SECOND SECTION
CASE OF BOZYOKUŞ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
(Applications nos. 39586/20 and 131 others –
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
16 December 2025
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bozyokuş and Others v. Türkiye,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Jovan Ilievski, President,
 Péter Paczolay,
 Juha Lavapuro, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 (the right to a fair trial) and Article 7 of the Convention (no punishment without law) to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr Abdullah Aydın, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye;
the parties’ observations;
the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;
Having deliberated in private on 25 November 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1.  The case concerns the applicants’ convictions for membership of an armed terrorist organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure” (Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması, hereinafter referred to as “the FETÖ/PDY”), considered by the authorities to be behind the coup attempt that took place in Türkiye on 15 July 2016. The broader domestic background and context to the present applications was set out by the Court in Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye ([GC], no. 15669/20, §§ 10-22 and 108-40, 26 September 2023).
2.  The applicants’ convictions were based decisively on their use of an encrypted messaging application by the name of “ByLock”. The domestic authorities and courts considered that the ByLock application was designed for the exclusive use of the members of the FETÖ/PDY and that the establishment of the use of that application was sufficient on its own for conviction under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code for membership of an armed terrorist organisation (ibid., §§ 155-65 and 257).
3.  Other evidence against the applicants, if any, involved mainly an admission of using ByLock, decrypted message content confirming use of that application or witness statements attesting to such use; membership of a trade union, association and/or foundation considered to be affiliated with the FETÖ/PDY; account activities at Bank Asya, which was considered by the authorities to be a part of the financial structure of the FETÖ/PDY; possession of pro-FETÖ/PDY publications or other audio-visual material; participation in trips considered to have been organised by the FETÖ/PDY and records of exit from and entry to Türkiye; donations to FETÖ/PDY-affiliated foundations; participation in various demonstrations considered to be in support of the FETÖ/PDY or in other organisational activities; social media posts in favour of the organisation; residence in FETÖ/PDY student houses or dormitories; use of other messaging applications, such as Kakao Talk or Eagle, to communicate with other members of the organisation; HTS (Historical Traffic Search) records indicating communications with others prosecuted of the same offence or other digital evidence suggesting membership of the organisation; employment by and/or membership of FETÖ/PDY‑affiliated institutions, organisations or companies; witness statements as regards such employment and/or membership, or as regards other connections to the FETÖ/PDY. In the case of some of the applicants, the convictions were imposed without waiting for the submission to the case files of the detailed ByLock findings and evaluation reports – which potentially included decrypted content of communications over ByLock – on the ground that the establishment of the use of that application sufficed for conviction, irrespective of the nature and content of the communications.
4.  The individual applications lodged by the applicants with the Constitutional Court against their convictions were summarily dismissed by that court as being inadmissible, on the basis of its case-law endorsing the Court of Cassation’s landmark judgments on the matter (see Yüksel Yalçınkaya, cited above, §§ 169-88).
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 7 and 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTIONAlleged violation of Article 7 of the Convention6.  The applicants complained that their convictions under Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code for membership of the FETÖ/PDY had violated the principle of no punishment without law under Article 7 of the Convention, primarily for the reasons set out in Demirhan and Others v. Türkiye (nos. 1595/20 and 238 others, § 29, 22 July 2025).
7.  The Government reiterated their observations as outlined in Demirhan and Others (ibid., §§ 31-34). They submitted that, while notice of the present applications had been given to them as raising issues similar to those addressed by the Court in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above), the Court’s considerations in that judgment had related to the specific facts of that case. They argued that the Court should therefore refrain from extrapolating the findings made therein to the present applications and invited it to assess the criminal proceedings conducted against each applicant on the basis of their own particular circumstances. They claimed, in particular, that the convictions in the present applications had not been based solely on the applicants’ use of the ByLock application but had involved a wide variety of other evidence, not all of which had been subject to assessment in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above; see the evidence listed in paragraph 3 above). The domestic courts, which had enjoyed direct contact with the evidence at issue, had established each applicant’s membership of the armed terrorist organisation on an individual basis following a careful assessment of all the elements in their specific case files.
8.  The Court notes that the applicants’ complaint under Article 7 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
9.  As regards the merits, the Court indeed observes that the evidence in respect of some of the applicants included material that was not at issue in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above). That being said, having examined all the material and arguments submitted to it, the Court finds no reason in the present case to depart from its findings in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§ 237-72), for the reasons set out in detail in Demirhan and Others (cited above, §§ 35-47).
10.  It notes in this connection that the finding of violations of Articles 7 and 6 § 1 of the Convention in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above) had resulted notably from the domestic courts’ characterisation of the use of ByLock, according to which anyone whose use of ByLock was established could be convicted on that sole basis of membership of an armed terrorist organisation pursuant to Article 314 § 2 of the Criminal Code (ibid., §§ 364, 413 and 414). It therefore follows, as also underlined in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, § 414), and subsequently reiterated in Demirhan and Others (cited above, § 38) that the situation that led to a finding of a violation of Articles 7 and 6 § 1 of the Convention in that case was not prompted by an isolated incident or attributable to the particular turn of events specific to the facts of that case, but potentially applied to everyone convicted for membership of the FETÖ/PDY on the basis of their use of ByLock.
11.  The Court does not rule out that there may be other evidence in respect of some of the applicants, other than their use of ByLock, that may demonstrate their organic link with the FETÖ/PDY based on the continuity, diversity and intensity of their activities and their submission to its hierarchy as required under the Court of Cassation’s case-law (see Yüksel Yalçınkaya, cited above, § 184) and thus secure their conviction as charged. The fact nevertheless remains that the establishment of the mere use of ByLock served, on its own, as conclusive proof of the presence of all of the constituent elements of the crime of membership of an armed terrorist organisation as defined in domestic law. The Court has declared this approach of the domestic courts, which effectively imputed objective liability to the users of ByLock, to be in contravention of the principle of legality safeguarded under Article 7 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 271 and 272), and it sees no reason to find otherwise in the present case (see also Demirhan and Others, cited above, § 39).
12.  In view of the above considerations, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention on the facts of the present case (see also Yüksel Yalçınkaya, cited above, § 272, and Demirhan and Others, cited above, §§ 39 and 46).
Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention13.  Some of the applicants also complained that their trial and convictions for membership of the FETÖ/PDY had violated the right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, primarily for the reasons set out in Demirhan and Others (cited above, § 29). The Government argued that those complaints had not been duly raised before the Constitutional Court, either expressly or in substance, and that they should therefore be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
14.  The Court reiterates that the main problems identified by the Grand Chamber in this group of cases in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above), and subsequently reaffirmed in Demirhan and Others (cited above), was not attributable to the particular turn of events or procedural issues specific to those cases, but resulted notably from the domestic courts’ characterisation of the use of ByLock and the uniform and global approach adopted by the Turkish judiciary vis-à-vis the ByLock evidence (see Yüksel Yalçınkaya, cited above, §§ 364, 413 and 414, and Demirhan and Others, cited above, §§ 37, 38 and 42). Having already found that this approach amounted to a violation of Article 7 of the Convention in the present case (see paragraph 12 above), which will enable the applicants to seek the reopening of the domestic proceedings in the light of the principles enunciated in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§ 411, 412 and 425; see also paragraph 17 below), the Court does not deem it necessary to examine whether the Government’s preliminary objection under this head may be upheld in respect of each individual application concerned.
15.  Accordingly, the Court decides not to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the Article 6 § 1 complaints raised by some of the applicants.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION16.  The Court notes that some of the applicants also lodged complaints under other provisions of the Convention, such as Articles 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14, or raised complaints relating to other aspects of Article 6 (as in Yüksel Yalçınkaya, cited above, §§ 357, 358, 368 and 374). However, having regard to the finding of a violation of Article 7 above (see paragraph 12), the reasons for that finding (see paragraphs 10 and 11) and the specific circumstances of the case, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal question raised by the case and that there is no need to address the admissibility and merits of any remaining complaints (see, mutatis mutandis, Yüksel Yalçınkaya, cited above, §§ 365, 367 and 373; Turan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 75805/16 and 426 others, § 98, 23 November 2021; and Demirhan and Others, cited above, § 48).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
17.  The Court considers, for the reasons explained in Yüksel Yalçınkaya (cited above, §§ 404, 411, 412 and 425; see also Demirhan and Others, cited above, § 53), that the finding of a violation of Article 7 of the Convention can be regarded as sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in the present case. It notes in this regard that the applicants have the possibility under Article 311 § 1 (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have the domestic proceedings reopened following the delivery of the present judgment (see Yüksel Yalçınkaya, cited above, § 411), and that the reopening of the proceedings in a manner compatible with the “conclusions and spirit” of the judgment would in principle constitute the most appropriate form of redress, should they so request.
18.  Furthermore, for the reasons set out in Demirhan and Others (cited above, §§ 54-56), the Court makes no awards for costs and expenses in respect of follow-up applications of this type.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the applicants’ complaint that their convictions for membership of the FETÖ/PDY had violated the principle of no punishment without law under Article 7 of the Convention admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 7 of the Convention;Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ remaining complaints;Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants;Dismisses the remainder of any claim made by the applicants for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 December 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
 
 Dorothee von Arnim Jovan Ilievski
 Deputy Registrar President
 
 
APPENDIX
List of cases:
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
  
39586/20
Bozyokuş v. Türkiye
14/08/2020
Latif Tuncer BOZYOKUŞ
1977
Istanbul
Turkish
Sena AKKAYA AVVURAN
 61905/19
Türkhan v. Türkiye
19/11/2019
Halil TÜRKHAN
1970
Istanbul
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
 62032/19
Kıran v. Türkiye
01/11/2019
Zeynep KIRAN
1988
Zonguldak
Turkish
Sevgi KÜMÜŞ TEK
 1672/20
Çelik v. Türkiye
10/12/2019
Bekir ÇELİK
1976
Kayseri
Turkish
Özcan AKINCI
 11160/20
Okur v. Türkiye
25/02/2020
Mustafa OKUR
1977
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 11163/20
Korkmaz v. Türkiye
25/02/2020
İbrahim KORKMAZ
1964
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 11165/20
Aksoy v. Türkiye
26/02/2020
Dilaver AKSOY
1976
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 11168/20
Coşkun v. Türkiye
26/02/2020
Abdullah COŞKUN
1974
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 11171/20
Ceylan v. Türkiye
26/02/2020
Kerim CEYLAN
1974
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 11175/20
Seyip v. Türkiye
26/02/2020
Mehmet SEYİP
1977
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 15518/20
Karaca v. Türkiye
20/02/2020
İbrahim KARACA
1976
Çorum
Turkish
 
 16910/20
Er v. Türkiye
31/03/2020
Özcan ER
1971
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish
Birsen KARADAŞ
 17659/20
İpek v. Türkiye
07/04/2020
Mustafa İPEK
1978
Çorum
Turkish
Fahri AZKUR
 19758/20
Hamalosmanoğlu v. Türkiye
07/05/2020
Harun HAMALOSMANOĞLU
1978
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 23433/20
Büyükçakır v. Türkiye
20/05/2020
Mustafa BÜYÜKÇAKIR
1962
Balıkesir
Turkish
Fatih BÜYÜKÇAKIR
 23791/20
Kurt v. Türkiye
21/05/2020
Musa KURT
1980
Giresun
Turkish
Feyza TİRYAKİ
 24273/20
Baran v. Türkiye
16/06/2020
Halil İbrahim BARAN
1982
Denizli
Turkish
Mehmet MİRZA
 29209/20
Bucaktepe v. Türkiye
30/06/2020
Muhammet BUCAKTEPE
1984
Çorum
Turkish
Ebubekir RENK
 33294/20
Murt v. Türkiye
22/07/2020
Osman MURT
1971
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 35794/20
Işık v. Türkiye
29/07/2020
İlyas IŞIK
1981
Osmaniye
Turkish
Halil ÇETİN
 39962/20
Anar v. Türkiye
25/08/2020
Mustafa ANAR
1980
Erzurum
Turkish
Mehmet Akif PALABIYIK
 41239/20
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
08/07/2020
Seçkin YILMAZ
1976
Ankara
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
 43140/20
Demir v. Türkiye
12/08/2020
Enes DEMİR
1992
İzmir
Turkish
Fatima Büşra KAFTAN
 44773/20
Erkal v. Türkiye
02/10/2020
Adem ERKAL
1967
Aydın
Turkish
 
 45070/20
Karaboğa v. Türkiye
10/09/2020
Osman KARABOĞA
1987
Osmaniye
Turkish
Hamdi MERSİN
 46061/20
Çakar v. Türkiye
30/09/2020
Şerif ÇAKAR
1974
Balıkesir
Turkish
Mehmet BAŞYİĞİT
 46500/20
Şahan v. Türkiye
09/10/2020
Şeyma ŞAHAN
1990
Balıkesir
Turkish
Sercan ALACIK
 46569/20
Kaya v. Türkiye
09/10/2020
Ali KAYA
1986
Afyonkarahisar
Turkish
Mehmet SARIKAYA
 47233/20
Erdem v. Türkiye
15/10/2020
Bayram ERDEM
1971
Malatya
Turkish
Nalan ERDEM
 50156/20
Avcı v. Türkiye
30/10/2020
Nadir AVCI
1972
Burdur
Turkish
Zülal BÜKER
 50434/20
Karagöz v. Türkiye
21/10/2020
Talat KARAGÖZ
1970
Burdur
Turkish
 
 51867/20
Aldam v. Türkiye
12/10/2020
Ali ALDAM
1974
Manisa
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
 52909/20
Polattaş v. Türkiye
19/11/2020
Mustafa POLATTAŞ
1982
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
 53186/20
Akdoğan v. Türkiye
18/11/2020
Metin AKDOĞAN
1974
Samsun
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
 54608/20
Demirci v. Türkiye
24/11/2020
Mehmet Ali DEMİRCİ
1991
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish
Tufan YILMAZ
 55073/20
Sarıkaya v. Türkiye
08/12/2020
Cengiz SARIKAYA
1970
Kayseri
Turkish
Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ
 55119/20
Çetin v. Türkiye
27/11/2020
İsa ÇETİN
1984
Şanlıurfa
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
 55242/20
Toyaksi v. Türkiye
27/11/2020
İbrahim TOYAKSİ
1978
Gaziantep
Turkish
İbrahim KOÇAKGÖL
 55336/20
Kılıç v. Türkiye
14/12/2020
İhsan KILIÇ
1962
İzmir
Turkish
 
 55437/20
Musullu v. Türkiye
27/11/2020
İsmail MUSULLU
1993
Erzincan
Turkish
Mehmet Burak UZUN
 2530/21
Çınar v. Türkiye
09/12/2020
Fatih ÇINAR
1981
Manisa
Turkish
 
 6575/21
Kaygas v. Türkiye
13/01/2021
Mustafa KAYGAS
1988
Antalya
Turkish
Muhammet DEMİREL
 6636/21
Ceylan v. Türkiye
12/01/2021
Coşkun CEYLAN
1974
Kayseri
Turkish
Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ
 9759/21
Ersoy v. Türkiye
05/02/2021
Levent ERSOY
1989
İzmir
Turkish
Halil ÇETİN
 12481/21
Aytekin v. Türkiye
19/02/2021
Seyfi AYTEKİN
1975
Afyonkarahisar
Turkish
Halil ÇETİN
 13655/21
Şahin v. Türkiye
01/03/2021
Dursun ŞAHİN
1985
Kayseri
Turkish
Zehra KARAKULAK BOZDAĞ
 13665/21
Alan v. Türkiye
25/02/2021
Mithat ALAN
1985
Elazığ
Turkish
Mehmet Sıddık KARAGÖZ
 13838/21
Uygun v. Türkiye
01/03/2021
Ahmet UYGUN
1976
Eskişehir
Turkish
Halil ÇETİN
 14089/21
Bülbül v. Türkiye
26/02/2021
Ferhat BÜLBÜL
1989
Kahramanmaraş
Turkish
Bülent AKBAY
 15441/21
Kabasakal v. Türkiye
15/03/2021
Mustafa KABASAKAL
1971
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 15444/21
Irmak v. Türkiye
15/03/2021
Mehmet IRMAK
1984
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 15447/21
Cansever v. Türkiye
15/03/2021
Gültekin CANSEVER
1972
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 15449/21
Eroğlu v. Türkiye
15/03/2021
Bestami EROĞLU
1978
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 15451/21
Karadeniz v. Türkiye
15/03/2021
Zekeriya KARADENİZ
1993
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 15468/21
Taktak v. Türkiye
15/03/2021
Mahmut TAKTAK
1975
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 15483/21
Atık v. Türkiye
15/03/2021
Kemal ATIK
1970
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 15496/21
Bezgin v. Türkiye
15/03/2021
Mehmet BEZGİN
1966
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 15506/21
Poyraz v. Türkiye
15/03/2021
Süleyman POYRAZ
1994
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 15521/21
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
15/03/2021
Oğuzhan YILMAZ
1974
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 15525/21
Çaylan v. Türkiye
15/03/2021
Zeliha ÇAYLAN
1991
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 15527/21
Çokgez v. Türkiye
15/03/2021
Abdulkadir ÇOKGEZ
1974
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 17569/21
Görgülü v. Türkiye
24/03/2021
Hüseyin GÖRGÜLÜ
1974
Manisa
Turkish
Ahmet Emre CEYLAN
 17955/21
Bayrak v. Türkiye
24/03/2021
Veli BAYRAK
1975
Brussels
Turkish
 
 18226/21
Hakan v. Türkiye
30/03/2021
Servet HAKAN
1975
Denizli
Turkish
Tarık AVŞAR
 18508/21
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
26/03/2021
Mustafa YILMAZ
1991
Amasya
Turkish
Kübra KAZANCI TOSUN
 18691/21
Akın v. Türkiye
18/03/2021
Mehmet AKIN
1963
İzmir
Turkish
Halil ÇETİN
 18751/21
Menekşe v. Türkiye
30/03/2021
Yusuf MENEKŞE
1987
Kayseri
Turkish
Kadriye MENEKŞE
 20362/21
Er v. Türkiye
06/04/2021
Abdullah ER
1979
Istanbul
Turkish
Hakan YILMAZ
 21686/21
Akbulut v. Türkiye
12/04/2021
Yunus Emre AKBULUT
1993
Samsun
Turkish
Nur Efşan ÇİL
 22351/21
Deniz v. Türkiye
15/04/2021
Ünal DENİZ
1992
Istanbul
Turkish
 
 24140/21
Özdemir v. Türkiye
26/04/2021
Hamdi ÖZDEMİR
1968
Turkish
Ali AVCI
 24754/21
Razı v. Türkiye
29/04/2021
Bülent RAZI
1979
Siirt
Turkish
Mehmet SATICI
 26946/21
Horkar v. Türkiye
12/05/2021
Rafet HORKAR
1982
Ankara
Turkish
Can AHMETOĞLU
 27355/21
Özbay v. Türkiye
10/05/2021
Fatih ÖZBAY
1975
Kütahya
Turkish
Meliha Gülsüm ŞAHİN SOYTÜRK
 27379/21
Demir v. Türkiye
30/04/2021
İlker DEMİR
1982
Balıkesir
Turkish
Mustafa YELBEY
 28204/21
Sarı v. Türkiye
26/05/2021
Derya SARI
1991
Antalya
Turkish
Muammer HAPİL
 28974/21
Özdemir v. Türkiye
18/05/2021
Ahmet ÖZDEMİR
1973
Ankara
Turkish
Ramazan AKDOĞAN
 29308/21
Kırdağ v. Türkiye
02/06/2021
Ramazan KIRDAĞ
1981
Ankara
Turkish
Levent MAZILIGÜNEY
 31145/21
Altuntaş v. Türkiye
08/06/2021
Fatih ALTUNTAŞ
1984
Ankara
Turkish
Elif Nurbanu OR
 32320/21
Özçelik v. Türkiye
14/06/2021
Hidayet ÖZÇELİK
1969
Kütahya
Turkish
Burak NAZLIM
 32357/21
Gülcan v. Türkiye
24/06/2021
Gonca GÜLCAN
1986
Sivas
Turkish
Abdurrahim KARSLI
 32578/21
Yıldız v. Türkiye
08/06/2021
Necip YILDIZ
1987
Kütahya
Turkish
Hasan KILIÇ
 32612/21
Sarı v. Türkiye
14/06/2021
Yalçın SARI
1978
Kırşehir
Turkish
 
 34360/21
Keçeci v. Türkiye
10/06/2021
Mehmet KEÇECİ
1985
Osmaniye
Turkish
Serdar BALIK
 36071/21
Öztürk v. Türkiye
08/06/2021
Bahtiyar ÖZTÜRK
1983
İzmir
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
 38198/21
Bayram v. Türkiye
09/07/2021
Tamer BAYRAM
1971
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 38240/21
Akkaya v. Türkiye
09/07/2021
Salih AKKAYA
1985
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 39484/21
Açıkel v. Türkiye
31/07/2021
Murat AÇIKEL
1976
Erzurum
Turkish
Hanif Asım BERBER
 41117/21
Değer v. Türkiye
29/07/2021
Lokman DEĞER
1978
Erzurum
Turkish
Abubekir COŞKUN
 43549/21
Rişvanlı v. Türkiye
19/08/2021
Recep RİŞVANLI
1990
Şanlıurfa
Turkish
İbrahim Halil GÜRDAL
 43799/21
Deli v. Türkiye
31/08/2021
Adem DELİ
1985
Istanbul
Turkish
Mehmet ÇAVDAR
 44000/21
Karataş v. Türkiye
27/08/2021
Metin KARATAŞ
1976
İzmir
Turkish
Fatima Büşra KAFTAN
 44781/21
Demiray v. Türkiye
06/09/2021
Mehmet Hanefi DEMIRAY
1965
Turkish
Tarık AVŞAR
 49056/21
Gün v. Türkiye
30/09/2021
Aydın GÜN
1979
Denizli
Turkish
Mehmet MİRZA
 49284/21
Gezen v. Türkiye
28/09/2021
Seher GEZEN
1988
Istanbul
Turkish
İlyas HARMANDALI
 53003/21
Ak v. Türkiye
13/10/2021
Mustafa AK
1972
Kayseri
Turkish
Hamide Nur ALKAÇ
 54076/21
Arslan v. Türkiye
01/11/2021
İsmail ARSLAN
1987
Afyonkarahisar
Turkish
Eyyüp SAĞIR
 54118/21
Keskin v. Türkiye
07/10/2021
Ensar KESKİN
1972
Artvin
Turkish
Ersayın IŞIK
 109/22
Güven v. Türkiye
14/12/2021
Elif GÜVEN
1984
Çanakkale
Turkish
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
 2173/22
Kurt v. Türkiye
17/12/2021
Muhammed Bilal KURT
1993
Gaziantep
Turkish
Mehmet Fatih İÇER
 2356/22
Karaisa v. Türkiye
04/01/2022
Ercan KARAİSA
1984
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 2357/22
Polat v. Türkiye
04/01/2022
Halil POLAT
1981
Kayseri
Turkish
Metin POLAT
 6382/22
İnce v. Türkiye
25/01/2022
Suat İNCE
1983
Çanakkale
Turkish
Esra İNCE
 8630/22
Moran v. Türkiye
09/02/2022
Rukiye MORAN
1978
Kayseri
Turkish
Burak ÇAĞ
 10037/22
Tutkun v. Türkiye
11/02/2022
Ali TUTKUN
1972
Turkish
Fırat KAPLAN
 10299/22
Şen v. Türkiye
24/01/2022
Murat ŞEN
1986
Konya
Turkish
Kemal ŞEN
 10465/22
Gür v. Türkiye
15/02/2022
Arif GÜR
1971
Antalya
Turkish
Yusuf Sait PEKGÖZ
 10609/22
Yüce v. Türkiye
16/02/2022
Cengiz YÜCE
1984
Adana
Turkish
Selhan SAĞIRER
 12049/22
Akın v. Türkiye
03/03/2022
Cezmi AKIN
1973
Aydın
Turkish
Orçun MUŞLU
 13833/22
İsa v. Türkiye
09/03/2022
Doğan İSA
1989
Gaziantep
Turkish
Şevket ARZIK
 15276/22
Şentürk v. Türkiye
11/03/2022
Ahmet ŞENTÜRK
1988
Gaziantep
Turkish
Ertuğrul Emin ERDEM
 16665/22
Aksoy v. Türkiye
22/03/2022
Hamdi AKSOY
1971
Denizli
Turkish
Muhammed Berat YOLCU
 17199/22
Kömürcüoğlu v. Türkiye
23/03/2022
Mehmet KÖMÜRCÜOĞLU
1975
Isparta
Turkish
Yekta Mustafa POLAT
 19327/22
Şahin v. Türkiye
15/03/2022
Musa ŞAHİN
1988
Kayseri
Turkish
Hamdi Kenan SEVİNÇ
 22808/22
Tepe v. Türkiye
21/04/2022
Halil TEPE
1984
Nevşehir
Turkish
Ebru EKİCİ
 23216/22
Koşar v. Türkiye
29/04/2022
Mehmet KOŞAR
1986
Balıkesir
Turkish
Burcu HAS
 24236/22
Ataş v. Türkiye
25/04/2022
Şenel ATAŞ
1985
Kocaeli
Turkish
Cahit ÇİFTÇİ
 32392/22
Taner v. Türkiye
11/04/2022
Ayşe TANER
1988
Antalya
Turkish
Ali AVCI
 34981/22
Kaynar v. Türkiye
09/06/2022
Salih KAYNAR
1974
Nevşehir
Turkish
Ebru EKİCİ
 41251/22
Kaya v. Türkiye
04/08/2022
Turgay KAYA
1988
Iğdır
Turkish
Furkan POLATTİMUR
 41889/22
Tanrıkulu v. Türkiye
12/08/2022
Saim TANRIKULU
1974
Istanbul
Turkish
Dilara YILMAZ
 42275/22
Taşıyan v. Türkiye
17/08/2022
Emre TAŞIYAN
1990
Çorum
Turkish
Enes Burak ÖZDEMİR
 43908/22
Erbil v. Türkiye
02/09/2022
İlhan ERBİL
1975
İzmir
Turkish
Elif GİRGİN
 44088/22
Dönmez v. Türkiye
02/09/2022
Hüseyin DÖNMEZ
1991
Hatay
Turkish
Bülent AKBAY
 47025/22
Çinici v. Türkiye
28/02/2022
Muhammet ÇINİCİ
1987
Manisa
Turkish
Adem BEDİR
 47038/22
Sarıaydın v. Türkiye
21/09/2022
Ekrem SARIAYDIN
1992
Istanbul
Turkish
Cemal ŞAHİN
 48187/22
Işık v. Türkiye
26/09/2022
Kenan IŞIK
1973
Hatay
Turkish
Tamer DEMİRCİ
 49482/22
Şenel v. Türkiye
04/10/2022
Niyazi ŞENEL
1975
Aksaray
Turkish
Ayşe DURMUŞ
 53998/22
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
15/11/2022
Mehmet YILMAZ
1970
İzmir
Turkish
Eyyüp SAĞIR
 54437/22
Kaya v. Türkiye
17/11/2022
Dilek KAYA
1976
Kırıkkale
Turkish
Merve Elif GÜRACAR
 57429/22
Türk v. Türkiye
25/11/2022
İsmail TÜRK
1973
Ankara
Turkish
Didem Gizem ÇAMLIOĞLU
 17992/23
Temel v. Türkiye
07/04/2023
Sezgin TEMEL
1974
Giresun
Turkish
Elif CİVELEKOĞLU