at national level a remedy enabling the national courts to address, at least in substance, any argument as to an alleged violation of a Convention right, it is that remedy which should be used (see Azinas

France [GC], no. 29183/95 , § 37, ECHR 1999-I, and Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00 , § 38, ECHR 2004 ‑ III). 56.

It is true that the question of admissibility can be revisited at any stage of the proceedings in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 in fine of the Convention (see Azinas v.

    The remedy suggested by the Government is therefore one which may afford the highest national court the possibility to examine the violations alleged in the present case (see Azinas v.

could rely on some other ground before the national authorities for challenging an impugned measure, but then lodge an application before the Court on the basis of the Convention argument (see   Azinas

to satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in any case brought before it, and it is therefore obliged to examine the question of its jurisdiction at each stage of the proceedings (see, inter alia , Azinas

primarily the judicial authorities) to address allegations that a Convention right has been violated and, where appropriate, to afford redress before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see Azinas

at national level a remedy enabling the national courts to address, at least in substance, any argument as to an alleged violation of a Convention right, it is that remedy which should be used (see Azinas

    The applicants, Ms Remka Kačapor (“the first applicant”), Ms Huljka Kačapor (“the second applicant”), Ms Aziza Elezović (“the third applicant”), Ms Senada Dolovac (“the fourth applicant”)

Samir ABD AZIZ Jordanien, né le 14/6/1965   Ajournée 51. M. Cheimaamo HAMED HOSSNI Palestinien, né le 4/2/1981   Ajournée Renonce 52. M.

Turkey (no. 73016/01) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The eight applicants, Kadriye Yıldız, Süheyla Yıldız, Nevzat Yıldız, Seyithan Yıldız, Arslan Yıldız, Gültekin Yıldız, Aziz Yıldız and Ferhan

  1 (see, mutatis mutandis , Aziz v. Cyprus , no.   69949/01, § 28, ECHR 2004-V). 25.

Türkiye 28/08/2020 Aziz KONCA 1960 Hatay Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ 150. 42732/20 Ünsal v. Türkiye 08/09/2020 Mehmet Taha ÜNSAL 1989 Ankara Turkish Özcan AKINCI 151. 43536/20 Yekeler v.

on which the Convention machinery is founded and which requires that the complaints intended to be made at the international level should first be aired in substance before the domestic courts (see Azinas

The facts relied on in his application had been presented to the courts who had had the opportunity to address the substance of his complaints, relying on Azinas   v. Cyprus ([GC], no.

level should have been aired before those same courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among many other authorities, Azinas

    In Aziz (C-415/11, EU:C:2013:164 , §§ 43-64), the CJEU held that EU   consumer-protection law precluded national rules barring a court hearing a claim by a consumer against a bank that

{ margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }    Application No. 11394/85           Aziz

  France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; Aziz v. Cyprus , no.   69949/01, § 35, ECHR 2004-V; Timishev v. Russia , nos.