{"id":19280,"date":"2022-09-08T12:53:29","date_gmt":"2022-09-08T12:53:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=19280"},"modified":"2022-09-08T12:53:29","modified_gmt":"2022-09-08T12:53:29","slug":"case-of-bayram-and-others-v-turkiye-european-court-of-human-rights-20061-17-and-107-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=19280","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF BAYRAM AND OTHERS v. T\u00dcRKIYE (European Court of Human Rights) 20061\/17 and 107 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

The present applications mainly concern the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants in the aftermath of the coup attempt of 15\u00a0July\u00a02016, on suspicion of their membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the \u201cFetullahist Terrorist Organisation \/ Parallel State Structure\u201d (Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc \/ Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131, hereinafter referred to as \u201cFET\u00d6\/PDY\u201d), 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 Ba\u015f v. Turkey, no. 66448\/17, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a07\u201114 and \u00a7\u00a7 109-110, 3 March 2020). All of the applicants were serving as judges or prosecutors at different types and\/or levels of court at the material time.<\/p>\n

\n

SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF BAYRAM AND OTHERS v. T\u00dcRK\u0130YE<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 20061\/17 and 107 others)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n6 September 2022<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Bayram and Others v. T\u00fcrkiye,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

Pauliine Koskelo, President,
\nGilberto Felici,
\nSaadet Y\u00fcksel, judges,
\nand Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having regard to:<\/p>\n

the applications against the Republic of T\u00fcrkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by one hundred and nine Turkish nationals, whose relevant details are listed in the appended table (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on the various dates indicated therein;<\/p>\n

the decision to give notice of the applications to the Turkish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) represented by their Agent, Mr Hac\u0131 Ali A\u00e7\u0131kg\u00fcl, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of T\u00fcrkiye;<\/p>\n

the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n

the decision to reject the Government\u2019s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 28 June 2022,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The present applications mainly concern the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants in the aftermath of the coup attempt of 15\u00a0July\u00a02016, on suspicion of their membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the \u201cFetullahist Terrorist Organisation \/ Parallel State Structure\u201d (Fetullah\u00e7\u0131 Ter\u00f6r \u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc \/ Paralel Devlet Yap\u0131lanmas\u0131, hereinafter referred to as \u201cFET\u00d6\/PDY\u201d), 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 Ba\u015f v. Turkey, no. 66448\/17, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a07\u201114 and \u00a7\u00a7 109-110, 3 March 2020). All of the applicants were serving as judges or prosecutors at different types and\/or levels of court at the material time.<\/p>\n

2. On 16 July 2016 the Ankara chief public prosecutor\u2019s office initiated a criminal investigation into, inter alios, the suspected members of FET\u00d6\/PDY within the judiciary, including members of high courts, 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\u2019s office within the context of that investigation, as well as the ensuing suspensions and dismissals of judges and prosecutors suspected of being members of FET\u00d6\/PDY, may be found in Ba\u015f, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 9-10 and 15-21).<\/p>\n

3. Following their arrest and detention in police custody on the orders of the regional and provincial prosecutors\u2019 offices, the applicants were placed in pre-trial detention on various dates, mainly on suspicion of membership of the FET\u00d6\/PDY organisation, an offence punishable under Article\u00a0314 of the Criminal Code (see Ba\u015f, cited above, \u00a7 58). The pre-trial detention decisions were issued by the magistrates\u2019 courts located at the respective places of the applicants\u2019 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 \u201ccontinuing offence\u201d and that there was a case of discovery in flagrante delicto governed by the relevant provisions of domestic law (see Ba\u015f, cited above, \u00a7 67, and Turan and Others v.\u00a0Turkey, nos.\u00a075805\/16 and 426 others, \u00a7\u00a7 30-31, 23 November 2021)<\/p>\n

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 some were acquitted. It appears that, for the most part, the appeal proceedings are still pending.<\/p>\n

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 (see Turan and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a026\u201127).<\/p>\n

THE COURT\u2019S ASSESSMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

7. The applicants complained 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.\u00a02802 on judges and prosecutors and section 46 of the Court of Cassation Act (Law no.\u00a02797).<\/p>\n

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, \u00a7 55). The Court notes that the Government\u2019s objections have already been dismissed in the case of Turan and Others (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a057\u201164) and sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present case. The Court therefore considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n

9. The Court further considers, having regard to its findings in the cases of Ba\u015f and Turan and Others (both cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 143-158 and \u00a7\u00a7\u00a079\u201196, 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\u00a05 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and that, therefore, there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 on account of the unlawfulness of the applicants\u2019 initial pre-trial detention. Moreover, while the applicants were detained a short time after the coup attempt \u2013 that is, the event that prompted the declaration of the state of emergency and the notice of derogation by T\u00fcrkiye \u2013, 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 (see Ba\u015f, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 115-116 and \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0159\u2011162, and Turan and Others, cited above, \u00a7 91 and 95).<\/p>\n

III. OTHER COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

A. Alleged violation of Article 6 (non-communication of the public prosecutor\u2019s opinion) and Article 8 (registration of letters)<\/strong><\/p>\n

10. Applicant in application no. 53285\/19 complained under Article 6 of the Convention of the non-communication of the public prosecutor\u2019s written opinion during the proceedings before the Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y Assize Court, where he had contested some restrictions imposed by the prison authorities. Furthermore, the applicant in application no. 47398\/19 complained under Article 8 that the letters he sent from the prison were being registered on the National Judicial Network Server (UYAP).<\/p>\n

11. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention (see, for instance, Uzun v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10755\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 33-71, 30 April 2013, and G\u00fcnana and Others v. Turkey, nos. 70934\/10 and 4 others, \u00a7 79, 20 November 2018).<\/p>\n

12. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

B. Remaining complaints<\/strong><\/p>\n

13. As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 3, 4, 5 and Article\u00a08 of the Convention, the Court decides not to examine them, in view of its findings under Article 5 \u00a7 1 above and its considerations in the case of Turan and Others (cited above, \u00a7 98).<\/p>\n

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

14. 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.<\/p>\n

15. The Government contested the applicants\u2019 claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive.<\/p>\n

16. For the reasons put forth in Turan and Others (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0102\u2011107), 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.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2. Declares the complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the lawfulness of the applicants\u2019 initial pre-trial detention admissible;<\/p>\n

3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of the initial pre-trial detention of the applicants;<\/p>\n

4. Declares the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention regarding the non-communication of the public prosecutor\u2019s opinion (application no.\u00a053285\/19) and the complaint under Article 8 concerning the registration of letters sent from prison (application no.\u00a047398\/19) inadmissible;<\/p>\n

5. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants\u2019 remaining complaints under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

6. Holds<\/p>\n

(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 these amounts, which are to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n

(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;<\/p>\n

7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 September 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Pauliine Koskelo
\nRegistrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n

___________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n

List of cases\u00a0:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/td>\nCase name<\/strong><\/td>\nLodged on<\/strong><\/td>\nApplicant
\nDate of Birth<\/strong><\/td>\n		Represented by<\/strong><\/td>\nApplicant\u2019s status at the time of pre-trial detention<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
1.<\/td>\n20061\/17<\/td>\nBayram v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n23\/02\/2017<\/td>\nMehmet BAYRAM
\n08\/05\/1975<\/strong><\/td>\n		Kadri \u0130NCE<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n27433\/17<\/td>\nYaz v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n27\/02\/2017<\/td>\nBurhan YAZ
\n17\/03\/1968<\/strong><\/td>\n		Elif EK\u0130C\u0130<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n36899\/17<\/td>\nYal\u00e7\u0131n v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n16\/01\/2017<\/td>\nAli YAL\u00c7IN
\n01\/06\/1975<\/strong><\/td>\n		Cengiz \u00c7ITAK<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n40719\/17<\/td>\nT\u00fcrky\u0131lmaz v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n27\/03\/2017<\/td>\nMuhammed T\u00dcRKYILMAZ
\n04\/03\/1988<\/strong><\/td>\n		Mustafa YILDIZ<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n41664\/17<\/td>\nKaraarslan v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n27\/04\/2017<\/td>\nYavuz KARAARSLAN
\n13\/02\/1972<\/strong><\/td>\n		Tu\u011fba \u00dcST\u00dcNEL \u00d6ZKAN<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n41879\/17<\/td>\nKopal v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n17\/04\/2017<\/td>\nMurat KOPAL
\n21\/01\/1981<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n45028\/17<\/td>\nEr\u015fen v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n26\/05\/2017<\/td>\nSerkan ER\u015eEN
\n24\/07\/1980<\/strong><\/td>\n		G\u00f6k\u00e7ehan SA\u011eLAM<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n46942\/17<\/td>\nU\u011furlu v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n15\/03\/2017<\/td>\nMehmet U\u011eURLU
\n31\/07\/1976<\/strong><\/td>\n		Mehmet ARI<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n58972\/17<\/td>\nAlanur v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n20\/04\/2017<\/td>\nHakk\u0131 Hakan ALANUR
\n12\/11\/1968<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u015eakir HEP\u0130Y\u0130LER<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n61242\/17<\/td>\nBeydili v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n16\/06\/2017<\/td>\nMustafa BEYD\u0130L\u0130
\n03\/03\/1988<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u0130mdat BERKSOY<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n61647\/17<\/td>\nTurgut v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n30\/05\/2017<\/td>\nSalih TURGUT
\n10\/05\/1983<\/strong><\/td>\n		S\u00fcleyman DO\u011eRUER<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n61652\/17<\/td>\nVarol v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n25\/04\/2017<\/td>\nMuhammet VAROL
\n02\/05\/1979<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u0130lyas TEK\u0130N<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n61970\/17<\/td>\nDemircan v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n26\/04\/2017<\/td>\nMustafa DEM\u0130RCAN
\n24\/08\/1976<\/strong><\/td>\n		Yasemin DEM\u0130RCAN<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n62720\/17<\/td>\nP\u0131nar v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n28\/04\/2017<\/td>\nMehmet Erkan PINAR
\n01\/01\/1969<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n62773\/17<\/td>\nG\u00fcrses v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n28\/04\/2017<\/td>\nU\u011fur G\u00dcRSES
\n25\/01\/1987<\/strong><\/td>\n		Ebubekir RENK<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n62774\/17<\/td>\nArkunta\u015f v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n10\/02\/2017<\/td>\nMesut ARKUNTA\u015e
\n31\/08\/1973<\/strong><\/td>\n		Sefanur BOZG\u00d6Z<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n63579\/17<\/td>\nToprak v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n25\/05\/2017<\/td>\nAhmet TOPRAK
\n21\/12\/1990<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u00d6nder \u00d6ZDERYOL<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n63582\/17<\/td>\n\u015eahin v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n10\/05\/2017<\/td>\nAdil \u015eAH\u0130N
\n12\/07\/1985<\/strong><\/td>\n		Kamile KILDAN<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n63622\/17<\/td>\nAbur\u015fu v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n28\/03\/2017<\/td>\nSerdar ABUR\u015eU
\n20\/08\/1982<\/strong><\/td>\n		Tufan YILMAZ<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n63712\/17<\/td>\n\u015ei\u015faneci v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n20\/04\/2017<\/td>\nMustafa \u015e\u0130\u015eANEC\u0130
\n15\/05\/1983<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n63740\/17<\/td>\nK\u00f6se v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n13\/06\/2017<\/td>\nAhmet K\u00d6SE
\n27\/03\/1982<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n63784\/17<\/td>\nAkkan v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n29\/05\/2017<\/td>\nBahattin AKKAN
\n10\/09\/1977<\/strong><\/td>\n		Fatih D\u00d6NMEZ<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n66359\/17<\/td>\nAltun v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n26\/01\/2017<\/td>\nRecep ALTUN
\n16\/07\/1976<\/strong><\/td>\n		Mehmet \u00d6NC\u00dc<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n66371\/17<\/td>\nSoyal v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n18\/05\/2017<\/td>\nMetin SOYAL
\n01\/01\/1973<\/strong><\/td>\n		Ahmet Can DEM\u0130RC\u0130<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n70544\/17<\/td>\nTarhan v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n27\/07\/2017<\/td>\nKadir TARHAN
\n05\/04\/1982<\/strong><\/td>\n		Fatih D\u00d6NMEZ<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26.<\/td>\n70628\/17<\/td>\n\u00d6zdemir v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n21\/08\/2017<\/td>\nHasan \u00d6ZDEM\u0130R
\n01\/01\/1984<\/strong><\/td>\n		Ahmet Can DEM\u0130RC\u0130<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
27.<\/td>\n70857\/17<\/td>\nG\u00fcne\u015f v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n08\/08\/2017<\/td>\nCuma G\u00dcNE\u015e
\n17\/01\/1986<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u00d6zge ALTINTOP<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
28.<\/td>\n73516\/17<\/td>\n\u00c7elebi v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n05\/09\/2017<\/td>\nB\u00fclent \u00c7ELEB\u0130
\n04\/04\/1974<\/strong><\/td>\n		Regaip DEM\u0130R<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
29.<\/td>\n82865\/17<\/td>\n\u00dclk\u00fc v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n03\/11\/2017<\/td>\nMusa \u00dcLK\u00dc
\n30\/11\/1972<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30.<\/td>\n6613\/18<\/td>\nKayaalp v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n16\/01\/2018<\/td>\nSelahattin KAYAALP
\n15\/02\/1987<\/strong><\/td>\n		Demet Y\u00dcREKL\u0130 KAYAALP<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
31.<\/td>\n14769\/18<\/td>\nYal\u00e7\u0131n\u00f6z v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n25\/07\/2018<\/td>\nBahad\u0131r YAL\u00c7IN\u00d6Z
\n19\/02\/1980<\/strong><\/td>\n		Bar\u0131\u015f ANT\u00dcRK<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
32.<\/td>\n17830\/18<\/td>\nAras v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n04\/04\/2018<\/td>\nBahattin ARAS
\n15\/11\/1977<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
33.<\/td>\n20047\/18<\/td>\nKaraosmano\u011flu v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n06\/03\/2018<\/td>\nMustafa KARAOSMANO\u011eLU
\n15\/08\/1980<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u015eerafettin AKTA\u015e<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
34.<\/td>\n27587\/18<\/td>\nMemi\u015f v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n22\/05\/2018<\/td>\nYusuf MEM\u0130\u015e
\n01\/06\/1966<\/strong><\/td>\n		Esad MEM\u0130\u015e<\/td>\nMember of Court of Cassation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
35.<\/td>\n40298\/18<\/td>\nDuran v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n16\/08\/2018<\/td>\nEy\u00fcp Murat DURAN
\n04\/02\/1977<\/strong><\/td>\n		Ali DURGUN<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
36.<\/td>\n52619\/18<\/td>\nGedikli v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n26\/10\/2018<\/td>\nHal\u00fck GED\u0130KL\u0130
\n01\/02\/1969<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u0130rem TATLIDEDE<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
37.<\/td>\n54227\/18<\/td>\nKaya v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n12\/10\/2018<\/td>\n\u0130lhan KAYA
\n03\/08\/1965<\/strong><\/td>\n		Yakup G\u00d6NEN<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
38.<\/td>\n11804\/19<\/td>\n\u015eanal v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n22\/02\/2019<\/td>\nOsman \u015eANAL
\n10\/03\/1972<\/strong><\/td>\n		Ali ALAG\u00d6Z<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
39.<\/td>\n13253\/19<\/td>\n\u00c7ak\u0131n v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n26\/02\/2019<\/td>\nAk\u0131n \u00c7AKIN
\n11\/07\/1967<\/strong><\/td>\n		Ahmet Kerem \u00c7AKIN<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
40.<\/td>\n20941\/19<\/td>\nG\u00fclba\u015f v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n05\/04\/2019<\/td>\nAbdullah G\u00dcLBA\u015e
\n03\/10\/1983<\/strong><\/td>\n		Halil \u0130brahim G\u00dcLBA\u015e<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
41.<\/td>\n23663\/19<\/td>\nNavruz v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n22\/04\/2019<\/td>\nYakup NAVRUZ
\n05\/01\/1981<\/strong><\/td>\n		Kamile KILDAN<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
42.<\/td>\n24746\/19<\/td>\nErt\u00fcrk v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n29\/04\/2019<\/td>\nMustafa Celal ERT\u00dcRK
\n11\/02\/1968<\/strong><\/td>\n		O\u011fuz Emre ERT\u00dcRK<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
43.<\/td>\n27944\/19<\/td>\nKarabacak v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n03\/05\/2019<\/td>\nEngin KARABACAK
\n23\/12\/1980<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u00d6mer Faruk ERG\u00dcN<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
44.<\/td>\n28219\/19<\/td>\nEv\u011f\u00fcn v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n08\/05\/2019<\/td>\nSaniye EV\u011e\u00dcN
\n25\/01\/1984<\/strong><\/td>\n		Emre AKARYILDIZ<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
45.<\/td>\n28260\/19<\/td>\nAyd\u0131n v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n03\/05\/2019<\/td>\nSami AYDIN
\n08\/01\/1973<\/strong><\/td>\n		Ahmet OKU<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
46.<\/td>\n30433\/19<\/td>\nSaat\u00e7\u0131o\u011flu v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n20\/05\/2019<\/td>\nFuat SAAT\u00c7IO\u011eLU
\n08\/03\/1984<\/strong><\/td>\n		Fatma Vildan Y\u0130RM\u0130BE\u015eO\u011eLU<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
47.<\/td>\n30652\/19<\/td>\nKurmaz v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n16\/05\/2019<\/td>\nHarun KURMAZ
\n01\/10\/1981<\/strong><\/td>\n		Hatice YILDIZ<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
48.<\/td>\n31483\/19<\/td>\nKarpuz v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n21\/05\/2019<\/td>\n\u0130brahim KARPUZ
\n30\/03\/1973<\/strong><\/td>\n		Ay\u015fe DURMU\u015e<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
49.<\/td>\n31513\/19<\/td>\nTemiz v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n31\/05\/2019<\/td>\n\u00d6mer TEM\u0130Z
\n14\/08\/1980<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
50.<\/td>\n32201\/19<\/td>\nSar\u0131kaya v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n29\/05\/2019<\/td>\nMustafa SARIKAYA
\n03\/01\/1987<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
51.<\/td>\n33924\/19<\/td>\n\u015eahin v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n14\/06\/2019<\/td>\nMehmet \u015eAH\u0130N
\n03\/12\/1980<\/strong><\/td>\n		Nurcan BAL<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
52.<\/td>\n34034\/19<\/td>\nAk\u0131ll\u0131 v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n11\/06\/2019<\/td>\n\u0130lhan AKILLI
\n23\/04\/1980<\/strong><\/td>\n		Mustafa SOYLU<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
53.<\/td>\n34060\/19<\/td>\nSar\u0131 v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n17\/06\/2019<\/td>\nHalil SARI
\n26\/03\/1990<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
54.<\/td>\n36029\/19<\/td>\n\u00c7elik v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n25\/06\/2019<\/td>\nHasan \u00c7EL\u0130K
\n01\/10\/1984<\/strong><\/td>\n		Ebubekir \u00c7EL\u0130K<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
55.<\/td>\n36037\/19<\/td>\nBekar v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n24\/06\/2019<\/td>\nMustafa BEKAR
\n18\/09\/1984<\/strong><\/td>\n		Ebubekir RENK<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
56.<\/td>\n36331\/19<\/td>\nAyd\u0131n v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n18\/06\/2019<\/td>\nFatma Serpil AYDIN
\n22\/07\/1988<\/strong><\/td>\n		Mehmet Fatih \u0130\u00c7ER<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
57.<\/td>\n36334\/19<\/td>\n\u015eahin v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n19\/06\/2019<\/td>\n\u0130lyas \u015eAH\u0130N
\n01\/01\/1976<\/strong><\/td>\n		Fatih D\u00d6NMEZ<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
58.<\/td>\n36454\/19<\/td>\nKarakaya v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n26\/06\/2019<\/td>\nMustafa KARAKAYA
\n12\/03\/1981<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
59.<\/td>\n36535\/19<\/td>\nTatar v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n18\/06\/2019<\/td>\nSinan TATAR
\n01\/07\/1989<\/strong><\/td>\n		Hanifi BAYRI<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
60.<\/td>\n36918\/19<\/td>\nK\u0131l\u0131\u00e7aslan v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n03\/07\/2019<\/td>\nOsman KILI\u00c7ASLAN
\n09\/10\/1978<\/strong><\/td>\n		Enes Malik KILI\u00c7<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
61.<\/td>\n36941\/19<\/td>\nKara v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n03\/07\/2019<\/td>\nEnis KARA
\n01\/09\/1981<\/strong><\/td>\n		Murat \u00c7AKAL<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
62.<\/td>\n36957\/19<\/td>\nAlkan v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n03\/07\/2019<\/td>\n\u00d6mer Faruk ALKAN
\n08\/05\/1990<\/strong><\/td>\n		Rabia ALKAN<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
63.<\/td>\n37541\/19<\/td>\nCebre v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n30\/05\/2019<\/td>\nAyvaz CEBRE
\n30\/07\/1984<\/strong><\/td>\n		Ceren ATALAY<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
64.<\/td>\n38913\/19<\/td>\nAkdo\u011fan v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n09\/07\/2019<\/td>\n\u015eerife AKDO\u011eAN
\n09\/03\/1989<\/strong><\/td>\n		Murat G\u00dcNDEM<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
65.<\/td>\n40674\/19<\/td>\nZengin v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n20\/07\/2019<\/td>\nAli Osman ZENG\u0130N
\n26\/04\/1971<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
66.<\/td>\n41521\/19<\/td>\nSerli v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n08\/07\/2019<\/td>\nUfuk SERL\u0130
\n08\/05\/1985<\/strong><\/td>\n		Sultan TEKE SOYD\u0130N\u00c7<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
67.<\/td>\n44303\/19<\/td>\n\u00c7eki\u00e7 v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n09\/08\/2019<\/td>\nMahmut \u00c7EK\u0130\u00c7
\n23\/10\/1970<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u00d6mer NAZLIM<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
68.<\/td>\n44341\/19<\/td>\nPolat v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n05\/08\/2019<\/td>\n\u0130smail POLAT
\n15\/01\/1974<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u0130lyas TEK\u0130N<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
69.<\/td>\n44464\/19<\/td>\nD\u00f6nmez v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n08\/08\/2019<\/td>\nCelalettin D\u00d6NMEZ
\n15\/12\/1972<\/strong><\/td>\n		Fatih D\u00d6NMEZ<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
70.<\/td>\n44529\/19<\/td>\nSa\u011flam v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n06\/08\/2019<\/td>\nHarun SA\u011eLAM
\n15\/06\/1979<\/strong><\/td>\n		Gizay DULKAD\u0130R<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
71.<\/td>\n46185\/19<\/td>\nKuzgun v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n20\/08\/2019<\/td>\nErsan KUZGUN
\n13\/11\/1984<\/strong><\/td>\n		Cebrail Eren KAYNAR<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
72.<\/td>\n46758\/19<\/td>\nAyka\u00e7 v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n26\/08\/2019<\/td>\nFatih AYKA\u00c7
\n01\/02\/1975<\/strong><\/td>\n		Menek\u015fe Merve TEKTEN<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
73.<\/td>\n47398\/19<\/td>\nYetim v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n24\/08\/2019<\/td>\nServet YET\u0130M
\n08\/09\/1971<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u0130zettin DEM\u0130R<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
74.<\/td>\n47483\/19<\/td>\nKurt v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n15\/08\/2019<\/td>\nSami KURT
\n18\/02\/1978<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
75.<\/td>\n50697\/19<\/td>\n\u00dcnl\u00fc v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n28\/08\/2019<\/td>\nErhan \u00dcNL\u00dc
\n01\/09\/1967<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
76.<\/td>\n50704\/19<\/td>\nDemirci v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n04\/09\/2019<\/td>\nOsman DEM\u0130RC\u0130
\n04\/08\/1972<\/strong><\/td>\n		Tar\u0131k Said G\u00dcLD\u0130B\u0130<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
77.<\/td>\n51002\/19<\/td>\nTak\u0131msu v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n27\/08\/2019<\/td>\nMehmet TAKIMSU
\n01\/11\/1983<\/strong><\/td>\n		Kamile KILDAN<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
78.<\/td>\n51180\/19<\/td>\nDemirta\u015f v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n23\/08\/2019<\/td>\nMurat DEM\u0130RTA\u015e
\n15\/10\/1988<\/strong><\/td>\n		Hanifi BAYRI<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
79.<\/td>\n51768\/19<\/td>\nK\u0131z\u0131lyel v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n03\/09\/2019<\/td>\nSerkan KIZILYEL
\n10\/02\/1979<\/strong><\/td>\n		Fatih Mehmet ADANIR<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
80.<\/td>\n51798\/19<\/td>\nM\u00fcft\u00fco\u011flu v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n10\/09\/2019<\/td>\nKamil M\u00dcFT\u00dcO\u011eLU
\n10\/08\/1983<\/strong><\/td>\n		Cemal GEL\u0130NC\u0130K<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
81.<\/td>\n52458\/19<\/td>\n\u00d6zt\u00fcrk v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n25\/09\/2019<\/td>\n\u00d6zcan \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK
\n16\/02\/1982<\/strong><\/td>\n		Tolga Kaan PATAZ<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
82.<\/td>\n52774\/19<\/td>\n\u00d6zt\u00fcrk v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n23\/09\/2019<\/td>\nHakan \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK
\n20\/03\/1983<\/strong><\/td>\n		Emre AKARYILDIZ<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
83.<\/td>\n52792\/19<\/td>\nK\u00fc\u00e7\u00fckkaya v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n10\/09\/2019<\/td>\nMukadder K\u00dc\u00c7\u00dcKKAYA
\n26\/02\/1978<\/strong><\/td>\n		Mehmet M\u0130RZA<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
84.<\/td>\n53000\/19<\/td>\nKarabidek v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n27\/09\/2019<\/td>\nMehmet KARAB\u0130DEK
\n01\/05\/1971<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u0130rem TATLIDEDE<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
85.<\/td>\n53078\/19<\/td>\nKaraca v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n02\/10\/2019<\/td>\nYal\u00e7\u0131n KARACA
\n01\/01\/1973<\/strong><\/td>\n		U\u011fur ALTUN<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
86.<\/td>\n53172\/19<\/td>\nG\u00f6nen v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n27\/09\/2019<\/td>\nFikret G\u00d6NEN
\n21\/05\/1975<\/strong><\/td>\n		Ye\u015fim KAYALI G\u00d6NEN<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
87.<\/td>\n53285\/19<\/td>\nBeyaz\u0131t v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n20\/09\/2019<\/td>\nArzu BEYAZIT
\n28\/03\/1978<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
88.<\/td>\n53497\/19<\/td>\nKo\u00e7 v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n09\/10\/2019<\/td>\nAli KO\u00c7
\n22\/07\/1974<\/strong><\/td>\n		Hanifi BAYRI<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
89.<\/td>\n53539\/19<\/td>\n\u015eahinkaya v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n28\/08\/2019<\/td>\nMurat \u015eAH\u0130NKAYA
\n25\/06\/1982<\/strong><\/td>\n		Burcu AKY\u00dcZ<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
90.<\/td>\n53547\/19<\/td>\nEkinci v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n28\/08\/2019<\/td>\nMehmet EK\u0130NC\u0130
\n02\/01\/1988<\/strong><\/td>\n		At\u0131f DO\u011eU\u015e<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
91.<\/td>\n54194\/19<\/td>\nDemirta\u015f v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n11\/10\/2019<\/td>\nNidai DEM\u0130RTA\u015e
\n19\/02\/1979<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u0130brahim Menderes \u00c7\u00d6LOVA<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
92.<\/td>\n54226\/19<\/td>\nG\u00fcng\u00f6r v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n25\/09\/2019<\/td>\nEngin G\u00dcNG\u00d6R
\n06\/01\/1983<\/strong><\/td>\n		Elif Nurbanu OR<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
93.<\/td>\n56008\/19<\/td>\nKalayc\u0131 v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n07\/10\/2019<\/td>\nEmrah KALAYCI
\n01\/12\/1981<\/strong><\/td>\n		Muhammet ATALAY<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
94.<\/td>\n56175\/19<\/td>\nAvc\u0131 v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n23\/09\/2019<\/td>\nSadettin AVCI
\n04\/01\/1971<\/strong><\/td>\n		Emre AKARYILDIZ<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
95.<\/td>\n56405\/19<\/td>\nU\u011furlu v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n17\/10\/2019<\/td>\nH\u00fcseyin U\u011eURLU
\n01\/12\/1975<\/strong><\/td>\n		Mehmet Fatih \u0130\u00c7ER<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
96.<\/td>\n56568\/19<\/td>\nSar\u0131\u015f\u0131k v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n16\/10\/2019<\/td>\nAlper SARI\u015eIK
\n10\/05\/1989<\/strong><\/td>\n		H\u00fcrriyet S\u00dcMER KALA<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
97.<\/td>\n56778\/19<\/td>\nOkur v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n24\/09\/2019<\/td>\n\u0130brahim OKUR
\n29\/12\/1966<\/strong><\/td>\n		Mehmet \u00d6NC\u00dc<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
98.<\/td>\n57719\/19<\/td>\n\u015eahin v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n25\/10\/2019<\/td>\n\u00d6mer \u015eAH\u0130N
\n05\/09\/1982<\/strong><\/td>\n		Mira\u00e7 TAMER<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
99.<\/td>\n58816\/19<\/td>\nHendek v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n09\/10\/2019<\/td>\nHasan HENDEK
\n15\/01\/1972<\/strong><\/td>\n		Tar\u0131k Said G\u00dcLD\u0130B\u0130<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
100.<\/td>\n59635\/19<\/td>\nYe\u015fil v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n07\/11\/2019<\/td>\nUfuk YE\u015e\u0130L
\n16\/09\/1979<\/strong><\/td>\n		Merve Elif G\u00dcRACAR<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
101.<\/td>\n63404\/19<\/td>\nP\u00fcsk\u00fcll\u00fco\u011flu v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n25\/11\/2019<\/td>\nMustafa P\u00dcSK\u00dcLL\u00dcO\u011eLU
\n09\/02\/1984<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
102.<\/td>\n64701\/19<\/td>\nG\u00fcn v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n05\/12\/2019<\/td>\nH\u00fcsn\u00fc G\u00dcN
\n05\/05\/1985<\/strong><\/td>\n		K\u00fcbra DEM\u0130RTA\u015e<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
103.<\/td>\n1068\/20<\/td>\n\u00d6zdemir v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n17\/12\/2019<\/td>\nErdal \u00d6ZDEM\u0130R
\n29\/09\/1981<\/strong><\/td>\n		Kubilay PARLAK<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
104.<\/td>\n2167\/20<\/td>\nY\u0131lmaz v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n10\/12\/2019<\/td>\nAli \u00c7etin YILMAZ
\n01\/08\/1976<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
105.<\/td>\n2511\/20<\/td>\n\u00c7olak v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n26\/12\/2019<\/td>\n\u00dcmit Zafer \u00c7OLAK
\n30\/08\/1974<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u015eeyma S\u00dcMENGEN<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
106.<\/td>\n6245\/20<\/td>\nUlusoy v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n13\/01\/2020<\/td>\nSinan ULUSOY
\n11\/11\/1977<\/strong><\/td>\n		Samet CAM<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
107.<\/td>\n6385\/20<\/td>\n\u00c7akmak v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n09\/01\/2020<\/td>\nAhmet Salim \u00c7AKMAK
\n14\/04\/1988<\/strong><\/td>\n		Kadriye T\u00dcMEN<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
108.<\/td>\n9017\/20<\/td>\nBarut v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n24\/01\/2020<\/td>\nMehmet BARUT
\n27\/03\/1987
\nEsra BARUT
\n09\/10\/1989<\/strong><\/td>\n		Elkan ALBAYRAK<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/p>\n

Ordinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n