The Court notes that the applicant was at no stage remanded in custody in the framework of the proceedings criticised in the present case (see, to converse effect, Nedim Şener v.

Türkiye 20/01/2025 Mehmet ÇELİK 1987 Ankara Turkish Ayşe Nesibe YAZAR Lack of reasonable suspicion Failure/delay in examining requests for release/objection during post-conviction detention Restriction

YOLDAŞ 01/02/1955 Malatya   Hasan YÜCEDAĞ 10/03/1956 Malatya   Niymet YÜCEDAĞ 01/01/1960 Malatya   Hacer POLAT 18/06/1965 Malatya   Hikmet YÜCEDAĞ 20/09/1962 Malatya     Nesil

Furthermore, whereas the existence of a deprivation of liberty was a decisive element for the Court’s finding of interference in some cases (see Nedim Şener v.   Turkey , no.

from their obligation to conduct a meaningful investigation into the circumstances surrounding a disappearance within the limits of the practical realities of investigation work (see, for example, Nesibe

against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Serbian national, Mr Nerim

In the Nedim   Şener case, the applicant was prosecuted under Article 314(3) in conjunction with Article 220(7) (aiding and abetting an armed organisation) for having contributed, at the request of

In the Nedim Şener case, the applicant was prosecuted under Article 314(3) in conjunction with Article   220(7) (aiding and abetting an armed organisation) for having contributed, at the request of

Bulgaria , no. 68294/01, § 70, 6 November 2008; Nedim Şener v. Turkey , no. 38270/11, §§ 95-96, 8 July 2014; Şık v. Turkey , no. 53413/11, §§ 84-85, 8 July 2014; and Döner and Others v.

  27520/07 , §§   70-75, 25 October 2011; Nedim Şener v.   Turkey , no.   38270/11 , §   94, 8 July 2014; Ragıp Zarakolu v. Turkey , no.

against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Mehmet Nesip

    In view of its findings above (see paragraphs 63-67 above) and having regard to its case-law ( Nesibe Haran v. Turkey , no.

However, having regard to similar cases (see Nesibe Haran v.

Vasylivna PAVLENKO 06/11/1952 Tarashcha Court, 06/12/2010   23167/12 10/04/2012 Vasyl Stepanovych STOLYAR 02/08/1939 Khmelnytskyy Court, 26/04/2011   23650/12 14/04/2012 Mykola Stepanovych NESIN

Mrs   Selçuk’s brother-in-law, Mr   Nesih Selçuk, telephoned her in Diyarbakır with the news. 16.

eserlerin herkesin görebilecegi veya girebilecegi      yerlerde gösterilmesi veya asilmasi veya dagitilmasi veya      dinletilmesi veya satilmasi veya satisa arzi 'nesir

eserlerin herkesin görebilecegi veya girebilecegi      yerlerde gösterilmesi veya asilmasi veya dagitilmasi veya      dinletilmesi veya satilmasi veya satisa arzi "nesir

  Türkiye 15/12/2020 Kerim KOCATÜRK 1989 Kayseri Turkish Nesibe Betül KOCATÜRK 267. 544/21 Halıcıoğlu v.

Tekmen TEK 04/07/1944 Adana   Fatma TEK 10/01/1952 Adana   Cevat TEKELİ 01/01/1944 Antalya   Ayşe Dudu TOKSÖZ 22/06/1949 Antalya       Etem TOPÇU 06/01/1942 Antalya   Nedime