CodexAI
AND
OR
NOT
"…"
DÉCISION / ECLI
TYPE
DATE
EXTRAIT
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0430DEC006646809
30 avril 2019
Turkey , no. 38740/09, 23 October 2018; Ömer Güner v. Turkey , no. 28338/07, 4 September 2018; Girişen v. Turkey , no. 53567/07, 13 March 2018; Canşad and Others v.
Page 65 sur 1307
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0430DEC004472809
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0430DEC003122609
Turkey , no. 7851/05, 13 March 2018; İzzet Çelik v. Turkey , no. 15185/05, 23 January 2018; and Bayram Koç v. Turkey , no. 38907/09, 5 September 2017). 12.
CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:002-9628
23 mars 1995
Conclusion : Turkey is the respondent party in this case. IV.
PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-3094824-3431484
13 avril 2010
Turkey (no. 46605/07) Keshmiri v. Turkey (no. 36370/08) Ranjbar and Others v. Turkey (no. 37040/07) Tehrani and Others v.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1011DEC000061706
11 octobre 2016
Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013; Demiroğlu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013; and Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey (dec.), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014. COMPLAINTS 11.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:0915DEC002468409
15 septembre 2015
Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09 , §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013). COMPLAINTS 8.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0207DEC004278107
7 février 2017
Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013 and Paksoy and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 19474/10, 7 June 2016. COMPLAINTS 13.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0110DEC001995806
10 janvier 2017
Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013; Demiroğlu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013; and Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey (dec.), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0123DEC003446008
23 janvier 2018
Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013; Demiroğlu and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013; and Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey (dec.), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014. COMPLAINTS 11.
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0328DEC004295709
28 mars 2017
Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013); Demiroğlu v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013); and Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 44013/07, 27 May 2014). COMPLAINTS 12.
ECLI:CEDH:002-3590
22 décembre 2005
Turkey ( Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑VI) since, unlike Mrs Loizidou, this applicant had actually lived in Famagusta.
CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1206DEC000853616
6 décembre 2016
in South-Eastern Turkey in the 1990s.
PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:003-1809884-4105350
13 octobre 2006
Turkey (no. 41227/02) Yazganoğlu v.
CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0925JUD003904711
25 septembre 2018
Turkey , no. 59860/10, § 29, 29 October 2013; Atılgan and Others v. Turkey , nos.
CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
ECLI:CEDH:001-182820
13 avril 2018
Turkey , no. 37272/08, 10 October 2017). QUESTION tO THE PARTIES 1. Was the applicant able to examine the witnesses against him as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?
ECLI:CEDH:001-181752
22 février 2018
Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008, and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016).
ECLI:CEDH:001-212660
30 septembre 2021
s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 18 October 2021 SECOND SECTION Application no. 49535/18 Ramazan ÇAYLI against Turkey
ECLI:CEDH:001-210670
25 mai 2021
.s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 14 June 2021 SECOND SECTION Application no. 66261/17 Dengiz SÖNMEZ against Turkey
ECLI:CEDH:001-193422
font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 30 April 2019 SECOND SECTION Application no. 7281/13 Faruk AVCI against Turkey