However, the declaration was made by the Government on 17 October 2012 outside the framework of the friendly-settlement negotiations (compare Rule 62A § 1 (c) of the Rules of Court and, for instance, 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

Requête n o 2181/18 introduite le 16 juin 2017 par İnci Solak Akman (née en 1979), représentée par M e S.K. Güvercin (décret-loi n o   686 du 7   février 2017).

any agreement 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

Turkey (No. 2) (no. 30465/02), judgment of 12 December 2006 Akkan and Erkizilkaya v. Turkey (no. 48055/99), judgment of 24 October 2006 Anter and Others v.

1948, de nationalité grecque           Stavros PSYROUKIS, né en 1968, de nationalité grecque           Benson AKPAN

[U] [F] office notariale dont le siège social est sis [Adresse 6] défaillant Maître [Y] [J] Née le 13 février 1976 à [Localité 3] dont le siège social est sis [Adresse 7] représentée par Me Oktay AKTAN

  Appendix   Application   Case Judgment of Final on 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 AND

) Bahattin Kınay; (9) Esma (Ziri) Yöyler; (10) Kutbettin Fırtına; (11) Zeynel Abidin Daş; (12) Mehmet Şirin Yıldız; (13) Selahattin Yıldırım; (14) Serhat Yöyler; (15) Hakan Tekin; (16) Halil İbrahim Akkan

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.

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

Turkey 18/02/2019 Lack of reasonable suspicion 100 11281/19 Akman v.

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

Turkey (no. 76855/01) Akkan and Erkızılkaya v. Turkey (no. 48055/99) Kürkçü and Others v. Turkey (no. 7142/02) Terece v. Turkey (no. 41054/98) Üstücan and Others v.

Türkiye 29/03/2021 Kadir ILDIRIM 1989 Niğde Turkish     18320/21 Akman v. Türkiye 30/03/2021 Ali AKMAN 1975 Uşak Turkish Mehmet BAŞYİĞİT   18397/21 Satı v.

{ width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .sFBBFC6C9 { width:290.51pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION   DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 39444/98 by Yaşar AKAN

Turkey (no. 13101/03)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The eight applicants, Tuncay Uysal, Nazım Uysal, Hasan Uysal, İsmail Uysal, Mehmet Uysal, Emine Taşkın, Nermin Aklan and Gülten

23179/94+ YILMAZ, OVAT, ŞAHIN AND DÜNDAR 9/09/1997 [1] - 24940/94 ACAR 18/12/2001 Friendly settlement 31137/96 ADALI 12/12/2002 Friendly settlement 32598/96 AKBAY 04/10/2001 Friendly settlement 37453/97 AKMAN

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