
AI-generated summary
Journalists were being investigated on the grounds that they reported the allegations of NEW Party officials about Trade Minister Ömer Bolat.
Within the scope of the fund investigation, an indictment was filed against journalist İsmail Saymaz and our writer Murat Ağırel, who discussed the allegations of NEW Party officials against Minister of Commerce Ömer Bolat.
In the indictment, a prison sentence of 14 years and 10 months was requested for Saymaz and Ağırel. Two journalists detained within the scope of the investigation were also placed under house arrest.
Our writer Ağırel was later arrested within the scope of the Sarıgül investigation, citing "reporting that he did not report".
SAYMAZ'S HOUSE ARREST WAS REMOVED
Finally, the "house arrest" sentence given to Saymaz within the scope of the investigation was lifted.

Aylin Kotil, the ex-wife of Erzincan Deputy Mustafa Sarıgül, made a statement after her arrest within the scope of an investigation, denying the accusations and announcing that she was innocent and that she would seek her rights through legal means.

Yonca Verdioğlu Şık, wife of TİP Istanbul Deputy Ahmet Şık, was detained and referred to the courthouse within the scope of an investigation carried out on the allegation of "political or military espionage". TİP stated that the allegations do not reflect the truth.
The Taganskiy District Court in Moscow fined the Wikimedia Foundation, Google, Telegram and Apple for not removing banned content.

In the Gül Tut case, the defense objected to the decision, stating that the possibility that Tut, who had high levels of alcohol and drugs in her blood, might have fallen as a result of an accident was not adequately evaluated.

Merve Uçanok, lawyer of Tuğyan Ülkem Gülter, who was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment for killing his mother in Yalova, submitted a petition of appeal to the Bursa Regional Court of Justice to overturn the decision and release him.

The Constitutional Court annulled the regulation of the Turkish Civil Code, which stipulated that the sales price should be determined by the court according to the market value within the scope of the right of pre-emption in shared real estate.