It found it likely that this part of the applicant’s detention had been particularly impactful and had had relatively above-average consequences.

He noted that the few witnesses who had allegedly complained about him to the police had made their initial statements under pressure and had subsequently retracted those statements during the judicial

had been a legal person.

He alleged, in particular, that his detention had been arbitrary and excessive, and that it had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. 12 .

. had also displayed Wahhabi tendencies; he had acknowledged that he had had links with persons prosecuted for terrorist activities.

The applicants had had no opportunity to seek the reopening either of the restitution proceedings, or of the proceedings in the administrative courts.

overnight because he had had nowhere else to go.

This was because, in the Government’s submission, the applicant had failed to prove that he was challenging an executory administrative act since he had failed to establish an appropriate comparison between

COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long.

It is to be noted that the issue of jurisdiction over the area where the incidents giving rise to the complaints allegedly took place has been examined and decided by the Grand Chamber of the Court in

date on which it had been served on Mr K. 10.

The article in question had also had a very positive impact, given that the domestic proceedings at issue had since been expedited.

Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

They also argued that the applicant had unnecessarily burdened the courts with allegations that the employer had been unlawfully restructured and the mortgage forged, as those issues had been res judicata

By a letter dated 27 August 2001 the applicants’ representatives informed the Court that the applicant Sultan Kaplan had died on an unspecified date and that her heirs, Mr Mehmet Kaplan, Mümin Kaplan,

A further stay in Turkey had been impossible for them.

The applicants further complain that they had no effective remedy at their disposal in order to prevent damage to their property. They rely on Article 13 of the Convention.

son had been slapped and punched in the head and her seven-year-old disabled son had been attacked. 28.

It also held that they had acted in accordance with the law in enforcing the applicant’s judgment. 25.