Turkey , no. 66448/17, § 121, 3 March 2020, and the cases cited therein). 14.

On 12 March 2014 the Narimanov District Court dismissed the request. On 19 March 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision.

The applicant made two further, unsuccessful applications for release before his trial began in March 1995. At the end of the trial, he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and a fine.

Consequently, on 4 March 2014, the judge dismissed the applicant’s complaint on the ground that his detention conditions were in accordance with the domestic regulations (4 sq. m per person).

The domestic courts dismissed his complaint, finding that there had been no errors or delays attributable to the State.

  In its judgment, the European Court considered that the finding of the violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants.

supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the continuous flow of judgments of the Court finding

In March 2000 the father instituted proceedings seeking to restrict the applicant's access to the child until she reached the age of ten.

    Having regard to the findings in the investigation report drawn up by an inspector attached to the Ministry of Health, by a judgment of 20 March 2003 the Ankara Administrative Court held

On 11 March 2008 the applicant had a fight with a group of five people, as a result of which one person died and another was seriously injured.

In particular, the finding that they had advocated violence contradicted the fact that they had, in fact, condemned violence.

    Chronology regarding the applicant’s family’s house In March 2001 the applicant’s family privatised the house in which they had been living since 1980.

    By a judgment of 1 March 2017 the Court of Appeal allowed the applicant company’s appeal in part and quashed the CCR’s findings concerning points (ii) to (v) of the audit report (see paragraph

of the judgment of 17   March 2015.

AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANCAIS LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE CRIMINELLE, en son audience publique tenue au Palais de Justice à PARIS, le quinze mars mil neuf cent quatre vingt quinze, a rendu l'arrêt suivant

AU NOM DU PEUPLE FRANCAIS LA COUR DE CASSATION, CHAMBRE CRIMINELLE, en son audience publique tenue au Palais de Justice à PARIS, le quinze mars mil neuf cent quatre vingt quinze, a rendu l'arrêt suivant

  49523/11, 5 March 2020 in the case of civil proceedings; Akmeşe and Eğitim Sen v.

The Court sees no reason to depart from that finding in the present case.

For the Court, there is nothing in the case file that would suggest that the findings of the domestic courts were arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable. 18.