZEN

6.

45007/17

Ã‡aÄŸlÄ±yan v. TÃ¼rkiye

03/05/2017

Ahmet Ã‡AÄžLIYAN 1982 Ä°zmir Turkish

Ã–mer Faruk DOÄžAN

7.

49247/17

Ã‡elik v. TÃ¼rkiye

24/03/2017

Mehmet ÃœstÃ¼n Ã‡ELÄ°K

1987 MuÅŸ Turkish

Mehmet Ã–ZKAN

8.

49743/17

Åžahin v. TÃ¼rkiye

27/04/2017

DoÄŸan ÅžAHÄ°N 1970 Kayseri Turkish

Burak BALCI

9.

61445/17

Selvi KÄ±llÄ±baÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

01/06/2017

Ã–zlem SELVÄ° KILLIBAÅž 1980 ÅžANLIURFA Turkish

Ä°brahim Halil TÃœYSÃœZ

10.

62123/17

Uslan v. TÃ¼rkiye

26/04/2017

HÃ¼seyin USLAN 1982 KÄ±rÄ±kkale Turkish

Elif Nurbanu OR

11.

63687/17

Sepetler v. TÃ¼rkiye

09/06/2017

Ä°brahim SEPETLER 1978 Ankara Turkish

HÃ¼seyin AYGÃœN

12.

64047/17

Kablan v. TÃ¼rkiye

24/01/2017

Erol KABLAN 1982 Sakarya Turkish

13.

71343/17

YolaÃ§ar v. TÃ¼rkiye

15/09/2017

Nevzat YOLAÃ‡AR 1979 Istanbul Turkish

Fatma ALBAYRAK

14.

79841/17

Balkaya v. TÃ¼rkiye

27/10/2017

Ramazan BALKAYA 1982 KÄ±rÅŸehir Turkish

Enes Malik KILIÃ‡

15.

83091/17

KarakuÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

15/06/2017

Mehmet KARAKUÅž 1977 Samsun Turkish

Enes Malik KILIÃ‡

16.

6833/18

Patarya v. TÃ¼rkiye

24/01/2018

Orhan PATARYA 1987 KÃ¼tahya Turkish

Okan GÃœNEL

17.

9907/18

Akdemir v. TÃ¼rkiye

05/02/2018

Togay AKDEMÄ°R 1977 Istanbul Turkish

GÃ¼lÅŸen ZENGÄ°N

18.

10612/18

BÃ¶lÃ¼kbaÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

13/02/2018

TonguÃ§ BÃ–LÃœKBAÅž 1976 Istanbul Turkish

TarÄ±k Said GÃœLDÄ°BÄ°

19.

10778/18

Zorlu v. TÃ¼rkiye

09/02/2018

Ali ZORLU 1976 Ankara Turkish

Xavier LABBEE

20.

16030/18

YÄ±ldÄ±rÄ±m v. TÃ¼rkiye

15/03/2018

Ã–zay YILDIRIM 1983 Ankara Turkish

Fatih DÃ–NMEZ

21.

19873/18

Kaplan v. TÃ¼rkiye

11/04/2018

Mete KAPLAN 1988 Manisa Turkish

22.

21049/18

KuÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

25/04/2018

Nazir KUÅž 1982 Manisa Turkish

Ä°rem TATLIDEDE

23.

22157/18

Ã–zdemir v. TÃ¼rkiye

04/05/2018

Kenan Ã–ZDEMÄ°R 1966 Kayseri Turkish

HÃ¼seyin AYGÃœN

24.

26332/18

GazioÄŸlu v. TÃ¼rkiye

14/05/2018

Mikail GAZÄ°OÄžLU 1990 Konya Turkish

Fatih KAYA

25.

29589/18

YÄ±ldÄ±z v. TÃ¼rkiye

11/06/2018

Maksut YILDIZ 1982 Gaziantep Turkish

Mehmet Fatih Ä°Ã‡ER

26.

32404/18

KÄ±lÄ±Ã§ v. TÃ¼rkiye

19/06/2018

Ahmet KILIÃ‡ 1990 Istanbul Turkish

Gamze AKSOY

27.

43688/18

Yavuz v. TÃ¼rkiye

05/09/2018

Mehmet YAVUZ 1979 Kocaeli Turkish

Murat YILMAZ

28.

43956/18

BozyiÄŸit v. TÃ¼rkiye

05/09/2018

Ã–mer BOZYÄ°ÄžÄ°T 1982 Ankara Turkish

Kamile KILDAN

29.

45059/18

GÃ¶renez v. TÃ¼rkiye

18/09/2018

Halime GÃ–RENEZ 1987 Manisa Akhisar Turkish

TarÄ±k Said GÃœLDÄ°BÄ°

30.

47603/18

DemirÃ¶z v. TÃ¼rkiye

27/09/2018

Mehmet Sait DEMÄ°RÃ–Z 1964 Konya Turkish

SÃ¼leyman Serdar BALKANLI

31.

54235/18

Zengin v. TÃ¼rkiye

12/10/2018

Ä°brahim ZENGÄ°N 1968 Kirikkale Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

32.

54713/18

Bekler v. TÃ¼rkiye

12/10/2018

Arif BEKLER 1968 Ankara Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

33.

59564/18

Akbaba v. TÃ¼rkiye

26/11/2018

Ahmet AKBABA 1979 Ä°zmir Turkish

Enes Malik KILIÃ‡

34.

6970/19

YÄ±ldÄ±zeli v. TÃ¼rkiye

18/01/2018

Ahmet YILDIZELÄ° 1969 Sivas Turkish

Fatih SARIKUÅž

35.

9217/19

GÃ¼mÃ¼ÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

01/02/2019

Nurcan GÃœMÃœÅž 1980 Konya Turkish

36.

10884/19

Tutal v. TÃ¼rkiye

04/02/2019

Erhan TUTAL 1978 Ankara Turkish

Hasan HÃ¼seyin ERDOÄžAN

37.

11344/19

Ã–zkan v. TÃ¼rkiye

13/02/2019

Ã–mer Taha Ã–ZKAN 1981 Manisa Turkish

Fatma BAHAR Ã–ZKAN

38.

13104/19

Cambolat v. TÃ¼rkiye

13/02/2019

Yeliz CAMBOLAT 1980 Gaziantep Turkish

Melek KOGYÄ°ÄžÄ°T

39.

15742/19

BÃ¼yÃ¼k v. TÃ¼rkiye

05/03/2019

Samet BÃœYÃœK 1987 Mardin Turkish

Cenk Berker PARDOÄžAN

40.

15783/19

AydÄ±n v. TÃ¼rkiye

27/02/2019

Yunus AYDIN 1986 Ankara Turkish

Memnune AKYILDIZ

41.

15883/19

PoyrazoÄŸlu v. TÃ¼rkiye

07/03/2019

PÄ±nar POYRAZOÄžLU 1972 Osmaniye Turkish

Melek KOÃ‡YÄ°ÄžÄ°T

42.

22696/19

Serter v. TÃ¼rkiye

22/04/2019

HÃ¼seyin SERTER 1964 Ankara Turkish

Zeynep Sacide SERTER

43.

23692/19

Cengiz v. TÃ¼rkiye

18/04/2019

Ahmet CENGÄ°Z 1966 Ä°zmir Turkish

Ã–mer Furkan CENGÄ°Z

44.

25975/19

ÅžengÃ¶nÃ¼l v. TÃ¼rkiye

25/04/2019

Salih ÅžENGÃ–NÃœL 1984 Malatya Turkish

Semih Onur DANACI

45.

26715/19

CoÅŸar v. TÃ¼rkiye

06/05/2019

Aykut COÅžAR 1989 Gaziantep Turkish

Melek KOÃ‡YÄ°ÄžÄ°T

46.

36192/19

Ertan v. TÃ¼rkiye

17/06/2019

Ali ERTAN 1968 Samsun Turkish

47.

36993/19

Akman v. TÃ¼rkiye

03/07/2019

Muhittin AKMAN 1975 DiyarbakÄ±r Turkish

Lezgin Ahmet BAYBAÅžIN

48.

45663/19

Zorlu v. TÃ¼rkiye

15/08/2019

UÄŸur ZORLU 1970 Mardin Turkish

49.

46744/19

GÃ¼ney v. TÃ¼rkiye

15/08/2019

TarÄ±k GÃœNEY 1972 BartÄ±n Turkish

50.

51877/19

SÃ¼zer v. TÃ¼rkiye

04/09/2019

Emrah SÃœZER 1988 Sakarya Turkish

51.

54509/19

SubaÅŸÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

11/09/2019

Mehmet SUBAÅžI 1983 Adana Turkish

Mustafa YELBEY

52.

54772/19

Kukul v. TÃ¼rkiye

01/10/2019

Metin KUKUL 1975 Istanbul Turkish

53.

61473/19

Benli v. TÃ¼rkiye

11/11/2019

Recep BENLÄ° 1975 Ä°zmir Turkish

TarÄ±k Said GÃœLDIBI

54.

61485/19

Ata v. TÃ¼rkiye

14/11/2019

Yener ATA 1989 Edirne Turkish

AydÄ±n Ã–ZDEMIR

55.

62714/19

YÄ±lmaz v. TÃ¼rkiye

08/11/2019

Samet YILMAZ 1989 Gaziantep Turkish

56.

5767/20

GÃ¼lbaÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

26/11/2019

CÃ¼neyt GÃœLBAÅž 1976 Istanbul Turkish

57.

7969/20

Girgin v. TÃ¼rkiye

15/01/2020

Ali GÄ°RGÄ°N 1971 AydÄ±n Turkish

Mustafa TUNA

58.

9343/20

Ã–zmen v. TÃ¼rkiye

04/02/2020

Adem Ã–ZMEN 1985 Istanbul Turkish

Burcu BÃ–LÃœKBAÅžI

59.

10681/20

CebiÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

10/02/2020

YalÃ§Ä±n Ã‡EBÄ°Åž 1971 Ä°zmir Turkish

Åžerafettin GÃœCÃœ

60.

11500/20

Karaaslan v. TÃ¼rkiye

13/02/2020

Ahmet BÃ¼lent KARAASLAN 1980 Denizli Turkish

61.

11663/20

Koyuncu v. TÃ¼rkiye

13/02/2020

Ruhi KOYUNCU 1974 Kocaeli Turkish

Nurettin TEMUR

62.

11664/20

Ayar v. TÃ¼rkiye

18/02/2020

ErtuÄŸrul AYAR 1972 Istanbul Turkish

Emre AKARYILDIZ

63.

12883/20

KaygÄ±n v. TÃ¼rkiye

20/02/2020

Mehmet KAYGIN 1968 Kayseri Turkish

Mustafa UÄŸur SOYGÃœLLÃœCÃœ

64.

13576/20

KÃ¼Ã§Ã¼kkaplan v. TÃ¼rkiye

23/01/2020

Mehmet KÃœÃ‡ÃœKKAPLAN 1988 Konya Turkish

Mehmet Fatih Ä°Ã‡ER

65.

13779/20

Ã–z v. TÃ¼rkiye

29/02/2020

Bayram Ã–Z 1977 KarabÃ¼k Turkish

Burcu HAS

66.

13824/20

Akdamar v. TÃ¼rkiye

07/03/2020

TÃ¼rkÅŸen AKDAMAR 1969 Ankara Turkish

Ahmet Alperen AKDAMAR

67.

14846/20

KaragÃ¶z v. TÃ¼rkiye

28/02/2020

Yusuf KARAGÃ–Z 1984 NevÅŸehir Turkish

Yunus Emre Ã–ZKAN

68.

14874/20

Turgut v. TÃ¼rkiye

04/03/2020

Abdullah TURGUT 1971 Ankara Turkish

Rukiye COÅžGUN

69.

14972/20

Erol v. TÃ¼rkiye

17/01/2020

Abdulkadir EROL 1967 Istanbul Turkish

70.

15740/20

Åžua v. TÃ¼rkiye

16/03/2020

Ä°brahim Halil ÅžUA 1974 Istanbul Turkish

TarÄ±k Said GÃœLDÄ°BÄ°

71.

16141/20

Sivri v. TÃ¼rkiye

31/03/2020

Sinan SÄ°VRÄ° 1969 Adana Turkish

Halil KIZILYAR

72.

16243/20

Barut v. TÃ¼rkiye

27/03/2020

Ã–zkan BARUT 1981 DiyarbakÄ±r Turkish

Halime BARUT

73.

16784/20

TankiÅŸi v. TÃ¼rkiye

26/03/2020

Mutlu TANKÄ°ÅžÄ° 1989 KahramanmaraÅŸ Turkish

Meryem YAÅžAR KARAYAZGAN

74.

17012/20

SÃ¶yler v. TÃ¼rkiye

01/04/2020

Ramazan SÃ–YLER 1985 Kayseri Turkish

Enver BALTÃœRK

75.

17126/20

Bozkurt v. TÃ¼rkiye

24/03/2020

Ã–zgÃ¼r BOZKURT 1977 Aksaray Turkish

Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAÄž

76.

19143/20

Uslu v. TÃ¼rkiye

07/05/2020

Mustafa USLU 1970 Ankara Turkish

Zafer Ä°RAZ

77.

19656/20

GÃ¼lleci Demir v. TÃ¼rkiye

16/04/2020

Gonca GÃœLLECÄ° DEMÄ°R 1982 Ankara Turkish

HÃ¼seyin AYGÃœN

78.

20126/20

GÃ¼ndoÄŸdu v. TÃ¼rkiye

15/05/2020

Muhammed GÃœNDOÄžDU 1984 Istanbul Turkish

Burhan DEMÄ°RCÄ°

79.

20135/20

Ä°htiyar v. TÃ¼rkiye

15/05/2020

Ã–nder Ä°HTÄ°YAR 1980 Trabzon Turkish

Mehmet ARI

80.

20587/20

Kuzgun v. TÃ¼rkiye

16/01/2020

Ersan KUZGUN 1984 KÄ±rklareli Turkish

Cebrail Eren KAYNAR

81.

21061/20

Ceran v. TÃ¼rkiye

05/05/2020

Hakan CERAN 1977 Kayseri Turkish

Ã–zcan AKINCI

82.

21062/20

AkgÃ¼n v. TÃ¼rkiye

20/05/2020

Fahrettin AKGÃœN 1980 KÃ¼tahya Turkish

Fatma SEVER AKGÃœN

83.

21088/20

Borucu v. TÃ¼rkiye

05/05/2020

Metin BORUCU 1968 Izmir Turkish

OÄŸuzhan AÅžLIK

84.

21123/20

Girdi v. TÃ¼rkiye

06/05/2020

Seyfettin GÄ°RDÄ° 1988 Istanbul Turkish

Fatma BABAYÄ°ÄžÄ°T

85.

21367/20

KÃ¶ylÃ¼ v. TÃ¼rkiye

22/05/2020

Mustafa KÃ–YLÃœ 1971 Istanbul Turkish

86.

21551/20

GÃ¼ngÃ¶r v. TÃ¼rkiye

23/03/2020

Mesut GÃœNGÃ–R 1969 KIRIKKALE Turkish

Ahmet AKSOY

87.

21749/20

Demir v. TÃ¼rkiye

27/04/2020

Yavuz DEMÄ°R 1987 Ankara Turkish

HÃ¼seyin AYGÃœN

88.

22243/20

Ã‡elik v. TÃ¼rkiye

03/03/2020

Noyan Ã‡ELÄ°K 1978 Kocaeli Turkish

Mehmet NazÄ±m GENÃ‡TÃœRK

89.

22923/20

Ã–zdemir v. TÃ¼rkiye

08/06/2020

Mustafa Ã–ZDEMÄ°R 1989 Ankara Turkish

90.

22952/20

MendilcioÄŸlu v. TÃ¼rkiye

28/01/2020

KÄ±ymet Sema MENDÄ°LCÄ°OÄžLU 1975 Denizli Turkish

Ä°smail KAPLAN

91.

22956/20

Ã‡alÄ±ÅŸkan v. TÃ¼rkiye

08/06/2020

Ä°smail Ã‡ALIÅžKAN 1982 Aksaray Turkish

Muhammet GÃœNEY

92.

23007/20

SÃ¶nmez v. TÃ¼rkiye

07/04/2020

Sebati SÃ–NMEZ 1979 Antalya Turkish

93.

23436/20

Aslan v. TÃ¼rkiye

22/05/2020

Faruk ASLAN 1974 Ankara Turkish

GÃ¼lÅŸen ZENGÄ°N

94.

24030/20

Ã‡Ä±tak v. TÃ¼rkiye

12/06/2020

Ä°smail Ã‡ITAK 1987 Aksaray Turkish

Muhammet GÃœNEY

95.

25514/20

DÃ¼ndar v. TÃ¼rkiye

20/04/2020

Olcay DÃœNDAR 1980 Bursa Turkish

96.

26039/20

KuÅŸku v. TÃ¼rkiye

25/06/2020

Ersin KUÅžKU 1985 Bursa Turkish

Hanifi BAYRI

97.

26042/20

Sefer v. TÃ¼rkiye

25/06/2020

DoÄŸan SEFER 1976 BalÄ±kesir Turkish

Hanifi BAYRI

98.

26146/20

Bilge v. TÃ¼rkiye

12/06/2020

Mehmet Salih BÄ°LGE 1979 Sivas Turkish

Meryem GÃœNAY

99.

26337/20

Aslan v. TÃ¼rkiye

05/06/2020

Ramazan ASLAN 1975 Manisa Turkish

OÄŸuz Ä°Ã‡Ä°ER

100.

27067/20

KÄ±zÄ±lay v. TÃ¼rkiye

15/02/2020

Bilgin KIZILAY 1976 Istanbul Turkish

Nevzat AKBÄ°LEK

101.

29062/20

GÃ¶kÃ§e v. TÃ¼rkiye

02/07/2020

Murat GÃ–KÃ‡E 1967 Ankara Turkish

Fatih DÃ–NMEZ

102.

29753/20

BÃ¼lbÃ¼l v. TÃ¼rkiye

25/06/2020

BarÄ±ÅŸ BÃœLBÃœL 1979 Istanbul Turkish

Bilal KÃœÃ‡ÃœKÅžENGÃœN

103.

29994/20

BÃ¼tÃ¼n v. TÃ¼rkiye

26/06/2020

SelÃ§uk BÃœTÃœN 1976 Manisa Turkish

Mehmet Ã–NCÃœ

104.

30003/20

Bakay v. TÃ¼rkiye

02/07/2020

Bekir BAKAY 1977 Mersin Turkish

GÃ¼lcan BERÃ‡EM COÅžKUN

105.

30010/20

Polat v. TÃ¼rkiye

06/07/2020

Erhan POLAT 1968 Ankara Turkish

HÃ¼lya POLAT

106.

30329/20

UÃ§ar v. TÃ¼rkiye

06/07/2020

Cemalettin UÃ‡AR 1973 Kayseri Turkish

HÃ¼seyin AYGÃœN

107.

32774/20

Ã–zel v. TÃ¼rkiye

20/07/2020

Ali Ã–ZEL 1972 Kayseri Turkish

Hacer ÅžAHÄ°N

108.

34445/20

BaÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

14/07/2020

Salih BAÅž 1977 Tokat Turkish

109.

34682/20

KebeÅŸoglu v. TÃ¼rkiye

04/06/2020

Halil Ä°brahim KEBEÅžOÄžLU 1972 Kayseri Turkish

Ä°brahim Talha DEMÄ°RCAN

110.

34959/20

Ã–zkarslÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

07/08/2020

OÄŸuz Ã–ZKARSLI 1978 Ankara Turkish

AyÅŸe SÃ¼meyye BEKLEYEN

111.

36651/20

BÃ¼lbÃ¼l v. TÃ¼rkiye

10/08/2020

Davut BÃœLBÃœL 1977 Gaziantep Turkish

Mehmet Fatih Ä°Ã‡ER

112.

36837/20

MenengiÃ§ v. TÃ¼rkiye

07/08/2020

Erdal MENENGÄ°Ã‡ 1985 Ankara Turkish

TarÄ±k Said GÃœLDÄ°BÄ°

113.

36884/20

Ã‡engeloÄŸlu v. TÃ¼rkiye

21/08/2020

Enes Ã‡ENGELOÄžLU 1989 Ankara Turkish

Ã–mer Faruk ERGÃœN

114.

37234/20

Sevdim v. TÃ¼rkiye

11/08/2020

Ali Erdem SEVDÄ°M 1977 Gaziantep Turkish

Yekta Mustafa POLAT

115.

37894/20

YÄ±lmaz v. TÃ¼rkiye

18/08/2020

Ã–mer YILMAZ 1977 Ankara Turkish

Ã–mer Faruk ERGÃœN

116.

38272/20

AygÃ¼n v. TÃ¼rkiye

20/08/2020

Fatih AYGÃœN 1987 Trabzon Turkish

Yasemin BAL

117.

38305/20

ArslantÃ¼rk v. TÃ¼rkiye

13/08/2020

Samet ARSLANTÃœRK 1989 Istanbul Turkish

Elif ARSLANTÃœRK

118.

41241/20

Aslan v. TÃ¼rkiye

01/07/2020

Atilla ASLAN 1965 Bursa Turkish

Emine Feyza ASLAN HERDEM

119.

41402/20

Pehlivan v. TÃ¼rkiye

27/08/2020

Sercan PEHLÄ°VAN 1989 Samsun Turkish

120.

43083/20

KÄ±lÄ±nÃ§ v. TÃ¼rkiye

15/09/2020

Erhan KILINÃ‡ 1979 Manisa Turkish

Kadriye TÃœMEN

121.

43232/20

Karaarslan v. TÃ¼rkiye

08/09/2020

Abdulkadir KARAARSLAN 1983 Malatya Turkish

Gizem Tugce KARAARSLAN

122.

49609/20

CoÅŸkun v. TÃ¼rkiye

26/10/2020

Åženol COÅžKUN 1976 Mersin Turkish

123.

50209/20

KanlÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

28/08/2020

Hasan KANLI 1967 Ankara Turkish

Mehmet Fatih Ä°Ã‡ER

124.

51555/20

GÃ¼ltekin v. TÃ¼rkiye

30/06/2020

Ã–zkan GÃœLTEKÄ°N 1974 Ankara Turkish

Enes Malik KILIÃ‡

125.

52598/20

Ä°nal v. TÃ¼rkiye

24/11/2020

Erhan Ä°NAL 1977 Balikesir Turkish

Yakup GÃ–NEN

126.

54011/20

Baysal v. TÃ¼rkiye

27/08/2020

Mustafa BAYSAL 1969 Ä°stanbul Turkish

GÃ¼lhan TABAK

127.

54412/20

GÃ¶ztaÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

25/11/2020

Kenan GÃ–ZTAÅž 1980 Ankara Turkish

HÃ¼seyin AYGÃœN

128.

54426/20

TaÅŸdelen v. TÃ¼rkiye

19/10/2020

Okan TAÅžDELEN 1978 Ankara Turkish

129.

3160/21

Ã‡apa v. TÃ¼rkiye

08/12/2020

Ã–mer Ã‡APA 1980 Edirne Turkish

Nevzat AKBÄ°LEK

130.

6976/21

Ekim v. TÃ¼rkiye

14/01/2021

Gamze EKÄ°M 1980 Osmaniye Turkish

Habibe BULUT

131.

9539/21

AydÄ±n v. TÃ¼rkiye

17/11/2020

Asil AYDIN 1978 Istanbul Turkish

Fatma BABAYÄ°ÄžÄ°T

Menu

CASE OF AYVAZ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

CASE OF AYVAZ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

LEXI