61112/12, §§   32-33, 29 March 2016)? Did the Supreme Court provide adequate reasoning for the applicant’s conviction?   2.

14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 November 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 15839/20 Muammer PEHLİVAN against Türkiye lodged on 12 March

    Was the right to life of the applicant’s brother, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, violated in the present case?

Upon the prosecutor’s appeal, the appeal court reversed the acquittal and ordered a re-examination of the case.

51 March 2003 SARL du Parc d’activités de Blotzheim and SCI Haselaecker v.

#161616 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } Published on 3 May 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 15541/20 Rosa Edelmira PINDO MULLA against Spain lodged on 13 March

avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 17 March

Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention has elapsed without the case

Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention has elapsed without the case

    The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 28 March 2000 the applicant was arrested by the police.

of the case, the conduct of the parties and the conduct of the authorities dealing with the case (see Eur.

On 5 March 1996 the court joined the second applicant’s case to the first applicant’s case pending before a different chamber of the court.

In particular, the applicant, despite being a victim in the criminal case, had not been involved in the re-enactment and his numerous requests to have investigative and procedural actions carried out had

in that case.

TURKEY   In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 28 March 2000 in the case of Kılıç v.

On 17 March 1992 the Hamburg local authorities recognised the injury of the applicant’s fourth right hand finger as damage caused by the performance of his military service and rejected the applicant’s

    On 11 March 2004 the Gadabay District R.

    On 8 March 1994 the Izmir Administrative Court conducted a preliminary examination of the case file. 16.

(as part of the case concerning the other victims had been disjoined in the meantime) and sent their case to trial. 2.