second section decision the facts

SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4692/09
Nurgül UÇAR and others
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
24 June 2014 as a Chamber composed of:
Guido Raimondi, President,
Işıl Karakaş,
András Sajó,
Helen Keller,
Paul Lemmens,
Robert Spano,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges,
and, Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 January 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicants, whose names and places of residence are set out in the
appendix, are Turkish nationals. They are represented before the Court by
Ms Deniz Karakurt, a lawyer practising in Izmir.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be
summarised as follows.
3. The applicants were the mayors of 190 municipalities at the time of
lodging their application with the Court.
4. On 6 March 2008 the Parliament of Turkey adopted Law no. 5747
“on establishing districts within the boundaries of metropolitan
municipalities and amending various laws”, which was published in the
2
UÇAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION
Official Gazette of 22 March 2008 and entered into force on that date. Law
no. 5747 stipulated, inter alia, that the legal personality of a number of
municipalities, including those headed by the applicants, would be
abolished and that either those administrative units would become
villages/neighbourhoods and join other municipalities, or a certain number
of them would together constitute new municipalities. Law no. 5747 further
stipulated that the legal personality of those municipalities, as well as their
authority and rights, would continue to exist until the next general local
elections were held.
5. On 9 April 2008 three members of parliament from the CHP, the main
opposition party, Mr H.S. Okay, Mr K. Anadol and Mr K. Kılıçdaroğlu, the
party leader, made an application to the Constitutional Court of Turkey. The
MPs requested the Constitutional Court to repeal certain provisions of Law
no. 5747, including those applicable to the applicants’ municipalities. The
MPs claimed, inter alia, that there was no public interest in abolishing the
legal personality of certain municipalities and that Law no. 5747 had been
adopted so that the governing party, the AKP, could win the local elections
in the areas in issue. They further submitted that a referendum should have
been held in the municipalities in question, in accordance with the Law on
Municipalities (Law no. 5393), and that Law no. 5747 was in contravention
of the provisions of the Law on Elections in Local Administrations
(Law no. 2972) and the Constitution. On this last point, the MPs submitted
that, according to Article 67 of the Constitution, a legislative amendment
concerning elections would not be applicable to elections held within one
year of the entry into force of those amendments and that the local election
process of 2009 would start on 1 January 2009, in line with the provisions
of Law no. 2972. They therefore considered that Law no. 5747 should not
be applied to the local elections of 29 March 2009.
6. On 31 October 2008 the Constitutional Court rendered its decision in
the case (case no. 2008/34, decision no. 2008/153) and dismissed the case in
so far as it concerned the municipalities headed by the applicants. The court
noted at the outset that the MPs had not requested the repeal of the
provision which concerned the entry into force of Law no. 5747, and that
therefore their submissions regarding the compatibility of Law no. 5747
with Article 67 of the Constitution could not be examined.
7. As regards the submission that a referendum should have been held in
accordance with Law no. 5393 and that the provisions of Law no. 5747
were incompatible with Law no. 2972, the Constitutional Court held that a
legal norm could be reviewed only in the light of the relevant constitutional
norm and not in relation to another legal norm. It further held that the
legislature had the authority to make, amend and repeal laws and the
responsibility to maintain harmonisation between laws. The Constitutional
Court concluded that it could therefore not review the compatibility of the
UÇAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION
3
provisions of Law no. 5747 with those contained in Law no. 5393 and
Law no. 2972.
8. Lastly, as to the allegations that the provisions of Law no. 5747
lacked public interest and that this law had been passed for political reasons,
the Constitutional Court noted at the outset that it had the authority to
examine whether certain legislation had been passed with the purpose of
serving the public interest. The court further noted that the question of
whether a legal norm was compatible with the needs of the country was
political in nature and that the legislature was permitted a degree of
discretion on that point. The court considered that it could not assess the
existence of a public interest on the basis of the political choice of the
legislature alone. The Constitutional Court further noted that in accordance
with the Constitution, the administrative units were to be determined,
through laws, by the legislature and taking into account their geographical
features, economic circumstances and need for public services. The court
observed that the petition lodged by the MPs for the repeal of certain
provisions of Law no. 5747 did not contain any concrete argument as to
how those provisions did not serve the public interest but were the result of
the political considerations of the governing party. The Constitutional Court
also observed that the aim of the changes brought about by Law no. 5747
was the efficient functioning of the public services provided by the local
administrations and the efficient and productive use of public resources by
the central administration. The Constitutional Court held that there was no
evidence demonstrating that the amendments had been made with the aim of
acquiring political or personal gain. The court lastly noted that since, in
accordance with Law no. 5747, the legal personality of the municipalities in
question, as well as their authority and rights, would continue to exist until
the first general local elections were held, the legislature had respected the
will of the electorate regarding the last five-year election period in the areas
concerned.
9. On 29 March 2009 the local elections were held and as a result the
legal personality of the municipalities headed by the applicants ceased to
exist on that day.
B. Relevant domestic law
10. Article 7 of the Constitution provides:
“Legislative Power
Article 7 - Legislative power is vested in the Turkish Grand National Assembly on
behalf of the Turkish Nation. This power cannot be delegated.”
11. Articles 123 and 127 of the Constitution provide:
“A. Fundamentals of the Administration
1. Integral Unity and Public Legal Personality of the Administration
4
UÇAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION
Article 123 - The administration forms a whole with regard to its structure and
functions, and shall be regulated by law.
The organisation and functions of the administration are based on the principles of
centralisation and local administration.
Public corporate bodies shall be established only by law, or by the authority
expressly granted by law.”
12. Article 127 of the Constitution provides:
“C. Organisation of the Administration
2. Local administrative bodies
ARTICLE 127 - Local administrative bodies are public corporate entities
established to meet the collective local needs of the inhabitants of provinces,
municipal districts and villages, whose decision-making organs are elected by the
electorate as determined by law, and whose principles of structure are also determined
by law.
The formation, duties and powers of the local administration shall be regulated by
law in accordance with the principle of local administration.
...
The procedures dealing with objections to the acquisition by elected organs of local
government or their status as an organ, and their loss of such status, shall be resolved
by the judiciary. However, as a provisional measure, the Minister of the Interior may
remove from office those organs of local administration or their members against
whom an investigation or prosecution has been initiated on grounds of offences
relating to their duties, pending judgment.
The central administration has the power of administrative trusteeship over the local
governments in the framework of the principles and procedures set forth by law with
the objective of ensuring the functioning of local services in conformity with the
principle of the integral unity of the administration, securing uniform public service,
safeguarding the public interest and meeting local needs in an appropriate manner.”
13. Articles 3 and 59 of the Law on Municipalities (Law no. 5393)
provide, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“Definitions
Article 3 - The terms listed below shall have the following meanings wherever they
are used in this Law;
a. Municipality: A public-law legal entity with administrative and financial
autonomy, whose purpose is to meet the collective needs of the local
residents and whose decision-making body is made up of members
elected by direct suffrage.
...”
“Income of the Municipality
Article 59 – The Municipality draws its income from the following sources;
a. Taxes, levies, charges and contributions, as specified in the laws.
b. Its share of the tax income of the general budget.
UÇAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION
5
c. Payments to be made by the administrations within the general and special
budgets.
...
f. Income from interest and fines.
...”
COMPLAINTS
14. The applicants submitted the complaints below both on behalf of the
municipalities that they head and in their personal capacity as voters.
15. They complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the
proceedings before the Constitutional Court had been unfair.
16. They further maintained that abolition of the legal personality of
their municipalities under Law no. 5747 and the decision of the
Constitutional Court constituted a breach of their rights under Articles 10,
11 and 14 of the Convention.
17. The applicants lastly complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to
the Convention that Law no. 5747 had been passed for political reasons and
its aim had not been to serve the public interest, and that the Constitutional
Court’s decision had violated their right both to be elected as mayors and to
choose their representatives freely as ordinary citizens.
THE LAW
A. In so far as the application was lodged on behalf of the
municipalities headed by the applicants
18. The applicants, on behalf of the municipalities that they represented,
maintained that the abolition of the legal personality of their municipalities
and the Constitutional Court’s decision had breached their rights under
Articles 6, 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention, as well as Article 3 of Protocol
No. 1.
19. The Court reiterates that under the settled case-law of the
Convention institutions, local administration authorities are public-law
bodies which perform official duties assigned to them by the Constitution
and by substantive law. They are therefore quite clearly governmental
organisations (see Ayuntamiento de Mula v. Spain (dec.), no. 55346/00,
ECHR 2001-I). The Court further observes that according to the
constitutional and legislative definitions in Turkish law, municipalities are
public-law legal entities whose purpose is to meet the collective needs of the
6
UÇAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION
local residents and whose decision-making bodies are made up of members
elected by direct suffrage. Their budgets consist mainly of allocations from
the State’s budget and other public revenue such as taxes and fines. The
Court therefore finds no reason to depart from its well-established case-law
to the effect that local authorities lack locus standi to lodge an application
under Article 34 of the Convention (see Döşemealtı Belediyesi v. Turkey
(dec.), no. 50108/06, 23 March 2010, and Ayuntamiento de Mula, cited
above).
20. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning
of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
B. In so far as the application was lodged by the applicants in their
personal capacity
21. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that
the Constitutional Court had failed to render a fair decision in the case
brought by the members of parliament.
22. The Court reiterates that a person cannot complain about a violation
of his or her rights in proceedings to which he or she was not a party (see,
mutatis mutandis, Nosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30877/02, 20 October 2005).
In any event, even assuming that the Constitutional Court’s decision
concerned the applicants’ right to stand as candidates or to choose their
representatives in the local elections, and that this decision had a direct
bearing on the applicants’ situation, the proceedings in question could only
be deemed to relate to the applicants’ political rights, and not their “civil”
rights within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention (see Cherepkov
v. Russia (dec.), no. 51501/99, ECHR 2000-I, and Mółka v. Poland (dec.),
no. 56550/00, ECHR 2006-IV). Accordingly, Article 6 does not apply.
23. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning
of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
24. The applicants further complained under Articles 10, 11 and 14 of
the Convention that on account of the enactment of Law no. 5747 and the
Constitutional Court’s decision of 31 October 2008, their rights to freedom
of expression, freedom of association and freedom from discrimination had
been breached.
25. The Court reiterates that Article 34 of the Convention does not
permit individuals to complain against legislation in abstracto simply
because they feel that it contravenes the Convention. In principle, it is not
sufficient for individual applicants to claim that the mere existence of the
legislation violates their rights under the Convention; it is necessary that the
law was applied to their detriment. Nevertheless, Article 34 entitles
individuals to contend that legislation violates their rights by itself, in the
UÇAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION
7
absence of an individual measure of implementation, if they run the risk of
being directly affected by it (see Colon v. the Netherlands (dec.),
no. 49458/06, 15 May 2012, and the cases cited therein).
26. In the present case, the applicants failed to demonstrate in what way
the adoption of Law no. 5747 and the decision of 10 October 2008 had an
adverse effect on their rights guaranteed under Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the
Convention. In particular, they did not claim that they had been prevented
from continuing their political activities or expressing their opinions, or that
they had been subjected to discrimination in relation to their political
activities. The Court therefore considers that the applicants cannot claim to
be victims of the alleged violation of Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the
Convention.
27. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning
of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
28. The applicants lastly submitted that Law no. 5747 had been passed
for political reasons and its aim had not been to serve the public interest,
and that the Constitutional Court’s decision had been in violation of their
rights to be elected mayor and to choose their representatives freely as
ordinary citizens. They relied on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention in this regard.
29. The Court firstly reiterates that the term “legislature” in Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1 does not necessarily mean the national parliament: it has to
be interpreted in the light of the constitutional structure of the State in
question. In the case of Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, the 1980
constitutional reform had vested in the Flemish Council sufficient
competence and powers to make it, alongside the French Community
Council and the Walloon Regional Council, a constituent part of the Belgian
“legislature”, in addition to the House of Representatives and the Senate
(see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, § 53 Series A
no. 113, and Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 40,
ECHR 1999-I).
30. On the other hand, the Convention organs have found that local
authorities, such as the municipal councils in Belgium, the metropolitan
county councils in the United Kingdom, the regional councils in France, and
the municipal councils, district councils and regional assemblies in Poland
do not form part of the “legislature” within the meaning of Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1 (see Clerfayt, Legros v. Belgium, no. 10650/83, Commission
decision of 17 May 1985, Decisions and Reports 42, p. 212; Booth-Clibborn
v. the United Kingdom, no. 11391/85, Commission decision of 5 July 1985,
DR 43, p. 236; Malarde v. France, (dec.) no. 46813/99, 5 September 2000;
and Mółka (dec.), cited above). Furthermore, the power to make regulations
and by-laws which is conferred on the local authorities in many countries is
to be distinguished from legislative power, which is referred to in Article 3
8
UÇAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION
of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Mółka (dec.) and Cherepkov (dec.),
both cited above).
31. The Court notes that the Constitution of Turkey confers the exercise
of legislative power on the Turkish Grand National Assembly, that is, the
Parliament (see Article 7 of the Constitution). Moreover, municipalities in
Turkey are the repositories of powers of an administrative nature concerning
the organisation and provision of local services. These powers are granted
by statute which defines closely and restrictively the municipalities’ fields
of application (see Law no. 5393). Thus, they do not exercise legislative
power within the meaning of the Constitution of Turkey. The Court
therefore concludes that municipalities do not form part of the legislature of
Turkey. Accordingly, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 is not applicable to local
elections held in order to constitute their decision-making bodies and, as a
result, is not applicable to the present case.
32. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning
of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stanley Naismith
Registrar
Guido Raimondi
President
UÇAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION
APPENDIX
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Nurgül UÇAR, lives in IZMIR
Ramazan ACAR, lives in DENIZLI
Fadil AKA, lives in IZMIR
Halim AKAN, lives in MANISA
Caner AKDEMİR, lives in KAYSERI
Mehmet AKGÜL, lives in KONYA
Mustafa AKGÜL, lives in BURDUR
Remzi AKKOÇ, lives in TOKAT
Mustafa AKMAN, lives in ANTALYA
Mehmet Ali AKTAY, lives in CORUM
Mehmet Ali ALAR, lives in KÜTAHYA
Riza ALTAYLI, lives in ORDU
Mehmet ALTUN, lives in KONYA
Salih APLAK, lives in YOZGAT
İrfan ARAS, lives in IZMIR
Dursun ARTVİN, lives in KONYA
Ömer AVŞAR, lives in CANKIRI
Hayati BAHÇEVAN, lives in CORUM
Ali BAKIRCI, lives in CORUM
Ahmet BAL, lives in CORUM
Şevket BARKIR, lives in BALIKESIR
Mehmet BAŞALAN, lives in AYDIN
Selahattin BAYDAR, lives in GÖMÜRGEN
Sami BAYIKBAŞI, lives in KAYSERI
Fuat BAYIR, lives in KONYA
Halil İbrahim BAYIR, lives in MANISA
Hanefi BAYRAKÇI, lives in ISPARTA
Hilmi BİRCAN, lives in KÜTAHYA
Mustafa BÖLEK, lives in IZMIR
Orhan BORA, lives in IZMIR
Hüseyin BOZHALİL, lives in ERZURUM
Ali BOZKURT, lives in MANISA
Mehmet ÇAKAR, lives in AYDIN
Sefer ÇAKIN, lives in TOKAT
Süleyman ÇAKIR, lives in MANISA
Hazim ÇALIŞ, lives in KONYA
Cumhur ÇATIK, lives in AYDIN
Bayram ÇAVDAR, lives in KONYA
9
10
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
UÇAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION
Özdemir ÇAYLI, lives in IZMIR
Osman ÇELİKEL, lives in KONYA
İbrahim ÇELİKKAYA, lives in MANISA
Nafiz CERAN, lives in KAYSERI
Birol CESUR, lives in KONYA
İbrahim CEYHAN, lives in CANKIRI
Nevzat ÇIĞIR, lives in KONYA
İbrahim CİNKILIÇ, lives in IZMIR
Veli DAL, lives in IZMIR
Ali DANACIOĞLU, lives in IZMIR
Nebi DELEN, lives in KONYA
Ahmet DEMİRER, lives in YOZGAT
Ahmet DEMİRER, lives in YOZGAT
Saban DEMİRÖZÜ, lives in CANKIRI
İsmail DENİZ, lives in SIVAS
Ali DEVECİ, lives in SIVAS
Mustafa DİNÇAY, lives in ANTALYA
Gürsel DİRBİSOĞLU, lives in IZMIR
Mehmet DOĞAN, lives in YOZGAT
Musa DOĞAN, lives in KONYA
Satılmış DOĞAN, lives in CANKIRI
Ali DOĞDU, lives in IZMIR
İsmail DÖNMEZ, lives in KÜTAHYA
Hidayet DUDUOĞLU, lives in CANKIRI
Tahsin DUKMAZEK, lives in KONYA
Mehmet DURUKAN, lives in KAYSERI
Sami EKER, lives in KAYSERI
Abdurrahman ELLİALTI, lives in KONYA
Hüseyin ERDAL, lives in SIVAS
Şemsettin Necati EREN, lives in IZMIR
Feyzullah ERGİN, lives in IZMIR
Mehmet ERGÜL, lives in KONYA
Abdullah EROĞLU, lives in KONYA
Haldun ERTOK, lives in IZMIR
Mustafa ERTUĞRUL, lives in KAYSERI
Feti GEZEK, lives in MANISA
Mustafa GÖKÇİL, lives in KONYA
Mehmet GÖKŞEN, lives in CORUM
Rasim GÖLBAŞI, lives in KAYSERI
Halil GÜLEÇ, lives in MANISA
Mehmet Nuri GÜMÜŞ, lives in KUTAHYA
Leyla GÜVEN, lives in ADANA
Yasin HALAT, lives in MANISA
Mevlüt İBİŞ, lives in KONYA
UÇAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION
83. Ridvan İLKAYA, lives in KAYSERI
84. Uğur İMREN, lives in KAYSERI
85. Şerafettin IŞIK, lives in CORUM
86. Kemal İSKEN, lives in ISTANBUL
87. Dursun KARA, lives in KONYA
88. Mehmet KARA, lives in KONYA
89. Resül KARA, lives in KONYA
90. Ömer KARAAĞAC, lives in CANKIRI
91. Abdurrahman KARABULUT, lives in KONYA
92. Bahri KARACA, lives in CORUM
93. Zeki KARAKAŞ, lives in TOKAT
94. Mustafa KARAKAYA, lives in CANKIRI
95. Osman KARAN, lives in MANISA
96. Hasan KARAPEHLİVAN, lives in MANISA
97. Bayram KARAŞAHİN, lives in CANKIRI
98. Ali Hikmet KARASU, lives in KÜTAHYA
99. Ahmet KARATAŞ, lives in CANKIRI
100.Osman KARATEKE, lives in CORUM
101.Veli KASAP, lives in IZMIR
102.Aziz KAYA, lives in IZMIR
103.İbrahim KAYA, lives in MANISA
104.Celal KAYIR, lives in KAYSERI
105.Abdurrahman KESİR, lives in KONYA
106.Mehmet KESKİN, lives in IZMIR
107.Yaşar KESKİN, lives in ORDU
108.Erdal KIRAN, lives in TOKAT
109.Eşraf KORKMAZ, lives in KONYA
110.Bahadir KÖSE, lives in KAYSERI
111.İbrahim KÖSE, lives in KONYA
112.Namik KURT, lives in KONYA
113.Ziya KUZ, lives in KONYA
114.İbrahim MELKİ, lives in KONYA
115.Mustafa MUFTUOĞLU, lives in DENIZLI
116.Osman ODABAŞI, lives in KONYA
117.Ramazan ÖĞÜT, lives in KONYA
118.Ali OĞUZ, lives in IZMIR
119.Mustafa OKAY, lives in CORUM
120.Fahrettin ÖKSÜZ, lives in KONYA
121.Ramazan ÖLMEZ, lives in KONYA
122.Ahmet ORHAN, lives in KAYSERI
123.İbrahim ÖZDEMİR, lives in IZMIR
124.Necdet ÖZDEMİR, lives in CANAKKALE
125.Hüseyin ÖZER, lives in AYDIN
126.Mehmet ÖZER, lives in Konya
11
12
UÇAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION
127.Hamdi ÖZSEÇER, lives in CORUM
128.Ali Galip ÖZSÜMBÜL, lives in KAYSERI
129.İbrahim ÖZTAŞ, lives in AYDIN
130.Ayhan ÖZTÜRK, lives in TOKAT
131.Mustafa PEHLİVAN, lives in Manisa
132.Süleyman PEKMEZ, lives in KONYA
133.Mehmet Ali PETEK, lives in KONYA
134.Ahmet POYRAZ lives in ISTANBUL
135.Vahap POYRAZ, lives in IZMIR
136.Bülent RÜZGAR, lives in IZMIR
137.Duran SAFRANTI, lives in KAYAPINAR
138.Nail ŞAHAN, lives in KAYSERI
139.Aslan ŞAHİN, lives in CORUM
140.Kadir ŞAHİN, lives in CANKIRI
141.Mustafa ŞAHİN, lives in KONYA
142.Mustafa ŞAHİN, lives in KONYA
143.Ünal ŞAHİN, lives in KAYSERI
144.Ramazan ŞAMAT, lives in KONYA
145.Ahmet SARIHAN, lives in CANKIRI
146.Haci Mustafa SARIYÜCE, lives in CORUM
147.Bülent SAYAR, lives in AYDIN
148.Hayati SAYDAM, lives in IZMIR
149.Ali SELÇUK, lives in KONYA
150.Ahmet ŞENTÜRK, lives in CORUM
151.Ömer ŞENTÜRK, lives in IZMIR
152.Mehmet ŞEREFLİOĞLU, lives in KAYSERI
153.Kazim SERTDEMİR, lives in KONYA
154.Ahmet SOBACIOĞLU, lives in CORUM
155.İsmet SOLAK, lives in AYDIN
156.Mehmet SOYOĞLU, lives in IZMIR
157.Bahattin TAŞ, lives in ORDU
158.Orhan TAŞPINAR, lives in KAYSERI
159.Mustafa TEPELİ, lives in BALIKESIR
160.Muzaffer TINAZTEPE, lives in IZMIR
161.Musa TÖK, lives in CORUM
162.Hasan TOKLU, lives in IZMIR
163.Nasuf TOSUN, lives in MANISA
164.Mehmet TUFAN, lives in ANTALYA
165.Hasan Hüseyin TURAN, lives in KONYA
166.Nihat TÜRKER, lives in ERZURUM
167.Mehmet TÜRKMEN, lives in IZMIR
168.Alaattin Bera TÜRKOĞLU, lives in ANKARA
169.Münir TÜRKOĞLU, lives in TOKAT
170.Abdurrahman TÜROĞLU, lives in CANKIRI
UÇAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION
171.İrfan UÇAR, lives in CANKIRI
172.Salim UÇAR, lives in KONYA
173.Ramazan Hakan ULAK, lives in MANISA
174.Fariz ULUCAK, lives in SIVAS
175.Ridvan ÜRETEN, lives in IZMIR
176.Osman ÜRKMEZ, lives in IZMIR
177.Nurettin ÜSTÜN, lives in TOKAT
178.Yüksel YALÇIN, lives in KAYSERI
179.Veyis YARAR, lives in TOKAT
180.Fevzi YEŞİL, lives in ANTALYA
181.Ali YILDIZ, lives in TOKAT
182.Hilal YILDIZ, lives in SIVAS
183.Tacettin YILDIZ, lives in KONYA
184.Abdulkadir YILMAZ, lives in CORUM
185.Adem YILMAZ, lives in CORUM
186.Hasan YILMAZ, lives in KAYSERI
187.Osman YURTSEVEN, lives in IZMIR
188.Mehmet YÜZER, lives in KONYA
189.Mehmet ZENGİN, lives in BALIKESIR
190.Erkan ZEYLAN, lives in IZMIR
13