{"id":21397,"date":"2023-10-24T09:22:02","date_gmt":"2023-10-24T09:22:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21397"},"modified":"2023-10-24T09:22:02","modified_gmt":"2023-10-24T09:22:02","slug":"case-of-eris-and-others-v-turkiye-58665-17-and-44-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21397","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF ER\u0130\u015e AND OTHERS v. T\u00dcRK\u0130YE – 58665\/17 and 44 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\u00a0\u201cFetullahist Terror Organisation \/ Parallel State Structure\u201d, which was considered by the authorities to be behind the coup attempt.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF ER\u0130\u015e AND OTHERS v. T\u00dcRK\u0130YE<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 58665\/17 and 44 others)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n24 October 2023<\/p>\n

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

In the case of Eri\u015f and Others v. T\u00fcrkiye,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nJovan Ilievski, President,
\nLorraine Schembri Orland,
\nDiana S\u00e2rcu, judges,
\nand Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
\nHaving 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 forty-five 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 under Article 5 of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of an offence, the alleged lack of relevant and sufficient reasons when ordering and extending the pre-trial detention, the length of pre-trial detention and the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the lawfulness of detention 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 applications by a Committee;<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 3 October 2023,<\/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\u00a0\u201cFetullahist Terror 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.\u00a066448\/17, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a06\u201114 and \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0109-10, 3\u00a0March 2020).<\/p>\n

2. 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,\u00a0\u00a7\u00a058). The detention orders relied principally on the nature of the alleged offence, the state of the evidence and the potential sentence. It was also noted that investigations into the coup attempt were being conducted across the country, that statements had not yet been taken from all the suspects and that the alleged offence was among the \u201ccatalogue\u201d offences listed in Article\u00a0100\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) (for the text of Article 100 of the CCP, as relevant, see Ba\u015f, cited above, \u00a7\u00a061). It appears from the initial detention orders and the documents available in the case files that all of the applicants were identified as users of the ByLock messaging system. Moreover, the applicants in application nos. 69774\/17, 11420\/18, 12700\/18, 14670\/18, 16396\/18, 17825\/18, 18580\/18 and 21\/19 were also suspected of financing the FET\u00d6\/PDY in view of their use of accounts in Bank Asya \u2013 a bank allegedly linked to FET\u00d6\/PDY \u2013 and\/or possession of pro-FET\u00d6\/PDY publications. The challenges brought by the applicants against their detention, including by reason of the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion of having committed the offence imputed to them, were dismissed, including by the Constitutional Court.<\/p>\n

3. 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. It appears that, for the most part, the criminal proceedings are still pending before appeal courts or the Constitutional Court.<\/p>\n

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

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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, or 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

7. The Court notes that similar objections have\u00a0already been dismissed in other cases against T\u00fcrkiye (see, for instance, Ba\u015f, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0118-21, and Turan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 75805\/16 and 426 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a057-64, 23\u00a0November 2021), 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\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n

8. The Court notes that the applicants\u2019 initial pre-trial detention was based on information indicating their use of the ByLock messaging system and, in respect of some of them, banking activities considered as financing the FET\u00d6\/PDY and subscriptions to certain pro-FET\u00d6\/PDY publications. To the extent that the detention orders have taken into account the applicants\u2019 alleged use of the ByLock messaging system, the Court notes that it has already found that the use of ByLock was not of a nature to constitute \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d within the meaning of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) in respect of the offence attributed to the applicants (see Akg\u00fcn v. Turkey, no.\u00a019699\/18, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0151-85, 20\u00a0July 2021, and Taner K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 208\/18, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0102-03 and 106-09, 31 May 2022). The Court further considers, as relevant, that the other acts imputed to the applicants (see paragraph 2 above) were merely circumstantial elements which, in the absence of any other information capable of justifying the suspicions in question, benefited from the presumption of legality and cannot reasonably be regarded as constituting a body of evidence demonstrating the applicants\u2019 membership of a terrorist organisation (compare Taner K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 104-05 and the cases cited therein).<\/p>\n

9. Since the Government have not provided any other indications, \u201cfacts\u201d or \u201cinformation\u201d capable of satisfying it that the applicants were \u201creasonably suspected\u201d, at the time of their initial detention, of having committed the alleged offence, the Court finds that the requirements of Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) regarding the \u201creasonableness\u201d of a suspicion justifying detention have not been satisfied (see Ba\u015f, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0195, and Taner K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0114-16). At this juncture, it cannot be maintained, as the Government did, that the mere fact that the applicants were not members of the judiciary had any bearing on the conclusion reached. It 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 \u2013, which is undoubtedly a contextual factor that should be fully taken into account in interpreting and applying Article\u00a05 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\u00a0115-16 and \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0196\u2011201). It therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

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

10. As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 3 and 4 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

11. The applicants, except for the applicant in application no. 70782\/17, requested compensation in varying amounts in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage within the time-limit allotted. Most of the applicants in question also claimed pecuniary damage, as well as the legal costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.<\/p>\n

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

13. For the reasons put forth in Turan and Others (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0102\u201107), the Court rejects any claims for pecuniary damage and awards each of the applicants, save for the applicant in application no. 70782\/17, 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 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. Holds that 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, save for the applicant in application no. 70782\/17, 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 24 October 2023, 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 Jovan Ilievski
\nDeputy Registrar \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\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
\nYear of Birth
\nPlace of Residence<\/strong><\/td>\n		Represented by<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
1.<\/td>\n58665\/17<\/td>\nEri\u015f v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n28\/07\/2017<\/td>\nAhmet ER\u0130\u015e<\/strong>
\n1987
\nAnkara<\/td>\n		G\u00fclhis Y\u00d6R\u00dcK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n59699\/17<\/td>\nKurt v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n08\/11\/2016<\/td>\n\u0130brahim KURT<\/strong>
\n1986
\nSivas<\/td>\n		G\u00fclbahar KO\u00c7AK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n69774\/17<\/td>\nTaze v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n29\/08\/2017<\/td>\nAli TAZE<\/strong>
\n1974
\nKahramanmara\u015f<\/td>\n		Emre KOZANDA\u011eI<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n70782\/17<\/td>\nG\u00fcrb\u00fcz v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n24\/08\/2017<\/td>\nYusuf Ersin G\u00dcRB\u00dcZ<\/strong>
\n1989
\nKutahya<\/td>\n		Deniz \u00d6ZERDEM<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n3462\/18<\/td>\nK\u00f6ksal v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n04\/01\/2018<\/td>\nMehmet Fatih K\u00d6KSAL<\/strong>
\n1985
\nAnkara<\/td>\n		G\u00fclhis Y\u00d6R\u00dcK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n9582\/18<\/td>\nIl\u0131k v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n13\/02\/2018<\/td>\nHasan H\u00fcseyin ILIK<\/strong>
\n1989
\nK\u00fctahya<\/td>\n		Fatma ALBAYRAK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n9881\/18<\/td>\nPolat v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n29\/01\/2018<\/td>\nDavut POLAT<\/strong>
\n1987
\nTekirdag<\/td>\n		<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n11420\/18<\/td>\nSis v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n27\/02\/2018<\/td>\nAhmet S\u0130S<\/strong>
\n1974
\nD\u00fczce<\/td>\n		Necip Faz\u0131l YILDIZ<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n12700\/18<\/td>\nAydemir v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n06\/03\/2018<\/td>\nMuhammet Hamza AYDEM\u0130R<\/strong>
\n1987
\n\u0130zmir<\/td>\n		Se\u00e7kin KESK\u0130N<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n14670\/18<\/td>\nArslan v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n13\/03\/2018<\/td>\nYa\u015far ARSLAN<\/strong>
\n1977
\n\u0130stanbul<\/td>\n		Necip Faz\u0131l YILDIZ<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n14845\/18<\/td>\nZenginerler v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n02\/02\/2018<\/td>\n\u0130brahim ZENG\u0130NERLER<\/strong>
\n1969
\nKocaeli<\/td>\n		Hakan Ru\u015fen ARDA<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n16396\/18<\/td>\n\u015eenel v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n27\/03\/2018<\/td>\n\u00dcnal \u015eENEL<\/strong>
\n1981
\nTrabzon<\/td>\n		Kadir \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n17575\/18<\/td>\nK\u0131l\u0131\u00e7arslan v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n21\/03\/2018<\/td>\nMesut KILI\u00c7ARSLAN<\/strong>
\n1981
\nYozgat<\/td>\n		Bet\u00fcl Feyza U\u011eUR AYDIN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n17825\/18<\/td>\n\u00dcnal v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n05\/04\/2018<\/td>\nMehmet Murat \u00dcNAL<\/strong>
\n1981
\nK\u0131r\u0131kkale<\/td>\n		Vedat \u00c7APRAZ<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n18539\/18<\/td>\nKartal v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n02\/03\/2018<\/td>\nHamdi KARTAL<\/strong>
\n1983
\nIstanbul<\/td>\n		Mehmet \u00d6NC\u00dc<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n18580\/18<\/td>\nArslan v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n19\/03\/2018<\/td>\nMustafa Kemal ARSLAN<\/strong>
\n1970
\nKonya<\/td>\n		Mustafa DEM\u0130R<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n20404\/18<\/td>\nAta v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n17\/04\/2018<\/td>\n\u0130smail ATA<\/strong>
\n1984
\nKonya<\/td>\n		H\u00fcseyin D\u00d6NMEZ<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n45540\/18<\/td>\n\u00c7\u0131taker v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n07\/09\/2018<\/td>\nSema \u00c7ITAKER<\/strong>
\n1986
\nAnkara<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n45556\/18<\/td>\nCelik v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n07\/09\/2018<\/td>\nAhmet \u00c7EL\u0130K<\/strong>
\n1985
\nOsmaniye<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n46212\/18<\/td>\nElg\u00fcn v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n18\/09\/2018<\/td>\nNagihan ELG\u00dcN<\/strong>
\n1989
\nBalikesir<\/td>\n		Mehmet Ert\u00fcrk ERDEV\u0130R<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n46256\/18<\/td>\nBudakl\u0131 v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n17\/09\/2018<\/td>\nEngin BUDAKLI<\/strong>
\n1974
\nAksaray<\/td>\n		Nurg\u00fcl YAYMAN YILMAZ<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n46824\/18<\/td>\nUzun v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n20\/09\/2018<\/td>\nErdem UZUN<\/strong>
\n1977
\nAnkara<\/td>\n		Rukiye TURAN KARACA<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n47027\/18<\/td>\nArg\u00fcndo\u011fan v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n28\/09\/2018<\/td>\nTahir ARG\u00dcNDO\u011eAN<\/strong>
\n1993
\n\u0130zmir<\/td>\n		Metin BOZKURT<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n47046\/18<\/td>\nEldemir v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n17\/09\/2018<\/td>\nU\u011fur ELDEM\u0130R<\/strong>
\n1974
\nIstanbul<\/td>\n		\u0130lyas TEK\u0130N<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n54826\/18<\/td>\nHoruz v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n19\/11\/2018<\/td>\nYusuf HORUZ<\/strong>
\n1989
\nKahramanmara\u015f<\/td>\n		Yasin TORUNO\u011eLU<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26.<\/td>\n54866\/18<\/td>\nKunt v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n07\/11\/2018<\/td>\nMehmet Akif KUNT<\/strong>
\n1984
\nBal\u0131kesir<\/td>\n		Enes Malik KILI\u00c7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
27.<\/td>\n56582\/18<\/td>\n\u00d6z\u00e7elebi v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n13\/11\/2018<\/td>\nFahrettin \u00d6Z\u00c7ELEB\u0130<\/strong>
\n1984
\nAnkara<\/td>\n		Ahmet Serdar G\u00dcNE\u015e<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
28.<\/td>\n57182\/18<\/td>\nG\u00f6ren v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n16\/11\/2018<\/td>\nSeyyit G\u00d6REN<\/strong>
\n1981
\nNi\u011fde<\/td>\n		<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
29.<\/td>\n57545\/18<\/td>\nBak\u0131r v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n15\/11\/2018<\/td>\nLevent BAKIR<\/strong>
\n1973
\nAnkara<\/td>\n		Hasan H\u00fcseyin ERDO\u011eAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30.<\/td>\n58802\/18<\/td>\nP\u0131narakar v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n21\/11\/2018<\/td>\nHidayet PINARAKAR<\/strong>
\n1980
\nMu\u011fla<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
31.<\/td>\n58891\/18<\/td>\nG\u00f6r\u00fcr v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n28\/11\/2018<\/td>\n\u0130hsan G\u00d6R\u00dcR<\/strong>
\n1984
\nTrabzon<\/td>\n		Metin KESK\u0130N<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
32.<\/td>\n21\/19<\/td>\nUrganc\u0131 v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n07\/12\/2018<\/td>\nNihat URGANCI<\/strong>
\n1973
\nAmasya<\/td>\n		Sevda URGANCI<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
33.<\/td>\n841\/19<\/td>\nKaraku\u015f v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n12\/12\/2018<\/td>\nFesih KARAKU\u015e<\/strong>
\n1990
\nIstanbul<\/td>\n		Ay\u015fe BA\u011eCI KARAKU\u015e<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
34.<\/td>\n1470\/19<\/td>\nS\u00f6nmez v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n13\/12\/2018<\/td>\nDinar S\u00d6NMEZ<\/strong>
\n1988
\nIstanbul<\/td>\n		Muhammed Nuh POLAT<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
35.<\/td>\n2274\/19<\/td>\nArpac\u0131 v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n13\/12\/2018<\/td>\n\u0130smail ARPACI<\/strong>
\n1982
\nElaz\u0131\u011f<\/td>\n		Mehmet S\u0131dd\u0131k KARAG\u00d6Z<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
36.<\/td>\n2843\/19<\/td>\nI\u015f\u0131k v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n03\/01\/2019<\/td>\nAyhan I\u015eIK<\/strong>
\n1972
\nIsparta<\/td>\n		Kadir \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
37.<\/td>\n3430\/19<\/td>\n\u00d6zgul v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n02\/01\/2019<\/td>\nMuharrem \u00d6ZG\u00dcL<\/strong>
\n1974
\nAnkara<\/td>\n		Tar\u0131k Said G\u00dcLD\u0130B\u0130<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
38.<\/td>\n4061\/19<\/td>\nMetin v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n28\/12\/2018<\/td>\nYakup MET\u0130N<\/strong>
\n1977
\nAnkara<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
39.<\/td>\n4558\/19<\/td>\n\u00d6ztel v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n31\/12\/2018<\/td>\nFatih \u00d6ZTEL<\/strong>
\n1981
\nIstanbul<\/td>\n		Neslihan B\u0130L\u0130C\u0130<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
40.<\/td>\n4585\/19<\/td>\n\u00c7ulha v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n28\/12\/2018<\/td>\nKemal \u00c7ULHA<\/strong>
\n1971
\nAdana<\/td>\n		<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
41.<\/td>\n5304\/19<\/td>\nOnursal v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n03\/01\/2019<\/td>\nSoner ONURSAL<\/strong>
\n1987
\nHatay<\/td>\n		Dudu ERTUN\u00c7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
42.<\/td>\n5531\/19<\/td>\nHamarat v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n15\/01\/2019<\/td>\nMurat HAMARAT<\/strong>
\n1977
\nIzmir<\/td>\n		<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
43.<\/td>\n5933\/19<\/td>\nG\u00f6ren v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n11\/01\/2019<\/td>\nYavuz G\u00d6REN<\/strong>
\n1983
\nZonguldak<\/td>\n		Erdi KOST\u0130K<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
44.<\/td>\n6201\/19<\/td>\nSay v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n17\/12\/2018<\/td>\nBuket SAY<\/strong>
\n1988
\nAnkara<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
45.<\/td>\n6254\/19<\/td>\nY\u0131lmaz v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n10\/01\/2019<\/td>\nHakan YILMAZ<\/strong>
\n1971
\nAnkara<\/td>\n		Burak \u00c7OLAK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n