Showing 46824 results

Procedural correspondence between Kevin Boyle/Françoise Hampson, the European Commission for Human Rights, and the European Court of Human Rights pertaining to the Menteş and others case, including posted copies of the Turkish Government's memorial, correspondence pertaining to the 22 January 1997 case hearing and the court decision to refer the case to a Grand Chamber.

Correspondence authored, received, and/or compiled by Kevin Boyle, Françoise Hampson, and Aisling Reidy pertaining to the Beyaz case. he correspondence is with the European Commission of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Kurdish Human Rights Project. Notable items within this correspondence accessible to the public include: letters which accompanied documents and observations submitted on behalf of the applicant, acknowledgment of received correspondence, and lists of potential case hearing witnesses.

Correspondence authored, received, and/or compiled by Françoise Hampson pertaining to the Şükran Aydın case prior to its referral to the European Court of Human Rights. The majority of the correspondence is with the European Commission of Human Rights and the Kurdish Human Rights Project.

This series relates to correspondence between Conradh na Gaeilge (CnaG) and various individuals and organisations and is organised chronologically by decade*. It consists mainly of inquiries relating to the Irish language; classes run by CnaG; research; and the work of CnaG itself. Correspondence relating to a specific topic can be found in the series relating to that topic e.g. G60/30 Education.

*Material in this series is arranged chronologically although in some cases items outside the date range of an individual file may be also included, to maintain context.

Tag / Ref: G60/5

This subseries consists of circulars and correspondence between CnaG head office and various branches, including relating to the setting up and registration of new branches.

Tag / Ref: G60/4/7

Correspondence with various people involved with Connradh na Gaeilge, including leading members, branch secretaries and treasurers, as well as Aran Islanders Stiophan was friendly with.

Correspondence authored, received, and/or compiled by Kevin Boyle, Aisling Reidy, and Françoise Hampson pertaining to the Sultan Sabuktekin case. The correspondence is with the European Commission of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, the Kurdish Human Rights Project, and the Diyarbakır-based legal team members. Notable items within this correspondence accessible to the public include: the letter of 24 March 1995 introducing the application; letters which accompanied documents and observations submitted on behalf of the applicants; requests on behalf of the applicant for extensions of document submission deadlines; a diagram of the crime scene received 9 September 1998; questions on case facts posed by the Commission on 8 October 1998; Sultan Sabuktekin’s statement of 21 June 1999; the 30 October 1999 reference of the case by the Commission to the Court; the legal representatives’ schedules of professional fees and costs; Diyarbakır lawyers Cihan Aydın and Reyhan Yalçındağ’s handwritten translations of new statements of Sultan and Halil Sabuktekin, plus Aydın's summary of case facts, sent to Hampson on 7 April 2000; the Court’s 10 April 2000 offer of legal aid; the applicant’s 18 April 2000 declaration of means and power of attorney submitted to the Court; correspondence between the Essex team and the Diyarbakır team regarding distribution and payment of legal aid; the Court’s 19 March 2002 letter which accompanied the case judgment, and Hampson’s report of the same date summarising the judgment in which she laments the lack of fact-finding hearings facilitated by the Commission or the Court (Hampson warns that the trends toward no fact-finding and imposed friendly settlements ‘strikes a very serious warning note for the future of the Court’).

Correspondence authored, received, and/or compiled by Kevin Boyle, Aisling Reidy, and Françoise Hampson pertaining to the Mizgin Ovat case. Early correspondence pertaining to the Halit Şahin case prior to the joining of the applications is also present. The correspondence is with the European Commission of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, the Kurdish Human Rights Project, and the Diyarbakır-based legal team members. Notable items within this correspondence accessible to the public include: letters which accompanied documents and observations submitted on behalf of the applicants; requests on behalf of the applicant for extensions of document submission deadlines; correspondence pertaining to the 15-19 April 1996 case hearing in Ankara including logistical details, lists of potential witnesses, and the Essex team’s summary of the hearings; the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction submitted 31 July 1998 including schedules of damages and of legal fees and costs; the Essex team’s summary of Turkish Government’s observations on the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction; the legal representatives’ schedules of professional fees and costs; correspondence pertaining to the discrepancy between Mizgin Ovat’s given Kurdish name used in daily life versus her legal Turkish name (Nergiz Uvat) as well as discrepancies regarding the applicant’s birthdate; and correspondence pertaining to the payment of the awarded judgment including issues regarding payment of the applicant due to difficulties in contacting her and due to the aforementioned name issue.

Correspondence authored, received, and/or compiled by Kevin Boyle, Aisling Reidy, and Françoise Hampson pertaining to the Menteş and others case. The correspondence is with the European Commission of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Kurdish Human Rights Project. Notable items within this correspondence accessible to the public include: letters which accompanied documents and observations submitted on behalf of the applicants; requests on behalf of the applicant for extensions of document submission deadlines; correspondence pertaining to the 10-14 July 1995 case hearing in Ankara including logistical details, offers of legal aid, and lists of potential witnesses; the Court’s letter of 18 April 1996 informing that the Commission has brought the case before the Court; the 16 May 1996 submission of the applicants’ letters of legal authorisation and the accordant forms signed by their legal representatives; the Court’s letter of 8 October 1997 informing that materials supplied by the Commission to the Court have been made public over the objections of the Turkish Government; the legal representatives’ schedules of professional fees and costs; correspondence regarding shortfalls in payment from the Government; and correspondence pertaining to the payment of the awarded judgment.

Correspondence authored, received, and/or compiled by Kevin Boyle, Aisling Reidy, and Françoise Hampson pertaining to the Aranacak and Matyar application/Matyar case. The correspondence is with the European Commission of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Kurdish Human Rights Project. Notable items within this correspondence accessible to the public include: letters which accompanied documents and observations submitted on behalf of the applicants; requests on behalf of the applicant for extensions of document submission deadlines; Michelle Morris’ letter of 24 January 1994 introducing the application; Boyle and Hampson’s letter of 30 May 1995 informing the Commission that Mehmet Safi Aranacak’s wife wishes to continue with the application on his behalf but they have been unable to obtain a written statement saying so; Boyle letter of 26 February 1996 informing that they will be unable to furnish a letter of authorisation from Mrs Aranacak; the 12 October 1998 statement of Matyar’s Turkish lawyers Metin Kılavuz and Ayla Akat regarding the applicant’s refuting of photographs the Government used to claim that Matyar’s house was not damaged; and İzzet Matyar’s statement of 28 October 1998 alleging that he had been threatened because of applying to the Commission and that his statement of 30 September 1994 in which he stated his house and crops were not burnt was made under duress.