La Cour rappelle avoir examiné une exception similaire dans le cadre de l’affaire Hebat Aslan et Firas Aslan c.

République tchèque , n o 20157/05, §   76, 28   octobre 2010, et Hebat Aslan et Firas Aslan c. Turquie , n o 15048/09, §   60, 28   octobre 2014).

Dans l’évaluation de ces conséquences, la Cour examinera, en particulier, l’enjeu de la procédure nationale ou son issue ( Hebat Aslan et Firas Aslan c.

la Cour rappelle que, lorsque des autorités nationales ont octroyé à un requérant une indemnité en redressement de la violation constatée, il convient qu’elle en examine le montant ( Hebat Aslan et Firas

non‑notification or belated notification of the detention decision; (v) the lack of or delay in the examination of the objection against detention by the magistrates’ courts (compare, for example, Hebat Aslan and Firas

notification of the detention decision; and (iii)   the lack of or delay in the examination of the objection against detention by the magistrates’ courts (compare, for example, Hebat Aslan and Firas

KESKİN 1929 (décédée le 15/05/2014)   Héritiers Halil KESKİN Hadiye SELVİ Remziye YAYLALI Nuriye KESKİN   Mustafa YİĞİT 1932 (décédé le 06/05/2010)   Héritiers Ali İGİT Emin YİĞİT Fatma FIRAT

    23271/18 02/05/2018 Firaz YILDIRIM 28/11/1948 Bingöl Bingöl, Yayladere, Surmelikoç - 101/15, 101/16 4.

margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }       SECOND SECTION             CASE OF FATMA AKALTUN FIRAT

Türkiye 22/03/2023 Mehmet FIRAT 1984 Sivas Turkish 40. 15518/23 Çakmak v. Türkiye 24/03/2023 Elif ÇAKMAK 1991 Diyarbakır Turkish 41. 15526/23 Akyazı v.

    The single-publication rule was subsequently applied to a website publication in Firth v. State of New York (2002) NY int 88.

Türkiye 26/01/2023 Eşref FIRAT 1978 Ankara Turkish 220. 7628/23 Dinç v. Türkiye 27/01/2023 Süleyman DİNÇ 1967 Manisa Turkish 221. 7630/23 Söğüt v.

Türkiye 09/06/2021 Murat FIRAT 1976 Nevşehir Turkish 303. 32307/21 Öz v. Türkiye 16/06/2021 Burak ÖZ 1992 Kocaeli Turkish 304. 32322/21 Altınsoy v.

particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non ‑ pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (see Firth

Germany , no. 61603/00, §   102, ECHR   2005‑V; and Hebat Aslan and Firas Aslan v. Turkey , no.   15048/09, §§   74-82, 28 October 2014). 28.

GÜRLEYEN   13265/05 01/04/2005 Fatmana KESER 01/01/1947 Antalya       21348/05 27/05/2005 Ayşe ALTUNAL 01/07/1957 İzmir   Abdülkadir ÖZDEMİR   26128/05 15/07/2005 Ziya FIRAT

imposed without exceptions (“absolute bans”) as long as their implementation in the circumstances of a specific case is not incompatible with the Convention (see my dissenting opinion in the case of Firth

14pt } .sBA32C63A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }       SECOND SECTION         CASE OF FIRAT

According to a news item published on the website of the Firat News Agency on 14 December 2011, Selahattin Demirtaş, the then co-chair of the Peace and Democracy Party ((BDP) a pro ‑ Kurdish political