CtEDO 31.07.2003 Auto

CASE OF EUGENIA MICHAELIDOU DEVELOPMENTS LTD AND MICHAEL TYMVIOS v. TURKEY

RESPONDENT
TUR
HOTĂRÂRE
31.07.2003
Pe scurt
Instanță
CtEDO
Concluzie
Preliminary objections dismissed (ratione temporis, ratione loci, victim, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of P1-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 14;Not necessary to examine Art. 8;Just satisfaction reserved;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings
RĂSFOIEȘTE: CtEDO · 2003
DESCARCĂ: PDF · DOCX
Citează această cauză
CASE OF EUGENIA MICHAELIDOU DEVELOPMENTS LTD AND MICHAEL TYMVIOS v. TURKEY (CtEDO, 2003)
HUDOC · oficial
§ Cauze similare

Grupate prin similitudine semantică

5 cauze
CtEDO 2008-04-22
0,98
CASE OF EUGENIA MICHAELIDOU DEVELOPMENTS LTD AND MICHAEL TYMVIOS v. TURKEY
applicant for information. 9. On 1 February 2008, the Court having changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1), this case was assigned to the newly-composed Fourth Section. THE FACTS 10. The first applicant is a private company, i
CtEDO 2021-09-16
0,92
CASE OF EUGENIA MICHAELIDOU DEVELOPMENTS LTD AND MICHAEL TYMVIOS AGAINST TURKEY AND 1 OTHER CASE
it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required: - of individual measures to put an end to violations
CtEDO 2009-01-27
0,92
CASE OF ECONOMOU v. TURKEY
7. The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Nicosia. 8. The applicant first stated that he was the owner of a fully furnished house in the District of Kyrenia. However, in his observations of 27 October 1999 he listed his properties as f
CtEDO 2009-09-22
0,91
CASE OF JOSEPHIDES v. TURKEY
applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). In addition, third-party comments were received from the Government of Cyprus, which had exercised its right to intervene (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention an
CtEDO 2009-09-22
0,91
CASE OF DIOGENOUS AND TSERIOTIS v. TURKEY
application admissible. 6. The applicants and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). In addition, third-party comments were received from the Government of Cyprus, which had exercised its right to intervene (Art
Sursă