1 (see, mutatis mutandis , Aziz v. Cyprus , no.   69949/01, § 28, ECHR 2004-V).” b.     Application of those principles to the present case 37.

Türkiye 16/08/2021 Aziz KONCA 1960 Hatay Turkish 73. 45745/21 Arslan v. Türkiye 02/09/2021 Arslan ARSLAN 1979 Çorum Turkish 74. 45882/21 Çakır v.

Türkiye 10/06/2021 Aziz ERDEN 1975 Kütahya Turkish 283. 31170/21 Vural v. Türkiye 08/06/2021 Emrah VURAL 1988 Istanbul Turkish 284. 31197/21 Seven v.

Türkiye 27/04/2022 Aziz ŞAHİN 1987 Kırıkkale Turkish 385. 22918/22 Özbek v. Türkiye 21/04/2022 Cemal ÖZBEK 1976 Kırşehir Turkish 386. 22962/22 Koç v.

3 article 6 § 3 de la Convention   10892/12 19/12/2011 Abdurrahman BAŞBUĞ 08/03/1971 Istanbul   Şevki LÜLECİOĞLU article 5 §§1, 3 et 4 article 6 de la Convention   12002/12 16/01/2012 Aziz

Türkiye Aziz ATEŞ Awarded 224. 49848/18 Şanlı v. Türkiye Savaş ŞANLI Awarded 225. 49849/18 Kandemir v. Türkiye Halit KANDEMİR Awarded 226. 50974/18 Tekten v.

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

remedy available to the applicant, the national legal order has been denied the opportunity to address the Convention issue which the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies is intended to give it (see Azinas

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

admissible where it concludes that it should have been declared inadmissible for one of the reasons given in the first three paragraphs of Article 35 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Azinas

challenging an impugned measure, but then lodge an application before the Court on the basis of the Convention argument (see Van Oosterwijck , judgment of 6 November 1980, §§ 33-34, Series A no. 40, and Azinas

authorities (primarily the judicial authorities) to address an allegation of a violation of a Convention right and, where appropriate, to afford redress before that allegation is submitted to the Court (see Azinas

France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 22, ECHR 2003-III, and Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 32, ECHR 2004 ‑ III). II.     THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A.

made subsequently at international level should have been aired before the domestic authorities, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law (see Azinas

subsequently at the international level should have been aired before the domestic courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see Azinas

objections that the Speaker’s resignation (see paragraph 20 above) had deprived the applicant of her victim status and that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded (see, mutatis mutandis ,   Azinas

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

1955 İstanbul   Fikret Gökçe KÖSTEM 15/11/1980 İstanbul   Kemal KÖSTEM 12/09/1983 İstanbul   Atif ŞENEL             625/10 14/12/2009 Aziz

to be made subsequently at international level should have been aired before domestic authorities, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law (see Azinas