Türkiye 10/08/2021 Ali ARAZ 1981 Manisa Turkish 33. 42657/21 Yiğiter v. Türkiye 23/08/2021 Ergün YİĞİTER 1982 Istanbul Turkish 34. 42672/21 Öztürk v.

Türkiye 17/03/2023 Yasin GÖÇMEN 1985 Sakarya Turkish 337. 13755/23 Yiğit v. Türkiye 14/03/2023 Recep YİĞİT 1984 Afyonkarahisar Turkish 338. 13758/23 Çetin v.

Türkiye 07/06/2022 Bekir YANAR 1985 Afyonkarahisar Turkish 155. 29643/22 Yiğit v. Türkiye 01/06/2022 İhsan YİĞİT 1992 Kayseri Turkish 156. 29691/22 Çakan v.

consiste à faire en sorte que le requérant se retrouve autant que possible dans la situation qui aurait été la sienne si cette disposition n’avait pas été méconnue (voir, par exemple, Mehmet et Suna Yiğit

Bosnie-Herzégovine , n o   41183/02, § 53, CEDH   2006-XII, Mehmet et Suna Yiğit c. Turquie , n o   52658/99, § 47, 17   juillet 2007 et Atutxa Mendiola et autres c.

Turquie , arrêt du 26   novembre 1997, Recueil 1997 ‑ VII, § 53, et plus récemment, Yiğit et autres c.

Turquie , précité, § 64   ; Mehmet et Suna Yiğit c.   Turquie , n o   52658/99, §   43, 17   juillet 2007   ; K.Ö. c.

Bosnie-Herzégovine , n o 41183/02, § 53, CEDH 2006-XII, Mehmet et Suna Yiğit c. Turquie , n o   52658/99, § 47, 17 juillet 2007, et Atutxa Mendiola et autres c.

Turquie (n os 42208/02, 43491/02, et 43495/02) Les requérants, Ferman Ayçoban, Aziz Yiğit, et Şirin Meygil, sont des ressortissants turcs nés en 1973, en 1975, et en 1980 respectivement.

    In any case, even if the relationship existing between the applicants in 2012 had qualified as “family life” under Article 8 of the Convention (see and contrast with Şerife Yiğit v.

Turkey 21/06/2018 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 33 32456/18 Yiğit v.

Turkey 22/09/2020 Length of pre-trial detention Lack of hearing during the detention review Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention Lack of reasonable suspicion 20 45251/20 Yiğit v.

xa0;     72360/10 05/11/2010 Mustafa DEMİR 01/01/1960 İstanbul   Remzi DİRİKOÇ        72823/10 08/11/2010 Bayram YALÇIN 23/12/1968 İstanbul   Binnur YİĞİT

violation of Article 6 § 1 would be to ensure that the applicants, as far as possible, are put in the position in which they would have been had this provision not been disregarded (see Mehmet and Suna Yiğit

  17526/10, §§ 110 - 117, 19   January 2016; Belge , cited above, §§ 24 - 38; Yigin v. Turkey [Committee], no.   36643/09, §§ 22 - 24, 30 January 2018; and Zengin and Çakır v.

violation of Article 6 § 1 would be to ensure that the applicant, as far as possible, is put in the position in which he would have been had this provision not been disregarded (see Mehmet and Suna Yiğit

The Court concludes therefore that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicant's remaining complaint under Article 3 (see, for example, Mehmet and Suna Yiğit v.

Turkey (dec.), no. 42927/10 and 14 other applications, §§   43 ‑ 45, 12   March 2013; Yiğit v.

Requête n o 2108/18 introduite le 16 juin 2017 par Cenk Yiǧiter   (né en 1980), représenté par M e S.K. Güvercin (décret-loi n o   679 du 6   janvier 2017).