Lexploria

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF KOLAY AND OTHERS v. TÃœRKÄ°YE

(Applications nos. 15231/17 and 283 others)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

12 December 2023

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

In the case of Kolay and Others v. TÃ¼rkiye,

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

Jovan Ilievski , President , Lorraine Schembri Orland, Diana SÃ¢rcu , 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 the applicants listed in the appended table (â€œthe applicantsâ€);

the decision to give notice 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, of the complaints under Article 5 of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of an offence, the alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention, the length of pre-trial detention, the ineffectiveness of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention, and the absence of a remedy to obtain compensation, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

the partiesâ€™ observations;

the decision to dismiss the Governmentâ€™s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;

Having deliberated in private on 21 November 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± â€“ 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 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 BaÅŸ v. Turkey , no. 66448/17, Â§Â§ 6 â€‘ 14 and 109 â€‘ 10, 3 March 2020).

2. On various dates the applicants were arrested and placed in pre-trial detention, mainly on suspicion of membership of FETÃ–/PDY, an offence punishable under Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see BaÅŸ , cited above, Â§ 58). The applicants lodged objections against the detention orders but without success. On various dates in the course of the ensuing criminal investigations and trials, the competent judicial authorities ordered the applicantsâ€™ continued detention. The applicants were held in pre-trial detention for periods ranging from one year to four years and six months.

3 . It appears from the information and documents in the case files that, when ordering and extending the applicantsâ€™ pre-trial detention, the competent judicial authorities relied on various evidential grounds, including but not limited to: witness statements indicating ties with FETÃ–/PDY; social media posts; possession of pro-FETÃ–/PDY publications; working in, or being a member of, institutions having ties with the organisation in question or an organisation shut down by the state â€‘ of â€‘ emergency legislative decrees; provision of financial support to FETÃ–/PDY or to institutions with ties to FETÃ–/PDY; attending or holding meetings ( sohbet ); communication with senior executives of the organisation; ensuring communication between FETÃ–/PDY members; staying in FETÃ–/PDY houses; and carrying out various other activities on the orders of the organisation.

4 . It further appears from the case files that, in accordance with Articles 100 and 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (â€œthe CCPâ€, for the text of these provisions see Kavala v. Turkey , no. 28749/18, Â§Â§ 71-72, 10 December 2019), the competent judicial authorities justified their decisions to deprive the applicants of their liberty not only on the basis of the existence of reasonable suspicion, but also on the grounds of the nature and the severity of the alleged offence of membership of an armed terrorist organisation and the fact that that offence was among the â€œcatalogueâ€ offences listed in Article 100 Â§ 3 of the CCP. Without making an individualised assessment, they also relied on the state of the evidence and the risk of the applicantsâ€™ absconding and tampering with evidence, and considered that detention would be a proportionate measure in the circumstances. Moreover, in the later stages of the proceedings, the competent judges took into account the time spent by the applicants in pre â€‘ trial detention when deciding to extend their detention, without explaining the relevance of that factor to their decision.

5. In the meantime, the applicants lodged one or more individual applications with the Constitutional Court in respect of the detention orders, complaining, inter alia , about the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence and the alleged lack of reasons to justify the decision to remand them in pre-trial detention, all of which were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court in summary fashion.

6. According to the latest information provided by the parties, most of the applicants were convicted of membership of an armed terrorist organisation by the courts of first instance on the basis of evidence that was present at the time of their detention or that appeared at a later stage in the proceedings. It further appears that, for the most part, the proceedings are still pending before the appellate courts or the Constitutional Court.

THE COURTâ€™S ASSESSMENT

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

8. The applicants complained that there had been no specific evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that they had committed a criminal offence necessitating pre-trial detention. They further argued that the domestic courts had not provided relevant and sufficient reasons in their decisions ordering their placement in detention and their continued detention. They also maintained that the domestic authorities had failed to consider alternative measures to detention. In that connection, they alleged that there had been a violation of Article 5 Â§Â§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention.

9. The Government first urged the Court to declare those complaints inadmissible in respect of the applicants who had not made use of the compensatory remedy under Article 141 of the CCP, or whose compensation claims were still pending. The Government further claimed that some of the applicants had been granted compensation pursuant to Article 141 of the CCP and had therefore lost their victim status. They also asked the Court to declare the applications inadmissible as being an abuse of the right of application, in so far as the applicants had not informed the Court of the developments in their cases following the lodging of their applications. The Government lastly submitted that the applicantsâ€™ initial and continued pre-trial detention had complied with the domestic legislation and Article 5 Â§Â§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention.

10. The Court notes that similar objections raised by the Government have already been dismissed in other cases against TÃ¼rkiye (see, for instance, BaÅŸ v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, Â§Â§ 118-21, 3 March 2020; Alparslan Altan v. Turkey , no. 12778/17, Â§Â§ 84-85, 16 April 2019; Selahattin DemirtaÅŸ v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, Â§Â§ 212-214, 22 December 2020; and Turan and Others v. Turkey , nos. 75805/16 and 426 others, Â§Â§ 57-64, 23 November 2021), and sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present case. The Court therefore considers that the applicantsâ€™ complaints under Article 5 Â§Â§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 Â§ 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

11. Under the Courtâ€™s established case - law under Article 5 Â§ 3, the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the detainee has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the validity of his or her continued detention. The Court must further establish whether the national authorities gave relevant and sufficient reasons for the detention from the time of the first decision ordering detention on remand onwards. Those other grounds may be a risk of flight, a risk of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses or of evidence being tampered with, a risk of collusion, a risk of reoffending, or a risk of public disorder and the related need to protect the detainee (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, Â§Â§ 87-88 and 101-102, 5 July 2016). Those risks must be duly substantiated, and the authoritiesâ€™ reasoning on those points cannot be abstract, general or stereotyped (see Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, Â§ 222, 28 November 2017).

12 . The Court notes that when ordering the applicantsâ€™ initial and continued pre-trial detention, the judicial authorities cited, in a formulaic manner, numerous pieces of evidence in support of their findings that there were concrete indications that the applicants had committed an offence (see paragraph 3 above). However, in the Courtâ€™s view, the national courts failed to demonstrate the link between the pieces of evidence they mentioned in the detention orders and the existence of a â€œreasonable suspicionâ€ that the applicants had committed the offence of membership of an armed organisation they were suspected of.

13 . Even assuming that there was â€œreasonable suspicionâ€ that an offence has been committed, decisions ordering pre-trial detention must contain relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the necessity of the detention. In that connection, the Court observes that in TÃ¼rkiye, as required by the Convention, domestic law provides that the competent judicial authorities must put forward â€œrelevant and sufficientâ€ reasons when considering the need to place and keep a suspect in pre-trial detention. This is a procedural obligation laid down in Articles 100 and 101 of the CCP, which provide that decisions to place or keep a suspect in pre-trial detention must include legal and factual reasons (see Tuncer BakÄ±rhan v. Turkey , no. 31417/19, Â§Â§ 23 â€‘ 24, 14 September 2021).

14. The Court notes in this regard that the competent courts relied on the following grounds for detention: the nature of the offence; the severity of the sentences prescribed by law for the offence concerned; the state of the evidence; the period spent in detention; the risk of the applicantsâ€™ absconding and tampering with evidence; and the finding that alternative measures to detention appeared insufficient (see paragraph 4 above).

15. In so far as the detentions were justified on the basis of the â€œnature of the offenceâ€, the Court notes that the courts ruling on the applicantsâ€™ detention considered that they were accused of offences listed in Article 100 Â§ 3 of the CCP (also referred to as the â€œcatalogueâ€ offences). As regards these â€œcatalogueâ€ offences, the Court notes that under Article 100 Â§ 3 of the CCP, Turkish law provides that for certain offences there is a statutory presumption of the existence of grounds for detention (risk of absconding, tampering with evidence or putting pressure on witnesses, victims and other persons). In this connection, the Court reaffirms that any system of mandatory detention on remand is per se incompatible with Article 5 Â§ 3 of the Convention. Where the law provides for a presumption concerning the grounds for pre-trial detention, it must nevertheless be convincingly demonstrated that there are concrete facts warranting a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty. This is also the case where the judicial authorities justify the detention of a suspect by the nature of the offence in question or the severity of the potential sentence prescribed by law (compare also Tuncer BakÄ±rhan , cited above, Â§Â§ 46-49). The Court therefore needs to examine whether the national courts carried out an individualised examination when ordering the applicantsâ€™ pre â€‘ trial detention.

16. As regards the other reasons given by the national courts for placing or keeping the applicants in pre-trial detention, the Court observes firstly that they entail a formulaic enumeration of the grounds for detention under domestic law in a general and abstract manner, such as the state of the evidence, the period spent in detention and the risk of the applicantsâ€™ absconding and tampering with evidence. While the Court is prepared to accept that, in view of the particular circumstances surrounding the attempted coup, the risk of the applicantsâ€™ absconding and/or tampering with evidence might justify the measure of detention, at least during the initial phase of the criminal investigation, it nevertheless observes that the subsequent decisions ordering the applicantsâ€™ continued pre-trial detention did not contain an individualised analysis in that respect. In the Courtâ€™s view, decisions worded in formulaic and stereotyped terms as in the present case can on no account be regarded as sufficient to justify a personâ€™s continued pre-trial detention (see, mutatis mutandis , ÅžÄ±k v. Turkey , no. 53413/11, Â§ 62, 8 July 2014). This is particularly so given that the applicants in the present case were remanded in pre-trial detention for periods ranging from one year to four years and six months.

17. The Court notes that it has already examined many cases in which it has found a violation of Article 5 Â§ 3 of the Convention for similar reasons (see Tuncer BakÄ±rhan , cited above, Â§Â§ 40 â€‘ 58, and the cases cited therein). In the present case, having regard to the grounds provided by the national judicial authorities, the Court considers that they ordered and extended the applicantsâ€™ pre-trial detention on grounds that cannot be regarded as â€œsufficientâ€ to justify the measure in issue.

18. As regards Article 15 of the Convention and TÃ¼rkiyeâ€™s derogation, the Court notes at the outset that 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 (see Alparslan Altan v. Turkey , no. 12778/17, Â§ 147, 16 April 2019). Nonetheless, Articles 100 and 101 of the CCP, which specifically require the judicial authorities to provide â€œrelevant and sufficientâ€ reasons when deciding to place or keep a suspect in pre-trial detention and to provide legal and factual reasons as to why alternative measures would be insufficient, were not amended during the state of emergency, unlike some other provisions of the CCP in relation to deprivations of liberty (see, for instance, Alparslan Altan , Â§Â§ 113 and 117, and BaÅŸ , Â§ 81, both cited above, for the restrictions introduced after the coup attempt on the procedural safeguards laid down in domestic law for those held in pre-trial detention, such as restrictions on access to case files and on the examination of objections against detention orders). The applicantsâ€™ detention was therefore decided on the basis of the legislation in force before the declaration of the state of emergency, legislation which is still applicable (see, mutatis mutandis , AkgÃ¼n v. Turkey , no. 19699/18, Â§ 183, 20 July 2021). While the Government requested that the applicantsâ€™ complaints under Article 5 be examined from the perspective of Article 15 of the Convention, they have not submitted arguments to justify the derogation from the above â€‘ mentioned requirements set out under Articles 100 and 101 of the CCP. Therefore, the Court considers that it is not established that the failure to comply with the requirements described above could be justified by the derogation notified by the Government of TÃ¼rkiye under Article 15 of the Convention and had not gone beyond the â€œextent strictly required by the exigencies of the situationâ€ (see, mutatis mutandis , Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey , no. 13237/17, Â§ 140, 20 March 2018). This is particularly so having regard to the duration of the applicantsâ€™ pre-trial detention, which lasted at least one year in each case. The Court points out in this connection that the considerations giving rise to the application of Article 15 of the Convention have gradually become less forceful and relevant as the public emergency threatening the life of the nation, while still persisting, has declined in intensity, at which point the â€œexigencyâ€ criterion must be applied more stringently (see BaÅŸ , cited above, Â§ 224).

19 . In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 Â§ 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants.

20. Having regard to the particular circumstances of the present case (see paragraphs 12-13 above) and its findings under Article 5 Â§ 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 19 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to determine whether in the present case there was any objective information showing that the suspicion against the applicants was â€œreasonableâ€ at the time of their initial detention (for a similar approach, see Tuncer BakÄ±rhan , cited above, Â§Â§ 36-39).

21. As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 Â§Â§ 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention, the Court decides not to examine the admissibility and merits of those complaints, in view of its findings under Article 5 Â§ 3 above and its considerations in Turan and Others (cited above, Â§ 98).

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

22. Some of the applicants did not submit, or failed to submit within the allotted time-limit, a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on that account (see the appended table indicating the applicants to whom no award is to be made).

23. The remaining applicants requested varying amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage, submitting their claims within the time-limit allotted. The majority of them also claimed compensation in respect of pecuniary damage, as well as the legal costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.

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

25. For the reasons set out in Turan and Others (cited above, Â§Â§ 102 â€‘ 07), the Court rejects any claims for pecuniary damage and awards each of the applicants who submitted claims a lump sum of 3,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount (see the last column of the appended table).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, to each of the applicants who submitted a claim for just satisfaction (see the appended table), EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 December 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 Â§Â§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Dorothee von Arnim Jovan Ilievski Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases:

No.

Application no.

Case name

Applicant

Just satisfaction

1.

15231/17

Kolay v. TÃ¼rkiye

Fatih KOLAY

Awarded

2.

34063/17

YalÃ§Ä±nsoy v. TÃ¼rkiye

Fikret YALÃ‡INSOY

Awarded

3.

34069/17

Ak v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mehmet AK

Awarded

4.

39406/17

Kaya v. TÃ¼rkiye

OgÃ¼n KAYA

Awarded

5.

41289/17

Demirci v. TÃ¼rkiye

SÃ¼leyman DEMÄ°RCÄ°

Awarded

6.

41522/17

AkÄ±ncÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ahmet AKINCI

Awarded

7.

41873/17

Atasoy v. TÃ¼rkiye

Fatih ATASOY

Awarded

8.

43361/17

YÄ±lmaz v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ali RÄ±za YILMAZ

Awarded

9.

43769/17

YÃ¼cel v. TÃ¼rkiye

RÄ±dvan YÃœCEL

Awarded

10.

45792/17

Arslan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Erhan ARSLAN

Awarded

11.

46354/17

Acar v. TÃ¼rkiye

Seyhan ACAR

Awarded

12.

47114/17

Ã‡aÄŸlar v. TÃ¼rkiye

OÄŸuz Ã‡AÄžLAR

Awarded

13.

49526/17

AnlaÅŸÄ±ker v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mustafa ANLAÅžIKER

Awarded

14.

49744/17

ÅžanlÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ersin ÅžANLI

Awarded

15.

56308/17

CÃ¶mert v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mustafa CÃ–MERT

Awarded

16.

58475/17

DÃ¼zgÃ¼n v. TÃ¼rkiye

MuÅŸtak DÃœZGÃœN

Awarded

17.

58601/17

Toraman v. TÃ¼rkiye

Nurullah TORAMAN

Awarded

18.

58643/17

ÃœnÄŸan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Okan ÃœNÄžAN

Awarded

19.

58681/17

KÄ±lÄ±Ã§ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mehmet KILIÃ‡

Awarded

20.

58682/17

Uzun v. TÃ¼rkiye

Muammer UZUN

Awarded

21.

58697/17

GÃ¶kce v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ali GÃ–KCE

Awarded

22.

59568/17

KaraloÄŸlu v. TÃ¼rkiye

Hakan KARALOÄžLU

Not awarded

23.

60948/17

Erol v. TÃ¼rkiye

Hasan EROL

Awarded

24.

60964/17

Yirik v. TÃ¼rkiye

Åževket YÄ°RÄ°K

Awarded

25.

61339/17

AteÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Oktay ATEÅž

Awarded

26.

62832/17

Erdem v. TÃ¼rkiye

Cengiz ERDEM

Awarded

27.

62876/17

YÃ¼zbaÅŸÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

Kamil YÃœZBAÅžI

Awarded

28.

63445/17

TanrÄ±verdi v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ä°smail TANRIVERDÄ°

Awarded

29.

63612/17

AynÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ä°sa AYNI

Awarded

30.

63682/17

Yilmaz v. TÃ¼rkiye

Erdem YILMAZ

Awarded

31.

63898/17

Åžener v. TÃ¼rkiye

Hamit ÅžENER

Awarded

32.

66702/17

Bilgin v. TÃ¼rkiye

Zafer BÄ°LGÄ°N

Awarded

33.

68983/17

GÃ¶kay v. TÃ¼rkiye

Kadir Koray GÃ–KAY

Not awarded

34.

69764/17

SÃ¶ztutan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ali Ä°hsan SÃ–ZTUTAN

Awarded

35.

69817/17

BaÅŸtuÄŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mustafa BAÅžTUÄž

Awarded

36.

69821/17

DevirmiÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ã‡aÄŸrÄ± DEVÄ°RMÄ°Åž

Awarded

37.

69824/17

GÃ¼llÃ¼ce v. TÃ¼rkiye

Sinan GÃœLLÃœCE

Awarded

38.

69851/17

LaÃ§iner v. TÃ¼rkiye

Sedat LAÃ‡Ä°NER

Awarded

39.

69855/17

GÃ¼ney v. TÃ¼rkiye

Enis GÃœNEY

Awarded

40.

69857/17

AslantaÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Muammer ASLANTAÅž

Awarded

41.

69875/17

Yazgan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Cumali YAZGAN

Awarded

42.

69883/17

YÄ±lmaz v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ã–zgÃ¼r YILMAZ

Awarded

43.

70186/17

Kahyalar v. TÃ¼rkiye

Kayhan KAHYALAR

Awarded

44.

70276/17

YÄ±ldÄ±z v. TÃ¼rkiye

Remzi YILDIZ

Awarded

45.

70279/17

ErbaÄŸcÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

Selim ERBAÄžCI

Awarded

46.

70499/17

GÃ¶kkoyun v. TÃ¼rkiye

Turgay GÃ–KKOYUN

Awarded

47.

70869/17

Karaca v. TÃ¼rkiye

Hikmet KARACA

Awarded

48.

71049/17

Ã‡akmak v. TÃ¼rkiye

Fuat Ã‡AKMAK

Awarded

49.

71071/17

Ã–nler v. TÃ¼rkiye

Yusuf Ã–NLER

Awarded

50.

73021/17

Boy v. TÃ¼rkiye

Hayati BOY

Awarded

51.

76224/17

Coruk v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mehmet CORUK

Awarded

52.

76261/17

YazÄ±lÄ±taÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ahmet YAZILITAÅž

Awarded

53.

76301/17

YazÄ±cÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

Yavuz YAZICI

Awarded

54.

76312/17

Bayar v. TÃ¼rkiye

Levent Serhat BAYAR

Awarded

55.

79815/17

DerebaÅŸÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

Harun DEREBAÅžI

Awarded

56.

79844/17

Deniz v. TÃ¼rkiye

Hasan DENÄ°Z

Awarded

57.

80966/17

Demirkandan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Osman DEMÄ°RKANDAN

Not awarded

58.

81926/17

Kabak v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ä°rfan KABAK

Awarded

59.

82066/17

Ã‡oksoylu v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mahmut Murat Ã‡OKSOYLU

Awarded

60.

82313/17

Karabudak v. TÃ¼rkiye

Fatih KARABUDAK

Awarded

61.

83959/17

Havabulut v. TÃ¼rkiye

GÃ¶kay HAVABULUT

Awarded

62.

83973/17

Ã‡iÃ§ek v. TÃ¼rkiye

Musa Ã‡Ä°Ã‡EK

Awarded

63.

83983/17

BoyalÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

HacÄ± Salih BOYALI

Awarded

64.

83995/17

SaÄŸlam v. TÃ¼rkiye

GÃ¼ltekin SAÄžLAM

Awarded

65.

84046/17

Duran v. TÃ¼rkiye

Muharrem DURAN

Awarded

66.

84322/17

M.Y. v. TÃ¼rkiye

Muharrem YILMAZ

Awarded

67.

117/18

Keskin v. TÃ¼rkiye

HÃ¼seyin KESKÄ°N

Not awarded

68.

352/18

GenÃ§ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Zafer GENÃ‡

Awarded

69.

747/18

Demir v. TÃ¼rkiye

Bekir DEMÄ°R

Awarded

70.

2859/18

Åžeker v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mustafa ÅžEKER

Not awarded

71.

6731/18

Biliyor v. TÃ¼rkiye

Fatih BÄ°LÄ°YOR

Awarded

72.

6769/18

Olcay v. TÃ¼rkiye

Fatih OLCAY

Awarded

73.

6959/18

BaÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Muammer BAÅž

Awarded

74.

8386/18

YiÄŸit v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ä°brahim YÄ°ÄžÄ°T

Awarded

75.

8903/18

YaÅŸar v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ferhat YAÅžAR

Awarded

76.

8913/18

Teyran v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ä°shak TEYRAN

Awarded

77.

9947/18

Ã‡amcÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

Adem Ã‡AMCI

Awarded

78.

9954/18

Gelir v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ahmet GÃ¶ksel GELÄ°R

Awarded

79.

9957/18

Arslan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mustafa ARSLAN

Awarded

80.

9965/18

Kaya v. TÃ¼rkiye

Åžaban KAYA

Awarded

81.

9975/18

Ayer v. TÃ¼rkiye

GÃ¶khan AYER

Awarded

82.

9984/18

TÃ¼rker v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mustafa TÃœRKER

Awarded

83.

10286/18

GÃ¼neyisi v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ekrem GÃœNEYÄ°SÄ°

Awarded

84.

10405/18

ArÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

Bekir Enes ARI

Awarded

85.

10618/18

GÃ¶zÃ¼aÃ§Ä±k v. TÃ¼rkiye

Hakan GÃ–ZÃœAÃ‡IK

Awarded

86.

10640/18

Demir v. TÃ¼rkiye

Halil Ä°brahim DEMÄ°R

Not awarded

87.

10648/18

Bilsel v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mehmet BÄ°LSEL

Awarded

88.

10653/18

TunÃ§kol v. TÃ¼rkiye

Kadir TUNÃ‡KOL

Awarded

89.

10852/18

Sancar v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ufuk SelÃ§uk SANCAR

Awarded

90.

11782/18

Ã‡akÄ±r v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ä°smail Ã‡AKIR

Awarded

91.

11892/18

Balaban v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ayhan BALABAN

Awarded

92.

12210/18

Turan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mustafa TURAN

Awarded

93.

12314/18

SargÄ±n v. TÃ¼rkiye

Bayram SARGIN

Awarded

94.

12602/18

YÄ±ldÄ±rÄ±m v. TÃ¼rkiye

Resul YILDIRIM

Awarded

95.

12631/18

Tufan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Fatih TUFAN

Awarded

96.

13397/18

Abanoz v. TÃ¼rkiye

Yahya ABANOZ

Awarded

97.

13739/18

Åžahin v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ali Kemal ÅžAHÄ°N

Awarded

98.

14817/18

Acar v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mehmet Cemal ACAR

Awarded

99.

15433/18

Kaya v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mehmet KAYA

Not awarded

100.

15883/18

Ã‡elik v. TÃ¼rkiye

Bilgin Ã‡ELÄ°K

Awarded

101.

16261/18

Ã‡akÄ±cÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

Beytullah Ã‡AKICI

Awarded

102.

16806/18

Ã–ztÃ¼rk v. TÃ¼rkiye

ErcÃ¼ment Ã–ZTÃœRK

Awarded

103.

16906/18

Deniz v. TÃ¼rkiye

Hasan DENÄ°Z

Awarded

104.

16909/18

YÄ±ldÄ±rÄ±m v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ahmet YILDIRIM

Awarded

105.

16954/18

ArÄ±tÄ±k v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ahmet DerviÅŸ ARITIK

Awarded

106.

17141/18

UÄŸur v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ä°brahim UÄžUR

Awarded

107.

17353/18

Bakar v. TÃ¼rkiye

Sabiha BÃ¼ÅŸra BAKAR

Awarded

108.

17681/18

SabÄ±r v. TÃ¼rkiye

Alaattin SABIR

Awarded

109.

17907/18

KaÄŸÄ±zman v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mustafa CaÄŸrÄ± KAÄžIZMAN

Awarded

110.

18027/18

SerÃ§e v. TÃ¼rkiye

Recep SERÃ‡E

Awarded

111.

18051/18

UÃ§kan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Sedat UÃ‡KAN

Awarded

112.

18054/18

Beyaz v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ä°smail BEYAZ

Awarded

113.

18599/18

Bol v. TÃ¼rkiye

Akif BOL

Awarded

114.

18785/18

ArÄ±k v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mehmet Ali ARIK

Awarded

115.

18799/18

SarÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

Osman SARI

Not awarded

116.

19248/18

ÃœnlÃ¼ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Himmet ÃœNLÃœ

Awarded

117.

19707/18

Ã–z v. TÃ¼rkiye

TÃ¼nay Ã–Z

Awarded

118.

20000/18

Ã‡am v. TÃ¼rkiye

Turgay Ã‡AM

Awarded

119.

20263/18

Uygur v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ramazan UYGUR

Awarded

120.

20379/18

KayabaÅŸÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

Muammer KAYABAÅžI

Awarded

121.

20393/18

Pala v. TÃ¼rkiye

Alaattin PALA

Awarded

122.

20538/18

AltÄ±nkaynak v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ã–nder ALTINKAYNAK

Awarded

123.

20993/18

Cerit v. TÃ¼rkiye

Yusuf Ulvi CERÄ°T

Awarded

124.

21002/18

Ã‡elik v. TÃ¼rkiye

Aykut Ã‡ELÄ°K

Awarded

125.

21054/18

YaÅŸar v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ersan YAÅžAR

Awarded

126.

21066/18

DinÃ§ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ä°smail DÄ°NÃ‡

Awarded

127.

21079/18

Uyar v. TÃ¼rkiye

Erol UYAR

Awarded

128.

21161/18

YÄ±ldÄ±rÄ±m v. TÃ¼rkiye

Abdurrahim YILDIRIM

Awarded

129.

21973/18

YardÄ±mcÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mustafa YARDIMCI

Awarded

130.

22008/18

GÃ¶ksel v. TÃ¼rkiye

Emrah GÃ–KSEL

Not awarded

131.

22108/18

GÃ¼neÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Murat GÃœNEÅž

Awarded

132.

22134/18

BalÄ±k v. TÃ¼rkiye

Sinan BALIK

Awarded

133.

22237/18

KoÃ§ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ã–zcan KOÃ‡

Awarded

134.

23391/18

Kaplan v. TÃ¼rkiye

MÃ¼dayi KAPLAN

Awarded

135.

23626/18

Ã‡akÄ±r v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ayhan Ã‡AKIR

Awarded

136.

23631/18

Ekiz v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ahmet YÄ±lmaz EKÄ°Z

Awarded

137.

23635/18

Atalay v. TÃ¼rkiye

Nuh Taha ATALAY

Awarded

138.

23646/18

Eker v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ä°sa EKER

Awarded

139.

23659/18

YiÄŸit v. TÃ¼rkiye

Åženduran YÄ°ÄžÄ°T

Awarded

140.

23780/18

DolamaÃ§ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ahmet DOLAMAÃ‡

Awarded

141.

23871/18

Ã‡am v. TÃ¼rkiye

OÄŸuzhan Ã‡AM

Awarded

142.

23882/18

HallaÃ§oÄŸlu v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ruhi HALLAÃ‡OÄžLU

Awarded

143.

23885/18

Ãœnal v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mehmet Akif ÃœNAL

Awarded

144.

23897/18

TunÃ§ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ä°brahim Can TUNÃ‡

Awarded

145.

24212/18

Kahraman v. TÃ¼rkiye

Abdullah KAHRAMAN

Awarded

146.

24232/18

Ã–zgÃ¼l v. TÃ¼rkiye

Abdulkadir Ceylani Ã–ZGÃœL

Awarded

147.

24719/18

Demir v. TÃ¼rkiye

Enes DEMÄ°R

Awarded

148.

24861/18

Konak v. TÃ¼rkiye

GÃ¶khan KONAK

Awarded

149.

24894/18

KÃ¶ylÃ¼ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ahmet Mutlu KÃ–YLÃœ

Awarded

150.

25234/18

YÃ¼ksel v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ã–mer YÃœKSEL

Awarded

151.

25292/18

GÃ¶kÃ§egÃ¶z v. TÃ¼rkiye

FazlÄ± GÃ–KÃ‡EGÃ–Z

Awarded

152.

25294/18

Demirci v. TÃ¼rkiye

ErdoÄŸan DEMÄ°RCÄ°

Awarded

153.

25353/18

Solak v. TÃ¼rkiye

Hasan SOLAK

Awarded

154.

25901/18

Karakaya v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mehmet KARAKAYA

Awarded

155.

26019/18

Åžen v. TÃ¼rkiye

Muhammet Ali ÅžEN

Not awarded

156.

26335/18

Vural v. TÃ¼rkiye

Yesari VURAL

Awarded

157.

26339/18

Hayal v. TÃ¼rkiye

Fatih HAYAL

Awarded

158.

26355/18

Bilici v. TÃ¼rkiye

Yakup BÄ°LÄ°CÄ°

Awarded

159.

26586/18

Ã–z v. TÃ¼rkiye

SÃ¼leyman Ã–Z

Awarded

160.

26914/18

TaÅŸar v. TÃ¼rkiye

Hasan TAÅžAR

Awarded

161.

27017/18

Ã‡Ä±nar v. TÃ¼rkiye

Yakup Ã‡INAR

Awarded

162.

27025/18

Diler v. TÃ¼rkiye

Metin DÄ°LER

Not awarded

163.

27053/18

AkkaÅŸoÄŸlu v. TÃ¼rkiye

Selim AKKAÅžOÄžLU

Awarded

164.

27056/18

Aslan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ahmet ASLAN

Awarded

165.

27062/18

UyÄŸun v. TÃ¼rkiye

Serkan UYÄžUN

Awarded

166.

27074/18

Olur v. TÃ¼rkiye

Murat OLUR

Awarded

167.

27123/18

KoÃ§ak v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ersin KOÃ‡AK

Awarded

168.

27220/18

Tufan v. TÃ¼rkiye

MÃ¼rÅŸit TUFAN

Awarded

169.

27723/18

Aksoy v. TÃ¼rkiye

Murat AKSOY

Awarded

170.

27766/18

AydÄ±n v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mustafa Suat AYDIN

Awarded

171.

27827/18

Can v. TÃ¼rkiye

Kadir CAN

Awarded

172.

27895/18

Arslan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Muhsin ARSLAN

Awarded

173.

28584/18

KantaÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Recep KANTAÅž

Awarded

174.

28595/18

AkpÄ±nar v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mustafa AKPINAR

Awarded

175.

28613/18

AlÄ±cÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

LÃ¼tfi ALICI

Awarded

176.

28734/18

AkÃ§in v. TÃ¼rkiye

Osman AKÃ‡Ä°N

Awarded

177.

29382/18

Ã‡olak v. TÃ¼rkiye

EyÃ¼p Ã‡OLAK

Awarded

178.

29399/18

Kaba v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ufuk KABA

Awarded

179.

29593/18

YÃ¼cel v. TÃ¼rkiye

Metin YÃœCEL

Awarded

180.

29766/18

AkdoÄŸan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Seyit Ahmet AKDOÄžAN

Awarded

181.

30463/18

Sayhan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ã‡aÄŸlar SAYHAN

Awarded

182.

30500/18

Kurnaz v. TÃ¼rkiye

Veli KURNAZ

Awarded

183.

30504/18

Yaprak v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ahmet YAPRAK

Awarded

184.

30507/18

Saribay v. TÃ¼rkiye

Huseyin SARÄ°BAY

Awarded

185.

36939/18

Kunt v. TÃ¼rkiye

Emre KUNT

Not awarded

186.

37745/18

BalkaÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Serdar Resul BALKAÅž

Awarded

187.

39195/18

Ã‡evik v. TÃ¼rkiye

Abdullah Ã‡EVÄ°K

Awarded

188.

39434/18

KuÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Metin KUÅž

Not awarded

189.

39460/18

Demirhan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Kadir DEMÄ°RHAN

Awarded

190.

39519/18

KocabaÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Timur KOCABAÅž

Awarded

191.

39678/18

Duysak v. TÃ¼rkiye

RaÅŸit DUYSAK

Awarded

192.

39710/18

Ã–zdemir v. TÃ¼rkiye

Veysel Ã–ZDEMÄ°R

Awarded

193.

39764/18

GÃ¼ler v. TÃ¼rkiye

Hakan GÃœLER

Awarded

194.

39844/18

Yakar v. TÃ¼rkiye

Tamer YAKAR

Awarded

195.

40324/18

ErdoÄŸan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Yunus ERDOÄžAN

Awarded

196.

40525/18

KoÃ§yiÄŸit v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mustafa KOÃ‡YÄ°ÄžÄ°T

Awarded

197.

40601/18

Åžahpaz v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ä°smail ÅžAHPAZ

Awarded

198.

40844/18

Metin v. TÃ¼rkiye

Selahaddin METÄ°N

Awarded

199.

41593/18

GÃ¼ltekin v. TÃ¼rkiye

Adem GÃœLTEKÄ°N

Awarded

200.

42247/18

SevinÃ§ v. TÃ¼rkiye

HÃ¼seyin SEVÄ°NÃ‡

Awarded

201.

42591/18

Demir v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mehmet DEMÄ°R

Awarded

202.

42673/18

Kural v. TÃ¼rkiye

Suat KURAL

Awarded

203.

42857/18

DilcioÄŸlu v. TÃ¼rkiye

Metin DÄ°LCÄ°OÄžLU

Awarded

204.

42872/18

GÃ¼lten v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mesut GÃœLTEN

Awarded

205.

42887/18

KÃ¶roÄŸlu v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mehmet KÃ–ROÄžLU

Awarded

206.

43671/18

Ceran v. TÃ¼rkiye

Yavuz CERAN

Awarded

207.

43712/18

Durdu v. TÃ¼rkiye

AydÄ±n DURDU

Awarded

208.

43979/18

KÃ¼Ã§Ã¼k v. TÃ¼rkiye

MÃ¼rsel KÃœÃ‡ÃœK

Awarded

209.

44657/18

Tokyay v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mehmet Zafer TOKYAY

Awarded

210.

44761/18

Olcabay v. TÃ¼rkiye

DoÄŸan OLCABAY

Awarded

211.

44807/18

Demir v. TÃ¼rkiye

Bilal DEMÄ°R

Awarded

212.

44960/18

KeleÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Murat KELEÅž

Awarded

213.

45545/18

Åžahin v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ä°lker ÅžAHÄ°N

Awarded

214.

46168/18

Altundal v. TÃ¼rkiye

Zeki Osman ALTUNDAL

Awarded

215.

47328/18

YÄ±ldÄ±z v. TÃ¼rkiye

Hakan Åžinasi YILDIZ

Awarded

216.

48106/18

Ã‡elik v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ahmet Ã‡ELÄ°K

Awarded

217.

48214/18

ÃœzÃ¼mcÃ¼ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ercan ÃœZÃœMCÃœ

Awarded

218.

48726/18

TuÄŸberk v. TÃ¼rkiye

Murat TUÄžBERK

Awarded

219.

48731/18

KervancÄ±oÄŸlu v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mahmut KERVANCIOÄžLU

Awarded

220.

48917/18

Ãœrnez v. TÃ¼rkiye

HÃ¼seyin ÃœRNEZ

Awarded

221.

49399/18

KansÄ±z v. TÃ¼rkiye

Cihan KANSIZ

Awarded

222.

49835/18

Akbulut v. TÃ¼rkiye

Murat AKBULUT

Awarded

223.

49840/18

AteÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Aziz ATEÅž

Awarded

224.

49848/18

ÅžanlÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

SavaÅŸ ÅžANLI

Awarded

225.

49849/18

Kandemir v. TÃ¼rkiye

Halit KANDEMÄ°R

Awarded

226.

50974/18

Tekten v. TÃ¼rkiye

Murat Tuncay TEKTEN

Awarded

227.

52160/18

ÅžimÅŸek v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ferhat Fevzi ÅžÄ°MÅžEK

Awarded

228.

52386/18

Kafes v. TÃ¼rkiye

Cemil KAFES

Awarded

229.

52502/18

Fidan v. TÃ¼rkiye

HÃ¼seyin FÄ°DAN

Awarded

230.

52966/18

Ã‡abuk v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mustafa Ã‡ABUK

Awarded

231.

53385/18

KÃ¶rsulu v. TÃ¼rkiye

Erdal KÃ–RSULU

Awarded

232.

53443/18

Ã‡elik v. TÃ¼rkiye

Suat Ã‡ELÄ°K

Awarded

233.

53772/18

Tetik v. TÃ¼rkiye

Nedim TETÄ°K

Awarded

234.

54954/18

Karaduman v. TÃ¼rkiye

Murat KARADUMAN

Awarded

235.

57185/18

Karhan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Muhammet KARHAN

Awarded

236.

57929/18

EroÄŸlu v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ãœnal EROÄžLU

Awarded

237.

58133/18

BaÄŸcÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mustafa BAÄžCI

Awarded

238.

58217/18

Kara v. TÃ¼rkiye

HÃ¼seyin KARA

Awarded

239.

58232/18

Gedemenli v. TÃ¼rkiye

Sait GEDEMENLÄ°

Awarded

240.

58254/18

YaÅŸa v. TÃ¼rkiye

YaÅŸar YAÅžA

Awarded

241.

58577/18

AydÄ±n v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ä°smail AYDIN

Awarded

242.

58911/18

Åžahin v. TÃ¼rkiye

KÃ¶ksal ÅžAHÄ°N

Awarded

243.

59028/18

Ã–zturk v. TÃ¼rkiye

Hamza Ã–ZTÃœRK

Awarded

244.

59384/18

Ã‡akar v. TÃ¼rkiye

Zafer Ã‡AKAR

Awarded

245.

525/19

Zor v. TÃ¼rkiye

CÃ¼neyt ZOR

Awarded

246.

1200/19

SilahÅŸÃ¶r v. TÃ¼rkiye

Åžaban SÄ°LAHÅžÃ–R

Awarded

247.

1686/19

Åžahin v. TÃ¼rkiye

Halil Ä°brahim ÅžAHÄ°N

Not awarded

248.

1933/19

YÄ±lmaz v. TÃ¼rkiye

TarÄ±k YILMAZ

Awarded

249.

2196/19

SaÄŸlam v. TÃ¼rkiye

Levent SAÄžLAM

Awarded

250.

2735/19

Sezer v. TÃ¼rkiye

Yasir SEZER

Awarded

251.

2762/19

Torunler v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ã‡aÄŸlar TORUNLER

Awarded

252.

3441/19

Pala v. TÃ¼rkiye

Fahrettin PALA

Awarded

253.

3452/19

YÃ¼cel v. TÃ¼rkiye

Murat YÃœCEL

Awarded

254.

3459/19

Ãœlkemen v. TÃ¼rkiye

Sinan ÃœLKEMEN

Awarded

255.

3770/19

Kayacan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Fevzi KAYACAN

Awarded

256.

4299/19

BÃ¼lbÃ¼l v. TÃ¼rkiye

Halil BÃœLBÃœL

Awarded

257.

4357/19

Ã‡elebi v. TÃ¼rkiye

Bekir Ã‡ELEBÄ°

Awarded

258.

4405/19

KoÃ§ak v. TÃ¼rkiye

Fatih KOÃ‡AK

Awarded

259.

4918/19

ÅžimÅŸek v. TÃ¼rkiye

DoÄŸan Ã–zgÃ¼r ÅžÄ°MÅžEK

Awarded

260.

4991/19

Ä°stek v. TÃ¼rkiye

Hakan Ä°STEK

Awarded

261.

5135/19

Topuz v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ayhan TOPUZ

Awarded

262.

5418/19

KÃ¶rpe v. TÃ¼rkiye

Erol KÃ–RPE

Awarded

263.

5494/19

Bulut v. TÃ¼rkiye

Burhanettin BULUT

Awarded

264.

5498/19

Ekinci v. TÃ¼rkiye

Yasin EKÄ°NCÄ°

Awarded

265.

5713/19

AÃ§Ä±kgÃ¶z v. TÃ¼rkiye

Seyfettin AÃ‡IKGÃ–Z

Awarded

266.

6468/19

Ã–zduran v. TÃ¼rkiye

Hasan Ã–ZDURAN

Awarded

267.

7254/19

Ã–zcel v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ali Ã–ZCEL

Awarded

268.

7281/19

Uysal v. TÃ¼rkiye

BakÄ±t UYSAL

Awarded

269.

7302/19

TÃ¼rkmen v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ä°brahim TÃœRKMEN

Awarded

270.

7442/19

KuÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Davut Murat KUÅž

Awarded

271.

7480/19

Toprak v. TÃ¼rkiye

Ä°lhan TOPRAK

Awarded

272.

8720/19

Sekmen v. TÃ¼rkiye

BÃ¼nyamin SEKMEN

Awarded

273.

9324/19

Bartan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Nihat Murat BARTAN

Awarded

274.

9355/19

Barin v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mehmet Ali BARÄ°N

Awarded

275.

9466/19

Usta v. TÃ¼rkiye

Mehmet USTA

Awarded

276.

9704/19

Gerez v. TÃ¼rkiye

Salih Mesut GEREZ

Awarded

277.

9818/19

SaÄŸdÄ±Ã§ v. TÃ¼rkiye

Yasin SAÄžDIÃ‡

Awarded

278.

10535/19

Yaslan v. TÃ¼rkiye

BarÄ±ÅŸ YASLAN

Awarded

279.

10593/19

Topal v. TÃ¼rkiye

Yasemin TOPAL

Awarded

280.

10619/19

Asan v. TÃ¼rkiye

Enes ASAN

Not awarded

281.

10954/19

Erdin v. TÃ¼rkiye

Cevat ERDÄ°N

Awarded

282.

11075/19

VarsÄ±n v. TÃ¼rkiye

Murat VARSIN

Awarded

283.

18561/19

Ulusoy v. TÃ¼rkiye

Fatih ULUSOY

Awarded

284.

22762/19

Kaya v. TÃ¼rkiye

Osman KAYA

Awarded

Menu

CASE OF KOLAY AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

CASE OF KOLAY AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

LEXI