ÇAKMAK v. TURKEY - [Turkish Translation] by theTurkish Ministry of Justice

CtEDO 2018-05-29 0,91

the Court finds that the applicants’ complaints concerning the inadequacy of the judicial response in the aftermath of the incident are manifestly ill ‐ founded and must be declared inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 o

CtEDO 2015-11-10 0,90

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman trea

CtEDO 2018-12-04 0,90

respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike that part of the application out of its list of cases in accord

CtEDO 2017-04-25 0,90

note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike that part of the application out o

CtEDO 2017-09-05 0,90

; and Erkan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 41792/10, §§ 64-65, 28 January 2014). 20. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the applicants have failed to comply with the six-month rule. The application must therefore be rejected, pursua