3645/23) against the Kingdom of Denmark 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 Ilhan

resulting in bodily injury but not death is such as to bring the facts within the scope of the safeguard afforded by Article 2 of the Convention, having regard to the object and purpose of that Article (see İlhan

The remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective” in practice as well as in law (see, for example,   İlhan v.   Turkey   [GC], no.

considers that it is only in exceptional circumstances that physical ill-treatment inflicted by State officials which does not result in death may disclose a violation of Article 2 of the Convention (see İlhan

obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant’s complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective” in practice as well as in law (see, for example, İlhan

obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective” in practice as well as in law (see, for example, İlhan

of appropriate medical care and, more generally, the detention in inappropriate conditions of a person who is ill may in principle amount to treatment contrary to Article   3 (see, for example, İlhan

  13378/05, § 33, ECHR 2008, and   İlhan v. Turkey   [GC], no.   22277/93, § 52, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII). 22 .

Hyytiäinen Esa Toivo Hyökyvirta Tommy Håkans Matti Kalevi Hämäläinen Matti Ilmari Härkönen Timo Kalevi Häyhä Ari Pekka Häyrinen Volter Högback Markku Iittiläinen Jyrki Ikonen Kari Ikonen Ari Juhani Ilander

obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be 'effective' in practice as well as in law (see, for example , İlhan

    The Court has frequently held that the remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective” in practice as well as in law (see, for example, İlhan v.

13) 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 two Turkish nationals, Mr İlhan

Türkiye 13/01/2023 İlhan AKYÜZ 1984 Kayseri Turkish 41. 5679/23 Nuhbaşa v. Türkiye 26/01/2023 Bülent NUHBAŞA 1987 Ankara Turkish 42. 5681/23 Kılıç v.

Türkiye 02/03/2021 İlhan ÖNKAL 1970 Ankara Turkish 355. 14197/21 Ekiz v. Türkiye 15/02/2021 Ibrahim EKİZ 1987 Osmaniye Turkish 356. 14607/21 Şakiroğlu v.

    The Court has frequently held that the remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective” in practice as well as in law (see, for example, İlhan v.

Turkey, no. 20869/92, ECHR 2000-VIII; and İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, ECHR   2000 ‑ VII). 7.

Türkiye İlhan TOPRAK Awarded 272. 8720/19 Sekmen v. Türkiye Bünyamin SEKMEN Awarded 273. 9324/19 Bartan v. Türkiye Nihat Murat BARTAN Awarded 274. 9355/19 Barin v.

A lack of appropriate medical care may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 87, ECHR 2000-VII, and Sarban v.

obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant’s complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective” in practice as well as in law (see, for example, İlhan