The three applicants agreed that Roland Emonet should adopt Isabelle Emonet so that they could become a real family in the eyes of the law.

    Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants alleged that the effects of the adoption of Isabelle Emonet by Roland Emonet had breached their right to respect for their

The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

    Complaints   The applicants allege that the effects of the adoption of Isabelle Emonet by Roland Emonet breach their right to respect for their family life under Article 8 (right to

The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicants complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.

  Adriano Andrenelli (“the applicant”), on 31 May 2011. The applicant, who is a lawyer, represented himself. The Italian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms. E.

The applicants were all represented by Mr A. Demirkan. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicants were all represented by Mr A. Demirkan. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicants complained also under Article 11 of the Convention that the domestic courts had wrongly decided their claim since they had been absent from work due to their participation at a properly

This man, a former employee of the victim, confessed to the murder, committed on 10 September 2008.

It is represented before the Court by Ms. N. Burma, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

their position concerning a friendly settlement of the case.

The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, are represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.

The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.

The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vít A. Schorm.

The court held that the child’s removal from Israel without the father’s consent was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

He was represented before the Court by Mr   N.   Yıldırım, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

He was represented before the Court by Ms F Yolcu, a lawyer practising in İstanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.