59237/10 01/09/2010 Nevit ARIPEK 12/11/1929 İstanbul   İlhan DURMUŞ Lüleburgaz Cadastral Court (E   1975/15)          59314/10 27/09/2010 Necati Yener KALEMLER

Güvenlik Mahkemesi üyeligi, yedek üyeligi ve Cumhuriyet      savci yardimciligi görevlerine atanan askeri hakim subaylarin      rütbe terfii, rütbe kidemliligi, kademe

Güvenlik Mahkemesi üyeligi, yedek üyeligi ve Cumhuriyet      savci yardimciligi görevlerine atanan askeri hakim subaylarin      rütbe terfii, rütbe kidemliligi, kademe

    The Court considers this period in breach of the requirement for a speedy decision under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Kadem v. Malta , no.

The Court considers this period to be in breach of the requirement for a speedy decision under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Kadem   v.   Malta , no.

Güvenlik Mahkemesi üyeligi, yedek üyeligi ve Cumhuriyet      savci yardimciligi görevlerine atanan askeri hakim subaylarin      rütbe terfii, rütbe kidemliligi, kademe

Malta , no. 35892/97, § 40, 29 June 2000 and Kadem v.

where an individual’s personal liberty is at stake, it has very strict standards concerning the State’s compliance with the requirement of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for example, Kadem

The Court finds that the applications for release introduced by the applicant were not examined “speedily” as required by Article 5 § 4 (see Kadem v.

  3456/05, § 120, 4 October 2005; Kadem v. Malta , no. 55263/00, §§ 44-45, 9   January 2003; Sakık and Others v.

Güvenlik Mahkemesi üyeligi, yedek üyeligi ve Cumhuriyet      savci yardimciligi görevlerine atanan askeri hakim subaylarin      rütbe terfii, rütbe kidemliligi, kademe

judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A no. 164, p. 11, § 21, where the Court found that it was not unreasonable to repeat an appeal against detention one month following the dismissal of a previous appeal; Kadem

Switzerland , no. 28256/95, §§ 32-43, 30 November 2000, Kadem v. Malta , no. 55263/00, §§ 44-45, 9 January 2003, and Mitev v.

    The Court reiterates that it has previously found a violation of Article   5   § 4 in cases where appeal proceedings lasted seventeen (see Kadem v. Malta , no.

Güvenlik Mahkemesi üyeligi, yedek üyeligi ve Cumhuriyet      savci yardimciligi görevlerine atanan askeri hakim subaylarin      rütbe terfii, rütbe kidemliligi, kademe

Güvenlik Mahkemesi üyeligi, yedek üyeligi ve Cumhuriyet      savci yardimciligi görevlerine atanan askeri hakim subaylarin      rütbe terfii, rütbe kidemliligi, kademe

France, application no. 31113/96, Commission decision of 5 December 1996, DR 87-B, p. 151; and Kareem v.

Güvenlik Mahkemesi üyeligi, yedek üyeligi ve Cumhuriyet      savci yardimciligi görevlerine atanan askeri hakim subaylarin      rütbe terfii, rütbe kidemliligi, kademe

They mentioned that the applicant’s guardian ( kayyum ), appointed pursuant to the former Turkish Civil Code (see paragraph 21 below), had also filed a paternity action on behalf of the applicant.