CASE OF DEMİRHAN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF DEMİRHAN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

(Applications nos. 1595/20 and 238 others –

see appended list)

Art 7 • Nullum crimen sine lege • Nulla poena sine lege • Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Fair hearing • Convictions for membership of an armed terrorist organisation based decisively on the use of the encrypted messaging application ByLock without duly establishing offence’s constituent material and mental elements in an individualised manner • No reason to depart from the finding of violations in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC] resulting notably from the domestic courts’ characterisation of the use of ByLock and the uniform and global approach adopted by the judiciary vis-à-vis the ByLock evidence

Art 41 • Approach in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC] applied: finding of violations sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained and reopening of criminal proceedings, if requested, most appropriate form of redress, without prejudice to any general measures that may be required to prevent or redress other similar violations • Not justified to make any awards for costs and expenses in respect of follow-up applications of this type

Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.

22 July 2025

03/11/2025

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Demirhan and Others v. Türkiye,

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

Arnfinn Bårdsen , President , Saadet Yüksel, Tim Eicke, Jovan Ilievski, Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, Gediminas Sagatys, Stéphane Pisani , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications (nos. 1595/20 and 238 others) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by 239 Turkish nationals (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table;

the decision to give notice to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 (the right to a fair trial) and Article 7 of the Convention (no punishment without law);

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 1 July 2025,

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

INTRODUCTION

1 The case concerns the applicants’ convictions for membership of an armed terrorist organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure” ( Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması , hereinafter referred to as “the FETÖ/PDY”), considered by the authorities to be behind the coup attempt that took place in Türkiye on 15 July 2016. The convictions were based decisively on the applicants’ use of an encrypted messaging application by the name of “ByLock”, which the domestic courts held was designed for the exclusive use of the members of the FETÖ/PDY.

THE FACTS

2 A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. Some of the applicants were represented by lawyers, whose names are also listed therein.

3 The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Abdullah Aydın, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye.

4 The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

5 On the night of 15 to 16 July 2016 a group of members of the Turkish armed forces calling themselves the “Peace at Home Council” attempted to carry out a military coup aimed at overthrowing the democratically elected Parliament, Government and President of Türkiye.

6 During the attempted coup, more than 8,000 military personnel under the instigators’ control bombarded several strategic State buildings, including the Parliament building and the presidential compound, attacked the hotel where the President was staying and the convoy in which the Prime Minister was travelling, held the Chief of General Staff as well as a number of high ranking generals hostage, attacked and occupied a number of public institutions, occupied television studios, blocked the bridges over the Bosphorus and the airports in Istanbul with tanks and armoured vehicles, and fired on demonstrators who had taken to the streets to oppose the coup attempt. According to the figures provided by the Government, 253 people, including civilians, were killed on the night in question and 2,740 people were injured. The Government also indicated that in the course of the coup attempt, some 70 military aircraft, including F-16 fighter jets and helicopters, 3 ships, 246 armoured vehicles, including 74 tanks, and approximately 4,000 light arms were used.

7 The day after the attempted military coup, the national authorities blamed the network linked to Fetullah Gülen, a Turkish citizen who lived in Pennsylvania (United States of America) at the time and considered to be the leader of the FETÖ/PDY. The authorities attributed responsibility for the coup attempt to members of the FETÖ/PDY who had infiltrated the Turkish armed forces.

8 . On 16 July 2016 the Bureau for Crimes against the Constitutional Order at the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office initiated a criminal investigation into the attempted coup. Acting within the framework of that investigation, the regional prosecutors’ offices launched criminal investigations against individuals suspected of being involved in the coup attempt, as well as against those suspected of having links to the FETÖ/PDY.

9 On 20 July 2016 the Government declared a state of emergency for a period of ninety days as from 21 July 2016, which was subsequently prolonged on seven occasions, each time for further ninety-day periods.

10 On 21 July 2016 the Turkish authorities gave notice to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of a derogation from the Convention under Article 15 (see paragraph 22 below; see Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC], no. 15669/20, § 205, 26 September 2023).

11 On 18 July 2018 the state of emergency was lifted.

12 The broader domestic background and context to the present applications was set out by the Court in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§ 10-22 and 108-40).

13 As indicated in paragraph 8 above, the prosecutors’ offices across the country launched widespread investigations following the coup attempt against persons suspected of having links to the FETÖ/PDY. In that connection, criminal investigations were initiated against the present applicants in view of their suspected membership of the FETÖ/PDY and they were subsequently charged with membership of an armed terrorist organisation under Article 314 § 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code.

14 . On various dates, the applicants were convicted for membership of the FETÖ/PDY, and those convictions were upheld by the regional courts of appeal and the Court of Cassation. The convictions were based decisively on the applicants’ alleged use of an encrypted messaging application by the name of “ByLock”, which the domestic courts held was designed for the exclusive use of the members of the FETÖ/PDY (see Yüksel Yalçınkaya , cited above, §§ 155-65, for the Court of Cassation’s “landmark judgments” in that regard). The position taken by the domestic courts and authorities was that the establishment of the use of ByLock was sufficient on its own for conviction under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code (ibid., § 257).

15 The applicants’ use of ByLock was established on the basis of examinations conducted by the investigating authorities on the ByLock data obtained by the National Intelligence Agency of Türkiye ( Milli İstihbarat Teşkilatı , hereinafter referred to as “the MİT”) from the messaging application’s main server located in Lithuania. Those data enabled the authorities to extract information on the applicants’ ByLock user-IDs, the telephone (or the IP) numbers and IMEI numbers of the devices on which the application was used, the first date of connection to the application’s server and the total number of connections identified (ibid., §§ 34, 55, 78 and 80). That information was verified against the internet traffic data (also known as the CGNAT data) – which were procured by the Information and Communications Technologies Authority (“the BTK”) and which showed connections made to the ByLock IPs from Türkiye (ibid., §§ 119, 120, 177 and 319) – and the HTS (Historical Traffic Search) records pertaining to the GSM lines used by the applicants (ibid., § 80).

16 . Other evidence against the applicants, if any, involved an admission of using ByLock, decrypted message content confirming use of that application or witness statements attesting to such use; membership of a trade union, association and/or foundation considered to be affiliated with the FETÖ/PDY; employment by and/or membership of FETÖ/PDY ‑ affiliated institutions, organisations or companies, or witness statements as regards such employment; account activities at Bank Asya, which was considered by the authorities to be a part of the financial structure of the FETÖ/PDY; possession of pro-FETÖ/PDY publications or other audio-visual material; participation in trips considered to have been organised by the FETÖ/PDY and records of exit from and entry to Türkiye; donations to FETÖ/PDY-affiliated foundations; participation in various demonstrations considered to be in support of the FETÖ/PDY; social media posts in favour of the organisation; residence in FETÖ/PDY student houses or dormitories; use of other messaging applications, such as Kakao Talk or Eagle, to communicate with other members of the organisation; and HTS records indicating communications with others prosecuted of the same offence. In the case of some of the applicants, the convictions were ordered without waiting for the submission to the case files of the detailed ByLock findings and evaluation reports – which potentially included decrypted content of communications over ByLock – on the ground that the establishment of the use of that application sufficed for conviction, irrespective of the nature and content of the communications.

17 The individual applications lodged by the applicants with the Constitutional Court against their convictions were summarily dismissed by that court as being inadmissible, on the basis of its case-law endorsing the Court of Cassation’s landmark judgments on the matter (ibid., §§ 169-88).

18 On 26 September 2023 the Court’s Grand Chamber adopted a judgment in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above). The case concerned the conviction of the applicant, a former teacher, under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code for membership of the FETÖ/PDY. The conviction was based decisively on the applicant’s use of the ByLock application. Other evidence against the applicant included his use of an account at Bank Asya and his membership of a trade union and an association that were considered to be affiliated with the FETÖ/PDY.

19 The Court essentially found in that judgment that the applicant’s conviction had been secured without duly establishing the presence of all constituent elements of the relevant offence set out under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code (in particular the mental element) in an individualised manner, in contravention of the requirements under domestic law and the principles of legality and foreseeability that were at the core of the protection under Article 7 (ibid., § 267). It noted that although the use of ByLock was technically not part of the actus reus of the impugned offence, the domestic courts’ interpretation had in practice the effect of equating the mere use of ByLock with knowingly and willingly being a member of an armed terrorist organisation. The Court therefore held that this unforeseeable and expansive interpretation of the relevant domestic law by the domestic courts had violated Article 7 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 267 ‑ 72). It also found, inter alia , a breach of Article 6 § 1, mainly on account of the inability of the applicant to effectively challenge the key evidence against him (the ByLock data) in proceedings that complied with the guarantees of that provision and the domestic courts’ failure to support their decisions with adequate and relevant reasoning, particularly in relation to the characterisation of ByLock as an exclusively organisational communication tool (ibid., §§ 273-356).

20 In so far as individual measures of redress were concerned, the Court considered that the reopening of the criminal proceedings allowed under domestic law would be the most appropriate way of putting an end to the violations found (ibid., § 425). It further held, however, that the Turkish authorities also had to take general measures as appropriate to address the systemic problem which had led to the findings of a violation under Articles 7 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, notably the domestic courts’ approach to the use of ByLock. It noted in that connection that there were over 8,000 applications on the Court’s docket at the material time involving similar complaints raised under Articles 7 and/or 6 § 1 relating to convictions for membership of the FETÖ/PDY based on the use of ByLock (hereinafter referred to as the “follow-up applications”). The defects identified in the Yüksel Yalçınkaya judgment (cited above) therefore needed to be addressed by the Turkish authorities, to the extent relevant and possible, on a larger scale – that is, beyond the specific case of Mr Yalçınkaya (ibid., §§ 413-18).

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE

21 A description of the relevant law and practice has been set out in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§ 141-93).

22 . On 21 July 2016 the Permanent Representative of Türkiye to the Council of Europe sent the Secretary General of the Council of Europe a notice of derogation (see, for the text of the notice of derogation, Yüksel Yalçınkaya , cited above, § 205).

23 The notice of derogation was withdrawn on 8 August 2018, following the end of the state of emergency.

THE LAW

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

25 The Government emphasised at the outset that the applications should be examined with due regard to the derogation of which the Secretary General of the Council of Europe had been notified on 21 July 2016 under Article 15 of the Convention (see, for similar arguments, Yüksel Yalçınkaya , cited above, §§ 208 and 209). Article 15 provides:

“1. In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under [the] Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.

2 No derogation from Article 2, except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3, 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under this provision.

3 Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right of derogation shall keep the Secretary General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures which it has taken and the reasons therefor. It shall also inform the Secretary General of the Council of Europe when such measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the Convention are again being fully executed.”

26 The Court notes the finding made in many cases relating to the attempted military coup that this attempt had amounted to a “public emergency threatening the life of the nation” within the meaning of the Convention and that the formalities required by Article 15 § 3 had been respected by the Turkish authorities (see, for instance, Yüksel Yalçınkaya , cited above, § 212, and the cases cited therein). It sees no reason to depart from that finding in the present case. As to whether the specific actions taken against the applicants were strictly required by the exigencies of the situation and consistent with the respondent State’s other obligations under international law, these points will be considered as part of the examination of the relevant complaints on the merits (see Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey , no. 13237/17, § 94, 20 March 2018, and Yüksel Yalçınkaya , cited above, § 213; see also paragraph 45 below).

27 The applicants complained that their trials and convictions under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code for membership of the FETÖ/PDY had violated the principle of no punishment without law under Article 7 of the Convention as well as the right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1, the relevant parts of which read as follows:

Article 7

“1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

...”

Article 6

“1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] tribunal established by law ...”

28 The Court notes that these complaints are neither manifestly ill ‑ founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible.

29. The applicants mainly complained before the Court that their convictions for membership of an armed terrorist organisation had not been foreseeable as required under Article 7 of the Convention. They argued in that connection that the acts that had formed the basis of their convictions had been lawful at the relevant time. Holding them criminally liable for those acts – and finding that the use of ByLock had sufficed alone to meet all the constituent requirements of the offence of membership of an armed terrorist organisation – entailed an extensive and arbitrary interpretation of the relevant laws, in violation of the principle of no punishment without law enshrined in Article 7 of the Convention. They further complained, under Article 6 § 1, of various alleged irregularities in the collection and admission in evidence of the ByLock data, as well as of the difficulties encountered in challenging them and the inadequacy of the reasoning in the courts’ decisions vis-à-vis that evidence, which in their opinion had rendered their trials unfair.

30 . At the time notice of the present applications was given to the respondent Government by a Chamber of the Second Section, the Government were informed that the Court did not, in principle, require any observations on these applications, since the issues raised appeared to be the subject of well-established case-law of the Court by virtue of its findings in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§ 237-356). The Government were nevertheless advised that they had the option, if they so wished, of submitting observations on the applicants’ complaints under Articles 7 and 6 § 1, to the extent that such observations referred essentially to the factual aspects of the applications, and not to preliminary objections or legal issues already decided by the Court. The Government’s observations, once received, were transmitted to the applicants for information. Given the nature of the legal issues under consideration, which appeared to be the subject of well ‑ established case-law of the Court, the applicants were informed that no written observations were required on their part in response.

31 . In their observations, the Government submitted at the outset that while notice of the present applications had been given to them as raising issues similar to those addressed by the Court in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above), the Court’s considerations in that judgment had related to the specific facts of that case. They argued that the Court should therefore refrain from extrapolating the findings made therein to the present applications, which would risk overlooking the unique characteristics of the latter, and invited the Court to assess the criminal proceedings conducted against each applicant on the basis of their own particular circumstances.

32 . The Government stressed in that regard that the convictions in the present applications had not been based solely on the applicants’ use of the ByLock application but had involved a wide variety of other evidence, not all of which had been subject to assessment in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above; see the evidence noted in paragraph 14 above). The domestic courts, which had enjoyed direct contact with the evidence at issue, had established each applicant’s membership of the armed terrorist organisation on an individual basis following a careful assessment of all the elements in their specific case files. It therefore fell on the Court to take into consideration the individualised assessments carried out at the domestic level so as to avoid a superficial and stereotypical examination based solely on the findings in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above).

33 . As concerns specifically the applicants’ complaints under Articles 7 and 6 § 1 resulting from the decisive weight attached to the evidence establishing the use of ByLock, the Government challenged those complaints largely on the basis of the same arguments as advanced before the Grand Chamber in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§ 227-36 and 289 ‑ 99). In particular, the Government disagreed with the Court’s assessment in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above) that the domestic judicial authorities’ approach to the use of ByLock – as proving on its own the material and mental elements of the offence of membership of an armed terrorist organisation – constituted an expansive interpretation of Article 314 of the Criminal Code. In their view,

“... it is possible for the domestic courts to conclude that if a person has been found to have downloaded and used the Bylock messaging application used exclusively by the FETÖ/PDY, despite all technical difficulties, this shows that such a person fully submitted to the will of the organisation and therefore that the applicant is a member of an armed terrorist organisation and that the necessary mental link exists for the establishment of the criminal liability.”

34 The Government further emphasised that unlike in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§ 98 and 107), the detailed ByLock findings and evaluation reports pertaining to the applicants – some of which included the content of the decrypted communications over the application – were included in their case files, and that the applicants were given access to all the information obtained and reports prepared by the authorities regarding their use of ByLock.

35 The Court notes, and the parties did not dispute, that all the applicants in the present case were identified as users of the ByLock application. Nor is there any disagreement between the parties as to the probative value accorded to the use of that application by the domestic courts in determining an individual’s membership of the FETÖ/PDY, as examined at length in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§ 257 and 262-71). It remains to be determined, however, whether there are any elements in the case files that distinguish the present applications from Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above) and that require the Court to reach a different conclusion under Articles 7 and 6 § 1.

36 The Court indeed notes, as also pointed out by the Government, that the evidence in respect of some of the applicants included material that was not at issue in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above), as noted in paragraph 16 above. That being said, having examined all the material and arguments submitted to it, the Court finds no reason in the present case to depart from its findings in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above), for the reasons indicated below.

37 It notes in this connection that the finding of violations under Articles 7 and 6 § 1 of the Convention in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above) had resulted notably from the domestic courts’ characterisation of the use of ByLock and the uniform and global approach adopted by the Turkish judiciary vis-à-vis the ByLock evidence (ibid., §§ 364, 413 and 414). Under that approach, anyone whose use of ByLock was established by the domestic courts could, in principle, be convicted on that sole basis of membership of an armed terrorist organisation pursuant to Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code. This was because all of the constituent elements of the relevant offence were considered to be manifested through an accused’s use of ByLock (ibid., § 262); the domestic court’s interpretation had in practice the effect of equating the mere use of ByLock with knowingly and willingly being a member of an armed terrorist organisation (ibid., § 267).

38 . It therefore follows, as also underlined in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, § 414), that the situation that led to a finding of a violation of Articles 7 and 6 § 1 of the Convention in that case was not prompted by an isolated incident or attributable to the particular turn of events specific to the facts of that case; it may rather be regarded as having stemmed from a systemic problem that has affected – and remains capable of affecting – a large number of persons. This is evidenced by the fact that, following the Court’s judgment in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above), the Court has already given notice to the respondent Government of 5,000 similar applications, and thousands more are still accumulating on its docket.

39 The Court does not rule out that there may be other evidence in respect of some of the applicants that may demonstrate, alone or cumulatively, their organic link with the FETÖ/PDY based on the continuity, diversity and intensity of their activities and their submission to its hierarchy as required under the Court of Cassation’s case-law (ibid., § 184) and thus secure their conviction as charged. The fact nevertheless remains, and the Government have reaffirmed in their submissions (see paragraph 33 above), that the establishment of the mere use of ByLock would serve, on its own, as conclusive proof of the presence of all of the constituent elements of the crime of membership of an armed terrorist organisation as defined in domestic law, irrespective of the content of the messages exchanged or the identity of the persons with whom the exchanges were made, or whether there was any other evidence in the case file (see Yüksel Yalçınkaya , cited above, §§ 257, 258, 262 and 263). The Court has declared this approach of the domestic courts, which effectively imputed objective liability to the users of ByLock, to be in contravention of the principle of legality safeguarded under Article 7 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 271 and 272), and it sees no reason to find otherwise in the present case.

40 The Court observes, in particular, that while the Government referred to the detailed ByLock findings and evaluation reports obtained in respect of some of the applicants which contained information, inter alia , regarding the decrypted content of their communications over the ByLock application, such content was either not available in the applicants’ files as alleged, or was relied on for the sole purpose of verifying the use of ByLock that had already been established by other means; the domestic courts did not take it into consideration in and of itself to demonstrate an applicant’s organic and hierarchical link to the organisation. On the contrary, the judgments against some of the applicants expressly indicated that it was not necessary to wait for the submission of the decrypted ByLock content into the case file, since the establishment of the use of that application, independent of the nature and content of the use, would suffice for conviction. That finding was indeed consistent with the Court of Cassation’s ruling that while information regarding the content of the communications and the persons with whom those communications were made could be useful for determining a person’s actual position within the structure of the terrorist organisation, it was not necessary for establishing their membership of that organisation within the meaning of Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code (ibid., §§ 160 and 258).

41 In these circumstances, the question whether, but for the decisive weight attributed to the use of ByLock, the evidence against the applicants – including any concrete content retrieved from ByLock messages – would have sufficed for their conviction for the same offence in a reasonably foreseeable manner is precisely for the domestic courts to determine in the light of the principles enunciated in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above), and not for the Court to speculate. The recognition of the domestic courts’ primary responsibility in this regard is not only dictated by the Court’s limited role and capacity as an international tribunal as regards the interpretation of domestic legislation and the assessment of the facts and their legal classification in a particular case (ibid., § 265, and the cases cited therein), but is also in keeping with the fundamental tenets of the principle of subsidiarity that underpins the Convention system. The limitations of the Court’s capacity in this regard are all the more evident given the scale and magnitude of the problem, as evidenced by the sheer number of similar cases pending before it as mentioned in paragraph 38 above, which require resolution at the domestic level.

42 The Court would further note, as concerns specifically the applicants’ allegations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the criminal proceedings conducted separately against each applicant may indeed have shown differences in certain procedural respects, depending mainly on the evidence produced for or against the applicant and the administration of such evidence. However, irrespective of the possible particularities of each file, the domestic courts’ uniform and global approach to the use of ByLock has effectively defined the procedural framework of the criminal proceedings at issue, which have therefore suffered from the main shortcomings identified in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, § 345) as follows:

“In the Court’s view, the domestic courts’ failure to put in place appropriate safeguards vis ‑ à ‑ vis the key piece of evidence at issue to enable the applicants to challenge them effectively, to address the salient issues lying at the core of the case and to provide reasons justifying their decisions was incompatible with the very essence of the applicants’ procedural rights under Article 6 § 1.”

43 The Court stresses in this regard that independent of the nature and extent of the material in the applicants’ criminal case files, the contention that they had used the ByLock application for organisational purposes was not, and did not need to be, based on any specific factual findings made in their regard, such as the discovery of incriminating ByLock content or other information suggesting a hierarchical link. It was rather subsumed under the findings made primarily by the MİT based on the data it had obtained from the ByLock server, and subsequently embraced in the landmark judgments of the Court of Cassation, that ByLock had been used “exclusively” by the members of the FETÖ/PDY (ibid., §§ 338 and 340). Those findings suffered, however, from some “palpable lacunae” as pointed out by the Court in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, § 340), which the domestic courts had failed to address in their judgments pertaining to the applicants or elsewhere and which gave rise to concerns of automaticity in the processing of cases involving the use of ByLock (ibid., § 266). The Court repeats at this juncture that in view of the importance of duly reasoned decisions for the proper administration of justice, the domestic courts’ silence on vital matters that went to the heart of the case raised well-founded misgivings regarding the fairness of the proceedings (ibid., § 341).

44 Nor can the Court discern on the basis of the material before it that the domestic courts provided the applicants with a genuine opportunity to conduct their defence in an effective manner and on an equal footing with the prosecution as required under Article 6 § 1. The Court finds, for the reasons set out in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§ 324-41), that the applicants’ ability to challenge the data regarding their use of ByLock, including as regards the relevance and significance attributed to those data as well as their integrity, and to influence the outcome of the proceedings was considerably diminished. The Court takes note of the Government’s argument that the applicants had available to them all the ByLock reports relied on by the domestic courts in the criminal proceedings. That said, and as clearly indicated in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§ 326 and 327), the availability of those particular reports to the applicants, as important as it might have been, was not determinative of the question whether the applicants’ defence rights vis-à-vis the ByLock evidence were duly respected. The Court reiterates here the critical importance of the ByLock data obtained from the server to the applicants’ cases beyond the question of their personal use of that application (as established in Yüksel Yalçınkaya , cited above, §§ 328 and 333).

45 . Having regard to the foregoing, the Court sees no reason in the present case to depart from the findings made in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above) in the context of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention either. The Court accepts that the difficulties facing Türkiye in the aftermath of the attempted military coup of 15 July 2016 are undoubtedly a contextual factor which must be taken into account in cases such as the present one. Yet, for the reasons explained in detail in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§ 353-55), it has no basis on which to hold that the limitations on the applicants’ fair trial rights at issue were strictly required by the exigencies of the situation within the meaning of Article 15 of the Convention.

46 . In view of the above considerations, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Articles 7 and 6 § 1 of the Convention on the facts of the present case (ibid., §§ 272 and 356).

47 . The Court would emphasise that its conclusion in this regard does not result from an indifference to the specific facts of each application as suggested by the Government (see paragraphs 31 and 32 above), but is rather a direct consequence of the domestic courts’ categorical approach to the use of ByLock, which led to a finding of violations under Articles 7 and 6 § 1 in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§ 272 and 356, respectively).

48 The Court notes that some of the applicants also lodged complaints under other provisions of the Convention, such as Articles 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14, or raised complaints relating to other aspects of Article 6 § 1 (as in Yüksel Yalçınkaya , cited above, §§ 357, 368 and 374). However, having regard to the finding of violations under Articles 7 and 6 § 1 above (see paragraph 46), the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to address the admissibility and merits of any remaining complaints (see, mutatis mutandis , Yüksel Yalçınkaya , cited above, §§ 365, 367 and 373, and Turan and Others v. Turkey , nos. 75805/16 and 426 others, § 98, 23 November 2021).

49 Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

50 . The Court reiterates at the outset that Article 41 of the Convention empowers it to afford the injured party such satisfaction as appears to it to be appropriate (see Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, § 179, 17 May 2016). The Court also reiterates, however, that it is not its role under Article 41 to function akin to a domestic tort mechanism court in apportioning fault and compensatory damages (see Al Jedda v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27021/08, § 114, ECHR 2011). The Court is an international judicial authority contingent on the consent of the States signatory to the Convention, and its principal task is to secure respect for human rights, rather than compensate applicants’ losses minutely and exhaustively. Unlike in national jurisdictions, the emphasis of the Court’s activity is on passing public judgments that set human rights standards across Europe (see, mutatis mutandis , Goncharova and other “Privileged Pensioners” cases v. Russia , nos. 23113/08 and 68 others, § 22, 15 October 2009; Gaglione and Others v. Italy , nos. 45867/07 and 69 others, § 67, 21 December 2010; and Nosov and Others v. Russia , nos. 9117/04 and 10441/04, § 68, 20 February 2014). Accordingly, the awarding of sums of money to applicants by way of just satisfaction is not one of the Court’s main duties but is incidental to its task under Article 19 of the Convention of ensuring the observance by States of their obligations under the Convention (see, for instance, Nagmetov v. Russia [GC], no. 35589/08, § 64, 30 March 2017).

51 . The Court notes in this connection that it enjoys a certain discretion in the exercise of the power conferred by Article 41, as is borne out by the adjective “just” and the phrase “if necessary” (see, for instance, Arvanitaki ‑ Roboti and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 27278/03, § 32, 15 February 2008). The exercise of such discretion encompasses such decisions as to refuse monetary compensation or to reduce the amount that it awards (see Nagmetov , cited above, § 74). The Court’s guiding principle in this regard is equity, which above all involves flexibility and an objective consideration of what is just, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, including not only the position of the applicant but the overall context in which the breach occurred (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 224, ECHR 2009; Al-Jedda , cited above, § 114; and Turan and Others , cited above, §§ 102-04).

52 Turning to the case before it, the Court notes that when giving notice of the present applications, it informed the parties that the approach to just satisfaction would likely be based on the Court’s practice in cases raising repetitive issues, and in particular on the Article 41 indications in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§ 420-32). They were further informed that the applicants would therefore be exempt from the requirement to submit a separate just satisfaction claim (see paragraphs 21 and 23 of the Practice Direction on Just Satisfaction Claims, issued by the President of the Court in accordance with Rule 32 of the Rules of Court on 28 March 2007 and amended on 9 June 2022). Some of the applicants did, nevertheless, request compensation in varying amounts, particularly in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. The Government contested those claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive.

53 The Court considers, for the reasons explained in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§ 412, 424 and 425), that a finding of violations under Articles 7 and 6 § 1 of the Convention can be regarded as sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in the present case. It notes in this regard that the applicants have the possibility under Article 311 § 1 (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have the domestic proceedings reopened following the delivery of the present judgment (ibid., § 411), and that the reopening of the proceedings in accordance with the requirements of the Convention provisions at issue in the present case would in principle constitute the most appropriate form of redress, should they so request. This is without prejudice to any general measures that may be required to prevent or redress other similar violations (ibid., § 412).

54 As for costs and expenses, according to the Court’s case ‑ law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, H.F. and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24384/19 and 44234/20, § 291, 14 September 2022). The Court notes that, in view of its well-established case-law on the legal issues arising in the present case, the domestic courts’ approach to the use of ByLock is capable of giving rise to a large number of violations of the nature found in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above) and now in the present case in respect of 239 applications. The Court is mindful that the present applications were all submitted to it prior to the delivery of the judgment in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above) – that is, prior to the development of its well ‑ established case-law on the legal issues concerned. However, irrespective of when they were submitted, it remains the case that they all related to the same fundamental systemic problem under Articles 7 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, which the applicants complained of in a uniform and standardised manner both before the domestic courts and subsequently before the Court, thus allowing the Court to process them as repetitive applications without further input from the applicants. The applicants were, therefore, not requested to submit written observations or just satisfaction claims in the present case.

55 In these circumstances, and having regard to its practice in cases raising systemic issues that generate a large number of repetitive applications, as well as to the principles established in its case-law, as noted in paragraphs 50 and 51 above, the Court considers that it is not justified to make any awards for costs and expenses in respect of follow-up applications of this type (see, mutatis mutandis , Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom , nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08, §§ 118 and 120, ECHR 2010 (extracts); Firth and Others v. the United Kingdom , nos. 47784/09 and 9 others, § 22, 12 August 2014; Zelenchuk and Tsytsyura v. Ukraine , nos. 846/16 and 1075/16, § 161, 22 May 2018; Alekseyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, § 32, 27 November 2018; and Tingarov and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 42286/21, § 25, 10 October 2023).

56 The Court therefore declines to make any award in respect of costs and expenses in the present case.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT,

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 July 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Hasan Bakırcı Arnfinn Bårdsen Registrar President

In accordance with Article 45 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 74 § 2 of the Rules of Court, the following separate opinions are annexed to this judgment:

(a) Partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion of Judge Arnardóttir;

(b) Partly dissenting opinion of Judge Yüksel.

PARTLY CONCURRING, PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ARNARDÓTTIR

1 The key legal issues raised by the applicants in the present case were examined by the Grand Chamber of the Court in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye ([GC], no. 15669/20, 26 September 2023). As regards the findings of violations of Articles 6 § 1 and 7 of the Convention and just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage, I agree with the approach taken by the majority in the Chamber, which follows the one developed by the Grand Chamber. I note in this respect that even though I would have sided with the dissenters in Yüksel Yalçınkaya on the question of non-pecuniary damage, I find myself compelled to follow the Grand Chamber judgment.

2 This case is marked by the fact that there are currently some 10,000 applications pending against Türkiye that raise the same key legal questions as those dealt with in the Yüksel Yalçınkaya judgment. Consequently, the individual applications at issue were communicated to the Government without requiring written observations. The Court also informed the applicants that the approach to just satisfaction would likely be based on the Court’s practice in cases raising repetitive issues, and in particular on the Article 41 indications in Yüksel Yalçınkaya . I note that the Grand Chamber in Yüksel Yalçınkaya made an award in respect of the costs and expenses incurred by the applicant domestically and before the Court. However, notwithstanding the above indications, given in the communication letters to the applicants, and the findings of the Grand Chamber, the majority in the Chamber decided not to make any award for costs and expenses to the applicants in the present case. I respectfully disagree and was therefore unable to vote with the majority on item 7 of the operative part of the present judgment.

3 I note in this connection that the facts at issue in the case-law cited by the majority in support of their approach were far from comparable to the facts in the present case. In the judgments cited, where the applicants were in fact denied an award for costs and expenses, they had either themselves secured a judgment in their favour by the Court before lodging 51 similar applications subsequently (see Alekseyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, 27 November 2018) or applied to the Court years after the delivery of its leading judgments on the relevant issue, so that the lodging of their applications was considered so “straightforward” that it “did not require legal assistance” (see Firth and Others v. the United Kingdom , nos. 47784/09 and 9 others, § 21, 12 August 2014, and Tingarov and Others v. Bulgaria , no. 42286/21, § 24, 10 October 2023).

4. By comparison, as acknowledged by the majority, the applicants in the present case had lodged their applications before the Grand Chamber delivered its judgment in the Yüksel Yalçınkaya case. As evidenced by the relinquishment of that case to the Grand Chamber, this was clearly not a “straightforward” task at the time. The question whether the applicants pleaded in a uniform and standardised manner domestically and before the Court does not change anything in this respect (compare Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, §§ 229-30, ECHR 2009). In my opinion, therefore, in so far as the applicants sought legal assistance in exhausting domestic remedies and lodging their applications with the Court, a reasonable amount was “necessarily incurred” in legal costs and expenses, which should have been awarded.

5 I acknowledge that the Court may, as a matter of judicial policy, opt to process repetitive cases arising out of the same systemic problem in a simplified and standardised manner to avoid jeopardising the long-term effectiveness of the Convention system and the Court’s key role of passing public judgments that set human rights standards across Europe. I can, therefore, agree with the Court’s approach in the present case of focusing its efforts on the question whether there was a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 7 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts’ categorical approach to the use of the ByLock application, leaving unexamined the other complaints raised (see paragraph 48 of the judgment). I do not see, however, how following the approach to just satisfaction developed in Yüksel Yalçınkaya would have posed any threat of the above kind in the present case, or, for that matter, in any forthcoming follow-up cases lodged with the Court before the delivery of that judgment.

6. I also recognise that the Court is an international judicial authority contingent on the consent of the States signatory to the Convention, and that its principal task is to secure respect for human rights, rather than compensate applicants’ losses minutely and exhaustively. The award of just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention is therefore not one of the Court’s main tasks, but is incidental to its task under Article 19 of ensuring the observance by States of their Convention obligations. In the final analysis, however, acknowledging the limits of the Court’s role and function in this respect should not in my opinion translate – at the direct expense of the injured parties – into a wholesale exemption from any responsibility under Article 41 for Contracting States engaged in human rights violations of the kind and to the extent involved in the present case.

PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE YÜKSEL

Since I maintain the legal views expressed in my dissenting opinions annexed to the judgment in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye ([GC], no. 15669/20, 26 September 2023), upon which the present judgment mainly relies, I respectfully disagree with the finding of a violation of Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention in the present case.

APPENDIX

List of cases:

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of birth Place of residence Nationality

Represented by

1595/20

Demirhan v. Türkiye

21/12/2019

Metin DEMİRHAN 1976 Kütahya Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

2756/20

Parlak v. Türkiye

16/12/2019

İrfan PARLAK 1977 Bursa Turkish

Murat IŞIK

13487/20

Uzun v. Türkiye

20/02/2020

Bekir UZUN 1979 Kayseri Turkish

Özcan AKINCI

14901/20

Kayasaroğlu v. Türkiye

17/03/2020

Ümit KAYASAROĞLU 1987 Ankara Turkish

Neda BUYRUKÇU

16013/20

Çilkoparan v. Türkiye

19/03/2020

Uğur ÇİLKOPARAN 1974 Kayseri Turkish

Özcan AKINCI

17970/20

Şahin v. Türkiye

06/04/2020

Ufuk ŞAHİN 1976 Elazığ Turkish

Mehmet Sıddık KARAGÖZ

19827/20

Alp v. Türkiye

29/04/2020

Atilla ALP 1993 Kahramanmaraş Turkish

Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ

21023/20

Coşkun v. Türkiye

05/05/2020

Ferhat COŞKUN 1981 Kayseri Turkish

Özcan AKINCI

21204/20

Atıcı v. Türkiye

04/05/2020

Nuh Ekrem ATICI 1983 Kastamonu Turkish

İnan UZUN

22218/20

Tetik v. Türkiye

12/05/2020

Şinasi Sedat TETİK 1976 Ankara Turkish

Burak ÇOLAK

22926/20

Eraslan v. Türkiye

09/06/2020

Hasan ERASLAN 1986 Kırşehir Turkish

Nurullah KALKAN

25691/20

İnan v. Türkiye

08/06/2020

İbrahim İNAN 1986 Malatya Turkish

Büşra LEVENT

26609/20

Aygün v. Türkiye

11/06/2020

Abdullah AYGÜN 1967 Çorum Turkish

Tahir EREN

27262/20

Akdemir v. Türkiye

29/06/2020

Halil AKDEMİR 1977 İzmir Turkish

Abdi YAŞAR

28067/20

Demirci v. Türkiye

17/06/2020

İbrahim DEMİRCİ 1980 Kırşehir Turkish

Rukiye COŞGUN

29910/20

Tikiçoğlu v. Türkiye

26/06/2020

Betül TİKİÇOĞLU 1983 Gebze Turkish

Emin TELLİOĞLU

32534/20

Özer v. Türkiye

28/07/2020

Faruk ÖZER 1972 Istanbul Turkish

Salih AKÇA

33274/20

Aydemir v. Türkiye

22/07/2020

Bülent AYDEMİR 1973 İzmir Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

36517/20

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

11/08/2020

Mikail YILMAZ 1988 Kocaeli Turkish

Kamile KILDAN

40008/20

Ünal v. Türkiye

05/09/2020

Şerife ÜNAL 1980 Antalya Turkish

Tarık AVŞAR

41828/20

Engin Özkan v. Türkiye

02/09/2020

Esma ENGİN ÖZKAN 1990 Malatya Turkish

Hüseyin KELEŞ

42385/20

Bayar v. Türkiye

13/07/2020

Levent Serhat BAYAR 1976 Edirne Turkish

Enes Malik KILIÇ

42797/20

Arduç v. Türkiye

16/09/2020

Serdal ARDUÇ 1979 Çorum Turkish

Tahir EREN

43607/20

Güleç v. Türkiye

16/09/2020

Rıdvan GÜLEÇ 1989 Ağrı Turkish

Celal ZUNGULDAK

45774/20

Taşdemir v. Türkiye

30/09/2020

Hüseyin TAŞDEMİR 1984 Balıkesir Turkish

45972/20

Üyer v. Türkiye

28/09/2020

Mesut ÜYER 1986 Adıyaman Turkish

Yasemin ÜYER

49203/20

Tuna v. Türkiye

21/09/2020

Mustafa TUNA 1972 Osmaniye Turkish

Aslı TEKŞAHİN

49577/20

Kesgin v. Türkiye

19/10/2020

İzzet KESGİN 1968 Manisa Turkish

Adem BEDİR

50072/20

Uzun v. Türkiye

06/11/2020

Hasan UZUN 1977 Kastamonu Turkish

Zümrüt ŞAHİN

51919/20

İnci v. Türkiye

12/11/2020

Muhammed Fethullah İNCİ 1997 Balıkesir Turkish

Nuriye Beyza BİLGEN GÜÇ

52069/20

Can v. Türkiye

20/11/2020

Ramazan CAN 1974 Adıyaman Turkish

Şeyho SAYA

53969/20

Hantı v. Türkiye

25/11/2020

Emrah HANTI 1989 İzmir Turkish

Nesrin BAL

55098/20

Aşkın v. Türkiye

18/11/2020

Mehmet AŞKIN 1986 Malatya Turkish

Şeyho SAYA

55239/20

Küçükoğlu v. Türkiye

23/11/2020

Recep KÜÇÜKOĞLU 1975 Kayseri Turkish

Zeynep ACAR KARAYILAN

4660/21

Arslan v. Türkiye

15/01/2021

Mehmet ARSLAN 1971 Malatya Turkish

İzettin DEMİR

5469/21

Kılıç v. Türkiye

06/01/2021

Mustafa KILIÇ 1983 Ankara Turkish

Mehmet Sena KAPU

7190/21

Çakır v. Türkiye

21/01/2021

Bahadır ÇAKIR 1977 Istanbul Turkish

Ahmet EROL

7212/21

Akın v. Türkiye

18/01/2021

Ateş AKIN 1974 Düzce Turkish

İsmail GÜLER

7433/21

Karaca v. Türkiye

18/01/2021

İlyas KARACA 1978 Şanlıurfa Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

9532/21

Karabıyık v. Türkiye

28/01/2021

Durmuş KARABIYIK 1969 Kayseri Turkish

9803/21

Kelam v. Türkiye

25/12/2020

Ali Arslan KELAM 1977 Istanbul Turkish

Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ

10504/21

Yalım v. Türkiye

15/02/2021

Murat YALIM 1973 Kayseri Turkish

Sueda YILMAZ

10553/21

Ergin v. Türkiye

01/02/2021

İsa ERGİN 1986 Adıyaman Turkish

Şeyho SAYA

11080/21

Arslan v. Türkiye

19/02/2021

Bekir ARSLAN 1987 Osmaniye Turkish

Hanifi BAYRI

11491/21

Menek v. Türkiye

09/02/2021

Fatih MENEK 1978 Manisa Turkish

Asım Burak GÜNEŞ

12121/21

Şerifoğlu v. Türkiye

17/02/2021

Yusuf ŞERİFOĞLU 1977 Kayseri Turkish

Gökmen DÖNER

12461/21

Özsarı v. Türkiye

25/02/2021

Hasan ÖZSARI

1980 Kayseri Turkish

Özcan AKINCI

13753/21

Tekin v. Türkiye

26/02/2021

Fatih TEKİN 1987 Van Turkish

İdris ERÇETİN

14138/21

Sarı v. Türkiye

22/01/2021

Serkan SARI 1984 Istanbul Turkish

Emre AKARYILDIZ

15017/21

Özkaya v. Türkiye

11/03/2021

Mahmut Recai ÖZKAYA 1968 Erzurum Turkish

Harun IŞIK

15981/21

Görgöz v. Türkiye

17/03/2021

Alperen GÖRGÖZ 1988 Kahramanmaraş Turkish

Halil KAÇAMAZ

15903/21

Gürsu v. Türkiye

27/01/2021

Emrah GÜRSU 1988 Elazığ Turkish

Abdullah GÜRSU

16221/21

Metin v. Türkiye

17/03/2021

Şenol METİN 1982 Samsun Turkish

Yakup GÖNEN

16981/21

Işık v. Türkiye

12/03/2021

Numan IŞIK 1982 Yozgat Turkish

Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ

17410/21

Aktepe v. Türkiye

19/03/2021

Mustafa AKTEPE 1993 Erzurum Turkish

Celal ZUNGULDAK

17609/21

Akkaş v. Türkiye

26/03/2021

Musa Fatih AKKAŞ 1989 Aksaray Turkish

Fatih DÖNMEZ

17681/21

Yorulmaz v. Türkiye

23/03/2021

Ozan YORULMAZ 1979 Gaziantep Turkish

Bülent AKBAY

18089/21

Taştan v. Türkiye

22/03/2021

Adem TAŞTAN 1973 Manisa Turkish

Asım Burak GÜNEŞ

18215/21

Öztemir v. Türkiye

23/03/2021

Ahmet ÖZTEMİR 1968 Uşak Turkish

Mehmet BAŞYİĞİT

18323/21

Bulut v. Türkiye

26/03/2021

Erkan BULUT 1983 Antalya Turkish

Münip ERMİŞ

18373/21

Sarıkaya v. Türkiye

05/04/2021

Fatih SARIKAYA 1985 Kayseri Turkish

Özcan AKINCI

18522/21

Karcı v. Türkiye

22/03/2021

Hayrullah KARCI 1993 Osmaniye Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

19013/21

Aydoğan v. Türkiye

29/03/2021

Erkan AYDOĞAN 1972 Ankara Turkish

Ebru ALTIOK

19261/21

Menevşe v. Türkiye

02/04/2021

Emrah MENEVŞE 1981 Malatya Turkish

İsa KARGIN

22170/21

Yeşildemir v. Türkiye

15/04/2021

Emrah YEŞİLDEMİR 1986 Kayseri Turkish

22415/21

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

21/04/2021

Muzaffer YILMAZ 1965 İzmir Turkish

Fatima Büşra KAFTAN

22495/21

Yurttaş v. Türkiye

05/04/2021

Abdulkerim YURTTAŞ 1975 Erzincan Turkish

Bülent YÜMİN

23097/21

Çalhan v. Türkiye

29/04/2021

Mert ÇALHAN 1994 Denizli Turkish

İsmail KAPLAN

24015/21

Özdemir v. Türkiye

20/04/2021

Sabahattin ÖZDEMİR 1971 Hatay Turkish

Dudu ERTUNÇ

24564/21

Sülü v. Türkiye

27/04/2021

Hüdai SÜLÜ 1985 Malatya Turkish

İsa KARGIN

26066/21

İlhan v. Türkiye

03/05/2021

Mustafa İLHAN 1985 Manisa Turkish

Gülsüm YİĞİT ÖZ

25844/21

Öztürk v. Türkiye

11/05/2021

Engin ÖZTÜRK 1975 Antalya Turkish

Ahmet KESKİN

26085/21

Sözen v. Türkiye

12/05/2021

Yusuf SÖZEN 1979 Turkish

Ekrem KAYA

27927/21

Büyükergün v. Türkiye

26/04/2021

Kemal BÜYÜKERGÜN 1989 Yozgat Turkish

Serdar BALIK

27988/21

Altuğ v. Türkiye

24/05/2021

Çağatay ALTUĞ 1975 Turkish

Fatma KAYA

28535/21

Avcı v. Türkiye

26/05/2021

Sami AVCI 1986 Turkish

Naim UZUN

28660/21

Bayrak v. Türkiye

24/05/2021

Kaya BAYRAK 1981 Antalya Turkish

Ali AKKURT

28696/21

Çetinkaya v. Türkiye

01/06/2021

Emrah ÇETİNKAYA 1992 Istanbul Turkish

Muhammet Yusuf KULAKSIZ

28783/21

Bekir v. Türkiye

31/05/2021

Bekir FİDAN 1990 Kayseri Turkish

Özcan AKINCI

28876/21

Dayık v. Türkiye

28/05/2021

Mehmet DAYIK 1970 Isparta Turkish

29237/21

Okumuş v. Türkiye

25/05/2021

Ali OKUMUŞ 1977 Eskişehir Turkish

Zehra ARSLAN ALKAÇ

29278/21

Erdoğdu v. Türkiye

02/06/2021

Ahmet ERDOĞDU 1982 Eskişehir Turkish

Ersoy YÜKSEL

29668/21

Ortaç v. Türkiye

24/05/2021

Ahmet ORTAÇ 1985 Hatay Turkish

Dudu ERTUNÇ

29678/21

Berber v. Türkiye

02/06/2021

Mehmet BERBER 1986 Hatay Turkish

Ahmet EROL

30383/21

Erdoğdu v. Türkiye

01/06/2021

Nazire ERDOĞDU 1986 İzmir Turkish

Ersoy YÜKSEL

30393/21

Ece v. Türkiye

21/05/2021

Mustafa ECE 1990 Isparta Turkish

Hacer Perihan DEMİREL

30575/21

Yazıcı v. Türkiye

28/05/2021

Selamet YAZICI 1971 Konya Turkish

31954/21

Berber v. Türkiye

07/06/2021

Nuri BERBER 1984 Uşak Turkish

Müleyke ÇEVİK

32039/21

Subaşı v. Türkiye

11/06/2021

Hesna Gülşah SUBAŞI 1987 Istanbul Turkish

Ömer SUBAŞI

32300/21

Fakı v. Türkiye

09/06/2021

Hikmet FAKI 1981 Orbe Turkish

32453/21

Arı v. Türkiye

17/06/2021

Fatih ARI 1988 Afyonkarahisar Turkish

Tevfik KARTAL

32599/21

Coşkun v. Türkiye

04/06/2021

Mustafa COŞKUN 1977 Antalya Turkish

İshak IŞIK

33042/21

Yıldırım v. Türkiye

04/06/2021

Hakim YILDIRIM 1988 Turkish

Ayşe KAYA

34125/21

Ergüneş v. Türkiye

25/05/2021

Rüştü Harun ERGÜNEŞ 1977 İzmir Turkish

Zeynep CANBELDEK YURTÇİÇEK

34752/21

Turgut v. Türkiye

18/06/2021

Recep TURGUT 1974 Kırıkkale Turkish

Dilara YILMAZ

35375/21

Gonca v. Türkiye

25/06/2021

İbrahim GONCA 1988 Istanbul Turkish

Muhammed YILDIRIM

35446/21

Sebahattin v. Türkiye

04/06/2021

Topal SEBAHATTİN 1980 Ankara Turkish

Adem KAPLAN

35899/21

Bektaş v. Türkiye

05/07/2021

Yavuz BEKTAŞ 1989 Kocaeli Turkish

Hakan KAPLANKAYA

35905/21

Çavuş v. Türkiye

02/07/2021

Harun ÇAVUŞ 1976 Hatay Turkish

Dudu ERTUNÇ

35911/21

Aysin v. Türkiye

06/07/2021

Yusuf AYSİN 1969 Kayseri Turkish

Özcan AKINCI

36092/21

Tozlu v. Türkiye

07/06/2021

Mustafa Ali TOZLU 1975 Manisa Turkish

Arife YÜKSEKDAĞ ALTUNAY

38770/21

Dağdelen v. Türkiye

30/07/2021

Mehmet DAĞDELEN 1974 Afyonkarahisar Turkish

Hamdi YAKUT

38775/21

Saraç v. Türkiye

29/07/2021

Sinan SARAÇ 1972 Bartın Turkish

Merve ALANBAY

39420/21

Özırmak v. Türkiye

03/08/2021

Mehmet ÖZIRMAK 1984 İzmir Turkish

Gürkan ATABAY

39759/21

Akdoğan v. Türkiye

07/07/2021

Ferhat AKDOĞAN 1981 Eskişehir Turkish

Ahmet Serdar GÜNEŞ

40821/21

Bayraktar v. Türkiye

11/08/2021

Hasan BAYRAKTAR 1987 Denizli Turkish

41339/21

Bayrak v. Türkiye

11/08/2021

Meryem BAYRAK 1984 Turkish

Tarık AVŞAR

41351/21

Sözeri v. Türkiye

11/08/2021

Mehmet SÖZERİ 1989 Turkish

Tarık AVŞAR

46544/21

Koçdoğan v. Türkiye

17/09/2021

Doğukan KOÇDOĞAN 1990 Istanbul Turkish

Ömer YILDIRIM

47394/21

Güven v. Türkiye

22/09/2021

Uğur Muharrem GÜVEN 1986 Bilecek Turkish

Nurullah YILDIRIM

48296/21

Gümüş v. Türkiye

27/09/2021

Fatih GÜMÜŞ 1986 Eskişehir Turkish

Fatma HACIPAŞALIOĞLU

48490/21

Özdel v. Türkiye

15/09/2021

Muharrem ÖZDEL 1986 Ankara Turkish

Serdar BALIK

49867/21

Yıldız v. Türkiye

22/04/2021

Emrah YILDIZ 1985 Manisa Turkish

Arife YÜKSEKDAĞ ALTUNAY

50649/21

Kurak v. Türkiye

21/09/2021

Nurevşan KURAK 1994 Malatya Turkish

Gülsüm EKİNCİ

51705/21

Gökçenoğlu v. Türkiye

11/10/2021

Arif GÖKÇENOĞLU 1964 Istanbul Turkish

Kadir AKBAŞ

52155/21

Aksu v. Türkiye

20/10/2021

Süleyman AKSU 1978 Kayseri Turkish

Lalenur ÇELİK

52270/21

Uzun v. Türkiye

18/10/2021

Ali UZUN 1995 Denizli Turkish

Şahbanu ŞAHİN

53022/21

Köklü v. Türkiye

15/10/2021

Soner KÖKLÜ 1977 Giresun Turkish

Dilara YILMAZ

53183/21

Erbağcı v. Türkiye

15/10/2021

Selim ERBAĞCI 1981 Istanbul Turkish

Dilara YILMAZ

55742/21

Kandemir v. Türkiye

15/11/2021

Hakan KANDEMİR 1985 Afyonkarahisar Turkish

Muhammed Sabit CAN

56004/21

Tosun v. Türkiye

15/11/2021

Serkan TOSUN 1982 Kırıkkale Turkish

Ümmühan Rabianur ÖZKAN

56784/21

Karataş v. Türkiye

19/11/2021

Güngör KARATAŞ 1972 Kayseri Turkish

Özcan AKINCI

58141/21

Bilgiç v. Türkiye

26/11/2021

Fatih BİLGİÇ 1979 Kayseri Turkish

Özcan AKINCI

58391/21

Yakut v. Türkiye

26/11/2021

Muhammed Fazıl YAKUT 1994 Kayseri Turkish

Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ

60040/21

Gül v. Türkiye

24/11/2021

Cumali GÜL 1971 Adana Turkish

Sinan TUMLUKOLÇU

60208/21

Okur v. Türkiye

01/12/2021

Nihat OKUR 1980 Elazığ Turkish

Mehmet Sıddık KARAGÖZ

78/22

Bakır v. Türkiye

14/12/2021

İsmail BAKIR 1982 Nigde Turkish

Mustafa ÖZŞAHİN

1259/22

Tanrıöver v. Türkiye

17/12/2021

Recep TANRIÖVER 1990 Istanbul Turkish

Kazım DEMİR

1473/22

Daniş v. Türkiye

28/12/2021

Esin DANİŞ 1972 Antalya Turkish

Osman GÜMÜŞ

2565/22

Demir v. Türkiye

30/12/2021

Muhammed DEMİR 1989 Malatya Turkish

Vedat KAPLAN

3909/22

Alti v. Türkiye

09/12/2021

Yunus ALTİ 1992 Manisa Turkish

Ali ARSLAN

3927/22

İlhan v. Türkiye

15/01/2022

Gülpembe İLHAN 1997 Kocaeli Turkish

Atıl KARADUMAN

3985/22

Şıhanoğlu v. Türkiye

06/01/2022

Hekim Cihan ŞIHANOĞLU 1980 Van Turkish

Lale KULA ÇELİK

4370/22

Yıldırım Pehlivan v. Türkiye

07/01/2022

Funda Fethiye YILDIRIM PEHLİVAN 1976 Denizli Turkish

Atilla ERTEKİN

6394/22

Bilgin v. Türkiye

27/01/2022

Mehmet Mustafa BİLGİN 1971 Hatay Turkish

Dudu ERTUNÇ

6791/22

Kızılgül v. Türkiye

27/01/2022

Bekir KIZILGÜL 1978 Ankara Turkish

Gülhis YÖRÜK

6926/22

Kalyoncu v. Türkiye

10/12/2021

Kudret KALYONCU 1976 Turkish

Dilara YILMAZ

7028/22

Demirci v. Türkiye

30/12/2021

Recep DEMİRCİ 1990 Kocaeli Turkish

Burhan DEMİRCİ

7164/22

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

10/12/2021

Halil İbrahim YILMAZ 1975 Istanbul Turkish

Dilara YILMAZ

8786/22

Bayram v. Türkiye

03/02/2022

Şerif Ahmet BAYRAM 1966 Samsun Turkish

Nilgün ŞAHİN POYRAZ

8937/22

Demirci v. Türkiye

09/02/2022

Hakkı DEMİRCİ 1971 Karabük Turkish

Nihal DEMİRCİ

10866/22

Bulut v. Türkiye

22/02/2022

Emin BULUT 1971 Kutahya Turkish

Serdar ATILGAN

11251/22

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

22/02/2022

Mustafa YILMAZ 1972 Mersin Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

11487/22

Çetindağ v. Türkiye

23/02/2022

Zuhal ÇETİNDAĞ 1990 Gebze Turkish

Osman Fatih AKGÜL

11792/22

Taş Cava v. Türkiye

25/02/2022

Merve TAŞ CAVA 1994 Istanbul Turkish

İbrahim AKSOY

13526/22

Bahtiyar v. Türkiye

24/02/2022

Murat BAHTİYAR 1977 Ankara Turkish

Bülent AKBAY

14286/22

Akbulut v. Türkiye

09/03/2022

Murat AKBULUT 1978 Kütahya Turkish

Muhammed ÇAPRAK

16496/22

Demirbilek v. Türkiye

23/03/2022

Murat DEMİRBİLEK 1974 Denizli Turkish

Tarık AVŞAR

16607/22

Ürek v. Türkiye

29/03/2022

Ramazan ÜREK 1986 Antalya Turkish

Muhammet DEMİREL

16691/22

Avcı v. Türkiye

29/03/2022

Zeliha AVCI 1992 Manisa Turkish

Eyyüp SAĞIR

16895/22

Karol v. Türkiye

18/03/2022

Ramazan KAROL 1983 Manisa Turkish

Betül Nur YÜKSEL

17269/22

Turanlı v. Türkiye

16/03/2022

Sinan TURANLI 1974 Manisa Turkish

Asım Burak GÜNEŞ

17609/22

Can v. Türkiye

21/03/2022

Bahadır CAN 1975 Eskişehir Turkish

Olcay DÜNDAR

17960/22

Çiçek v. Türkiye

29/03/2022

Müslüm ÇİÇEK 1975 Istanbul Turkish

Hacer ŞAHİN

17974/22

Ünsal v. Türkiye

30/03/2022

Mehmet ÜNSAL 1979 Samsun Turkish

Ayşenur ÖZDEMİR

18081/22

Erdem v. Türkiye

06/04/2022

Ahmet Turan ERDEM 1987 Sivas Turkish

Şeyma YÜRÜK

18161/22

Levent v. Türkiye

05/04/2022

Ahmet LEVENT 1986 Niğde Turkish

Ersan CANSEVER

18247/22

Üveyik v. Türkiye

29/03/2022

Zekeriya ÜVEYİK 1976 Niğde Turkish

Adem ÇEÇEN

18861/22

Özköklü v. Türkiye

08/04/2022

Ramazan ÖZKÖKLÜ 1980 Kocaeli Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

18984/22

Özcan v. Türkiye

11/04/2022

Musa ÖZCAN 1980 Turkish

Tarık AVŞAR

20060/22

Madanoğlu v. Türkiye

15/04/2022

Mehmet MADANOĞLU 1958 Istanbul Turkish

Salim DİNÇ

20157/22

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

19/04/2022

Ahmet YILMAZ 1990 Balıkesir Turkish

Nurullah YILDIRIM

20681/22

Danışmaz v. Türkiye

19/04/2022

Hüseyin DANIŞMAZ 1976 Samsun Turkish

Ekrem KAYA

21157/22

Eğilmez v. Türkiye

18/04/2022

Selim Şakir EĞİLMEZ 1975 Istanbul Turkish

Erdem ALP

21581/22

Ayan v. Türkiye

18/04/2022

Özer AYAN 1978 Trabzon Turkish

Yavuz YILDIZ

21587/22

Ertaş v. Türkiye

18/04/2022

Nurefşan ERTAŞ 1995 Istanbul Turkish

Erdem ALP

21796/22

Ergat v. Türkiye

30/04/2022

Maksut ERGAT 1974 İzmir Turkish

Eyyüp SAĞIR

22923/22

Güleç v. Türkiye

25/04/2022

Mehmet GÜLEÇ 1987 Hatay Turkish

Bülent AKBAY

22927/22

Akış v. Türkiye

22/04/2022

İbrahim Ethem AKIŞ 1979 İzmir Turkish

Hafize BENLİ

23228/22

Karamustafaoğlu v. Türkiye

21/04/2022

Murat KARAMUSTAFAOĞLU 1986 Trabzon Turkish

Veysel MALKOÇ

24294/22

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

20/04/2022

Salih YILMAZ 1969 Düzce Turkish

Özgür METİN

24960/22

Sağlam v. Türkiye

09/05/2022

Mustafa SAĞLAM 1983 Elazığ Turkish

Mehmet Sıddık KARAGÖZ

25870/22

Koç v. Türkiye

22/04/2022

Yaşar KOÇ 1974 Istanbul Turkish

Dilara YILMAZ

25883/22

Karaman v. Türkiye

22/04/2022

Mustafa KARAMAN 1975 Istanbul Turkish

Dilara YILMAZ

25889/22

Erdoğan v. Türkiye

22/04/2022

Aysun ERDOĞAN 1978 Istanbul Turkish

Dilara YILMAZ

26334/22

Yavuz v. Türkiye

22/04/2022

Zeynep YAVUZ 1989 Istanbul Turkish

Dilara YILMAZ

26341/22

Özcan v. Türkiye

22/04/2022

Naci ÖZCAN 1974 Istanbul Turkish

Dilara YILMAZ

27235/22

Çam v. Türkiye

25/05/2022

Muhammet ÇAM 1988 Kahramanmaraş Turkish

Safiyye SABUNCU KARAKURT

27363/22

Dinç v. Türkiye

27/05/2022

Ali Orhan DİNÇ 1966 Kayseri Turkish

Özcan AKINCI

28038/22

Bilgin v. Türkiye

06/06/2022

İbrahim BİLGİN 1994 Ankara Turkish

Zeynep Büşra (YAVUZ) BİLGİN

29639/22

Temel v. Türkiye

26/05/2022

Muhammed Zeki TEMEL 1978 Hessen Turkish

Fatih TOPAL

30735/22

Gümüş v. Türkiye

01/06/2022

Ercan GÜMÜŞ 1974 Elazığ Turkish

Lale KULA ÇELİK

31405/22

Yazğan v. Türkiye

20/06/2022

Mehmet YAZĞAN 1977 Kayseri Turkish

Özcan AKINCI

31895/22

Öztopuz v. Türkiye

24/06/2022

Hakan ÖZTOPUZ 1974 Sinop Turkish

Uğur ALTUN

33022/22

Doğan v. Türkiye

28/06/2022

Muhammed DOĞAN 1980 Kayseri Turkish

Özcan AKINCI

33639/22

Çetin v. Türkiye

28/06/2022

Sinan ÇETİN 1974 Kayseri Turkish

Özcan AKINCI

33993/22

Aslan v. Türkiye

28/06/2022

Mehmet ASLAN 1984 Şanlıurfa Turkish

Hatice ÖZ

35582/22

Can v. Türkiye

06/07/2022

Şükrü CAN 1971 Istanbul Turkish

Büşra Nur KALE EKİNCİ

37255/22

Tosuner v. Türkiye

03/06/2022

Ebru TOSUNER 1988 Kayseri Turkish

Ömer DELİGEZER

37272/22

Çavga v. Türkiye

28/06/2022

Semiha ÇAVGA 1989 Samsun Turkish

Zeliha DERVİŞOĞLU

37728/22

Aksoy v. Türkiye

25/07/2022

Emre AKSOY 1979 Ankara Turkish

Bülent Teoman ÖZKAN

37772/22

Poyraz v. Türkiye

19/07/2022

Mustafa POYRAZ 1971 Manisa Turkish

Çağrı Seyfettin GÖKDEMİR

38286/22

Oran v. Türkiye

08/07/2022

Ökkeş ORAN 1988 Osmaniye Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

39114/22

Aslan v. Türkiye

22/07/2022

Emine Nur ASLAN 1992 Turkish

Tahir EREN

39518/22

Koç v. Türkiye

26/07/2022

Ali KOÇ 1979 Bursa Turkish

Tufan YILMAZ

40675/22

Bulut v. Türkiye

25/07/2022

Cafer BULUT 1972 Kahramanmaraş Turkish

Fatma YILMAZ

40707/22

Yiğit v. Türkiye

25/07/2022

İbrahim YİĞİT 1978 Çorum Turkish

Serdar BALIK

41233/22

Aydın v. Türkiye

05/08/2022

Selim AYDIN 1973 Aksaray Turkish

Susam MERDAN

41563/22

Topuz v. Türkiye

09/08/2022

Ayşegül TOPUZ 1990 Turkish

Tarık AVŞAR

41605/22

Obuz v. Türkiye

05/08/2022

Yunus Emre OBUZ 1992 Çanakkale Turkish

Murat YILMAZ

41735/22

İslamoğlu v. Türkiye

09/08/2022

Abdullah İSLAMOĞLU 1982 Denizli Turkish

Tarık AVŞAR

42917/22

Doğan v. Türkiye

12/08/2022

Melek DOĞAN 1977 Mersin Turkish

Erşan CANSEVEN

43181/22

Ülger v. Türkiye

12/08/2022

Fatih ÜLGER 1984 Kahramanmaraş Turkish

Fatma YILMAZ

43749/22

Seba v. Türkiye

31/08/2022

Rıdvan SEBA 1993 Istanbul Turkish

Yavuz KOLBOYU

43777/22

Karaca v. Türkiye

31/08/2022

Kemal KARACA 1974 Artvin Turkish

Safiye YILMAZ

43886/22

Delice v. Türkiye

29/08/2022

Ali DELİCE 1972 Istanbul Turkish

Coşkun KARADENİZ

44753/22

Korkmaz v. Türkiye

05/09/2022

Esma KORKMAZ 1983 Bönen Turkish

İlyas KORKMAZ

44934/22

Akyüz v. Türkiye

08/09/2022

Erol AKYÜZ 1981 Diyarbakır Turkish

Hamdullah ACAR

45699/22

Dönmez v. Türkiye

21/09/2022

Numan DÖNMEZ 1974 Adana Turkish

Ali KIZILTEPE

45912/22

Çetin v. Türkiye

23/09/2022

Süleyman ÇETİN 1988 Bilecik Turkish

Nurullah YILDIRIM

46483/22

Altay v. Türkiye

22/09/2022

Ali ALTAY 1979 Bilecik Turkish

Nurullah YILDIRIM

47426/22

Aktamış v. Türkiye

30/09/2022

Mehmet Akif AKTAMIŞ 1969 Adana Turkish

Mustafa Burak AKTAMIŞ

47895/22

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

28/09/2022

Nihat YILMAZ 1973 Bolu Turkish

Fatma ÖZTÜRK

48075/22

Erdoğmuş v. Türkiye

29/09/2022

Murat ERDOĞMUŞ 1973 Bursa Turkish

Ahmet Can DEMİRCİ

48831/22

Arslan v. Türkiye

05/10/2022

Yasemin ARSLAN 1989 Antalya Turkish

Muhammet DEMİREL

49106/22

Yağız v. Türkiye

07/10/2022

Reha YAĞIZ 1986 Pliening Turkish

Ali YILDIZ

49269/22

Serter v. Türkiye

14/10/2022

Bilal SERTER 1981 Niğde Turkish

Özcan AKINCI

49300/22

Karakulah v. Türkiye

14/10/2022

Cafer KARAKULAH 1971 Kayseri Turkish

Özcan AKINCI

49547/22

Akar v. Türkiye

15/08/2022

Fatih AKAR 1979 Istanbul Turkish

Emre AKARYILDIZ

50309/22

Gürpınar v. Türkiye

19/10/2022

Yakup GÜRPINAR 1983 Edirne Turkish

Burhan DEMİRCİ

50314/22

İnci v. Türkiye

19/10/2022

İbrahim İNCİ 1973 Istanbul Turkish

Elmas YUNUS

51110/22

Özmen v. Türkiye

24/10/2022

Münevver ÖZMEN 1979 Antalya Turkish

Zaliha VARLI

51552/22

Akar v. Türkiye

18/10/2022

Mustafa AKAR 1971 Erzincan Turkish

Uzun MEHMET BURAK

52302/22

Aslan v. Türkiye

02/11/2022

Alaattin ASLAN 1983 Antalya Turkish

Zaliha VARLI

52528/22

Artun v. Türkiye

12/10/2022

Ramazan ARTUN 1973 Kocaeli Turkish

Murat YILMAZ

54095/22

Özdemir v. Türkiye

16/11/2022

Özdemir ÖZDEMİR 1983 Turkish

Tarık AVŞAR

54679/22

Demircioğlu v. Türkiye

19/11/2022

Elif DEMİRCİOĞLU 1988 Kastamonu Turkish

Esra ACAR

54816/22

Yüzden v. Türkiye

16/11/2022

Yusuf YÜZDEN 1982 Bursa Turkish

Adem DÜZGÜN

54961/22

Turan v. Türkiye

17/11/2022

Hüseyin Alptuğ TURAN 1982 Trabzon Turkish

55590/22

Arslan v. Türkiye

30/11/2022

Hüseyin ARSLAN 1970 Denizli Turkish

Emin Bahadır ARSLAN

195/23

Yılmaz v. Türkiye

13/12/2022

Ömür Zehra YILMAZ 1987 Malatya Turkish

İrfan YILMAZ

2452/23

Güneş v. Türkiye

29/12/2022

Ahmet Yaşar GÜNEŞ 1977 Bilecik Turkish

Nurullah YILDIRIM

3200/23

Güder v. Türkiye

29/12/2022

İcri GÜDER 1974 Sakarya Turkish

Bekir DÖNMEZ

5169/23

Kızılateş v. Türkiye

30/12/2022

Cumhur KIZILATEŞ 1974 Antalya Turkish

Süeda KADIOĞLU

8453/23

Danışmaz v. Türkiye

01/02/2023

Ramazan DANIŞMAZ 1972 Samsun Turkish

İnan UZUN

8956/23

Gülseven v. Türkiye

08/02/2023

Fatih GÜLSEVEN 1979 Denizli Turkish

Hayrettin ARABACI

12625/23

Uslu v. Türkiye

10/02/2023

Hasan USLU 1976 Ankara Turkish

Hasan TOK

13515/23

Keyik v. Türkiye

09/03/2023

Ali İhsan KEYİK 1957 Denizli Turkish

Tarık AVŞAR

21046/23

Gedikci v. Türkiye

10/05/2023

Süleyman GEDİKCİ 1976 Konya Turkish

Burhan DEMİRCİ