{"id":21871,"date":"2023-12-12T10:14:46","date_gmt":"2023-12-12T10:14:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21871"},"modified":"2023-12-12T10:15:06","modified_gmt":"2023-12-12T10:15:06","slug":"case-of-mecit-and-others-v-turkiye-69884-17-and-81-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21871","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF MECIT AND OTHERS v. T\u00dcRK\u0130YE – 69884\/17 and 81 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<\/p>\n

\n

European Court of Human Rights
\nSECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF MEC\u0130T AND OTHERS v. T\u00dcRK\u0130YE<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 69884\/17 and 81 others)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n12 December 2023<\/p>\n

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

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

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

Jovan Ilievski, President,
\nLorraine Schembri Orland,
\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 eighty-two Turkish nationals, whose relevant details are listed in the appended table (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on the various dates indicated therein;
\nthe 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;
\nthe decision to reject the Government\u2019s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 21 November 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 (for further background information see Akg\u00fcn v. Turkey, no. 19699\/18, \u00a7\u00a7 3-9 and \u00a7\u00a7 106-07, 20 July 2021).<\/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 v.\u00a0Turkey, no.\u00a066448\/17, \u00a7 58, 3 March 2020). 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 the majority of the applicants were identified as users of the ByLock messaging system. Moreover, some of the applicants were suspected of financing the FET\u00d6\/PDY in view of their use of accounts in Bank Asya \u2013\u00a0a bank allegedly linked to FET\u00d6\/PDY \u2013, possession of pro-FET\u00d6\/PDY publications and\/or United States one-dollar bills with an \u201cF\u201d serial number (denoting the initial of the forename \u201cFetullah\u201d), and\/or their employment by and\/or memberships in FET\u00d6\/PDY-affiliated institutions and organisations. 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\u00a0giving rise to a reasonable suspicion, within the meaning of Article\u00a05 \u00a7 1 (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 v. Turkey, no.\u00a066448\/17, \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, banking activities considered as financing the FET\u00d6\/PDY, subscriptions to certain pro-FET\u00d6\/PDY publications, having in their possessions United States one\u2011dollar bills with an \u201cF\u201d serial number, and\/or their employment by and\/or memberships in FET\u00d6\/PDY-affiliated institutions and organisations. 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 151-85, 20\u00a0July 2021, and Taner K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 v. Turkey (no. 2), no.\u00a0208\/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\u00a0Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c)\u00a0regarding 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 114-16). 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 applicants in application nos. 6670\/18, 7824\/19, 9380\/19 and 9462\/19, 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 applicants in application nos.\u00a06670\/18, 7824\/19, 9380\/19 and 9462\/19, 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 applicants in application nos. 6670\/18, 7824\/19, 9380\/19 and 9462\/19, 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 12 December 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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Jovan Ilievski
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\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:<\/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
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/td>\nCase name<\/strong><\/td>\nLodged on<\/strong><\/td>\nApplicant
\nYear of Birth
\nPlace of Residence
\nNationality<\/strong><\/td>\n		Represented by<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
1.<\/td>\n69884\/17<\/td>\nMecit v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n04\/09\/2017<\/td>\nHamit MEC\u0130T<\/strong>
\n1972
\nMalatya
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		B\u00fc\u015fra KESER<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n4625\/18<\/td>\n\u00c7evik v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n13\/07\/2017<\/td>\nHasan H\u00fcseyin \u00c7EV\u0130K<\/strong>
\n1973
\nKonya
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Mustafa DEM\u0130R<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n4697\/18<\/td>\nTarhan v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n13\/07\/2017<\/td>\nOsman TARHAN<\/strong>
\n1980
\nKonya
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Mustafa DEM\u0130R<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n6670\/18<\/td>\n\u00d6zkul v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n09\/01\/2018<\/td>\nSalih \u00d6ZKUL<\/strong>
\n1987
\nAnkara
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Abidin \u015eAH\u0130N<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n9584\/18<\/td>\nY\u00fcceda\u011f v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n13\/02\/2018<\/td>\nMesut Y\u00dcCEDA\u011e<\/strong>
\n1989
\nBursa
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Fatma ALBAYRAK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n9585\/18<\/td>\nAydo\u011fmu\u015f v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n13\/02\/2018<\/td>\nYasin AYDO\u011eMU\u015e<\/strong>
\n1982
\nAnkara
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Fatma ALBAYRAK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n9586\/18<\/td>\nS\u0131ryol v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n13\/02\/2018<\/td>\nM\u00fcnevver SIRYOL<\/strong>
\n1985
\nIstanbul
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Fatma ALBAYRAK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n12124\/18<\/td>\n\u00d6zcan v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n06\/03\/2018<\/td>\nAbdurrahman \u00d6ZCAN<\/strong>
\n1975
\nIstanbul
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Fatma ALBAYRAK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n12490\/18<\/td>\nMila v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n02\/03\/2018<\/td>\nMehmet M\u0130LA<\/strong>
\n1983
\nVan
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		B\u00fc\u015fra KURT K\u00dc\u00c7\u00dcK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n26360\/18<\/td>\nKarakaya v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n08\/05\/2018<\/td>\nMusa KARAKAYA<\/strong>
\n1979
\nAyd\u0131n
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n27004\/18<\/td>\nBoran v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n18\/05\/2018<\/td>\nHasan Basri BORAN<\/strong>
\n1973
\nAdana
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Sinan TUMLUKOL\u00c7U<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n27075\/18<\/td>\nDursun v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n18\/05\/2018<\/td>\nYa\u015far DURSUN<\/strong>
\n1975
\n\u00c7ank\u0131r\u0131
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n27086\/18<\/td>\nDuran v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n18\/05\/2018<\/td>\nErdal DURAN<\/strong>
\n1976
\n\u00c7ank\u0131r\u0131
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n29602\/18<\/td>\n\u00d6z v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n11\/06\/2018<\/td>\nMahmut \u00d6Z<\/strong>
\n1984
\nKastamonu
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Fatma Zehra \u00d6ZD\u0130P\u0130<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n30140\/18<\/td>\nBereket v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n13\/06\/2018<\/td>\n\u00d6mer BEREKET<\/strong>
\n1975
\nGaziantep
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Fad\u0131l ULUTA\u015e<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n40409\/18<\/td>\n\u00d6zt\u00fcrk v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n06\/08\/2018<\/td>\nCelal \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK<\/strong>
\n1971
\nSinop
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Bekir DEM\u0130RC\u0130O\u011eLU<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n41513\/18<\/td>\nYontar v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n17\/08\/2018<\/td>\n\u015e\u00fckr\u00fc YONTAR<\/strong>
\n1977
\nTekirda\u011f
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Mehmet Ert\u00fcrk ERDEV\u0130R<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n44762\/18<\/td>\nYarb\u0131 v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n17\/09\/2018<\/td>\nAyd\u0131n YARBI<\/strong>
\n1972
\nYalova
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Mehmet G\u00dcL<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n44766\/18<\/td>\nYal\u00e7\u0131n v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n14\/09\/2018<\/td>\nFatih YAL\u00c7IN<\/strong>
\n1976
\nAnkara
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Mehmet YAL\u00c7IN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n45472\/18<\/td>\nAydo\u011fan v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n07\/09\/2018<\/td>\n\u0130brahim AYDO\u011eAN<\/strong>
\n1974
\nAnkara
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n45473\/18<\/td>\nAkmirza v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n07\/09\/2018<\/td>\nBekir AKM\u0130RZA<\/strong>
\n1968
\nK\u0131r\u015fehir
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n45482\/18<\/td>\nG\u00fcnd\u00fcz v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n07\/09\/2018<\/td>\nMurat G\u00dcND\u00dcZ<\/strong>
\n1973
\nAnkara
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n47781\/18<\/td>\nTekdemir v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n09\/10\/2018<\/td>\nGazi TEKDEM\u0130R<\/strong>
\n1964
\nIstanbul
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Kamile \u00d6ZBULUT<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n48351\/18<\/td>\nK\u0131rda\u011f v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n09\/10\/2018<\/td>\nHakan KIRDA\u011e<\/strong>
\n1963
\nAnkara
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n49301\/18<\/td>\nTalu v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n09\/10\/2018<\/td>\nEmre TALU<\/strong>
\n1990
\nSivas
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		\u015eeyma MISIRLIO\u011eLU<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26.<\/td>\n49903\/18<\/td>\n\u00d6rsel v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n03\/10\/2018<\/td>\nYa\u015far \u00d6RSEL<\/strong>
\n1972
\nK\u0131r\u015fehir
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Lale KARADA\u015e<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
27.<\/td>\n50798\/18<\/td>\nDemir v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n11\/10\/2018<\/td>\nAbdussamet DEM\u0130R<\/strong>
\n1991
\nAnkara
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
28.<\/td>\n50799\/18<\/td>\nKara v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n11\/10\/2018<\/td>\nHarun KARA<\/strong>
\n1980
\nIsparta
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
29.<\/td>\n51577\/18<\/td>\n\u00d6zdemir v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n15\/10\/2018<\/td>\n\u0130smet \u00d6ZDEM\u0130R<\/strong>
\n1974
\nManisa
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		\u0130smail G\u00dcNEY<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30.<\/td>\n51690\/18<\/td>\nGeleken v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n26\/10\/2018<\/td>\nTurgut GELEKEN<\/strong>
\n1973
\n\u0130zmir
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Mevl\u00fct Burak KAPTAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
31.<\/td>\n52456\/18<\/td>\nAcar v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n02\/11\/2018<\/td>\nEmre ACAR<\/strong>
\n1985
\nK\u0131r\u0131kkale
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Abdurrahim SI\u011eIRTMA\u00c7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
32.<\/td>\n52523\/18<\/td>\nG\u00fcnal v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n24\/10\/2018<\/td>\nH\u00fcseyin G\u00dcNAL<\/strong>
\n1971
\nAksaray
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		\u0130hsan MAKAS<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
33.<\/td>\n52623\/18<\/td>\nBayram v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n26\/10\/2018<\/td>\nMehmet BAYRAM<\/strong>
\n1985
\nTokat
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Emre AKARYILDIZ<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
34.<\/td>\n53261\/18<\/td>\nKemer v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n09\/11\/2018<\/td>\nSel\u00e7uk KEMER<\/strong>
\n1967
\nBart\u0131n
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Bekir D\u00d6NMEZ<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
35.<\/td>\n53933\/18<\/td>\nKalpakl\u0131 v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n22\/10\/2018<\/td>\nFatma KALPAKLI<\/strong>
\n1991
\nTekirda\u011f
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Mehmet Ert\u00fcrk ERDEV\u0130R<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
36.<\/td>\n54989\/18<\/td>\nYa\u011f\u0131z v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n05\/11\/2018<\/td>\n\u0130brahim YA\u011eIZ<\/strong>
\n1971
\nAntalya
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Burhan AYDIN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
37.<\/td>\n56023\/18<\/td>\nAlaku\u015f v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n31\/10\/2018<\/td>\nFatih ALAKU\u015e<\/strong>
\n1970
\nEski\u015fehir
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Kurtulu\u015f BA\u015eT\u0130MAR<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
38.<\/td>\n56482\/18<\/td>\nAsilt\u00fcrk v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n26\/11\/2018<\/td>\nRamazan ASILT\u00dcRK<\/strong>
\n1977
\nBolu
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Adem D\u00dcZG\u00dcN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
39.<\/td>\n57561\/18<\/td>\nDemir v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n02\/11\/2018<\/td>\nOsman DEM\u0130R<\/strong>
\n1976
\nAnkara
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Demet Y\u00dcREKL\u0130 KAYAALP<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
40.<\/td>\n58256\/18<\/td>\nKaleli v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n21\/11\/2018<\/td>\nNurullah KALEL\u0130<\/strong>
\n1987
\nKonya
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Recep ALTUN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
41.<\/td>\n58801\/18<\/td>\nKaraka\u015f v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n21\/11\/2018<\/td>\nMecit KARAKA\u015e<\/strong>
\n1989
\nEski\u015fehir
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
42.<\/td>\n59988\/18<\/td>\nAcar v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n07\/12\/2018<\/td>\nMehmet ACAR<\/strong>
\n1974
\nBursa
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		\u00c7i\u011fdem DERD\u0130YOK KUBULAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
43.<\/td>\n2366\/19<\/td>\nCildan v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n03\/12\/2018<\/td>\nHalit C\u0130LDAN<\/strong>
\n1969
\nHatay
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Bilal \u00c7\u00d6RT\u00dcK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
44.<\/td>\n2857\/19<\/td>\n\u00d6bekci v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n03\/01\/2019<\/td>\nYusuf \u00d6BEKC\u0130<\/strong>
\n1971
\nAnkara
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
45.<\/td>\n3026\/19<\/td>\nKulaks\u0131z v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n21\/12\/2018<\/td>\nMuhammet Yusuf KULAKSIZ<\/strong>
\n1970
\nIstanbul
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Hasan Tahsin I\u015eILTAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
46.<\/td>\n3252\/19<\/td>\nYaprak v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n25\/12\/2018<\/td>\nAmir YAPRAK<\/strong>
\nTokat
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		\u015eeyma MISIRLIO\u011eLU<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
47.<\/td>\n3774\/19<\/td>\nTurhan v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n26\/12\/2018<\/td>\nMurat TURHAN<\/strong>
\n1984
\nDenizli
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		G\u00fclhis Y\u00d6R\u00dcK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
48.<\/td>\n3984\/19<\/td>\nDake\u015fo\u011flu v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n09\/01\/2019<\/td>\nAli \u0130hsan DAKE\u015eO\u011eLU<\/strong>
\n1979
\nRize
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
49.<\/td>\n4053\/19<\/td>\nSe\u00e7kin v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n28\/12\/2018<\/td>\nAhmet SE\u00c7K\u0130N<\/strong>
\n1977
\nAnkara
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
50.<\/td>\n4074\/19<\/td>\nDeniz v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n28\/12\/2018<\/td>\nCengiz DEN\u0130Z<\/strong>
\n1973
\nElaz\u0131\u011f
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
51.<\/td>\n4079\/19<\/td>\n\u0130nan v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n28\/12\/2018<\/td>\nBurhan \u0130NAN<\/strong>
\n1983
\nAnkara
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
52.<\/td>\n4105\/19<\/td>\nDo\u011fan v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n30\/11\/2018<\/td>\nRamazan Fatih DO\u011eAN<\/strong>
\n1985
\n\u0130zmir
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Kadir \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
53.<\/td>\n4240\/19<\/td>\nYelkesen v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n07\/01\/2019<\/td>\nMehmet Akif YELKESEN<\/strong>
\n1972
\nHatay
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Erdo\u011fan SARA\u00c7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
54.<\/td>\n5539\/19<\/td>\n\u00c7o\u015fkun v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n07\/01\/2019<\/td>\nFerhat CO\u015eKUN<\/strong>
\n1981
\nKayseri
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDA\u011e<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
55.<\/td>\n5561\/19<\/td>\nG\u00fcr\u015fen v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n31\/12\/2018<\/td>\nCihan Murat G\u00dcR\u015eEN<\/strong>
\n1980
\nKonya
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Kadir \u00d6ZT\u00dcRK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
56.<\/td>\n5900\/19<\/td>\n\u00d6zdemir v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n17\/01\/2019<\/td>\nMikail \u00d6ZDEM\u0130R<\/strong>
\n1991
\nTrabzon
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Vahdeddin VARLI<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
57.<\/td>\n6189\/19<\/td>\nAygen v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n17\/12\/2018<\/td>\nZiya AYGEN<\/strong>
\n1974
\nAnkara
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
58.<\/td>\n6193\/19<\/td>\nVurucu v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n17\/12\/2018<\/td>\n\u0130smail VURUCU<\/strong>
\n1985
\nAnkara
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Adem KAPLAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
59.<\/td>\n6316\/19<\/td>\nRe\u00e7ber v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n10\/01\/2019<\/td>\nEmre RE\u00c7BER<\/strong>
\n1986
\nAnkara
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Burak \u00c7OLAK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
60.<\/td>\n6588\/19<\/td>\nK\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n23\/01\/2019<\/td>\nH\u00fcseyin Gazi KILI\u00c7<\/strong>
\n1974
\nKahramanmara\u015f
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Emre KOZANDA\u011eI<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
61.<\/td>\n6979\/19<\/td>\nAkg\u00fcl v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n17\/01\/2019<\/td>\nRa\u015fit AKG\u00dcL<\/strong>
\n1962
\nK\u0131r\u0131kkale
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Hasan H\u00fcseyin ERDO\u011eAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
62.<\/td>\n7100\/19<\/td>\nY\u0131ld\u0131z v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n24\/01\/2019<\/td>\nSezgin YILDIZ<\/strong>
\n1976
\nManisa
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		\u00d6mer K\u00d6STEK\u00c7\u0130<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
63.<\/td>\n7134\/19<\/td>\nAsr\u0131 v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n23\/01\/2019<\/td>\nEkrem ASRI<\/strong>
\nAntalya
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Yusuf Sait PEKG\u00d6Z<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
64.<\/td>\n7269\/19<\/td>\nEjder v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n24\/01\/2019<\/td>\nAy\u015fe EJDER<\/strong>
\n1964
\nKars
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		\u00d6zcan AKINCI<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
65.<\/td>\n7824\/19<\/td>\nD\u00fczg\u00fcn v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n28\/01\/2019<\/td>\n\u0130smail D\u00dcZG\u00dcN<\/strong>
\n1983
\nAntalya
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Emre \u00d6ZD\u0130K\u0130C\u0130ERLER<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
66.<\/td>\n7996\/19<\/td>\nKaya v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n24\/01\/2019<\/td>\nMehmet KAYA<\/strong>
\n1988
\nIstanbul
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		\u0130rem TATLIDEDE<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
67.<\/td>\n8413\/19<\/td>\nAtalay v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n30\/01\/2019<\/td>\nCemal ATALAY<\/strong>
\n1986
\nBursa
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
68.<\/td>\n8990\/19<\/td>\nBal v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n30\/01\/2019<\/td>\nMustafa BAL<\/strong>
\n1972
\nGiresun
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		\u015e\u00fckr\u00fc KOCUK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
69.<\/td>\n9121\/19<\/td>\nAsr\u0131 v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n11\/02\/2019<\/td>\n\u0130sa Samet ASRI<\/strong>
\n1996
\nAntalya
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Yusuf Sait PEKG\u00d6Z<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
70.<\/td>\n9195\/19<\/td>\nK\u00f6k\u00f6z v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n22\/01\/2019<\/td>\nRamazan K\u00d6K\u00d6Z<\/strong>
\n1973
\nManisa
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		As\u0131m Burak G\u00dcNE\u015e<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
71.<\/td>\n9332\/19<\/td>\n\u015eenyayla v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n06\/02\/2019<\/td>\nZeki \u015eENYAYLA<\/strong>
\n1974
\nAnkara
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		\u00dcsame \u0130NAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
72.<\/td>\n9380\/19<\/td>\nIrk v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n25\/01\/2019<\/td>\nM\u00fcmtaz \u0130RK<\/strong>
\n1980
\nAksaray
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Emre KOZANDA\u011eI<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
73.<\/td>\n9446\/19<\/td>\nG\u00fcne\u015f v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n09\/02\/2019<\/td>\nCemal G\u00dcNE\u015e<\/strong>
\n1988
\nAntalya
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Yusuf Sait PEKG\u00d6Z<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
74.<\/td>\n9452\/19<\/td>\nUzay v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n31\/01\/2019<\/td>\nSadettin UZAY<\/strong>
\n1972
\nKahramanmara\u015f
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Mehmet \u00d6NC\u00dc<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
75.<\/td>\n9462\/19<\/td>\n\u00d6z v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n15\/01\/2019<\/td>\nAli \u00d6Z<\/strong>
\n1970
\nKonya
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Selda Devrim YILDIRIM<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
76.<\/td>\n9815\/19<\/td>\nG\u00fcne\u015f v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n05\/02\/2019<\/td>\nRecep G\u00dcNE\u015e<\/strong>
\n1974
\nSiirt
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Hasan TOK<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
77.<\/td>\n9981\/19<\/td>\nY\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n05\/02\/2019<\/td>\nZeynel YILDIRIM<\/strong>
\n1980
\nAnkara
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Tar\u0131k Said G\u00dcLD\u0130B\u0130<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
78.<\/td>\n10173\/19<\/td>\nTa\u015fk\u0131n v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n07\/02\/2019<\/td>\nAhmet TA\u015eKIN<\/strong>
\n1972
\nAntalya
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Yusuf Sait PEKG\u00d6Z<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
79.<\/td>\n11313\/19<\/td>\nG\u00fcrb\u00fcz v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n20\/02\/2019<\/td>\nAhmet G\u00dcRB\u00dcZ<\/strong>
\n1974
\nElaz\u0131\u011f
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Mehmet S\u0131dd\u0131k KARAG\u00d6Z<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
80.<\/td>\n11333\/19<\/td>\nHazin v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n11\/02\/2019<\/td>\nMesut HAZIN<\/strong>
\n1980
\nK\u0131r\u015fehir
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Lale KARADA\u015e<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
81.<\/td>\n21352\/19<\/td>\nBa\u015fyi\u011fit v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n16\/04\/2019<\/td>\nMahmut BA\u015eY\u0130\u011e\u0130T<\/strong>
\n1970
\nAydin
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		\u00d6zlem SUZAN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
82.<\/td>\n36350\/19<\/td>\nAlt\u0131parmak v. T\u00fcrkiye<\/td>\n01\/07\/2019<\/td>\n\u00d6mer ALTIPARMAK<\/strong>
\n1975
\nKahramanmara\u015f
\nTurkish<\/td>\n		Necip Faz\u0131l YILDIZ<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n