The applicant is a Turkish citizen, born in 1965 and resident at Meram, Konya, Turkey. He was represented before the Commission by Ms Gerda E.M. Later, a lawyer practising in The Hague.

  36590/97, §§ 43-52, ECHR 2002 ‑ V, Meral v. Turkey , no.   33446/02, §§   34-39, 27 November 2007)?

report described the applicants’ behaviour and the moment when they had received their injuries in the following terms: “It has been established, on the basis of the analysis of the video file, that Merab

She also submitted that he had telephoned “Merab from Moscow” (the first applicant) and said: “Everything is fine. The only problem is that the secretary has stayed behind.

position in the ruling of 15   May 2007 (see paragraph   75 below) and the Court’s case-law under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (the Supreme Administrative Court referred to Meral

Cadastral Court (E:2007/4)          59052/10 03/09/2010 Meral PEPEYİ 05/12/1937 Çanakkale   İlhan DURMUŞ Luleburgaz Cadastral Court (E:1975/15 )    

Türkiye 09/03/2021 Fatih ÖZKAN 1985 Ankara Turkish Meral ÖZKAN   15852/21 Göçeren v. Türkiye 08/03/2021 Osman GÖÇEREN 1973 Karaman Turkish Rukiye COŞGUN   15929/21 Özdiken v.

The applicants Ali Rıza Dermanlı, Birsen Dermanlı and Gönül Aslan were represented before the Court by Ms Meral Hanbayat, Mr Mehmet Ali Kırdök and Ms   Mihriban Kırdök, lawyers practising in Istanbul

GÖKTAŞ 2 63133/15 29/12/2015 İrfan UYSAL 20/10/1986 Cizre Ramazan DEMİR 3 63138/15 12/01/2016 Ahmet VESEK 01/01/1949 Şırnak Veysel VESEK 4 478/16 12/01/2016 Kasım EROĞLU 10/08/1981 Diyarbakır   Meral

Placement in solitary confinement during leisure time or throughout the entire day and night ( upućivanje u samicu u slobodno vreme ili tokom celog dana i noći ) was a disciplinary measure ( disciplinska mera

    In addition to fines, the courts imposed confiscation of the objects of the offence ( zaštitna mera oduzimanja predmeta prekršaja ) – namely, all cash in excess of EUR 10,000, referring to

particularly strong public interest in the preservation of the construction in question; (d) affirmed, in this context, that constructive expropriation could not be regarded as an alternative (“ una mera

( interlocutoria mista ) falling into the category of judgments which examined the merits in part [and thus could be appealed against, as opposed to a “mere interlocutory judgment” ( interlocutoria mera

Whosoever, either intentionally or recklessly ( mera culpa ), unlawfully violates the rights of others or any legal provision intended to protect the interests of others is obliged to compensate the injured

    On 27 February 2003 the Municipal Court issued an interim custody order ( privremena mera o vršenju roditeljskog prava ) and, in so doing, specifically ordered the respondent to hand over

ordered the applicant to pay RSD 600 in respect of the costs of the proceedings within the same time-limit as the imposed fine; (v) lastly, it imposed confiscation of the object of the offence ( zaštitna mera

party had sold land to the claimant in 1976 on the basis of a false court decision, despite the fact that in 1954, the land in question had been classified by the cadastral commission as grazing land ( mera

particularly strong public interest in the preservation of the construction in question; (d) affirmed, in this context, that constructive expropriation could not be regarded as an alternative (“ una mera

se afti tin eglimatiki      diadikasia, opos pragmatonetai sti leitourgia kai sti domi, arnoumenos na foreso kato      apo aftes tis proïpotheseis, apo edo kai mera