the revocation of a deportation order are contained in paragraphs 390 and 391 of the Immigration Rules HC 395 (as amended), supplemented by Chapter 13 of the Immigration Directorate’s Instructions (“IDIs

At around the same time, Metin   Can told the applicant that his flat had been searched while he was out and that he thought he was under surveillance. 12.

On the same day the Ankara State Security Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.

Mr Yumak is self-employed and Mr Sadak is Mayor of Idil.

the scheme and further details were set out in the Immigration (Procedure for Marriage) Regulations 2005 (SI   2005/15) (“the 2005 Regulations”) and the Immigration Directorate's Instructions (“IDIs

Public prosecutor Burhan Özkan formally registered this second petition under Nr. 1994/232 on the same day and opened an investigation.

Both Necati and Mehmet confirmed the statements they had made to the Prosecutor earlier the same day. The Judge then ordered their release. 51.

  The taxi driver said the same thing. The Prosecutor then called two doctors.   They "opened the chest" and carried out the autopsy.

He knew Serdar Tanış well, as they were from the same village. 59.

The other eight applicants are members of the same family. They live in Milan (Italy).

On the same day the public prosecutor refused. 9.     Also the same day, the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Izmir Forensic Medicine Institute.

Applying Article   29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time. 4.

It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.

It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.

Under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.

In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.

Türkiye 31/12/2020 Sadi PİRİ 1975 Antalya Turkish Sultan TEKE SOYDİNÇ 53. 8538/21 Işık v. Türkiye 15/12/2020 Ahmet IŞIK 1961 Osmaniye Turkish   54. 8683/21 Gökçe v.

Erhan Öztürk was part of this group, with İdris Ahmet and Mehmet Mehmetoğlu.

The file was re-examined by the same five-judges of the second Chamber of the Supreme Military Administrative Court which had given the judgment of 6 May 1998.