Aybek and Others v. Türki̇Ye
Inadmissible
Berörda konventionsartiklar
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 32365/20 Mehmet Ali AYBEK against Türkiye and 20 other applications (see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 June 2026 as a Committee composed of:
Jovan Ilievski , President , Péter Paczolay, Juha Lavapuro , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having regard to:
the applications 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 the individuals listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 7 of the Convention (no punishment without law) to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their then Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, former Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1 The applications mainly concern the applicants’ conviction 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 “FETÖ/PDY”), considered by the authorities to be behind the coup attempt that took place in Türkiye on 15 July 2016.
2 According to information submitted by the applicants, they were convicted on the basis of, inter alia , their alleged use of the encrypted messaging application ByLock, which the domestic courts held was used exclusively by FETÖ/PDY members and which in itself constituted sufficient evidence to prove that a person had been part of the FETÖ/PDY’s hierarchical structure (see, for the broader domestic background and context in respect of the present applications, Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye [GC], no. 15669/20, §§ 10-22 and 108-40, 26 September 2023).
3 Following appeal proceedings, the applicants made use of a final domestic remedy, namely the Constitutional Court’s individual application mechanism (see Uzun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10755/13, §§ 52-71, 30 April 2013), in respect of their complaints concerning their conviction. The Constitutional Court dismissed their individual applications, and its decisions were served on the applicants, or their representatives in case they were represented, on various dates (see the appended table below).
4 The applicants mainly complained that their trial and conviction for membership of the FETÖ/PDY had violated the principle of no punishment without law under Article 7 of the Convention and/or the right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
5 Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
6 In their observations submitted to the Court, the Government argued that some of the applicants had failed to comply with the time-limit referred to in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The Court further reiterates that the time ‑ limit for lodging applications provided under Article 35 § 1 is a public policy rule and that, consequently, it has jurisdiction to apply it of its own motion, even where the Government have not raised that objection (see Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, §29, 29 June 2012).
7 . For the general principles established in its case-law as regards the application of the time-limit rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court refers to Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portuga l ([GC], no. 56080/13, §§ 128-32, 19 December 2017, with further references).
8 . The Court recalls that, during the outbreak of the global COVID ‑ 19 pandemic, it adjusted the method of calculation of the six-month rule applicable at the material time to reflect the realities of that crisis, on the basis of the exceptional measures announced by the President of the Court (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, § 49, 1 March 2022). Accordingly, it ruled that if a calendar six-month period had either begun to run or was due to expire during the time frame specified in the decisions of the President of the Court (from 16 March to 15 June 2020 inclusive), the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 Convention would exceptionally be considered suspended for a total of three calendar months (ibid., §§ 52-59; see also Masse v. France (dec.), no. 47506/20, §§ 29-31, 25 March 2025).
9 . The Court further notes that the time-limit set out in Article 35 § 1 for lodging applications was subsequently reduced from six months to four months by Article 4 of Protocol No. 15 (“the Protocol”). The new time ‑ limit entered into force on 1 February 2022, following a transition period of six months after the date of entry into force of the Protocol on 1 August 2021 (see Orhan v. Türkiye (dec.), no. 38358/22, §§ 24-44, 6 December 2022).
10 . The Court observes that the applicants in the present case lodged their complaints with the Court on various dates between 27 May 2020 and 7 December 2022. These dates of introduction fell outside the six-month time-limit or, in respect of the applications in which the final decision within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 was taken after 31 January 2022 (see paragraph 9 above), the four-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, as amended, even when taking into account the exceptional measures adopted in response to the outbreak of the global pandemic (see paragraph 8 above; see also the appended table for the dates of notification of the Constitutional Court’s final decisions delivered in respect of the applicants and the specific time-limit not complied with).
11 It follows that the present applications were lodged out of time and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 25 June 2026.
Dorothee von Arnim Jovan Ilievski Deputy Registrar President
Appendix
List of cases:
No.
Application no.
Case name
Notification of the Constitutional Court’s decision
Lodged on
Time-limit not complied with
Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality
Represented by
1.
32365/20
Aybek v. Türkiye
30/5/2019
27/05/2020
Six-month time-limit (see § 7)
Mehmet Ali AYBEK 1970 Kütahya Turkish
Serda AYBEK
2.
32506/20
Topaloğlu v. Türkiye
14/01/2020
29/07/2020
Six-month time-limit (see § 8)
Mahmut TOPALOĞLU 1979 Kocaeli Turkish
Mehmet ÇAVDAR
3.
32701/20
Yulcu v. Türkiye
23/12/2019
21/07/2020
Six-month time-limit (see § 8)
Cesim YULCU 1991 Ağrı Turkish
M. Sani BİNGÖLBALLI
4.
36249/20
Toprak v. Türkiye
23/12/2019
06/08/2020
Six-month time-limit (see § 8)
Recep TOPRAK 1975 Muğla Turkish
Sinan DAĞ
5.
38911/20
Arman v. Türkiye
06/01/2020
31/08/2020
Six-month time-limit (see § 8)
Abdi ARMAN 1983 Kütahya Turkish
Hamdi ZONTUR
6.
40676/20
Eğilmez v. Türkiye
14/01/2020
07/09/2020
Six-month time-limit (see § 8)
İdris EĞİLMEZ 1971 Antalya Turkish
7.
41980/20
Kul v. Türkiye
11/01/2020
04/09/2020
Six-month time-limit (see § 8)
Şenol KUL 1977 Kocaeli Turkish
Enes ARDA
8.
43197/20
Yörük v. Türkiye
12/02/2020
24/09/2020
Six-month time-limit (see § 8)
Hasan YÖRÜK 1973 Bursa Turkish
Yakup GÖNEN
9.
43451/20
Söyler v. Türkiye
23/12/2019
04/09/2020
Six-month time-limit (see § 8)
Murat Cem SÖYLER 1974 Istanbul Turkish
Eslem Feyza YAPRAK
10.
45446/20
Saygın v. Türkiye
23/01/2020
03/09/2020
Six-month time-limit (see § 8)
Üzeyir SAYGIN 1974 Kayseri Turkish
11.
47644/20
Karatay v. Türkiye
02/02/2020
20/10/2020
Six-month time-limit (see § 8)
Mustafa KARATAY 1971 Trabzon Turkish
Bilal AKBIYIK
12.
48924/20
Kaya v. Türkiye
10/02/2020
27/10/2020
Six-month time-limit (see § 8)
Recep KAYA 1981 Karabük Turkish
Tayfun ÖZSOY
13.
50829/20
Yetiş v. Türkiye
01/02/2020
03/10/2020
Six-month time-limit (see § 8)
Mehmet YETİŞ 1979 Niğde Turkish
Fuat ÖZGÜL
14.
51220/20
Bulut v. Türkiye
03/03/2020
30/10/2020
Six-month time-limit (see § 8)
Ömer BULUT 1986 Erzurum Turkish
Muhammed YILDIRIM
15.
239/21
Karaarslan v. Türkiye
04/03/2020
27/11/2020
Six-month time-limit (see § 8)
Ali KARAARSLAN 1981 Kütahya Turkish
Süleyman KARTAL
16.
3058/21
Araz v. Türkiye
05/02/2020
14/12/2020
Six-month time-limit (see § 8)
Mehmet Emin ARAZ 1979 Van Turkish
Cihan MACİT
17.
6463/21
Pehlivan v. Türkiye
20/12/2019
13/01/2021
Six-month time-limit (see §§ 7-8)
Orhan PEHLİVAN 1975 Samsun Turkish
Osman MEŞE
18.
12992/21
Güneş v. Türkiye
21/06/2020
18/02/2021
Six-month time-limit (see § 7)
Muzaffer GÜNEŞ 1975 Ordu Turkish
Muhammed Mustafa GÜRSOY
19.
15493/21
Cingöz v. Türkiye
12/09/2020
15/03/2021
Six-month time-limit (see § 7)
Mustafa CİNGÖZ 1971 Kayseri Turkish
Metin POLAT
20.
17166/22
Koç v. Türkiye
17/11/2020
24/03/2022
Six-month time-limit (see § 7)
İbrahim KOÇ 1976 Kütahya Turkish
Mehmet GENİŞLER
21.
10/23
Baş v. Türkiye
03/08/2022
07/12/2022
Four-month time-limit (see §§ 9-10)
Sabahattin BAŞ 1952 Kütahya Turkish
Hatice BAŞ