{"id":19871,"date":"2022-10-18T16:40:46","date_gmt":"2022-10-18T16:40:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=19871"},"modified":"2022-10-18T16:40:46","modified_gmt":"2022-10-18T16:40:46","slug":"case-of-moral-and-others-v-turkiye-european-court-of-human-rights-49867-17-and-31-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=19871","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF MORAL AND OTHERS v. T\u00dcRK\u0130YE (European Court of Human Rights) 49867\/17 and 31 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 July2016, on suspicion of their membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the \u201cFetullahist Terror Organisation \/ Parallel State Structure\u201d, which was considered by the authorities to be behind the coup attempt.<\/p>\n

\n

SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF MORAL AND OTHERS v. T\u00dcRK\u0130YE<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 49867\/17 and 31 others)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n18 October 2022<\/p>\n

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nBranko Lubarda, President,
\nJovan Ilievski,
\nDiana S\u00e2rcu, judges,
\nand Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy 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 thirty-two 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 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\u2019 arrest and of any charge against them, as well as the ineffectiveness of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention and the absence of a remedy to obtain compensation 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, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;<\/p>\n

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

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

Having deliberated in private on 27 September 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\u00a0July2016, on suspicion of their membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the \u201cFetullahist Terror Organisation \/ Parallel State Structure\u201d (Fetullah\u00e7\u0131Ter\u00f6r\u00d6rg\u00fct\u00fc \/ ParalelDevletYap\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\u00a06-14 and \u00a7\u00a7 109-110, 3 March 2020). All of the applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos. 17209\/19 and 28696\/19, were serving as ordinary judges or prosecutors at different types and\/or levels of court at the material time. The remaining two applicants in question had already been dismissed from judicial office at the time of their arrest and pre-trial detention.<\/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. Subsequently, on various dates, the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HakimlerveSavc\u0131larY\u00fcksekKurulu \u2013 \u201cthe HSYK\u201d) decided to suspend thousands of judges and prosecutors \u2013 including some of the applicants \u2013 from their duties, on the grounds that there was strong suspicion that they were members of the terrorist organisation that had instigated the attempted coup (further details regarding the relevant HSYK decision may be found in Ba\u015f, ibid., \u00a7\u00a7 15-21, and Turan and Others v.\u00a0Turkey, nos. 75805\/16 and 426 others, \u00a7\u00a7 13-15, 23 November 2021). In the HSYK\u2019s suspension decision dated 16 July 2016, reference was made to disciplinary proceedings initiated, amongst other persons, against one of the applicants (namely, the applicant in application no. 61373\/17) in 2015 on account of his failure to take up duties allegedly for health reasons following an order for his reassignment, which the HSYK considered to be an organisational activity in protest of the reassignments.<\/p>\n

3. On various dates, the applicants were arrested and placed in pre-trial detention, mainly on suspicion of membership of the FET\u00d6\/PDY, an offence punishable under Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see Ba\u015f, cited above, \u00a7\u00a058). The detention orders relied principally on the fact that the applicants had been suspended from their duties as judges or prosecutors, or their authorities revoked, on grounds of their membership of the organisation that had instigated the attempted coup. In respect of some applicants, the use of the ByLock messaging system was relied on as evidence. The challenges brought by the applicants against their detention, including by reason of the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, were dismissed, including by the Constitutional Court (compare, mutatis mutandis, Turan and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a022-27).<\/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 a few were acquitted. It appears that, for the most part, the appeal proceedings are still pending.<\/p>\n

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

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

5. 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\u00a05 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

6. The applicants complained that there had been no specific evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion, within the meaning of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention, that they had committed a criminal offence necessitating pre-trial detention.<\/p>\n

7. The Government urged the Court to declare this complaint inadmissible in respect of the applicants who had not made use of the compensatory remedy under Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as the applicants who had received some compensation and whose compensation claims were still pending. They further asked the Court to declare the applications inadmissible for abuse of the right of application to the extent that the applicants had not informed the Court of the developments in their cases following the lodging of their applications.<\/p>\n

8. The Court notes that similar objections have already been dismissed in other cases against T\u00fcrkiye (see, for instance, Ba\u015f, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0118-121, and Turan and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 57-64), 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\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n

9. The Court notes that the applicants\u2019 initial pre-trial detention was based solely on the decisions taken by the HSYK for their suspension from office, and\/or on information indicating their use of the ByLock messaging system. The Court has already found that neither of these grounds relied on by the domestic courts in ordering the applicants\u2019 pre-trial detention was of a nature to constitute \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d within the meaning of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) in respect of the offence attributed to them (compare Ba\u015f, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0170-195, and Akg\u00fcn v. Turkey, no. 19699\/18, \u00a7\u00a7 151-185, 20 July 2021, respectively). Moreover, as regards the disciplinary investigation in respect of the applicant mentioned in the HSYK decision (see paragraph 2 above), the Government have not provided arguments to support the conclusion that the act underlying the investigation in question could as such suggest membership of FET\u00d6\/PDY and that it could have thereby formed the basis for the suspicion giving rise to the order for the relevant applicant\u2019s detention (compare, mutatis mutandis, Ba\u015f, cited above, \u00a7 188).<\/p>\n

10. In the absence of any other information or evidence available at the time of the applicants\u2019 initial pre-trial detention that would satisfy an objective observer that they may have committed the offence attributed to them, the Court sees no reason to depart from its findings in the aforementioned cases and finds that there has been a violation of Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a01. The Court moreover considers that 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\u00a0\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 (compare Ba\u015f, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 115-116 and \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0196-201).<\/p>\n

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

11. As regards any remaining complaints under Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a01, 2, 3, 4 and\u00a05, the Court decides not to examine them, in view of its findings under Article\u00a05 \u00a7 1above 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

12. The applicants requested compensation in varying amounts in respect of non\u2011pecuniary 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

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

14. For the reasons put forth in Turan and Others (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0102-107), 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. Decidesto join the applications;<\/p>\n

2. Declares the complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, concerning the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion, at the time of the applicants\u2019 initial pre-trial detention, that they had committed an offence, admissible;<\/p>\n

3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of reasonable suspicion, at the time of the applicants\u2019 initial pre-trial detention, that they had committed an offence;<\/p>\n

4. Holdsthat there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants\u2019 remaining complaints under Article 5 of the Convention;<\/p>\n

5. 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 this amount, which is 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

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 October 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Dorothee von Arnim \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Branko Lubarda
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n

___________<\/p>\n

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

List of cases:<\/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
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>\nEvidence relied on at the time of initial pre-trial detention<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
1.<\/td>\n49867\/17<\/td>\nMoral v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n28\/04\/2017<\/td>\nNurullah MORAL
\n09\/03\/1990<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nByLock messaging system<\/p>\n

HSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

2.<\/td>\n61373\/17<\/td>\nDuran v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n19\/04\/2017<\/td>\nBekir DURAN
\n23\/02\/1972<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u0130hsan MAKAS<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n21859\/18<\/td>\n\u015eahin v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n17\/04\/2018<\/td>\nMesut \u015eAH\u0130N
\n06\/10\/1972<\/strong><\/td>\n		Hakan \u00c7EL\u0130KKESER<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n3933\/19<\/td>\n\u00d6nay v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n04\/12\/2018<\/td>\nAdem \u00d6NAY
\n20\/02\/1973<\/strong><\/td>\n		Muhammet G\u00dcNEY<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n9498\/19<\/td>\nF\u0131rat v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n07\/02\/2019<\/td>\nErcan FIRAT
\n04\/01\/1973<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u0130rem TATLIDEDE<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n11767\/19<\/td>\nZ.E. v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n21\/02\/2019<\/td>\nZ.E.
\n21\/05\/1974<\/strong><\/td>\n		Ebubekir RENK<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n15183\/19<\/td>\n\u00c7if\u00e7i v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n28\/02\/2019<\/td>\nAlim \u00c7\u0130F\u00c7\u0130
\n17\/02\/1990<\/strong><\/td>\n		Hilal YILDIZ \u00c7\u0130F\u00c7\u0130<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n15900\/19<\/td>\nKara v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n11\/03\/2019<\/td>\nHatice KARA
\n05\/01\/1968<\/strong><\/td>\n		Ahmet KARA<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n16418\/19<\/td>\nAcar v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n01\/03\/2019<\/td>\nNe\u015fe ACAR
\n04\/01\/1983<\/strong><\/td>\n		KararKoray ATAK<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n17209\/19<\/td>\nBalkan v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n05\/03\/2019<\/td>\nServet BALKAN<\/strong><\/p>\n

15\/11\/1990<\/strong><\/td>\n

Mehmet Fatih \u0130\u00c7ER<\/td>\nFormer judge<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n17330\/19<\/td>\nTuran v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n25\/03\/2019<\/td>\nNusret TURAN
\n18\/03\/1985<\/strong><\/td>\n		Hanifi BAYRI<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nByLock messaging system<\/p>\n

HSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

12.<\/td>\n17479\/19<\/td>\n\u00dcre v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n26\/03\/2019<\/td>\nMehmet \u00dcRE
\n15\/12\/1987<\/strong><\/td>\n		Hanifi BAYRI<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n18428\/19<\/td>\nYakar v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n14\/03\/2019<\/td>\nAhmet Gazi YAKAR
\n18\/12\/1980<\/strong><\/td>\n		ArifNazif AYDIN<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n18777\/19<\/td>\nDo\u011fanay v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n20\/03\/2019<\/td>\nAykut DO\u011eANAY
\n20\/07\/1987<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u0130rem TATLIDEDE<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n19105\/19<\/td>\n\u00c7elebi v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n21\/03\/2019<\/td>\nMehmet \u00c7ELEB\u0130
\n01\/03\/1972<\/strong><\/td>\n		Tar\u0131k Said G\u00dcLD\u0130B\u0130<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n20084\/19<\/td>\n\u0130kiba\u015f v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n25\/03\/2019<\/td>\nT\u00fcrker \u0130K\u0130BA\u015e
\n01\/12\/1974<\/strong><\/td>\n		Ay\u00e7aBeyza \u0130K\u0130BA\u015e<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n20713\/19<\/td>\n\u00c7\u0131nar v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n02\/04\/2019<\/td>\n\u0130brahim \u00c7INAR
\n05\/03\/1970<\/strong><\/td>\n		Mehmet \u00d6NC\u00dc<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n21193\/19<\/td>\n\u015eahin v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n12\/04\/2019<\/td>\nHasan \u015eAH\u0130N
\n01\/06\/1973<\/strong><\/td>\n		Hilal YILMAZ PUSAT<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n21948\/19<\/td>\nBayar v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n03\/04\/2019<\/td>\nBayram BAYAR
\n20\/11\/1975<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u00d6zcan AKINCI<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n22682\/19<\/td>\n\u00c7akmak v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n11\/04\/2019<\/td>\nMehmet \u00c7AKMAK
\n18\/03\/1978<\/strong><\/td>\n		\u00d6mer Faruk ERG\u00dcN<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n22727\/19<\/td>\nKalkan v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n19\/04\/2019<\/td>\nNurullah KALKAN
\n10\/06\/1982<\/strong><\/td>\n		Ay\u015fe S\u00fcmeyye BEKLEYEN<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n24620\/19<\/td>\n\u00d6cal v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n24\/04\/2019<\/td>\nCeyhun \u00d6CAL
\n25\/05\/1984<\/strong><\/td>\n		Oktay AYDO\u011eDU<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n24753\/19<\/td>\nG\u00fcng\u00f6r v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n29\/04\/2019<\/td>\nOrhan G\u00dcNG\u00d6R
\n03\/06\/1971<\/strong><\/td>\n		Muhammet G\u00dcNEY<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n25250\/19<\/td>\nSay v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n06\/05\/2019<\/td>\nKadir SAY
\n07\/08\/1980<\/strong><\/td>\n		Muhammet G\u00dcNEY<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n28696\/19<\/td>\nKiziro\u011flu v.\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n03\/05\/2019<\/td>\nAkif K\u0130Z\u0130RO\u011eLU<\/strong><\/p>\n

15\/08\/1980<\/strong><\/td>\n

<\/td>\nFormer judge<\/td>\nByLock messaging system<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26.<\/td>\n29315\/19<\/td>\nYoncal\u0131k v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n10\/05\/2019<\/td>\nFeyyaz YONCALIK
\n05\/04\/1975<\/strong><\/td>\n		Tar\u0131k Said G\u00dcLD\u0130B\u0130<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
27.<\/td>\n32274\/19<\/td>\nT\u00fcrkel v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n28\/05\/2019<\/td>\nAdem T\u00dcRKEL
\n10\/02\/1976<\/strong><\/td>\n		Tar\u0131k Said G\u00dcLD\u0130B\u0130<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
28.<\/td>\n35475\/19<\/td>\n\u00c7olak v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n17\/06\/2019<\/td>\nMustafa Kamil \u00c7OLAK
\n06\/04\/1980<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
29.<\/td>\n36545\/19<\/td>\nG\u00fcney v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n17\/06\/2019<\/td>\nKenan G\u00dcNEY
\n01\/01\/1973<\/strong><\/td>\n		Muhammet G\u00dcNEY<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30.<\/td>\n40854\/19<\/td>\nDuran v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n22\/07\/2019<\/td>\nMustafa DURAN
\n10\/04\/1970<\/strong><\/td>\n		HakanG\u00f6kay SARIO\u011eLU<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
31.<\/td>\n41022\/19<\/td>\nVarol v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n29\/07\/2019<\/td>\nLevent VAROL
\n24\/06\/1981<\/strong><\/td>\n		Clemens LAHNER<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
32.<\/td>\n41361\/19<\/td>\nG\u00fczelta\u015f v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n26\/07\/2019<\/td>\nG\u00fcl\u015fah G\u00dcZELTA\u015e
\n16\/04\/1982<\/strong><\/td>\n		<\/td>\nOrdinary judge or public prosecutor<\/td>\nHSYK decision<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n