Under the provisions of 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.

pending application submitted to the Court by the same applicants, namely, application no. 24504/11. 2.

Türkiye 02/07/2020 Sami SARI 1981 Samsun Turkish     29198/20 Gişi v. Türkiye 02/07/2020 Yakup GİŞİ 1988 Kahramanmaraş Turkish     29236/20 Üstebay v.

It further pertains to the alleged destruction of his family home and property by the security forces during the same operation. A.     The facts 11.

On the same date police performed an “on-site examination” ( осмотр места происшествия ) in the applicant’s office.

    On the same day at 1.50 p.m. the applicant was examined at the Silvan State Hospital, in Diyarbakır, by a doctor who observed the following on the applicant’s body: 2 cm-long scrape on his

On 28 May 1996 the applicant filed an action with the Supreme Military Administrative Court ( Yüksek Askeri İdare Mahkemesi ).

  Repetitive cases (in which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the European Convention on Human Rights) can be found at the end of this press

On various dates the respective first-instance courts dismissed the applicants’ complaints (“ iddia ərizəsi ”), finding nothing unlawful in the actions of the Ministry (see Appendix).

On the same date, he succumbed to his injuries and died. 1.     Criminal proceedings 4.

On various dates the respective first-instance courts dismissed the applicants’ complaints (“ iddia ərizəsi ”), finding nothing unlawful in the actions of the Ministry (see Appendix).

The applicants repeated their applications to the same authorities on subsequent dates.

Türkiye 26/05/2021 Sami AVCİ 1986 Turkish Naim UZUN   28611/21 Erdoğmuş v. Türkiye 20/05/2021 Hüseyin ERDOĞMUŞ 1975 Kütahya Turkish     28696/21 Çetinkaya v.

    In 1996 the Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration Office ( Kocaeli   İl Özel Idare Müdürlüğü) expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicants.

These complaints are linked to the same proceedings in which they complain about the excessive length. THE LAW I.

parquet, la direction de la sûreté informa celui-ci de ce que le procès-verbal de perquisition du 13   janvier 1997 avait été établi par les policiers Murat Esertürk (M.E.), Osman Soyuer (O.S.) et Sami

On 6 July 1998 the applicant filed an application with the Ankara Supreme Military Administrative Court ( Yüksek İdare Mahkemesi ) against the decision of the Supreme Military Council.

On various dates the respective first-instance courts dismissed the applicants’ complaints (“ iddia ərizəsi ”), finding nothing unlawful in the actions of the Ministry (see Appendix).

    On the same day, the applicant, assisted by three lawyers, appeared before the public prosecutor.