30461/02) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Mr Erol

Dans la procédure devant la Commission elle est représentée par Maître Erol Özcan, avocat au barreau d'izmir.   3.     La requête est dirigée contre la Turquie.

    Dans de telles circonstances, la Cour a pour pratique de rayer les requêtes de son rôle en vertu de l’article 37 § 1 c) de la Convention (voir, parmi d’autres, Erol Direkçi et Ergül Direkçi

xa0;      Zeki CANBULAT 04/11/1966             İsmail ÇAP 01/01/1955             Erol

Ercil, Mr   Z.B. Avcioğlu, Mrs   Ö. Gazialem,   Advisers ; (b)     for the applicant Mrs   G. Alkan , Mr   M.A. Hatemi ,   Counsel Mr   P.

Erol ARİKAN, born in 1962 in Balıkesir. 37. Kazĸm ARSLAN, born in 1955 in Sivas. 38. Süleyman ACAR, born in 1962 in Örencik. 39. Savaş KIRCAN, born in 1975 in İzmir. 40.

Turkey (no. 235/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicants, Fazıl Ahmet Tamer, Erol Kaplan and Hasan Demir, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966 and 1967 and live in Istanbul.

.-2006/11731 K.) 27/06/2006 1 year and 5 months   15688/07 29/03/2007 Erol KARAYEL 16/05/1964 Ankara   11/11/2004 1-17/03/2005   2-02/05/2006 1-08/06/2005 decision to quash   2-02/10

  Jamaica , Views of 16 July 1996, communication no. 600/1994, Errol Johnson v. Jamaica , Views of 22   March 1996, communication no.   588/1994; and Michael Wanza v.

that giving two disputes different treatment cannot be considered to give rise to conflicting case-law when this is justified by a difference in the factual situations at issue (see, mutatis mutandis , Erol

Türkiye 24/09/2020 Erol GÜNERI 1985 Balıkesir Turkish   122. 43990/20 Likoğlu v. Türkiye 16/09/2020 Fatih LİKOĞLU 1979 Afyonkarahisar Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 123. 44002/20 Polat v.

Bräysy Antti Ilmari Castrén Pasi Dahlbo Juho-Heikki Antero Dahlstedt Rainer Eerola Pekka Ek Ari Tapio Elonen Ari Enbom Kai Enne Olli Kalervo Envall Hans Eriksson Mikael Eriksson Jussi Erkkilä Erik Erroll

AKMEŞE Article 5 § 4 de la Convention Dommage moral réclamé : 10 000 EUR (dix mille euros) Frais et dépens réclamé   : 7 434 TRY (environ 1   450 EUR)   43257/13 21 mai 2012 Faik Özgür EROL

#xa0;   The Court also reiterates that an applicant cannot claim to be a victim in a case where he or she is partly responsible for the alleged violation (see, mutatis mutandis , Paşa and Erkan Erol

This amount is intended to make reparation for the state of distress, inconvenience and uncertainty resulting from the violation in question ( see Coming ersoll S.A.   v. Portugal [GC], no.

Turkey , no. 34388/05, §   32, 12 April   2011; Erkol v. Turkey , no. 50172/06, §§ 38-41, 19 April 2011; Tripon v. Romania (dec.) no. 27062/04 § 25, CEDH, 7 February 2012; Teodor v.

it was not necessary to carry out a fresh assessment of the applicant’s son’s role in the assault against V.M. because it had already been established (see paragraph 23 above; see, mutatis mutandis , Erkol

  Norway , no. 31283/04, §§ 47-49, 15 May 2008; Erkol v. Turkey , no.   50172/06, §§ 33 and 37, 19 April 2011; Vulakh and Others v. Russia , no.

Turkey (no. 30461/02) The applicant, Erol Çağlayan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Muğla (Turkey).