SECOND SECTION
CASE OF FELEMEZ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
(Applications nos. 30027/20 and 3 others – see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
22 January 2026
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Felemez and Others v. Türkiye,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Stéphane Pisani, President,
 Juha Lavapuro,
 Hugh Mercer, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the lack of reasoning or inadequate reasoning in court decisions. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. 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 6 § 1 of the Convention
6. The applicants complained of the lack of reasoning or inadequate reasoning in court decisions. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 7. According to the Court’s established case-law reflecting a principle linked to the proper administration of justice, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based. The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999‑I). Without requiring a detailed answer to every argument advanced by the complainant, this obligation presupposes that parties to judicial proceedings can expect to receive a specific and explicit reply to the arguments which are decisive for the outcome of those proceedings (see, among other authorities, Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, §§ 29-30, Series A no. 303‑A, and Xhoxhaj v. Albania, no. 15227/19, § 327, 9 February 2021). Moreover, in cases relating to interference with rights secured under the Convention, the Court seeks to establish whether the reasons provided for decisions given by the domestic courts are automatic or stereotypical (see, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017). 8. Those principles relating to a right to a reasoned decision under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention have been applied in a number of Turkish cases (see, for example, Emel Boyraz v. Turkey, no 61960/08, §§ 74-75, 2 December 2014; Deryan v. Turkey, no. 41721/04, §§ 35-42, 21 July 2015; Cihangir Yıldız v. Turkey, no. 39407/03, §§ 41-50, 17 April 2018; Hülya Ebru Demirel v. Turkey, no. 30733/08, §§ 48-52, 19 June 2018; Murat Akın v. Turkey, no. 40865/05, §§ 41-43, 9 October 2018; Pişkin v. Turkey, no. 33399/18, §§ 147-50, 15 December 2020; Korkut and Amnesty International Türkiye v. Türkiye, no. 61177/09, §§ 53-56, 9 May 2023; and Onat and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 61590/19 and 6 others, § 71, 25 March 2025). 9. Reviewing the facts of the present cases in the light of those principles, the Court considers that the domestic courts failed in their duty to provide reasons for their decisions and did not address pertinent and important arguments raised by the applicants. The specific procedural failings are indicated in the appended table, and they prompt the Court to conclude that the applicants’ right to a reasoned court decision was not secured. 10. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pronina v. Ukraine, no. 63566/00, 18 July 2006 and Korkut and Amnesty International Türkiye, cited above, § 95), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation