SECOND SECTION
CASE OF YAMAN AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
(Applications nos. 58473/17 and 76 others –
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
17 March 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Yaman 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 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 pre-trial detention, the length of pre-trial detention and the ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their then Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, former Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
the decision to dismiss the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;
Having deliberated in private on 17 February 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1.  The present applications mainly concern the arrest and pre‑trial detention of the applicants in the aftermath of the attempted coup d’état of 15 July 2016 on suspicion of their membership of an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure” (Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü/Paralel Devlet Yapılanması – hereinafter referred to as “FETÖ/PDY”), which was considered by the authorities to be behind the attempted coup d’état (for further background information, see Akgün v. Turkey, no. 19699/18, §§ 3‑9, and §§ 106‑07, 20 July 2021).
2.  On various dates the applicants were arrested and placed in pre‑trial detention, mainly on suspicion of membership of FETÖ/PDY, an offence punishable under Article 314 of the Criminal Code (see Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, § 58, 3 March 2020). The competent judicial authorities dismissed objections raised by the applicants against their detention.
3.  On various dates in the course of the ensuing criminal investigations and trials, the competent judicial authorities ordered the applicants’ continued detention.
4.  It appears from the information and documents in the case files that, when ordering and extending the applicants’ pre‑trial detention, the competent judicial authorities relied on various evidential grounds, including but not limited to: (a) using the ByLock encrypted messaging application; (b) provision of financial support to FETÖ/PDY in view of their use of accounts in Bank Asya, a bank with alleged ties to FETÖ/PDY; (c) provision of financial support, the details and nature of which were not provided, to FETÖ/PDY or to institutions with ties to FETÖ/PDY; (d) sharing social media posts or participating in protests in support of FETÖ/PDY; (e) possession of pro‑FETÖ/PDY publications; (f) having regular telephone contact with FETÖ/PDY suspects; (g) working in or being a member of institutions with ties to the organisation in question or an organisation shut down by the state‑of‑emergency legislative decrees; (h) suspension or dismissal from office; (i) travelling abroad with FETÖ/PDY suspects; (j) enrolling their children in an educational institution allegedly affiliated with FETÖ/PDY; (k) attending or holding meetings (sohbet), the dates, nature and characteristics of which were not specified; (l) staying in FETÖ/PDY residences; (m) witness statements indicating ties to FETÖ/PDY; and (n) carrying out various other activities on the orders of the organisation.
5.  It is further apparent from the case files that, in accordance with Articles 100 and 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see Kavala v. Turkey, no. 28749/18, §§ 71-72, 10 December 2019 for the text of those provisions), the competent judicial authorities justified their decisions to deprive the applicants of their liberty not only on the basis of the existence of reasonable suspicion, but also on the grounds of the nature and the severity of the alleged offence of membership of an armed terrorist organisation and the fact that that offence was among the “catalogue” offences listed in Article 100 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Without making an individualised assessment, they also relied on the state of the evidence and the risk of the applicants’ absconding and tampering with evidence, and considered that detention would be a proportionate measure in the circumstances.
6.  In the meantime, the applicants lodged one or more individual applications with the Constitutional Court in respect of the detention orders, alleging, inter alia, a lack of reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence and a lack of reasons to justify the decision to remand them in pre‑trial detention. All of their applications were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court.
7.  According to the latest information provided by the parties, most of the applicants were convicted of membership of an armed terrorist organisation by the courts of first instance on the basis of evidence that was present at the time of their detention or that appeared at a later stage in the proceedings. It further appears that some of the criminal proceedings are still pending before the appellate courts or the Constitutional Court.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS8.  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 ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION9.  The applicants complained that there had been no specific evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, that they had committed a criminal offence necessitating, in particular, their initial pre-trial detention.
10.  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 as being an abuse of the right of application, in so far as the applicants had not informed the Court of the developments in their cases following the lodging of their applications.
11.  The Court notes that similar objections raised by the Government have already been dismissed in other cases against Türkiye (see, for instance, Baş, cited above, §§ 118-21, and Turan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 75805/16 and 426 others, §§ 57-64, 23 November 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 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
12.  The Court notes that the applicants’ initial pre‑trial detention was mainly based on evidence of their (a) use of the ByLock messaging application; (b) banking activities considered as financing FETÖ/PDY; (c) sharing of social media posts or participation in protests in favour of FETÖ/PDY; (d) possession of certain pro‑FETÖ/PDY publications; (e) regular telephone or other contact with FETÖ/PDY suspects; (f) employment by and/or membership of and/or links to FETÖ/PDY‑affiliated institutions and organisations; and (g) suspension or dismissal from office.
13.  To the extent that the detention orders took into account the applicants’ alleged use of the ByLock messaging application, the Court notes that it has already found that the mere use of ByLock was not sufficient to constitute “reasonable suspicion” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in respect of the offence with which the applicants were charged (see Akgün, cited above, §§ 151-85, and Taner Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 208/18, §§ 102-03 and 106-09, 31 May 2022). Accordingly, in applications where the use of ByLock constituted the principal basis for the applicants’ detention, the Court has found that there was no reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
14.  As regards the other evidential grounds referred to by the national courts where the use of ByLock was not the central or sole factor, the Court refers to its finding in Taner Kılıç (cited above, §§ 104-05) that acts such as subscribing to the organisation’s lawful publications, enrolling children in lawfully operating schools allegedly affiliated with the organisation and holding an account with Bank Asya were merely circumstantial and, in the absence of further evidence, could not reasonably give rise to a suspicion that the applicant had committed the alleged offence. The Court emphasised in that case that such acts enjoyed a presumption of lawfulness unless there was further specific evidence capable of establishing the suspect’s intentional involvement in an organisation’s criminal activities (ibid., § 105). In the light of those considerations, the Court finds that the additional grounds relied on in the present applications for ordering the applicants’ detention, such as social media activity, involvement in protests, contact with other suspects, employment by and/or membership of affiliated entities and dismissal from public service, likewise fall within the scope of acts which do not, per se, give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the applicants were members of a terrorist organisation. Those factors do not carry any greater evidential weight than the circumstantial evidence previously examined by the Court. The Court thus considers, a fortiori, that the other acts imputed to the applicants allegedly demonstrating an “organisational connection” (see paragraph 4 above) cannot reasonably be construed as evidence of membership of a terrorist organisation in the absence of further information substantiating such suspicions (compare Taner Kılıç, cited above, §§ 104-05, and the cases cited therein). The Court also notes, with regard to some of the applicants, that the Government have referred to the existence of witness statements justifying the measures in question. It observes, however, that the detention orders do not refer to any statements setting out concrete and specific facts that might have given rise to a reasonable suspicion at the material time that the applicants concerned were members of a terrorist organisation (compare also Tüzemen and Others v. Türkiye [Committee], nos. 66683/16 and 116 others, § 13, 8 July 2025, and Budak and Others v. Türkiye [Committee], nos. 26831/17 and 93 others, § 14, 14 October 2025 and the references therein).
15.  The Court further notes that, when ordering the applicants’ initial pre‑trial detention, the judicial authorities sought to justify the detention orders by making a general reference to Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the severity of the potential sentence prescribed by law and “the evidence in the case files”. However, in doing so, they merely cited the wording of the provision in question, without actually specifying the evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the applicants had committed the offence in question. The Court refers in this connection to its findings in Baş (cited above, §§ 190‑95), according to which vague and general references to the wording of Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to the evidence in the case file cannot be regarded as sufficient to justify the “reasonableness” of the suspicion on which the applicants’ detention was supposed to have been based, in the absence of a specific assessment of the individual items of evidence in the file, any information available in the file at the material time that could have justified the suspicion against the applicants or any other kinds of verifiable material or facts.
16.  Since the Government have not provided any other indications, facts or information capable of establishing, at the time of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention, a reasonable suspicion that they had committed the alleged offence, the Court finds that the requirements set out in Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in that regard have not been satisfied (compare Baş, cited above, § 195, and Taner Kılıç, cited above, §§ 114-16). Lastly, the Court notes that the applicants were detained a short time after the attempted coup d’état – that is, the event that prompted the declaration of the state of emergency and the notice of derogation by Türkiye. While this 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 Baş, cited above, §§ 115-16 and 196‑201).
17.  The Court therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
    OTHER COMPLAINTS18.  As regards any remaining complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention, the Court decides not to examine them, in view of its findings under Article 5 § 1 above and its considerations in Turan and Others (cited above, § 98).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION19.  The applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos. 32878/18, 36495/18, 45451/19, 55482/19 and 17953/21, requested various amounts in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, submitting their claims within the time‑limit allotted. The majority of them also claimed amounts in respect of pecuniary damage and legal costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
20.  The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive.
21.  For the reasons set out in Turan and Others (cited above, §§ 102‑07), the Court rejects any claims in respect of pecuniary damage and awards each of the applicants, save for the applicants in applications nos. 32878/18, 36495/18, 45451/19, 55482/19 and 17953/21, 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of reasonable suspicion, at the time of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention, that they had committed an offence admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of reasonable suspicion, at the time of the applicants’ initial pre‑trial detention, that they had committed an offence;Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ remaining complaints under Article 5 of the Convention;Holds  that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, each of the applicants, save for the applicants in applications nos. 32878/18, 36495/18, 45451/19, 55482/19 and 17953/21, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;  that from the expiry of the above‑mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 March 2026, 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
 58473/17
Yaman v. Türkiye
18/07/2017
Arif YAMAN
1979
Tekirdağ
Turkish
Mehmet Ertürk ERDEVİR
 61353/17
Kaynak v. Türkiye
09/08/2017
İlter KAYNAK
1971
Kırıkkale
Turkish
Dilara YILMAZ
 9583/18
Akbulut v. Türkiye
13/02/2018
Aykut AKBULUT
1971
Trabzon
Turkish
Fatma ALBAYRAK
 16800/18
Açlan v. Türkiye
30/03/2018
Hacer AÇLAN
1979
Adıyaman
Turkish
Gülhis YÖRÜK
 17566/18
Karakaya v. Türkiye
15/03/2018
Yusuf KARAKAYA
1971
Konya
Turkish
Hasan Emre GÖKDAĞ
 20508/18
Doğan v. Türkiye
19/04/2018
Azimet DOĞAN
1974
Kütahya
Turkish
Fatih DÖNMEZ
 32878/18
Ateş v. Türkiye
22/06/2018
Davut ATEŞ
1977
Malatya
Turkish
 
 36495/18
Metin v. Türkiye
16/07/2018
Münir METİN
1966
Eskişehir
Turkish
Talat YALAZ
 38840/18
Altunok v. Türkiye
07/08/2018
Mehmet Fatih ALTUNOK
1981
Elazığ
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
 42148/18
Dursun v. Türkiye
03/09/2018
Ferhat DURSUN
1986
Istanbul
Turkish
Büşra KURT KÜÇÜK
 42184/18
Boğur v. Türkiye
29/08/2018
Mustafa Erhan BOĞUR
1978
Eskişehir
Turkish
Görkem ŞENER
 49309/18
Kubur v. Türkiye
10/10/2018
Gökhan KUBUR
1979
İzmir
Turkish
Burhan AYDIN
 51602/18
Ahmedali v. Türkiye
18/10/2018
Asliddin AHMEDALİ
1979
Ankara
Kirghizstan,Turkish
Hüseyin DÖNMEZ
 54441/18
Öztürk v. Türkiye
01/11/2018
Soner ÖZTÜRK
1980
Tekirdağ
Turkish
Büteyra DEMİR
 56280/18
Temiz v. Türkiye
21/11/2018
Taner TEMİZ
1973
Bolu
Turkish
Emine Pınar TEKİNŞEN
 58728/18
Boyukata v. Türkiye
23/11/2018
Hayati BÖYÜKATA
1976
Ankara
Turkish
Osman BERGİN
 1661/19
Kazan v. Türkiye
17/12/2018
Eşref KAZAN
1963
Kocaeli
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
 2717/19
Yüce v. Türkiye
21/12/2018
Huseyin YÜCE
1960
Burdur
Turkish
Merve KOÇ
 9394/19
Duman v. Türkiye
05/02/2019
Ali DUMAN
1979
Konya
Turkish
Filiz ALKAN (ASLANCAN)
 9751/19
Kandaz v. Türkiye
05/02/2019
Bülent KANDAZ
1972
Kocaeli
Turkish
Hasan TOK
 10911/19
Yücel v. Türkiye
13/02/2019
Nezih YÜCEL
1971
Kırşehir
Turkish
Lale KARADAŞ
 10914/19
Pazar v. Türkiye
13/02/2019
Ali PAZAR
1980
Aksaray
Turkish
İhsan MAKAS
 11082/19
Bağcı v. Türkiye
18/02/2019
Muhiddin BAĞCI
1967
İzmir
Turkish
 
 11779/19
Erkap v. Türkiye
25/02/2019
Ali Can ERKAP
1972
Manisa
Turkish
Yusuf Sait PEKGÖZ
 11782/19
Ortak v. Türkiye
25/02/2019
Zülküf ORTAK
1976
Manisa
Turkish
Yusuf Sait PEKGÖZ
 15780/19
Karaman v. Türkiye
01/03/2019
Cengiz KARAMAN
1978
Eskişehir
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
 19112/19
Karademir v. Türkiye
22/03/2019
Kenan KARADEMİR
1971
Ankara
Turkish
 
 30883/19
Ayar v. Türkiye
30/05/2019
Muhammet AYAR
1980
Manisa
Turkish
Hatice AYAR
 34145/19
Erbil v. Türkiye
12/06/2019
Mehmet ERBİL
1981
Kayseri
Turkish
 
 39252/19
Kurt v. Türkiye
10/07/2019
Ramazan KURT
1983
Ankara
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
 44790/19
Kabal v. Türkiye
08/08/2019
Mesut KABAL
1975
Kocaeli
Turkish
Elvan BAĞ CANBAZ
 45451/19
Özbek v. Türkiye
02/08/2019
Cemil ÖZBEK
1988
İzmir
Turkish
Muhammet MARAŞLI
 53319/19
Demir v. Türkiye
02/10/2019
Yunus DEMİR
1988
Istanbul
Turkish
Muhammed İkbal DEMİR
 53570/19
Dönmez v. Türkiye
13/09/2019
Zekeriya DÖNMEZ
1973
İzmir
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
 55482/19
Ay Sağlam v. Türkiye
26/09/2019
Zeynep AY SAĞLAM
1994
Bursa
Turkish
Fatih AY
 57605/19
Meço v. Türkiye
21/10/2019
Fırat MEÇO
1989
Bolu
Turkish
İrem DANACIOĞLU GÜNEŞ
 64710/19
Toprak v. Türkiye
27/11/2019
Murat TOPRAK
1971
Kırşehir
Turkish
Lale KARADAŞ
 16078/20
Köse v. Türkiye
19/03/2020
Hayati KÖSE
1973
Balıkesir
Turkish
Asli Nur KÖSE
 20589/20
Kuzgun v. Türkiye
16/01/2020
Ersan KUZGUN
1984
Kırklareli
Turkish
Cebrail Eren KAYNAR
 23088/20
Gör v. Türkiye
21/05/2020
Fatih GÖR
1972
Samsun
Turkish
İnan UZUN
 24067/20
Bedirhanbeyoğlu v. Türkiye
01/06/2020
Nihat BEDİRHANBEYOĞLU
1978
Nevşehir
Turkish
 
 26284/20
Balık v. Türkiye
12/06/2020
Gürcan BALIK
1973
Ankara
Turkish
Rümeysa BUDAK
 29004/20
Gündüz v. Türkiye
16/06/2020
Ali GÜNDÜZ
1977
Konya
Turkish
Mehmet ÖNCÜ
 31507/20
Şahin v. Türkiye
09/07/2020
İlyas ŞAHİN
1988
Amasya
Turkish
Sıdıka Refia AKSOY
 36695/20
Demirdaş v. Türkiye
05/08/2020
Vahattin DEMİRDAŞ
1983
Kayseri
Turkish
Bekir DÖNMEZ
 40985/20
Yurtoğlu v. Türkiye
04/09/2020
Haydar YURTOĞLU
1979
Turkish
Hüseyin AYGÜN
 44488/20
Karagöz v. Türkiye
21/09/2020
Mehmet Akif KARAGÖZ
1989
Ankara
Turkish
Adem ÇEÇEN
 44944/20
Sille v. Türkiye
03/09/2020
Abbas SİLLE
1976
Hatay
Turkish
Dudu ERTUNÇ
 46465/20
Aslantaş v. Türkiye
08/10/2020
İrfan ASLANTAŞ
1979
Afyonkarahisar
Turkish
Akkız KARDEŞLER
 51879/20
Kaplan v. Türkiye
11/11/2020
Ömer Faruk KAPLAN
1986
Mersin
Turkish
Gülcan KAPLAN
 52214/20
Şahin v. Türkiye
02/11/2020
Emre ŞAHİN
1981
Çorum
Turkish
Betül Feyza UĞUR AYDIN
 53956/20
Yazbahar v. Türkiye
09/07/2020
Orhan YAZBAHAR
1986
İzmir
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
 54007/20
Küçükkaya v. Türkiye
10/08/2020
İsmail KÜÇÜKKAYA
1980
Samsun
Turkish
İnan UZUN
 55503/20
Bozköylü v. Türkiye
20/11/2020
Abdullah BOZKÖYLÜ
1981
Antalya
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
 70/21
Çaparoğlu v. Türkiye
07/12/2020
Selmani ÇAPAROĞLU
1975
Kayseri
Turkish
Mustafa GENÇ
 72/21
Güner v. Türkiye
02/12/2020
Ekrem GÜNER
1982
Istanbul
Turkish
Ümit GÜNER
 162/21
Demircan v. Türkiye
02/12/2020
Serkan DEMİRCAN
1982
Kırşehir
Turkish
Lale KARADAŞ
 1160/21
Kaya v. Türkiye
08/12/2020
Gökhan KAYA
1977
Çankırı
Turkish
Emine KAYA
 1756/21
Delice v. Türkiye
23/12/2020
Mustafa DELİCE
1986
Ankara
Turkish
Ebubekir ÇAKIR
 2138/21
Akgül v. Türkiye
31/12/2020
Emin Özgür AKGÜL
1973
Ankara
Turkish
Refia TAŞÇIOĞLU ERBİROL
 2320/21
Budak v. Türkiye
29/12/2020
Bekir BUDAK
1978
İzmir
Turkish
Burcu HAS
 2362/21
Uslu v. Türkiye
08/12/2020
Osman USLU
1980
Mersin
Turkish
Abdulselam DURAN
 8842/21
Genç v. Türkiye
03/12/2020
Mustafa GENÇ
1976
Osmaniye
Turkish
Meryem GÜNAY
 9574/21
Şahbaz v. Türkiye
20/01/2021
Burhaneddin ŞAHBAZ
1989
Konya
Turkish
Emrah ÇELİKTAŞ
 9925/21
Dilevci v. Türkiye
07/12/2020
Gündüz DİLEVCİ
1977
Mersin
Turkish
Mehmet Fatih ARSLAN
 11982/21
Kılınçarslan v. Türkiye
08/02/2021
Bekir KILINÇARSLAN
1974
Konya
Turkish
Leyla MESUTOĞLU
 15978/21
Yıldırım v. Türkiye
19/03/2021
Emrah YILDIRIM
1978
Ankara
Turkish
Saniye YILDIRIM
 17216/21
Dayanır v. Türkiye
17/03/2021
Remzi DAYANIR
1984
Istanbul
Turkish
Muhammed Emirhan SERİN
 17942/21
Eryiğit v. Türkiye
19/03/2021
Kamuran ERYİĞİT
1987
Samsun
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
 17953/21
Özmen v. Türkiye
18/03/2021
Kadir ÖZMEN
1979
Ankara
Turkish
 
 18267/21
Kaynak v. Türkiye
29/03/2021
Tuncay KAYNAK
1981
Samsun
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
 27774/21
Büyükodabaşı v. Türkiye
07/05/2021
Güngör BÜYÜKODABAŞI
1977
Hatay
Turkish
Dudu ERTUNÇ
 28242/21
Songur v. Türkiye
28/05/2021
Ömer Faik SONGUR
1985
Sakarya
Turkish
Arzu SONGUR
 34615/21
Bacaklıoğlu v. Türkiye
07/06/2021
Hayri BACAKLIOĞLU
1978
Karabük
Turkish
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
 44611/21
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
27/08/2021
Ali YILMAZ
1973
Antalya
Turkish
Kamile KILDAN
 4568/22
Sipahi v. Türkiye
07/01/2022
Mehmet Ali SİPAHİ
1989
Istanbul
Turkish
Mehmet ÖKSÜZ
 7170/22
Kiriş v. Türkiye
19/01/2022
Özgür KİRİŞ
1980
Bursa
Turkish
Murat IŞIK