Decision Benli v. Turkey - failure to use remedy to challenge arrests

CtEDO 2017-11-21 0,88

remedy established by Law no. 6384, the Court reiterates its conclusion in the case of Turgut and Others (cited above). It therefore concludes that the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhau

CtEDO 2010-03-02 0,88

use the remedy available under Article 13 of Law no. 2577, as referred to by the Government above (see, inter alia, Pınar Güngör v. Turkey, no. 46745/99, 6 March 2007, and Gülizar Öz v. Turkey, no. 40687/98, 1 July 2004). In the present cas

CtEDO 2005-11-08 0,88

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law);Violation of

CtEDO 2019-06-12 0,88

that the applicant was taken into custody for further interrogation under the state of emergency legislation after her detention on remand had been ordered as well as the absence of a remedy to challenge her detention in custody (violations

CtEDO 2018-05-29 0,88

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