Italy   (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 54, 17 September 2009; Şerife Yiğit v.

On milyonlarca kahraman, yiğit bu darbeye karşı direnen insan var. Sen halka karşı savaş açmışsın. Halk her yerde direnir, direnecektir.

On milyonlarca kahraman, yiğit bu darbeye karşı direnen insan var. Sen halka karşı savaş açmışsın. Halk her yerde direnir, direnecektir.

intérêt patrimonial relevant du champ d’application de l’article   1 du Protocole n o 1 pour les personnes remplissant ses conditions ( Stec et autres , décision précitée, §   54   ; Şerife Yiğit

formulation du grief des requérants, la Cour estime qu'il y a lieu de l'examiner sous l'angle du droit des requérants à un recours interne effectif au sens de l'article 13 de la Convention ( Şerife Yiğit

  Royaume ‑ Uni , n os   42949/98 et 53134/99, 10   mai 2007, et Şerife Yiğit c.   Turquie   [GC], n o   3976/05, 2   novembre 2010).

did it find that the applicant’s financial situation had improved since he had been granted an exemption from the payment of the court fees by the lower court (see, mutatis mutandis , Mehmet and Suna Yiğit

It therefore concludes that there is no need to make a separate ruling under this head (see, as an example of this practice, Mehmet and Suna Yiğit v.

Arzu YİĞİT (requête n o 38625/04) Le 28 octobre 1997, la requérante fut condamné à la réclusion à perpétuité par la cour de sûreté de l’Etat d’Ankara.

the Constitutional Court Restriction of access to the investigation file Lack of reasonable suspicion Length of pre-trial detention Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention 58 23659/18 Yiğit

  Turkey (dec.), no. 35064/97, 2 September 2003, and Yiğit v. Turkey (dec.), no.   4260/02, 4262/02, 4271/02, 5 December 2006).     [1] .

Turkey (dec.), no. 42927/10 and 14 other applications, §§ 43-45, 12 March 2013; Yiğit v. Turkey (dec.), no. 24032/09 and 21 other applications, §§ 43-45, 16 December 2014; and Akça v.

A complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see, for example, Şerife Yiğit v. Turkey [GC], no.

Türkiye 15/02/2021 Yiğit ÜNAL 1973 Hatay Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ 165. 11790/21 Kaya v. Türkiye 15/02/2021 Oktay KAYA 1979 Istanbul Turkish Dudu ERTUNÇ 166. 12139/21 Akçay v.

A complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see Şerife Yiğit v. Turkey [GC], no. 3976/05, § 52, ECHR 2010-...).

said to amount to “family life”, a number of factors may be relevant, including whether the couple live together, the length of their relationship and whether they have children together (see Şerife Yiğit

  Turkey , no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007; Mehmet and Suna Yiğit v.   Turkey , no. 52658/99, § 43, 17 July 2007; K.Ö. v. Turkey , no. 71795/01, §   50, 11 December 2007). IV.

  the United Kingdom [GC], cited above, § 53, and Şerife Yiğit v.   Turkey [GC], no.   3976/05 , § 58, 2 November 2010).

most appropriate form of redress would be the re-opening of the proceedings in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, should the applicant so request (see Mehmet and Suna Yiğit