SECOND SECTION
CASE OF MECİT AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
(Application nos. 69884/17 and 81 others)
JUDGMENT
(Revision)
STRASBOURG
27 May 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mecit and Others v. Türkiye (request for revision of the judgment of 12 December 2023),
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Jovan Ilievski, President,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Diana Sârcu, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 May 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in eighty-two applications (nos. 69884/17 and 81 others) 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 eighty-two Turkish nationals (“the applicants”) on various dates. Their names and other details, as well as the date of lodging of each application, are specified in the judgment delivered in the case on 12 December 2023.
2. The applications mainly concern the arrest and pre-trial detention of the applicants in the aftermath of the coup attempt 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 coup attempt.
3. In a judgment delivered on 12 December 2023, the Court held that there had 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 the offence of membership of a terrorist organisation. The Court also decided to award each of the applicants who had requested compensation, which included the applicant in application no. 9452/19, 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.
4. On 22 May 2023, a few months before the pronouncement of the judgment, the legal representative of the heirs of one of the applicants, Mr Sadettin Uzay (application no. 9452/19), had informed the Court that the applicant had died on 9 February 2023 and that his heirs wished to pursue the application. However, that request was not considered by the Court in its judgment.
5. On 7 March 2024 the heirs of Mr Sadettin Uzay accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, asserting that the Government could not disburse the just satisfaction awarded to the deceased applicant to his heirs.
6. On 3 September 2024 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the Government four weeks in which to submit any observations. Those observations were received on 7 October 2024. On 1 December 2024, the heirs of the deceased applicant submitted to the Court their observations in reply.
THE LAW
7. The deceased applicant’s heirs requested revision of the judgment of 12 December 2023, which they had been unable to have executed because of the applicant’s death before the judgment had been adopted.
8. According to official documentation submitted to the Court, Şeyda Uzay and Alperen Uzay are the heirs of the deceased applicant and requested that they receive the compensation awarded to him.
9. The Government stated that the applicant had died on 9 February 2023, that is approximately ten months before the judgment was adopted, but that neither his heirs nor his legal representative had informed the Court about his demise in due time. The Government also referred to the parties’ duty to cooperate fully with the Court in the conduct of the proceedings (see Rule 44A of the Rules of Court), and asked the Court to draw “the necessary conclusions”, within the meaning of Rule 44C of the Rules of Court, from the failure to inform the Court in a timely manner about the demise of the applicant.
10. On 1 December 2024 the representative responded by submitting that the deceased applicant’s heirs had already informed the Court of their father’s death and their wish to pursue the application in their letter submitted on 22 May 2023, which had, however, not been considered in the judgment of 12 December 2023.
11. Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, in so far as relevant, provides:
“1. A party may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court, within a period of six months after that party acquired knowledge of the fact, to revise that judgment.
...”
12. The Court notes at the outset that it appears from the documents submitted to it that Şeyda Uzay and Alperen Uzay are the children of the deceased applicant.
13. Accordingly, the Court considers that these two heirs have standing to pursue the application in the deceased applicant’s stead (see, inter alia, M. Özel and Others v. Turkey (revision), nos. 14350/05, 15245/05 and 16051/05, § 10, 31 March 2020; Cangöz and Others v. Turkey (revision), no. 7469/06, § 11, 19 September 2017; Benzer and Others v. Turkey (revision), no. 23502/06, § 12, 13 January 2015; and Gülbahar Özer and Others v. Turkey (revision), no. 44125/06, § 8, 10 June 2014). The Court observes that they have expressed their intention to do so in their letter submitted on 22 May 2023, prior to the adoption of the judgment of 12 December 2023 by the Court.
14. The Court further observes that after delivery of the judgment, in their letter submitted on 7 March 2024, the heirs of the deceased applicant have also requested that they receive the compensation awarded to their father and, accordingly, revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
15. The Court considers that the death of the applicant constitutes “the discovery of a fact ... which when [the] judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court”, which had overlooked the relevant information, and this fact could not have been known to the applicant’s heirs. It also constitutes a fact of “decisive influence” on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 § 1, notably on the allocation of the amount awarded under Article 41 of the Convention. The Court further observes that the applicant’s heirs notified the Court within a period of six months after they acquired knowledge of the Court’s judgment (Rule 80 § 1; compare in this regard also E.B. and Others v. Austria (revision), nos. 31913/07 and 4 others, § 11, 14 June 2018).
16. In the light of foregoing, the Court considers that the judgment of 12 December 2023 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
17. The Court accordingly decides to award the heirs of the deceased applicant, namely Şeyda Uzay and Alperen Uzay, jointly the sum of 5,000 euros (EUR) it had awarded to their father Sadettin Uzay covering non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
18. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
and accordingly,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay jointly to the heirs of Sadettin Uzay, namely Şeyda Uzay and Alperen Uzay, 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, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 May 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Dorothee von Arnim Jovan Ilievski
Deputy Registrar President