Türkiye 16/08/2023 Yusuf BARAN 1987 Istanbul Turkish   33669/23 Akman v. Türkiye 23/08/2023 Muharrem AKMAN 1980 Denizli Turkish   33757/23 Aslan v.

Türkiye 30/11/2022 Kamil SERVİ 1976 Van Turkish 320. 1149/23 Akman v. Türkiye 21/12/2022 Aslı AKMAN 1983 Bursa Turkish 321. 1151/23 Guven v.

Türkiye 08/07/2022 Osman ÜNALAN 1988 Istanbul Turkish 391. 38753/22 Akman v. Türkiye 21/07/2022 Abdurrahman AKMAN 1991 Batman Turkish 392. 38761/22 Altıner v.

2006 16 mars 2006 (Danıştay, E   :   2006/840, K   :   2006/3818), notifiée le 21   juillet 2006 130 lots 3061/07, représentée par Çetin Kutlu Öner et Fatma Esenyel Ali Iffet Aktan

emergency buttons in his cell and refusing to participate in social activities and prison workshops 15-day ban on correspondence 29 December 2004 26 January 2005 22 February 2005 Articles 6 and 8 9508/05 Akcan

Elle estime donc que le respect des droits de l’homme garantis par la Convention et ses Protocoles exige qu’elle poursuive l’examen de la requête (voir, à contrario , Akman c.

Turquie (n° 76855/01) Akkan et Erkızılkaya c. Turquie (n° 48055/99) Kürkçü et autres c. Turquie (n° 7142/02) Terece c. Turquie (n° 41054/98) Üstücan et autres c.

Turkey (no. 50732/99) 7,888 300 Gürkan and Aktan v. Turkey (no.50741/99) 66,717 500 Kapucu v. Turkey (no. 49718/99) 13,244 300 Kartal Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Koll.Şti. v.

  Belgique , n o   67957/12, § 49, 13   mars 2018,   et Akhan c. Turquie , n o   34448/08, §   23, 31   mai 2012).

  Annexe   Requête Affaire Arrêt du Définitif le   22678/93 INCAL 09/06/1998 09/06/1998 20863/02 AKTAN 23/09/2008 23/12/2008 14742/10 ALI GÜRBÜZ 13/06/2017 13/06/2017 43217/04 ASLAN ET SEZEN

PARTIES EN CAUSE : Monsieur [M] [C] né le [Date naissance 1] 1966 à [Localité 7] de nationalité Française [Adresse 5] [Localité 2] Représenté par Me Jérome LAVALOIS de la SCP LAURENT-LAVALOIS-AKTAN

Immatriculée au RCS de LYON sous le n° 379 954 886 dont le siège social est sis [Adresse 1] représentée par Me Jérome LAVALOIS, avocat au barreau de SAINT-QUENTIN (postulant), substitué par Me Oktay Aktan

Türkiye 13/06/2017 Ahmet KÖSE 27/03/1982   Ordinary judge or public prosecutor 22. 63784/17 Akkan v.

  Türkiye 17/08/2017 Murat ACAR 1971 Ankara Turkish Gülhis YÖRÜK   68719/17 Akcan v.   Türkiye 12/05/2017 Yakup AKCAN 1980 Aydın Turkish Büşra KURT KÜÇÜK   69571/17 Doğan v.

inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF AKAN

category and offering a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, by contrast, Akman

category and offering a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, by contrast, to Akman

That does not, however, rule out the possibility of applying sub-paragraphs (b) and (c), the applicant’s consent not being a prerequisite for their application (see Akman v.

It therefore considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols requires the Court to continue its examination of the case (see, by contrast, Akman v.

Turkey , no. 25754/94, § 23, judgment of 26 March 2002, Akman v. Turkey (striking out), no. 37453/97, §§ 30-31, ECHR 2001 ‑ VI, Meriakri v.