Lexploria

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF MECÄ°T AND OTHERS v. TÃœRKÄ°YE

(Applications nos. 69884/17 and 81 others)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

12 December 2023

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

In the case of Mecit 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 eighty-two 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 alleged lack of reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of an offence, the alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons when ordering and extending the pre-trial detention, the length of pre-trial detention and the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the lawfulness of detention 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;

the decision to reject 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± , hereinafter referred to as â€œFETÃ–/PDYâ€), which was considered by the authorities to be behind the coup attempt (for further background information see AkgÃ¼n v. Turkey , no. 19699/18, Â§Â§ 3-9 and Â§Â§ 106-07, 20 July 2021).

2 . On various dates, the applicants were arrested and placed in pre-trial detention, mainly on suspicion of membership of the FETÃ–/PDY, an offence punishable under Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see BaÅŸ v. Turkey , no. 66448/17, Â§ 58, 3 March 2020 ). The detention orders relied principally on the nature of the alleged offence, the state of the evidence and the potential sentence. It was also noted that investigations into the coup attempt were being conducted across the country, that statements had not yet been taken from all the suspects and that the alleged offence was among the â€œcatalogueâ€ offences listed in Article 100 Â§ 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) (for the text of Article 100 of the CCP, as relevant, see BaÅŸ , cited above, Â§ 61). It appears from the initial detention orders and the documents available in the case files that the majority of the applicants were identified as users of the ByLock messaging system. Moreover, some of the applicants were suspected of financing the FETÃ–/PDY in view of their use of accounts in Bank Asya â€“ a bank allegedly linked to FETÃ–/PDY â€“, possession of pro-FETÃ–/PDY publications and/or United States one-dollar bills with an â€œFâ€ serial number (denoting the initial of the forename â€œFetullahâ€), and/or their employment by and/or memberships in FETÃ–/PDY-affiliated institutions and organisations. The challenges brought by the applicants against their detention, including by reason of the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion of having committed the offence imputed to them, were dismissed, including by the Constitutional Court.

3. 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. It appears that, for the most part, the criminal proceedings are still pending before appeal courts or the Constitutional Court.

THE COURTâ€™S ASSESSMENT

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

5. The applicants complained that there had been no specific evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion, within the meaning of Article 5 Â§ 1 (c) of the Convention, that they had committed a criminal offence necessitating pre-trial detention.

6. The Government urged the Court to declare this complaint inadmissible in respect of the applicants who had not made use of the compensatory remedy under Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or whose compensation claims were still pending. They further asked the Court to declare the applications inadmissible for abuse of the right of application to the extent that the applicants had not informed the Court of the developments in their cases following the lodging of their applications.

7. The Court notes that similar objections have already been dismissed in other cases against TÃ¼rkiye (see, for instance, BaÅŸ v. Turkey, no. 66448/17 , Â§Â§ 118-21, 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 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.

8. The Court notes that the applicantsâ€™ initial pre-trial detention was based on information indicating their use of the ByLock messaging system, banking activities considered as financing the FETÃ–/PDY, subscriptions to certain pro-FETÃ–/PDY publications, having in their possessions United States one â€‘ dollar bills with an â€œFâ€ serial number, and/or their employment by and/or memberships in FETÃ–/PDY-affiliated institutions and organisations. To the extent that the detention orders have taken into account the applicantsâ€™ alleged use of the ByLock messaging system, the Court notes that it has already found that the use of ByLock was not of a nature to constitute â€œreasonable suspicionâ€ within the meaning of Article 5 Â§ 1 (c) in respect of the offence attributed to the applicants (see AkgÃ¼n v. Turkey , no. 19699/18, Â§Â§ 151-85, 20 July 2021, and Taner KÄ±lÄ±Ã§ v. Turkey (no. 2) , no. 208/18, Â§Â§ 102-03 and 106-09, 31 May 2022 ). The Court further considers, as relevant, that the other acts imputed to the applicants (see paragraph 2 above) were merely circumstantial elements which, in the absence of any other information capable of justifying the suspicions in question, benefited from the presumption of legality and cannot reasonably be regarded as constituting a body of evidence demonstrating the applicantsâ€™ membership of a terrorist organisation (compare Taner KÄ±lÄ±Ã§ , cited above, Â§Â§ 104-05 and the cases cited therein).

9. Since the Government have not provided any other indications, â€œfactsâ€ or â€œinformationâ€ capable of satisfying it that the applicants were â€œreasonably suspectedâ€, at the time of their initial detention, of having committed the alleged offence, the Court finds that the requirements of Article 5 Â§ 1 (c) regarding the â€œreasonablenessâ€ of a suspicion justifying detention have not been satisfied (see BaÅŸ , cited above, Â§ 195, and Taner KÄ±lÄ±Ã§ , cited above, Â§Â§ 114-16). At this juncture, it cannot be maintained, as the Government did, that the mere fact that the applicants were not members of the judiciary had any bearing on the conclusion reached. It moreover considers that 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 (compare BaÅŸ , cited above, Â§Â§ 115-16 and Â§Â§ 196 â€‘ 201). It therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 Â§ 1 of the Convention.

10. As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 Â§Â§ 1, 3 and 4 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

11. The applicants, except for the applicants in application nos. 6670/18, 7824/19, 9380/19 and 9462/19, requested compensation in varying amounts in respect of nonâ€‘pecuniary damage within the time-limit allotted. Most of the applicants in question also claimed pecuniary damage, as well as the legal costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.

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

13. For the reasons put forth 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, save for the applicants in application nos. 6670/18, 7824/19, 9380/19 and 9462/19, a lump sum of 5,000 euros (EUR), covering non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, save for the applicants in application nos. 6670/18, 7824/19, 9380/19 and 9462/19, 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 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

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality

Represented by

1.

69884/17

Mecit v. TÃ¼rkiye

04/09/2017

Hamit MECÄ°T 1972 Malatya Turkish

BÃ¼ÅŸra KESER

2.

4625/18

Ã‡evik v. TÃ¼rkiye

13/07/2017

Hasan HÃ¼seyin Ã‡EVÄ°K 1973 Konya Turkish

Mustafa DEMÄ°R

3.

4697/18

Tarhan v. TÃ¼rkiye

13/07/2017

Osman TARHAN 1980 Konya Turkish

Mustafa DEMÄ°R

4.

6670/18

Ã–zkul v. TÃ¼rkiye

09/01/2018

Salih Ã–ZKUL 1987 Ankara Turkish

Abidin ÅžAHÄ°N

5.

9584/18

YÃ¼cedaÄŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

13/02/2018

Mesut YÃœCEDAÄž 1989 Bursa Turkish

Fatma ALBAYRAK

6.

9585/18

AydoÄŸmuÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

13/02/2018

Yasin AYDOÄžMUÅž 1982 Ankara Turkish

Fatma ALBAYRAK

7.

9586/18

SÄ±ryol v. TÃ¼rkiye

13/02/2018

MÃ¼nevver SIRYOL 1985 Istanbul Turkish

Fatma ALBAYRAK

8.

12124/18

Ã–zcan v. TÃ¼rkiye

06/03/2018

Abdurrahman Ã–ZCAN 1975 Istanbul Turkish

Fatma ALBAYRAK

9.

12490/18

Mila v. TÃ¼rkiye

02/03/2018

Mehmet MÄ°LA 1983 Van Turkish

BÃ¼ÅŸra KURT KÃœÃ‡ÃœK

10.

26360/18

Karakaya v. TÃ¼rkiye

08/05/2018

Musa KARAKAYA 1979 AydÄ±n Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

11.

27004/18

Boran v. TÃ¼rkiye

18/05/2018

Hasan Basri BORAN 1973 Adana Turkish

Sinan TUMLUKOLÃ‡U

12.

27075/18

Dursun v. TÃ¼rkiye

18/05/2018

YaÅŸar DURSUN 1975 Ã‡ankÄ±rÄ± Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

13.

27086/18

Duran v. TÃ¼rkiye

18/05/2018

Erdal DURAN 1976 Ã‡ankÄ±rÄ± Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

14.

29602/18

Ã–z v. TÃ¼rkiye

11/06/2018

Mahmut Ã–Z 1984 Kastamonu Turkish

Fatma Zehra Ã–ZDÄ°PÄ°

15.

30140/18

Bereket v. TÃ¼rkiye

13/06/2018

Ã–mer BEREKET 1975 Gaziantep Turkish

FadÄ±l ULUTAÅž

16.

40409/18

Ã–ztÃ¼rk v. TÃ¼rkiye

06/08/2018

Celal Ã–ZTÃœRK 1971 Sinop Turkish

Bekir DEMÄ°RCÄ°OÄžLU

17.

41513/18

Yontar v. TÃ¼rkiye

17/08/2018

ÅžÃ¼krÃ¼ YONTAR 1977 TekirdaÄŸ Turkish

Mehmet ErtÃ¼rk ERDEVÄ°R

18.

44762/18

YarbÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

17/09/2018

AydÄ±n YARBI 1972 Yalova Turkish

Mehmet GÃœL

19.

44766/18

YalÃ§Ä±n v. TÃ¼rkiye

14/09/2018

Fatih YALÃ‡IN 1976 Ankara Turkish

Mehmet YALÃ‡IN

20.

45472/18

AydoÄŸan v. TÃ¼rkiye

07/09/2018

Ä°brahim AYDOÄžAN 1974 Ankara Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

21.

45473/18

Akmirza v. TÃ¼rkiye

07/09/2018

Bekir AKMÄ°RZA 1968 KÄ±rÅŸehir Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

22.

45482/18

GÃ¼ndÃ¼z v. TÃ¼rkiye

07/09/2018

Murat GÃœNDÃœZ 1973 Ankara Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

23.

47781/18

Tekdemir v. TÃ¼rkiye

09/10/2018

Gazi TEKDEMÄ°R 1964 Istanbul Turkish

Kamile Ã–ZBULUT

24.

48351/18

KÄ±rdaÄŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

09/10/2018

Hakan KIRDAÄž 1963 Ankara Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

25.

49301/18

Talu v. TÃ¼rkiye

09/10/2018

Emre TALU 1990 Sivas Turkish

Åžeyma MISIRLIOÄžLU

26.

49903/18

Ã–rsel v. TÃ¼rkiye

03/10/2018

YaÅŸar Ã–RSEL 1972 KÄ±rÅŸehir Turkish

Lale KARADAÅž

27.

50798/18

Demir v. TÃ¼rkiye

11/10/2018

Abdussamet DEMÄ°R 1991 Ankara Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

28.

50799/18

Kara v. TÃ¼rkiye

11/10/2018

Harun KARA 1980 Isparta Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

29.

51577/18

Ã–zdemir v. TÃ¼rkiye

15/10/2018

Ä°smet Ã–ZDEMÄ°R 1974 Manisa Turkish

Ä°smail GÃœNEY

30.

51690/18

Geleken v. TÃ¼rkiye

26/10/2018

Turgut GELEKEN 1973 Ä°zmir Turkish

MevlÃ¼t Burak KAPTAN

31.

52456/18

Acar v. TÃ¼rkiye

02/11/2018

Emre ACAR 1985 KÄ±rÄ±kkale Turkish

Abdurrahim SIÄžIRTMAÃ‡

32.

52523/18

GÃ¼nal v. TÃ¼rkiye

24/10/2018

HÃ¼seyin GÃœNAL 1971 Aksaray Turkish

Ä°hsan MAKAS

33.

52623/18

Bayram v. TÃ¼rkiye

26/10/2018

Mehmet BAYRAM 1985 Tokat Turkish

Emre AKARYILDIZ

34.

53261/18

Kemer v. TÃ¼rkiye

09/11/2018

SelÃ§uk KEMER 1967 BartÄ±n Turkish

Bekir DÃ–NMEZ

35.

53933/18

KalpaklÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

22/10/2018

Fatma KALPAKLI 1991 TekirdaÄŸ Turkish

Mehmet ErtÃ¼rk ERDEVÄ°R

36.

54989/18

YaÄŸÄ±z v. TÃ¼rkiye

05/11/2018

Ä°brahim YAÄžIZ 1971 Antalya Turkish

Burhan AYDIN

37.

56023/18

AlakuÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

31/10/2018

Fatih ALAKUÅž 1970 EskiÅŸehir Turkish

KurtuluÅŸ BAÅžTÄ°MAR

38.

56482/18

AsiltÃ¼rk v. TÃ¼rkiye

26/11/2018

Ramazan ASILTÃœRK 1977 Bolu Turkish

Adem DÃœZGÃœN

39.

57561/18

Demir v. TÃ¼rkiye

02/11/2018

Osman DEMÄ°R 1976 Ankara Turkish

Demet YÃœREKLÄ° KAYAALP

40.

58256/18

Kaleli v. TÃ¼rkiye

21/11/2018

Nurullah KALELÄ° 1987 Konya Turkish

Recep ALTUN

41.

58801/18

KarakaÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

21/11/2018

Mecit KARAKAÅž 1989 EskiÅŸehir Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

42.

59988/18

Acar v. TÃ¼rkiye

07/12/2018

Mehmet ACAR 1974 Bursa Turkish

Ã‡iÄŸdem DERDÄ°YOK KUBULAN

43.

2366/19

Cildan v. TÃ¼rkiye

03/12/2018

Halit CÄ°LDAN 1969 Hatay Turkish

Bilal Ã‡Ã–RTÃœK

44.

2857/19

Ã–bekci v. TÃ¼rkiye

03/01/2019

Yusuf Ã–BEKCÄ° 1971 Ankara Turkish

45.

3026/19

KulaksÄ±z v. TÃ¼rkiye

21/12/2018

Muhammet Yusuf KULAKSIZ 1970 Istanbul Turkish

Hasan Tahsin IÅžILTAN

46.

3252/19

Yaprak v. TÃ¼rkiye

25/12/2018

Amir YAPRAK Tokat Turkish

Åžeyma MISIRLIOÄžLU

47.

3774/19

Turhan v. TÃ¼rkiye

26/12/2018

Murat TURHAN 1984 Denizli Turkish

GÃ¼lhis YÃ–RÃœK

48.

3984/19

DakeÅŸoÄŸlu v. TÃ¼rkiye

09/01/2019

Ali Ä°hsan DAKEÅžOÄžLU 1979 Rize Turkish

49.

4053/19

SeÃ§kin v. TÃ¼rkiye

28/12/2018

Ahmet SEÃ‡KÄ°N 1977 Ankara Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

50.

4074/19

Deniz v. TÃ¼rkiye

28/12/2018

Cengiz DENÄ°Z 1973 ElazÄ±ÄŸ Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

51.

4079/19

Ä°nan v. TÃ¼rkiye

28/12/2018

Burhan Ä°NAN 1983 Ankara Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

52.

4105/19

DoÄŸan v. TÃ¼rkiye

30/11/2018

Ramazan Fatih DOÄžAN 1985 Ä°zmir Turkish

Kadir Ã–ZTÃœRK

53.

4240/19

Yelkesen v. TÃ¼rkiye

07/01/2019

Mehmet Akif YELKESEN 1972 Hatay Turkish

ErdoÄŸan SARAÃ‡

54.

5539/19

Ã‡oÅŸkun v. TÃ¼rkiye

07/01/2019

Ferhat COÅžKUN 1981 Kayseri Turkish

Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAÄž

55.

5561/19

GÃ¼rÅŸen v. TÃ¼rkiye

31/12/2018

Cihan Murat GÃœRÅžEN 1980 Konya Turkish

Kadir Ã–ZTÃœRK

56.

5900/19

Ã–zdemir v. TÃ¼rkiye

17/01/2019

Mikail Ã–ZDEMÄ°R 1991 Trabzon Turkish

Vahdeddin VARLI

57.

6189/19

Aygen v. TÃ¼rkiye

17/12/2018

Ziya AYGEN 1974 Ankara Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

58.

6193/19

Vurucu v. TÃ¼rkiye

17/12/2018

Ä°smail VURUCU 1985 Ankara Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

59.

6316/19

ReÃ§ber v. TÃ¼rkiye

10/01/2019

Emre REÃ‡BER 1986 Ankara Turkish

Burak Ã‡OLAK

60.

6588/19

KÄ±lÄ±Ã§ v. TÃ¼rkiye

23/01/2019

HÃ¼seyin Gazi KILIÃ‡ 1974 KahramanmaraÅŸ Turkish

Emre KOZANDAÄžI

61.

6979/19

AkgÃ¼l v. TÃ¼rkiye

17/01/2019

RaÅŸit AKGÃœL 1962 KÄ±rÄ±kkale Turkish

Hasan HÃ¼seyin ERDOÄžAN

62.

7100/19

YÄ±ldÄ±z v. TÃ¼rkiye

24/01/2019

Sezgin YILDIZ 1976 Manisa Turkish

Ã–mer KÃ–STEKÃ‡Ä°

63.

7134/19

AsrÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

23/01/2019

Ekrem ASRI Antalya Turkish

Yusuf Sait PEKGÃ–Z

64.

7269/19

Ejder v. TÃ¼rkiye

24/01/2019

AyÅŸe EJDER 1964 Kars Turkish

Ã–zcan AKINCI

65.

7824/19

DÃ¼zgÃ¼n v. TÃ¼rkiye

28/01/2019

Ä°smail DÃœZGÃœN 1983 Antalya Turkish

Emre Ã–ZDÄ°KÄ°CÄ°ERLER

66.

7996/19

Kaya v. TÃ¼rkiye

24/01/2019

Mehmet KAYA 1988 Istanbul Turkish

Ä°rem TATLIDEDE

67.

8413/19

Atalay v. TÃ¼rkiye

30/01/2019

Cemal ATALAY 1986 Bursa Turkish

68.

8990/19

Bal v. TÃ¼rkiye

30/01/2019

Mustafa BAL 1972 Giresun Turkish

ÅžÃ¼krÃ¼ KOCUK

69.

9121/19

AsrÄ± v. TÃ¼rkiye

11/02/2019

Ä°sa Samet ASRI 1996 Antalya Turkish

Yusuf Sait PEKGÃ–Z

70.

9195/19

KÃ¶kÃ¶z v. TÃ¼rkiye

22/01/2019

Ramazan KÃ–KÃ–Z 1973 Manisa Turkish

AsÄ±m Burak GÃœNEÅž

71.

9332/19

Åženyayla v. TÃ¼rkiye

06/02/2019

Zeki ÅžENYAYLA 1974 Ankara Turkish

Ãœsame Ä°NAN

72.

9380/19

Irk v. TÃ¼rkiye

25/01/2019

MÃ¼mtaz Ä°RK 1980 Aksaray Turkish

Emre KOZANDAÄžI

73.

9446/19

GÃ¼neÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

09/02/2019

Cemal GÃœNEÅž 1988 Antalya Turkish

Yusuf Sait PEKGÃ–Z

74.

9452/19

Uzay v. TÃ¼rkiye

31/01/2019

Sadettin UZAY 1972 KahramanmaraÅŸ Turkish

Mehmet Ã–NCÃœ

75.

9462/19

Ã–z v. TÃ¼rkiye

15/01/2019

Ali Ã–Z 1970 Konya Turkish

Selda Devrim YILDIRIM

76.

9815/19

GÃ¼neÅŸ v. TÃ¼rkiye

05/02/2019

Recep GÃœNEÅž 1974 Siirt Turkish

Hasan TOK

77.

9981/19

YÄ±ldÄ±rÄ±m v. TÃ¼rkiye

05/02/2019

Zeynel YILDIRIM 1980 Ankara Turkish

TarÄ±k Said GÃœLDÄ°BÄ°

78.

10173/19

TaÅŸkÄ±n v. TÃ¼rkiye

07/02/2019

Ahmet TAÅžKIN 1972 Antalya Turkish

Yusuf Sait PEKGÃ–Z

79.

11313/19

GÃ¼rbÃ¼z v. TÃ¼rkiye

20/02/2019

Ahmet GÃœRBÃœZ 1974 ElazÄ±ÄŸ Turkish

Mehmet SÄ±ddÄ±k KARAGÃ–Z

80.

11333/19

Hazin v. TÃ¼rkiye

11/02/2019

Mesut HAZIN 1980 KÄ±rÅŸehir Turkish

Lale KARADAÅž

81.

21352/19

BaÅŸyiÄŸit v. TÃ¼rkiye

16/04/2019

Mahmut BAÅžYÄ°ÄžÄ°T 1970 Aydin Turkish

Ã–zlem SUZAN

82.

36350/19

AltÄ±parmak v. TÃ¼rkiye

01/07/2019

Ã–mer ALTIPARMAK 1975 KahramanmaraÅŸ Turkish

Necip FazÄ±l YILDIZ

Menu

CASE OF MECİT AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

CASE OF MECİT AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

LEXI