It therefore concludes that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility or merits of the above-mentioned complaints (see, for example, Pakdemirli , cited above, § 63, and Mustafa Erdoğan and Others

  3111/10, § 72, ECHR 2012; and Mustafa Erdoğan and Others v.   Turkey , nos. 346/04 and 39779/04, § 48, 27 May 2014). III.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION 59.

impossibility of establishing any communication with the applicant, the Court considers that his three representatives cannot now meaningfully pursue the proceedings before it (see, mutatis mutandis , Sevgi Erdoğan

  26; Erdoğan Yağız v.   Turkey , no.   27473/02, § 37, 6   March 2007; and Kummer v. the Czech Republic , no.   32133/11, § 64, 25   July 2013). 25.

in respect of whom limits of critical comment are wider, as they are inevitably and knowingly exposed to public scrutiny and must therefore display a particularly high degree of tolerance (see Ayhan Erdoğan

Türkiye 04/02/2019 Erhan TUTAL 1978 Ankara Turkish Hasan Hüseyin ERDOĞAN 37. 11344/19 Özkan v. Türkiye 13/02/2019 Ömer Taha ÖZKAN 1981 Manisa Turkish Fatma BAHAR ÖZKAN 38. 13104/19 Cambolat v.

Türkiye 06/11/2020 İhsan ŞEN 1991 Denizli Turkish Adnan ERDOĞAN Awarded 53. 51374/20 Ercan v. Türkiye 04/11/2020 Halil İbrahim ERCAN 1977 Samsun Turkish   Awarded 54. 52055/20 Şen v.

  Turquie , n o   34738/04, §§   38-42, 5 juin 2007, Erdoğan Yılmaz et autres c.   Turquie , n o   19374/03, §   57, 14 octobre 2008, Erdal Aslan c.

§ 1 de la Convention, qui est de ménager aux Etats contractants l’occasion de redresser les violations, telles que celles alléguées en l’espèce, avant qu’elles ne soient soumises à la Cour ( Mahmut Erdoğan

xa0;    Hakan CEYLAN 18/08/1973             Şaban DEMİRCAN 11/03/1958             Bilal ERDOĞAN

  Türkiye 26/10/2016 Ahmet TÜZEMEN 1970 ANKARA Turkish Hasan Hüseyin ERDOĞAN   15015/17 Sarıkılıç v.

            55638/11 29/07/2011 Emine ERDURAN (SÖZEN) 01/01/1985 Samsun Ömer Birol ERDİM Tribunal de cadastre de Ondokuzmayıs E: 2001/2.

  Bulgaria (dec.), no. 38361/97, 6 June 2000, and Erdogdu and Ince v.   Turkey [GC], nos. 25067/94 and 25068/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-IV).

La perte de sensibilité sur une zone érogène affecte la libido de la victime justifie une indemnisation de Mme [I] à hauteur de : 5 000 euros x 0,7 = 3 500 euros, après application du taux de perte de

Erdogan, Mr. Y. Kizilkaya, Mr. C. Duatepe and Ms. S.B. Ersöz, all experts.   The applicants was represented by Professor K. Boyle and Ms. F. Hampson, both counsel, Mr. S.

  Erdjan Hussein Rashid («   le requérant   »), a saisi la Cour le 3 février 1999 en vertu de l'article 34 de la Convention de sauvegarde des Droits de l'Homme et des Libertés fondamentales

078 234, dont le siège social est sis [Adresse 23] Représentant : Maître Benjamin ENGLISH de la SELARL SELARL SHANNON AVOCATS, avocats au barreau de SAINT-BRIEUC, avocat plaidant, substitué par Maître Eroan

  He was represented before the Commission by Mr Aydın Erdoğan.   3.   The application is directed against Turkey.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agent.

judicial review may support the finding of a violation of Article 10 (see, in particular, Lombardi Vallauri , cited above, §§   45 ‑ 56; see also, with regard to academic freedom, Mustafa Erdoğan