Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 31865/06, § 31, 2 September 2014; Demirović and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 35732/09, § 32, 2 September 2014; Zuban and Hamidović v.

Case Judgment of Final on 27918/02 DEMIREVI 28/05/2009 28/08/2009 2380/03 TZVYATKOV 22/10/2009 22/01/2010 65417/01 PETKOV ROSEN 02/09/2010 02/12/2010   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms

Recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the other shortcomings found by the Court in the present judgment continues to be examined within the framework of the Selahattin Demirtas

Recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the other shortcomings found by the Court in the present judgment continues to be examined within the framework of the Selahattin Demirtas

Comité des Ministres le 10 décembre 2025, lors de la 1546 e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)   Requête n o Affaire Arrêt du Définitif le 45204/20 OZLU 08/10/2024 08/10/2024 8732/11 SELAHATTIN DEMIRTAS

Bourragué, - les conclusions de Mme B, rapporteuse publique, - et les observations de Me Demirtas, représentant la société Transdev Vexin. 1. M.

In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis , AGOSI v. the United Kingdom , 24   October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 108; Denisova

Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V; and compare with Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia , no.   16903/03, § 64, 1 April 2010)?   2.

Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 31865/06, § 31, 2 September 2014; Demirović and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 35732/09, § 32, 2 September 2014; and Zuban and Hamidović v.

  Denisova et Moiseyeva c. Russie (n° 16903/03) Les requérantes, Nataliya Denisova et sa fille, Nadezhda Moiseyeva, sont des ressortissantes russes nées en 1949 et en 1978 respectivement.

Camguilhem, rapporteur public, - et les observations de Mmes A et Demiras pour le conseil départemental des Hauts-de-Seine. Considérant ce qui suit : 1.

Violation of Article 3 (treatment) Just satisfaction: EUR 18,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Denisova and Moiseyeva v.

2014     Sarajevo Municipal Court (applicant IBRIŠEVIĆ-ADEMOVIĆ), 16/04/2014   Sarajevo Municipal Court (applicant TUKIĆ),   29/11/2013   Sarajevo Municipal Court (applicant DEMIROVIĆ

Türkiye 16/02/2022 Sevilay ÇAKMAK TOÇOĞLU 1985 İzmir Turkish 06/08/2014 20/09/2018 28/12/2020 23/06/2021 27/12/2021 4. 11248/22 Demirok v.

Les requérants dans l’affaire Demirevi invoquent également l’article 13 (droit à un recours effectif).   Demirevi c. Bulgarie (n o 27918/02) Roïdakis c.

Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V, and Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia , no. 16903/03, § 64, 1 April 2010)?   3.

Russie (n° 32786/04) Denissova c. Russie (n° 34431/04) Dokoline c. Russie (n° 28488/04) Gloukhova et Bragina c. Russie (n° 28785/04) Kholodenko c. Russie (n° 33617/04) Lyatskaya c.

1982   National parliamentary election, 04/04/2021   49765/21 04/10/2021 Dragomir Tanev MANOLOV 1982   National parliamentary election, 11/07/2021   49767/21 04/10/2021 Petar Mitev DEMIREV

  In the case s   of Demirevi   and Ilievi , the applicants also rely ied   on Article 13 ( right to an effective remedy ).