CASE OF SEVINÇ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE (European Court of Human Rights) 63634/16 and 134 others

Last Updated on October 18, 2022 by LawEuro

The present applications mainly concern the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants in the aftermath of the coup attempt of 15 July2016, on suspicion of their membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation / Parallel State Structure”, which was considered by the authorities to be behind the coup attempt.

---

SECOND SECTION
CASE OF SEVİNÇ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
(Applications nos. 63634/16 and 134 others see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 October 2022

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

In the case of Sevinç and Others v. Türkiye,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Jovan Ilievski,
Diana Sârcu, 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 one hundred and thirty-five Turkish nationals, whose relevant details are listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the lawfulness and length of pre-trial detention and the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of an offence, the alleged lack of prompt information of the reasons for the applicants’ arrest and of any charge against them, as well as the ineffectiveness of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention, the absence of a remedy to obtain compensation and the lawfulness of the searches conducted by the authorities to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;

the parties’ observations;

the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;

Having deliberated in private on 27 September 2022,

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 July2016, on suspicion of their membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation / Parallel State Structure” (Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması, hereinafter referred to as “FETÖ/PDY”), which was considered by the authorities to be behind the coup attempt (further information regarding the events that unfolded after the coup attempt, including the details of the state of emergency declared by the respondent Government and the ensuing notice of derogation given to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, as well as the legislative developments that followed the declaration of the state of emergency, may be found in the case of Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, §§ 6‑14 and §§ 109-10, 3 March 2020). All of the applicants were serving as ordinary judges or prosecutors at different types and/or levels of court, subject to Law no. 2802 on judges and prosecutors (“Law no. 2802”) (see Baş, cited above, §§ 66-67), at the material time.

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

3. Following their arrest and detention in police custody on the orders of the regional and provincial prosecutors’ offices, the applicants were placed in pre-trial detention on various dates, mainly on suspicion of membership of the FETÖ/PDY organisation, an offence punishable under Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see Baş, cited above, § 58). The pre-trial detention decisions were issued by the magistrates’ courts located at the respective places of the applicants’ arrest. In the majority of the decisions, it was noted specifically that the criminal investigation was governed by the ordinary rules, given that the offence of which the suspects were accused, namely membership of an armed terrorist organisation, was a “continuing offence” and that there was a case of discovery in flagrante delicto governed by the relevant provisions of domestic law (see Baş, cited above, § 67).

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

5. In the meantime, the applicants lodged individual applications with the Constitutional Court in respect of, inter alia, the alleged violation of their right to liberty and security on various accounts, including the alleged unlawfulness of their detention by reason of the disregard of the procedural safeguards afforded to members of the judiciary in domestic law, all of which were declared inadmissible (compare also Turan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 75805/16 and 426 others, §§ 26-27, 23 November 2021).

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

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

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

7. The applicants complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that they had been placed in pre-trial detention in breach of the domestic laws governing the arrest and pre-trial detention of the members of the judiciary and disputed that there had been a case of discovery in flagrante delicto for the purposes of section 94 of Law no. 2802 (see Baş, cited above, § 67).

8. The Government invited the Court to declare this complaint inadmissible for the reasons that they had raised in the case of Turan and Others (cited above, § 55). They also added that one of the applicants (application no. 38986/19) had been granted some compensation by the Constitutional Court, which had found that the said applicant’s detention had not been based on a reasonable suspicion. The Court notes that similar objections raised by the Government have already been dismissed in the case of Turan and Others (cited above, §§ 57-64) and sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present case. It notes in particular the absence of any finding in respect of the applicant in application no. 38986/19 constituting an acknowledgement that his placement in pre-trial detention had not been in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and thereby removing his victim status in that regard. The Court therefore considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

9. The Court further considers, having regard to its findings in the cases of Baş and Turan and Others (both cited above, §§ 143-58 and §§ 79-92 respectively), that the pre-trial detention of the applicants had not taken place in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and that, therefore, there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the unlawfulness of the applicants’ initial pre‑trial detention. Moreover, while the applicants were detained a short time after the coup attempt – that is, the event that prompted the declaration of the state of emergency and the notice of derogation by Türkiye –, 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 Baş, cited above, §§ 115-16 and §§ 159‑62, and Turan and Others, cited above, § 91).

III. OTHER COMPLAINTS

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

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

11. The applicants requested compensation in varying amounts in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. Most of the applicants also claimed pecuniary damage, corresponding mainly to their loss of earnings resulting from their dismissal, as well as the legal costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.

12. The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive.

13. For the reasons put forth in Turan and Others (cited above, §§ 102‑07), the Court rejects any claims for pecuniary damage and awards each of the applicants 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,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Declares the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lawfulness of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention admissible;

3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of the initial pre-trial detention of the applicants;

4. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ remaining complaints under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention;

5. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, 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;

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Dorothee von Arnim                Branko Lubarda
Deputy Registrar                         President

_________

APPENDIX

List of cases:

No.	Application no.	Case name	Lodged on	Applicant Date of Birth	Represented by
1.	63634/16	Sevinç v. Türkiye	27/10/2016	Şamil SEVİNÇ 05/01/1973
2.	14439/17	Özalp v. Türkiye	12/01/2017	Faruk ÖZALP 10/11/1984	Mesut BAŞOL
3.	14942/17	Ulak v. Türkiye	05/01/2017	Mustafa Yener ULAK 11/05/1969
4.	14976/17	Altun v. Türkiye	11/01/2017	Mustafa ALTUN 29/01/1979	İrem TATLIDEDE
5.	34032/17	Sarı v. Türkiye	10/03/2017	Mehmet SARI 01/01/1971	İrem TATLIDEDE
6.	40177/17	Bekri v. Türkiye	16/01/2017	Muhammet Nedim BEKRİ 05/10/1979	Tülin BEKRİ
7.	41766/17	Çakır v. Türkiye	12/05/2017	Abdulkadir ÇAKIR 20/03/1971	Zehra KILIÇ
8.	41864/17	Üşümez v. Türkiye	28/04/2017	İzzettin ÜŞÜMEZ 30/03/1974	Şefik KARAKIŞ
9.	43739/17	Acu v. Türkiye	04/04/2017	Nedim ACU 01/07/1974	İrem TATLIDEDE
10.	45034/17	Balık v. Türkiye	05/05/2017	İbrahim BALIK 02/07/1973	Doğan Güney YILMAZ
11.	48010/17	Çakmak v. Türkiye	23/06/2017	Seyfullah ÇAKMAK 22/03/1971	Gökhan DİRİCAN
12.	49244/17	Uslu v. Türkiye	29/03/2017	Nihal USLU 02/07/1969	Mehmet ÖNCÜ
13.	58673/17	Okur v. Türkiye	20/07/2017	Orhan Yavuz OKUR 14/02/1989
14.	62627/17	Karaduman v. Türkiye	15/06/2017	Mehmet KARADUMAN 01/10/1991	Sevgi KOÇER VAROL
15.	62735/17	Dede v. Türkiye	24/01/2017	Hakan DEDE 12/06/1968	Elkan ALBAYRAK
16.	63197/17	Binici v. Türkiye	26/05/2017	Burhan BİNİCİ 26/01/1973	Büşra BİNİCİ
17.	63650/17	Kandemir v. Türkiye	15/02/2017	Osman KANDEMİR 07/02/1974	Ahmet Can DEMİRCİ
18.	66402/17	Babayiğit v. Türkiye	16/01/2017	Mustafa BABAYİĞİT 01/10/1978	Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
19.	67340/17	Ünal v. Türkiye	17/08/2017	Kamber ÜNAL 01/12/1968
20.	68205/17	Kayın v. Türkiye	13/01/2017	Mustafa KAYIN 24/12/1968	M. Aytaç POYRAZ
21.	69728/17	Mercimek v. Türkiye	03/08/2017	Hamza MERCİMEK 20/11/1976	Memnune AKYILDIZ
22.	79642/17	Kartal v. Türkiye	27/10/2017	Kadir KARTAL 29/07/1981
23.	80957/17	Şen v. Türkiye	06/11/2017	Yavuz ŞEN 03/03/1979	Elif Nurbanu OR
24.	6919/18	Çelik v. Türkiye	19/01/2018	Adem ÇELİK 29/09/1980	Muhammed ÇELİK
25.	16155/18	Özkan v. Türkiye	14/03/2018	Ercan ÖZKAN 04/04/1976	Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
26.	23455/18	Demir v. Türkiye	30/04/2018	İbrahim DEMİR 24/03/1974
27.	25201/18	Günal v. Türkiye	26/05/2018	Erol GÜNAL 29/08/1978	Muhammet Talha BOL
28.	29932/18	Yıldız v. Türkiye	29/05/2018	Serkan YILDIZ 15/10/1983
29.	35634/18	Demir v. Türkiye	13/07/2018	İlhami DEMİR 15/06/1983	Cihat ÇITIR
30.	43696/18	İ.Ö. v. Türkiye	11/09/2018	İ.Ö. 05/05/1988	Asım Burak GÜNEŞ
31.	11854/19	Bektaş v. Türkiye	04/02/2019	Hakan BEKTAŞ 01/03/1986	İlhan YILDIZ
32.	13857/19	Sayılgan v. Türkiye	08/03/2019	Cengiz SAYILGAN 01/01/1969	Menekşe Merve TEKTEN
33.	14274/19	Şayık v. Türkiye	28/02/2019	Hüsnü Sidal ŞAYIK 19/06/1978
34.	15881/19	Akbaba v. Türkiye	07/03/2019	İlhami AKBABA 21/08/1985	Mehmet ÖNCÜ
35.	15995/19	Uzun v. Türkiye	03/01/2019	Selim UZUN 28/11/1982	Tufan YILMAZ
36.	16213/19	Dağlı v. Türkiye	21/11/2018	Neslihan DAĞLI 04/06/1981
37.	16424/19	Yediyıldız v. Türkiye	28/02/2019	Ali Cihan YEDİYILDIZ 25/11/1983	Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
38.	17501/19	Benli v. Türkiye	11/03/2019	Salih BENLİ 10/10/1976	Çağrı Seyfettin GÖKDEMİR
39.	17527/19	Altunbey v. Türkiye	18/03/2019	Sameddin ALTUNBEY 01/07/1980
40.	17548/19	Kesim v. Türkiye	13/03/2019	Yahya KESİM 20/11/1965
41.	17780/19	Kaya v. Türkiye	18/03/2019	Salih KAYA 10/04/1967	Barış BAYHAN
42.	18787/19	Canoğlu v. Türkiye	19/03/2019	Bülent CANOĞLU 01/03/1974	Vedi YÜCETAŞ
43.	19743/19	A.B. v. Türkiye	29/03/2019	A.B. 07/01/1984	Cihat ÇITIR
44.	20067/19	Uzun v. Türkiye	30/03/2019	Mehmet Burak UZUN 24/06/1981
45.	20293/19	Acar v. Türkiye	29/03/2019	Metin ACAR 02/03/1981	Serdar Numan BAŞARAN
46.	20749/19	Dalkılıç v. Türkiye	01/04/2019	Süleyman DALKILIÇ 06/11/1989	Meryem YAŞAR
47.	21017/19	Kaya v. Türkiye	02/04/2019	Ahmet KAYA 24/07/1966	Afra Ece KAYA
48.	21248/19	Gürpınar v. Türkiye	05/04/2019	Mehmet Hakkı GÜRPINAR 18/12/1972	İlyas TEKİN
49.	21260/19	Kartal v. Türkiye	12/04/2019	Adem KARTAL 01/01/1972	Kamile KILDAN
50.	21968/19	Arı v. Türkiye	19/04/2019	Vahip ARI 10/06/1981	Hasan AĞIRTAŞ
51.	22462/19	İnce v. Türkiye	17/04/2019	Süleyman İNCE 15/12/1969
52.	22482/19	Pehlivan v. Türkiye	12/04/2019	İlyas PEHLİVAN 27/08/1973
53.	22731/19	Bulut v. Türkiye	09/04/2019	Nurettin BULUT 25/05/1978	Ayşe Sibel TORUN
54.	22734/19	Öztürk v. Türkiye	17/04/2019	Hakan ÖZTÜRK 03/03/1974	Zülal ÜNSAL
55.	23438/19	Yıldırımer v. Türkiye	26/04/2019	Engin YILDIRIMER 20/01/1984
56.	23673/19	Ayanoğlu v. Türkiye	24/04/2019	Hüseyin AYANOĞLU 20/11/1972	İhsan MAKAS
57.	23953/19	Arslan v. Türkiye	24/04/2019	Murat ARSLAN 30/07/1977
58.	24366/19	Aksakal v. Türkiye	17/04/2019	Taner AKSAKAL 13/09/1970	Ebubekir RENK
59.	24387/19	Çavdar v. Türkiye	24/04/2019	Kemal ÇAVDAR 09/09/1982	Mustafa ÇAVDAR
60.	24668/19	Yenitepe v. Türkiye	29/04/2019	Zafer YENİTEPE 04/12/1970	Abdullah YALÇINKAYA
61.	24755/19	Sırıklıgil v. Türkiye	03/05/2019	Ali SIRIKLIGİL 01/10/1980	İhsan MAKAS
62.	24760/19	Ovacıklı v. Türkiye	29/04/2019	Sadullah OVACIKLI 18/12/1979
63.	24939/19	Bayır v. Türkiye	24/04/2019	Can BAYIR 16/04/1976
64.	25151/19	Bayman v. Türkiye	22/04/2019	İbrahim BAYMAN 21/08/1969
65.	25409/19	Kavak v. Türkiye	03/05/2019	Durdu KAVAK 02/06/1965	Hidayet Elif VURAL
66.	25701/19	Kılıç v. Türkiye	30/04/2019	Eyüp KILIÇ 02/06/1979	Enes Malik KILIÇ
67.	25759/19	Varol v. Türkiye	24/04/2019	Esra VAROL 05/04/1982	İlyas TEKİN
68.	25777/19	Tekkoyun v. Türkiye	02/05/2019	Mehmet TEKKOYUN 05/09/1978	İbrahim KOCAOĞUL
69.	25907/19	Özdemir v. Türkiye	17/04/2019	Hasan ÖZDEMİR 14/05/1973	Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
70.	25912/19	Tombak v. Türkiye	19/04/2019	Eren TOMBAK 01/06/1989	Tufan YILMAZ
71.	26080/19	Öztürk v. Türkiye	08/05/2019	Veysi ÖZTÜRK 12/10/1984	Ferat ÇAĞIL
72.	26282/19	Ayaz v. Türkiye	30/04/2019	Eslem AYAZ 05/02/1982
73.	26378/19	Bağırcı v. Türkiye	14/05/2019	Hasan Tarık BAĞIRCI 18/08/1990	Muhammet GÜNEY
74.	26525/19	Etöz v. Türkiye	02/05/2019	İsmail ETÖZ 04/06/1990
75.	26769/19	Özcan v. Türkiye	20/04/2019	Musa ÖZCAN 16/09/1985	Sabahattin GÖÇMEN
76.	27075/19	Yıldırım v. Türkiye	30/04/2019	Mükremin YILDIRIM 01/03/1981	Muhammet GÜNEY
77.	27141/19	Öcal v. Türkiye	09/05/2019	Ziya ÖCAL 16/02/1979	Kazım KASA
78.	27501/19	Çelik v. Türkiye	15/05/2019	İsa ÇELİK 02/06/1974	Kamile KILDAN
79.	27577/19	Kavak v. Türkiye	26/04/2019	Tarık KAVAK 02/04/1976	Güntaç DEĞER
80.	27686/19	Arslan v. Türkiye	29/04/2019	Mustafa ARSLAN 08/04/1988
81.	27739/19	Özçelik v. Türkiye	30/04/2019	İlkay ÖZÇELİK 12/01/1979
82.	28703/19	Yetişgen v. Türkiye	03/05/2019	Resul YETİŞGEN 01/04/1974	Ahmet OKU
83.	28935/19	Toltar v. Türkiye	07/05/2019	Yusuf TOLTAR 11/02/1988	Emre AKARYILDIZ
84.	28963/19	Şenses v. Türkiye	15/05/2019	Ümit ŞENSES 21/06/1984	Sinan KARAHAN
85.	29438/19	Aydın v. Türkiye	10/05/2019	Aykut AYDIN 22/12/1990
86.	30478/19	Oruç v. Türkiye	27/05/2019	Bahadır ORUÇ 01/04/1980	Cengiz BALCI
87.	30481/19	Önder v. Türkiye	27/05/2019	Yusuf ÖNDER 20/02/1974	Celal SÖYLEMEZ
88.	30485/19	Dal v. Türkiye	10/05/2019	Hasan Tahsin DAL 01/01/1981	Nurhan ÖZDURAN
89.	30865/19	Ocak v. Türkiye	29/05/2019	Ümit OCAK 30/10/1974	Kamile KILDAN
90.	31626/19	Uysal v. Türkiye	20/05/2019	Ömer UYSAL 16/06/1969
91.	32316/19	Bozkurt v. Türkiye	10/06/2019	Yeliz BOZKURT 01/03/1978	Muhterem SAYAN
92.	32943/19	Aydın v. Türkiye	29/05/2019	Uğur AYDIN 08/06/1984
93.	33224/19	Acar v. Türkiye	07/06/2019	Bilal ACAR 13/01/1981
94.	34173/19	Yurt v. Türkiye	17/06/2019	Bahattin YURT 01/07/1975	İrem TATLIDEDE
95.	35008/19	Kayalar v. Türkiye	02/07/2019	Yasin KAYALAR 12/10/1983	Engin KARA
96.	35059/19	Aydın v. Türkiye	02/07/2019	Adem AYDIN 22/05/1988	Fatma Serpil AYDIN
97.	35075/19	Yücel v. Türkiye	02/07/2019	Sırrı YÜCEL 17/02/1971	Mehmet ÇAVDAR
98.	35089/19	Arslan v. Türkiye	14/06/2019	Mahmut ARSLAN 15/01/1978	İhsan MAKAS
99.	35107/19	Devran v. Türkiye	28/06/2019	Talha DEVRAN 25/10/1990	Sultan TEKE SOYDİNÇ
100.	35366/19	Bozoğlu v. Türkiye	17/06/2019	Ömer BOZOĞLU 18/01/1980	Mehmet ÇAVDAR
101.	35588/19	Alıcı v. Türkiye	25/06/2019	Cebrail Cem ALICI 10/01/1973	Sefanur BOZGÖZ
102.	35824/19	Gemici v. Türkiye	31/05/2019	Remzi GEMİCİ 02/08/1969	Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
103.	35885/19	Demir v. Türkiye	18/06/2019	Timur DEMİR 24/09/1977	Handan CAN
104.	35891/19	Özdemir v. Türkiye	17/06/2019	Ali ÖZDEMİR 04/04/1976	Fatma KOCAEL
105.	36055/19	Gökgöz v. Türkiye	27/06/2019	Mustafa GÖKGÖZ 01/05/1965	Tarık Said GÜLDİBİ
106.	36208/19	Doğan v. Türkiye	21/06/2019	Erdem DOĞAN 06/08/1977	Muhammet GÜNEY
107.	36383/19	Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye	27/06/2019	Mehmet Arif YALÇINKAYA 17/11/1983	Mehmet ÖNCÜ
108.	36783/19	Demirel v. Türkiye	28/06/2019	İrfan DEMİREL 20/03/1974	Oktay BİLGİN
109.	36828/19	Aydın v. Türkiye	01/07/2019	Emin AYDIN 15/08/1979	Mehmet AKÇAKOCA
110.	36871/19	Ejder v. Türkiye	01/07/2019	Muhammet Emre EJDER 06/04/1974	Özcan AKINCI
111.	37238/19	Aytaç v. Türkiye	03/07/2019	İsmail AYTAÇ 01/08/1973	Emin BAYRAM
112.	37749/19	Eröz v. Türkiye	18/06/2019	İsmail Hakkı ERÖZ 22/02/1969	Leman TALASLIOĞLU
113.	38054/19	Tansel v. Türkiye	28/06/2019	Ferhat TANSEL 08/01/1977	Mevlit ERMİŞ
114.	38392/19	Çatal v. Türkiye	16/07/2019	Ali ÇATAL 16/09/1972	T. Mertcan SEYMEN
115.	38449/19	Çabuk v. Türkiye	05/07/2019	Mehmet ÇABUK 01/03/1972
116.	38528/19	Ayan v. Türkiye	04/07/2019	Mahmut AYAN 05/01/1981
117.	38986/19	Demir v. Türkiye	09/07/2019	Nuran DEMİR 10/03/1979
118.	39217/19	Tanrıöver v. Türkiye	10/07/2019	Mehmet TANRIÖVER 30/07/1985	Veysel MALKOÇ
119.	39485/19	Kara v. Türkiye	12/07/2019	Engin KARA 09/09/1985	Onur GÜNDEM
120.	39599/19	Yılmaz v. Türkiye	09/07/2019	Mustafa YILMAZ 09/10/1969	Mustafa Emre ŞAHİN
121.	39778/19	Doğan v. Türkiye	19/07/2019	Lokman DOĞAN 13/08/1971
122.	40949/19	Yavuz v. Türkiye	17/07/2019	Hüseyin YAVUZ 10/08/1980	Ahmet ÇEVİK
123.	41060/19	Baki v. Türkiye	20/07/2019	Bülent BAKİ 19/12/1974	Elkan ALBAYRAK
124.	41129/19	Gürsoy Fırat v. Türkiye	22/07/2019	Gülüzar GÜRSOY FIRAT 12/04/1972	İrem TATLIDEDE
125.	41261/19	Kuvel v. Türkiye	22/07/2019	İlyas KUVEL 01/11/1974	Emre AKARYILDIZ
126.	41667/19	Gürel Aygün v. Türkiye	29/05/2019	Nur GÜREL AYGÜN 28/07/1988	Yasemin BAL
127.	42065/19	R.M. v. Türkiye	22/07/2019	R.M. 09/04/1969	Mehmet ÖNCÜ
128.	42479/19	Er v. Türkiye	29/07/2019	Fatih ER 29/03/1975	Bekir DÖNMEZ
129.	42974/19	Şengül v. Türkiye	29/07/2019	Ömer ŞENGÜL 22/01/1978	Mahmut ÇİFTÇİ
130.	43617/19	Özçelik v. Türkiye	01/07/2019	Yusuf ÖZÇELİK 14/07/1983	Adnan ZEYBEK
131.	44708/19	Akyol v. Türkiye	09/08/2019	Ramazan AKYOL 15/11/1970	Yakup TAŞCI
132.	47050/19	Sarıkaya v. Türkiye	28/08/2019	Ramazan SARIKAYA 15/07/1982	Mahmut ÇİFTÇİ
133.	48100/19	Nas v. Türkiye	24/08/2019	Mehmet Raşit NAS 11/12/1983	Mehmet Akif CANPOLAT
134.	51627/19	Şahin v. Türkiye	27/08/2019	İbrahim ŞAHİN 05/12/1980	Ömer Faruk ERGÜN
135.	51686/19	Çivi v. Türkiye	01/10/2019	Erdinç ÇİVİ 29/08/1974