coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kocaeli.
6.  Following a dispute with a private third party, the applicant initiated compensation proceedings.
7.  On 12 March 2009 the Tuzla Civil Court of General Jurisdiction granted the applicant compensation, amounting to 386,464.75 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 174,000 euros (EUR)). In the operative part of the judgment, the court indicated that the defendant party had to pay TRY 16,000 (approximately EUR 7,400) for court fees pursuant to the Law on Charges. The court registry accordingly sent a payment order to the defendant party. However, no payment was made.
8.  On 18 May 2009 the applicant submitted a petition to the registry of the first instance court, requesting that the judgment be served on her in order to commence enforcement proceedings. On the same day, the court rejected the request on the ground that it was impossible under Section 28(1) (a) of the Law on Charges (Law no. 492) to serve a copy of the judgment unless the court costs that should have been born by the defendant party had been discharged.
9.  At the time when the application was introduced, the applicant had therefore been unable to bring enforcement proceedings in order to have the above-mentioned judgment executed unless she herself was willing to pay the court fees that the defendant party had failed to pay.
10.  Following the introduction of the present application with the Court, the domestic legislation was amended (see paragraphs 11-13 below), and subsequently the judgment in question was served on the applicant. In the absence of an appeal, the judgment became final on 17 October 2012. On 5 March 2013 the applicant initiated enforcement proceedings against her debtor. On 10 April 2013 the applicant further requested the enforcement office to place a lien on the debtor’s property. According to the documents in the file, as of 14 April 2017 the debt, which is still not enforced, amounts to TRY 812,648.94 (approximately EUR 193,500) including the initial amount of compensation awarded by the domestic court plus interest running at statutory rate.
5.  The applicants, whose names are listed in the appendix, are Turkish nationals.
6.  On 17 and 18 July 2008, each of the applicants sent a letter to the Halfeti (Şanlıurfa) public prosecutor`s office which contained the following passage:
 "If using the word of “sayın” (esteemed) is an offense, then I also say “Sayın Abdullah Öcalan”, I commit this offense and denounce myself."
7.  On 19 September 2008, the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Halfeti Magistrates’ Court in Criminal Matters against the applicants. They were charged with praising an offence and offender, prescribed by Article 215 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 5237), on account of their statements in the above mentioned letters.
8.  On 9 March 2009 the Halfeti Magistrates’ Court in Criminal Matters found the applicants guilty of praising the imprisoned leader of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, on account of their statements in the aforementioned letters and accordingly, sentenced them each to two months and fifteen days’ imprisonment. In accordance with Article 50 of the Criminal Code, this prison sentence was commuted to a fine of 1,500 Turkish Liras (TRY).
9.  The applicants appealed against this judgment. On 20 June 2012 the Court of Cassation, holding that the amount of the fine that had been imposed on the applicants did not attain the minimum requisite level, dismissed the appeal request.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and at the time of lodging his application he was serving his prison sentence in the Bolu F-type prison.
5.  On 3 December 2007 the applicant wrote a letter to the Ministry of Justice, in which he had praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed.
6.  Pursuant to the Regulations on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences, the applicant was found guilty of breaching prison order by the Bolu F- type Prison Disciplinary Board (referred hereafter as “the Board”).
7.  On 12 December 2007 the applicant was sentenced to 11 days’ solitary confinement on the orders of the Board, on account of his statements in the above mentioned letter.
8.  On 25 December 2007 the Bolu Enforcement Judge rejected the applicant`s objection.
9.  On 15 January 2008 the Bolu Assize Court upheld the judgment of 25 December 2007.
4.  The applicants were born in 1967, 1965 and 1972 respectively and at the time of lodging their applications they were serving their prison sentences in the Muş E-type prison.
5.  On 6 and 7 March 2006 each applicant sent a letter to the Ministry of Justice, referring to the imprisoned leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan, by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed.
6.  Pursuant to the Regulations on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences, the applicants were found guilty of breaching prison order by the Erzurum H- type Prison Disciplinary Board (referred hereafter as “the Board”).
7.  On 5 April 2006 the applicants were each sentenced to 12 days’ solitary confinement on the orders of the Board, on account of the statements in the above mentioned letters.
8.  On 17 April 2006 the Erzurum Enforcement Judge rejected the applicants’ objections.
9.  On 30 June 2006 the Erzurum Assize Court upheld the judgment of 17 April 2006.
10.  Furthermore, on 4 July 2005 a disciplinary sanction was imposed on the first applicant, as he avoided visits and telephone calls to protest against the detention conditions of Öcalan. He was accordingly banned from receiving visitors for 2 months. On 21 October 2005 and 14 November 2005, respectively, the Erzurum Enforcement Court and the Erzurum Assize Court rejected the first applicant’s appeal requests.
4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Erzincan.
5.  The applicant was a civil servant in the Erzincan Provincial Directorate of Environment and Forestry, and at the time of the events he was a member of the local branch of a trade union affiliated to KESK (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – Confederation of Public Employees’ Trade Unions).
6.  On 27 November 2004 and 12 December 2004 respectively, the applicant participated in a press statement and a demonstration organised by his trade union.
7.  Subsequently, a disciplinary investigation was initiated against the applicant for his participation in the above mentioned trade union activities.
8.  On 31 August 2005 a disciplinary sanction in the form of a reduction in salary was imposed on the applicant for having participated in trade union activities.
9.  On 27 October 2005 the applicant filed a petition with the Sivas Administrative Court and requested the annulment of the disciplinary sanction that had been imposed on him.
10.  On 18 May 2006 the Sivas Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request, considering that the administrative decision was in accordance with law and there were no grounds for its annulment.
11.  On 20 October 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the Sivas Administrative Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Smolyan.
5.  In two final judgments of 28 February 2005 and 8 May 2006 the Supreme Court of Cassation awarded the applicant pecuniary damages in respect of breach of contract for construction works which she had carried out. The awarded damages comprised BGN 52,784 for the principal amount, plus BGN 17,685 in default interest and BGN 5,433 in costs and expenses, or a total amount of BGN 75,902.93, the equivalent to 38,000 euros (EUR). The damages were awarded to the applicant against the National Centre for Recreation, Rehabilitation and Sport – Ministry of Education and Science (“the Centre”, a State body subsidised by the Ministry of Education and Science and exercising certain functions delegated by the Ministry).
6.  By an order of 25 May 2005 the Minister of Education closed down the Centre and ordered that its remaining property be managed by the Ministry of Education. The Ministry then established a State-owned joint‑stock company with part of the Centre’s property, including the real estate in which the applicant had carried out the construction works.
7.  On 13 May 2005 and 15 March 2007 the applicant was issued with two writs of enforcement for the amounts awarded in the final judgments of 2005 and 2006 (see paragraph 5 above) and on 6 February 2008 she presented the writs to the Ministry of Education asking it to pay.
8.  The Ministry replied in writing that it was not the successor to the Centre and did not owe payment to the applicant. In October 2009 the applicant reiterated her request but received a similar reply by the Ministry. The Ministry also pointed out that payment could not be sought from the State-owned joint-stock company either as it had a legal personality separate from that of the Ministry. By a letter of 23 September 2010, the Minister provided a similar explanation to the applicant.
9.  The applicant brought judicial review proceedings challenging the Minister’s refusal. In a final decision of 8 April 2011 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible.
10.  As of 19 March 2015, the date of the applicant’s last communication to the Court, no change in the above circumstances had been reported.
5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Sofia.
6.  The Sofia Municipal Council approved the exchange of a municipal flat for a smaller flat owned and occupied by the applicant in December 2005. However, the mayor of Sofia did not issue the necessary order and did not sign a contract for the exchange, as provided in the applicable rules. The applicant brought judicial review proceedings challenging the mayor’s tacit refusal to act. The Sofia Administrative Court quashed the mayor’s tacit refusal in a judgment of 1 April 2010 and instructed the mayor to issue an order for the exchange of the flats. That part of the judgment became final and enforceable on 19 May 2010.
7.  By a decision of 25 March 2010 the Sofia Municipal Council revoked its December 2005 decision approving the exchange of the two properties. The applicant lodged a challenge against that 25 March 2010 decision. In a final judgment of 7 March 2011 the Supreme Administrative Court declared the Council’s decision of 25 March 2010 null and void.
8.  On 18 April 2011 the mayor issued a decision explicitly refusing to issue an order for the exchange of the two flats. Following an application by the applicant for judicial review, on 30 March 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court declared that decision null and void as having been issued in breach of the judgment of the Sofia Administrative Court of 1 April 2010. The court also instructed the mayor to issue an order for the conclusion of the exchange agreement.
9.  The mayor ordered the flat exchange on 6 March 2013 and the applicant signed a contract for the exchange on 25 June 2013.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Kyustendil.
5.  In a judgment of 15 August 2004 the Sofia District Court awarded the applicant BGN 2,120.28 (about 1,100 euros (EUR)) in damages, plus the legal interest for the period starting on 11 February 2003 until full payment, and BGN 200 in costs and expenses, against the National Centre for Recreation, Rehabilitation and Sport (“the Centre”). The Centre was a State body subsidised by the Ministry of Education. It exercised certain functions entrusted by the Ministry. The damages were awarded for loss of salary following the applicant’s unlawful dismissal from work. The judgment became final on 11 February 2008.
6.  In the meantime, on 25 May 2005 the Minister of Education ordered that the Centre be closed down and its remaining property be managed by the Ministry of Education. The Ministry then established a State-owned joint-stock company with part of the Centre’s property.
7.  On 26 November 2008 the applicant was issued with a writ of enforcement for the amount awarded against the Centre in the final judgment of 11 February 2008 (see paragraph 5 above). On 18 March 2009 he filed a request with the Minister for Education for payment of that amount.
8.  The Ministry of Education replied in May 2009 that neither the Ministry, nor the State-owned joint-stock company, was the successor of the Centre and that the amount claimed was not due by them.
9.  As of 23 March 2015, the date of the applicant’s last communication to the Court, no change in the above circumstances had been recorded.
6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is detained in Tekirdağ.
7.  On 9 September 1995 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.
8.  On the same day the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court prolonged the applicant’s detention in police custody for a period of up to 15 days.
9.  On 13 September 1995 the applicant’s statements were taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer. The applicant confessed to being a member of an illegal organisation and having been involved in a murder.
10.  On 14 September 1995 the applicant participated in a reconstruction of the events (yer gösterme) with another suspect K.A., organised by the police in the absence of a lawyer. According to a report, drafted by police officers and signed by the applicant and K.A., both of the accused gave the details of the murder which they had committed.
11.  On 22 September 1995 the applicant was examined by a doctor from the Istanbul Forensic Institute. A collective medical report was drawn up in respect of the applicant and five other suspects. According to the report, there were no traces of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body.
12.  On 22 September 1995 the applicant was heard by a public prosecutor and an investigating judge respectively. In his statements to the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, the applicant denied his police statements alleging that they had been taken under duress. Following his questioning, the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.
13.  On 9 October 1995 a public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, charging the applicant with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, an offence prescribed by Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code.
14.  On 7 December 1995 the applicant was heard by the trial court during the first hearing in the presence of his lawyer. The applicant denied all the charges against him and stated that his statements at the police had been taken under duress.
15.  In the meantime, State Security Courts were abolished by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004. Accordingly, the case was transferred to Istanbul Assize Court.
16.  On 13 September 2007, relying on, inter alia, the applicant’s and his co-accused K. A.’s statements to the police, the Istanbul Assize Court held that the applicant had committed the offence under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to life-imprisonment.
17.  On an unknown date the applicant’s lawyer appealed against the judgment of 13 September 2007.
18.  On 1 December 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the above judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 20 January 2009 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody.
6.  On 22 January 2009 the Edirne Magistrates’ Court placed the applicant in detention on remand on suspicion of forming an organised criminal organisation to commit offences and illegal possession of firearms contrary to Article 13 § 1 of Law no. 6136.
7. On 3 July 2009 the Edirne public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Edirne Assize Court charging the applicant with membership of an organised criminal organisation as well as fraud and robbery.
8.  On 8 July 2009 the Edirne Assize Court held that it had no jurisdiction and referred the case file to the Istanbul Assize Court. The court also ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention.
9.  On 12 August 2009 the 9th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court held a preparatory hearing and ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention.
10.  On 29 December 2009 the first hearing was held before the 9th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court.
11.  On 4 May 2010 the Istanbul Assize Court held another hearing and decided to prolong the applicant’s detention on remand. The applicant was present at this hearing.
12.  The applicant filed an objection against this decision. On 25 May 2010 his objection was dismissed by the 10th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court without holding an oral hearing.
13.  By decisions dated 30 June 2010 and 8 July 2010 the 9th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court rejected the applicant’s requests for release without holding an oral hearing.
14.  On 30 September 2010 the 9th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court held the third hearing in the proceedings and again prolonged the applicant’s detention. The applicant was present at this hearing.
15.  On 11 October 2011 the 9th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize held the seventh hearing in the proceedings and released the applicant from detention on remand.
16.  At the time when he present application was lodged with the Court, the proceedings against the applicant were still pending before the first‑instance court. The parties did not submit any further information concerning the outcome of the proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and at the time of lodging his application he was serving his prison sentence in the Bolu F-type prison.
5.  On 3 December 2007 the applicant wrote a letter to the Ministry of Justice, in which he had praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed.
6.  Pursuant to the Regulations on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences, the applicant was found guilty of breaching prison order by the Bolu F- type Prison Disciplinary Board (referred hereafter as “the Board”).
7.  On 12 December 2007 the applicant was sentenced to 11 days’ solitary confinement on the orders of the Board, on account of his statements in the above mentioned letter.
8.  On 25 December 2007 the Bolu Enforcement Judge rejected the applicant’s objection.
9.  On 15 January 2008 the Bolu Assize Court upheld the judgment of 25 December 2007.
5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Adana.
6.  On 16 February 2006 a gathering was held in Adana on the anniversary of the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal armed organisation. The protesters gathered in front of the building of the Adana branch of the Democratic Society Party (Demokratik Toplum Partisi) (DTP), where a press statement was read out. Being a member of the DTP, the applicant participated in the gathering.
7.  Subsequently, clashes occurred between police officers and some demonstrators who were attempting to block the traffic. According to police reports, two police officers were injured as a result of objects thrown from the DTP building. The police then entered the DTP building and arrested 223 people, including the applicant. The next day, the applicant was detained on remand.
8.  On 10 March 2006 the Adana public prosecutor charged the applicant and sixteen other people with membership of the PKK under Articles 220 § 6 and 314 of the Criminal Code. The prosecutor alleged that the accused had participated in the public gathering in question in response to calls made by the PKK and had resisted the police officers, and that they had therefore acted on behalf of the PKK.
9.  On 5 May 2006 the applicant was released pending trial.
10.  On 10 September 2008 the Adana Assize Court convicted the applicant under section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). The assize court did not find it established that the applicant had attended the reading out of the press statement in response to calls made by the PKK or that she had injured any police officers. It therefore concluded that the applicant could not be convicted of membership of the PKK or resistance to the police. The court nonetheless considered that on 16 February 2006 the applicant had gone to the DTP building with a view to disseminating propaganda in support of the PKK and that she should therefore be convicted under section 7(2) of Law no. 3713. The applicant was sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment.
11.  Taking into account the applicant’s good behaviour during the trial and the absence of any previous criminal record, the court suspended the pronouncement of her conviction on condition that she did not commit another intentional offence for a period of five years, under Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması).
12.  On 20 November 2008 the court dismissed an objection lodged by the applicant against the above-mentioned decision. The final decision was served on the applicant on 9 January 2009.
4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment.
5.  In December 2005 violent robberies were committed at two scrap metal collection points in Odesa. One employee was shot dead. In the course of the investigation, the police organised an ambush, which led to the applicant and his acquaintance, Mr D., being arrested. As established by the domestic courts, before his arrest the applicant had pointed a gun at a police officer, who had knocked it out of his hands using a martial arts technique. The gun had been loaded and had had its safety catch released.
6.  On an unspecified date the applicant had free legal counsel appointed for him for the pre-trial investigation and the proceedings before the first‑instance court.
7.  On 4 September 2006 the Odesa Regional Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of first instance, found the applicant guilty of the illegal handling of arms, robbery with violence, intentional murder for profit and an attempt on the life of a law-enforcement officer. It relied, inter alia, on the statements of several eyewitnesses who had recognised the applicant. Having regard to the fact that the applicant had previously been convicted of the intentional infliction of fatal injuries and that he had committed the crimes at issue while on probation following release in October 2005, the court sentenced him to life imprisonment.
8.  The applicant, who was no longer legally represented, appealed in cassation. He complained, in particular, about the absence of free legal assistance at that stage of the proceedings. The applicant contended that the first-instance court had erred in its assessment of the facts of the case and their legal classification.
9.  On 30 January 2007, following a hearing with the participation of Mr D. (the other defendant) and his lawyer, as well as the prosecutor, but without the applicant or any representative from his side, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 4 September 2006.
10.  On 11 June 2007 the applicant, who was not aware of the above ruling, requested that the Supreme Court ensure his presence at its hearing.
11.  On 17 August 2007 a copy of the Supreme Court’s ruling of 30 January 2007 was sent to the applicant.