It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Becciev v.

    On 15 May 2001 the Van Administrative Court re-examined the case in the light of the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision and decided to reject the applicants’ claim for compensation.

    The applicant reiterated his claims. 56.

He stated that the haematoma was located between the dura mater and the skull,   and not in the actual brain. A subdural haematoma of that kind was more likely to result from cranial trauma.

It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Genov and Sarbinska v.

    The applicant requested a second opinion, which the investigating judge commissioned on 19 May 1989 from a Dr Dumoulin. 13.

It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Urbárska obec Trenčianske Biskupice v.

This matter was so grave that no such undertaking could honestly have been given.

Lithuania (no. 46454/11, §§   20 ‑ 53, 31   May 2018) and Al Nashiri v. Romania (no.   33234/12, §§   22 ‑ 61, 31   May 2018).

top } Published on 13 December 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 58437/17 Mehmet DUYMAZ against Turkey and 265 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 23 November 2021 SUBJECT MATTER

top } Published on 13 December 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 30689/17 Emin YILDIRIM against Turkey and 234 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 23 November 2021 SUBJECT MATTER

0pt } Published on 13 December 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 37097/19 Fatoş MUTLUER against Turkey and 240 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 23 November 2021 SUBJECT MATTER

The indictment did not rely in any manner on the item of evidence found in the first applicant's vehicle during the search of 27 May 2000, namely, the plastic mould of the car lock. 26.