CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 6 décembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6C2746C6 { margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s6047437D { width:11.03pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB9541D82 { font-family:Arial; color:#212121 } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s5749FA4E { width:31.55pt; display:inline-block } .s5B8EC978 { width:144.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .sC70DD88B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9DD34CD6 { height:17pt } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s5BE87467 { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:1.5pt solid #5f5f5f; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt 0.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sB88BB0A7 { height:16.95pt } .sCD020C08 { border-top:1.5pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:0.65pt 5.03pt 1.02pt; vertical-align:top } .s7F530776 { height:57.2pt } .s33141CA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s2962756B { height:57.15pt } .sE7B7E78A { height:11.9pt } .sD6EFB0A7 { height:11.85pt } .s8256E78A { height:14.3pt } .s1709B0A7 { height:14.15pt } .s16CBB0A7 { height:14.35pt } .s8235E78A { height:14.2pt } .sD81AB0A7 { height:11.35pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s35CEB0A7 { height:17.15pt } .sA15DE78A { height:17.1pt } .sA6DB4500 { height:35.6pt } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s57FB5D7A { height:28.55pt } .sEC30263B { height:28.5pt } .sA055E78A { height:17.9pt } .s3614B0A7 { height:17.75pt } .s5111C6A3 { height:9.5pt } .sC70726A0 { height:9.45pt } .s499DB0A7 { height:18.95pt } .s5A04E78A { height:18.9pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF SUBAŞI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Applications nos. 3468/20 and 18 others)   JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 17 January 2023 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court Art 8 • Family life • Correspondence • Prisoners denied permission to receive visits from their school-age children and to make telephone calls at weekends • Failure by domestic courts to conduct Convention-compliant proportionality assessment, resulting in insufficient protection against arbitrary interference   STRASBOURG 6 December 2022   FINAL   06/03/2023     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Egidijus Kūris,   Jovan Ilievski,   Saadet Yüksel,   Frédéric Krenc,   Diana Sârcu,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos. 3468/20, 5898/20, 7270/20, 10808/20, 12513/20, 14941/20, 16557/20, 16917/20, 18751/20, 20789/20, 20790/20, 29109/20, 30745/20, 34247/20, 34348/20, 39479/20, 41256/20, 42014/20 and 49598/20) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by nineteen Turkish nationals (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible; the decision to grant the applicants Barış Yaslan, Mustafa Burgaç, Erhan Akbaba and Ahmet Şanlı leave to represent themselves in the proceedings before the Court (Rule 36 § 2 of the Rules of Court); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 15 November 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applications concern the refusal of the domestic authorities to grant the applicants, who were detained at the time of the events, permission to receive visits from their school-age children during the weekends. Some applications also concern the authorities’ decision to prohibit telephone calls during the weekends and the failure to notify the applicants of the public prosecutor’s opinion during proceedings concerning those restrictions. THE FACTS 2.     A list of the applications is set out in Appendix I. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows. Facts common to all applıcatıons 5.     At the time of the events giving rise to the present applications, the applicants were detained either awaiting trial or appeal or had been convicted of terrorism-related offences in connection with the attempted coup of 15   July 2016. The respective detention facilities where they were held, the distance from their family residence, the overall period of the applicants’ detention and the period to be taken into consideration in respect of the prohibition of weekend visits or telephone calls, according to the Government, are indicated in Appendix I. 6.     The Government further submitted the total number of visits the applicants had received during the entire time they were detained and the number of times their children had attended those visits. Those details are provided in Appendix II. 7.     On 14 September 2018 the Directorate General of Prisons of the Ministry of Justice issued an opinion addressed to prisons concerning weekend visits. It noted that, although in its previous opinions it had taken a favourable view of prison administrations making the necessary arrangements to facilitate visits by the school-age children of convicted and remand prisoners, each prison administration board could determine whether to hold the weekly visits on weekdays or at weekends, having regard to the actual prison population and whether there was overcrowding, the frequency of visits from defence lawyers, the number and needs of staff, the criminal profile of the prisoners and the maintenance of order and security in the prison. 8.     On various dates in 2018 the respective prison administrations where some of the applicants were held issued general decisions not to allow visits during weekends. Relying on reasons such as overcrowding in the prison, shortage of staff during the weekends, security concerns and the legal framework providing for visits only during working hours, the administrations decided that they could not accommodate requests to switch the weekday visits to weekend visits. In prisons where no general decision was taken regarding weekend visits, the applicants concerned submitted individual requests for their visiting rights with their families to be exercised at weekends. The respective prison administrations rejected those requests on similar grounds. 9.     Following those decisions, the applicants each brought individual proceedings on various dates before the respective enforcement judges, requesting them to order the prison administration to allow weekend visits. Given the considerable distance between their respective places of detention and their family homes, they argued that it was very difficult for their children, who had a duty to attend school, to visit them during weekdays. They argued that both the right to family reunion and the children’s right to education were fundamental human rights and that they should not be forced to choose between them. The applicants also argued that the journey to and from the prison was always long and time-consuming, given the considerable distance between the prison and their homes, and that when the children did come to visit them on weekdays, this always resulted in them being very tired the next day, inevitably affecting their performance at school. Lastly, when the children did come to visit them on weekdays, their absence from school provoked questions from teachers and classmates and their reason for being absent stigmatised them. 10.     Save for the applicant Barış Yaslan, whose objection was allowed (see paragraph 14 below), on various dates the respective enforcement judges dismissed the applicants’ requests, finding the decisions of the prison administrations to be in accordance with the law and the security needs of the prisons. 11.     The applicants lodged individual appeals before the Constitutional Court. On various dates, that court dismissed the appeals as inadmissible, referring to its case-law (see paragraphs 41-42 below). addıtıonal facts specıfıc to some applıcants 12.     In addition to the facts described above, additional noteworthy facts relevant to certain individual applicants are listed below. Application no. 5898/20 (Barış Yaslan) 13 .     Following the dismissal by the prison administration and trial courts of the applicant’s requests for family visits and telephone calls to be allowed at weekends, but before the Constitutional Court examined his individual appeal, the Akhisar prison administration, by a general decision of 7   May 2019, decided that telephone calls would be allowed at weekends. 14 .     Furthermore, while the Constitutional Court’s examination of his individual appeal was ongoing, the applicant submitted another request to the prison administration for family visits to take place at weekends. Following the dismissal of his request, the applicant challenged that decision before an enforcement judge. On 2 October 2019 the enforcement judge granted the applicant’s request, referring to the case-law of the Court of Cassation (see paragraph 39 below). 15 .     Following those developments, the prison administration decided that as of 10 November 2019 the applicant could have monthly contact visits with his family on Sundays. In the meantime, on 4 November 2019 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s individual appeal regarding weekend visits and telephone calls inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, referring to its case-law (see paragraphs 41-42 below). Application no. 7270/20 (Seyfettin Açıkgöz) 16.     In a petition of 23 November 2018 addressed to the Manisa enforcement judge, the applicant complained that all of the available means of face-to-face and voice communication were scheduled on weekdays and during working hours, conflicting with the times when his wife was at work and his two children were at school, and therefore resulting in the loss of his family life. He therefore requested that the visits and telephone calls be allowed at weekends, and if this was not possible, that he be allowed the use at least one of those modes of communication at weekends. 17.     The Manisa enforcement judge and subsequently the Manisa Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s requests by way of a summary decision, finding that the decision of the prison administration had been lawful. 18.     On 2 August 2019 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s individual appeal inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, referring to its findings in the case of Müjdat Gürbüz (see paragraph 40 below). Applications nos. 10808/20, 20790/20 and 34247/20 (Coşkun Halitoğlu, İsmail Kurt and Kutlay Telli) 19 .     In a general decision of 3 October 2018, the Silivri prison administration, in response to many requests by prisoners to have their visiting time moved to the weekends, noted, inter alia , that out of the 2,509 prisoners who were accommodated in the prison at that time, about 900 of them had school-age children. In order for those prisoners to have weekend visits, the prison administration would have to hold six sessions of one-hour visits spread out across Saturday and Sunday, with each session accommodating fifty prisoners. According to its calculation, such an arrangement would only provide visits for 600 prisoners (falling short of the potential demand) and in any event would necessitate recruiting a workforce of thirty-five extra staff and providing overtime for seventy staff, which was not feasible. Therefore, it decided that the visits would continue to be held on weekdays. 20.     Following separate objections to that decision by the applicants Coşkun Halitoğlu and Kutlay Telli, the Silivri enforcement judge set aside the prison administration’s decision on 14 November 2018. Subsequently, the Silivri Assize Court held, in final decisions of 18 December 2018 and 7   January 2019, respectively, on an objection lodged by the public prosecutor, that the prison administration’s decision of 3 October 2018 had not contravened the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life, given that the balancing of conflicting interests, namely the right to family reunion and the children’s right to education on the one hand and the actual reasons put forward by the prison administration, such as the prison population, staffing, the criminal profiles of the prisoners and prison security on the other hand, had not been unreasonable inasmuch as the possibility of carrying out visits on weekdays had not been restricted. 21.     An objection lodged by the applicant İsmail Kurt to the prison administration’s general decision of 3 October 2018 was dismissed by the enforcement judge and the Assize Court for similar reasons. 22 .     The applicant Kutlay Telli was notified of the final decision of the Silivri Assize Court on 7 February 2019. On 8 May 2020 the Constitutional Court declared an individual appeal lodged by the applicant against that decision inadmissible as being out of time. Whereas the applicant argued that he had filled out and given his application form to the prison administration on 6   March 2019, that is to say, within the thirty-day time-limit for lodging an application with the Constitutional Court, the Government submitted that his appeal to the prison administration had been registered on 13 March 2019. The Government relied on the date of the cover letter of the prison administration which had forwarded his appeal form to the public prosecutor, who was entrusted with responsibility for lodging the application. 23.     Individual appeals lodged with the Constitutional Court by the applicants Coşkun Halitoğlu and İsmail Kurt were declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded on the basis of that court’s case-law (see paragraph 41 below). Applications nos. 12513/20 and 16917/20 (Mustafa Burgaç and Mehmet Tuskan) 24.     In the course of the examination by the Osmaniye Assize Court of applicants’ requests to have visits from their children during the weekends, the Osmaniye chief public prosecutor’s office submitted an opinion briefly noting that the prison administration’s general decision not to allow visits during the weekends had been in conformity with law and procedure. That opinion was not forwarded to the applicants for their comments. Application no. 16557/20 (Abdülkadir Civan) 25 .     Following the dismissal by the prison administration and trial courts of a request by the applicant, dated 28 September 2018, to have family visits allowed at weekends, but before the Constitutional Court examined his individual appeal, the İzmir prison administration, by a general decision of 1   November 2019, decided that family contact visits could be held on Sundays. 26.     In the meantime, on 5 December 2019, the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s individual appeal regarding weekend visits inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, referring to its case-law (see paragraphs 41-42 below). Application no. 49598/20 (Serkan Sarıyüz) 27.     It appears that while the applicant was in Bolu Prison, he submitted two separate requests to have visits from his children at weekends. His first request dated 16 October 2017, during the state of emergency, was dismissed by the enforcement judge on the basis of the general decision of the prison administration prohibiting weekend visits. The enforcement judge found that the reasons advanced by the prison administration had been necessary and reasonable, given the increase in the prison population and the fact that the number of staff, who worked on an on-call basis during weekends, was not sufficient to organise visits at weekends in the light of the security arrangements that had to be conformed to during the visits. The enforcement judge’s decision was upheld by the Bolu Assize Court on 25   December 2017. The Government submitted that the applicant had not lodged an individual appeal with the Constitutional Court regarding those proceedings. 28.     After the state of emergency was lifted, the applicant submitted a fresh request to the enforcement judge on 18 September 2018 to have visits from his children at weekends. The Bolu enforcement judge dismissed the request on 27   September 2018, referring to the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the prison administration in organising the days and hours of weekly and monthly visits in the light of the prison population, the status of the staff and security concerns. Following the dismissal by the Assize Court of an objection by the applicant to the above-mentioned decision, the applicant lodged an individual appeal with the Constitutional Court, which dismissed the application as manifestly ill-founded on the basis of its case-law (see paragraphs   41-42 below) on 18 December 2019. The Government argued that the applicant had not lodged an application with the Court regarding the second set of proceedings. 29.     On 23 September 2018 the Bolu Prison administration issued a general decision regarding requests to switch weekday visits to weekend visits for those prisoners who had school-age children. On the basis of reasons similar to those given by other prisons, it noted that it could not grant prisoners any weekend visits. The applicant lodged unsuccessful objections against that general decision, first with the Bolu enforcement judge, and then with the Bolu Assize Court. On 29 May 2020 the Constitutional Court dismissed his application as manifestly ill-founded on the basis of its case-law (see paragraphs 41-42 below). RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE Domestıc law Relevant provisions of the Constitution 30.     Article 41 of the Constitution, in so far as relevant, provides as follows: “Family is the foundation of Turkish society. ... Every child has the right to protection and care and the right to have and maintain a personal and direct relationship with his or her mother and father, unless it is contrary to his or her best interests.” 31.     Article 42, in so far as relevant, provides as follows: “No one shall be deprived of the right of education ... ... Primary education shall be compulsory for all citizens of both sexes ... ... Training, education, research and study are the only activities that shall be pursued at institutions of education. These activities shall not be obstructed in any way ...” Law no. 222 on primary education 32.     In accordance with section 52 of Law no. 222, attendance in primary school is compulsory and parents or guardians are under an obligation to ensure that attendance is observed. Law no. 5275 on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures 33.     The relevant provisions of Law no. 5275, as worded at the time of the events, read as follows: Section 66 “(1) Convicted prisoners in closed facilities may make telephone calls using paid telephones controlled by the prison administration in accordance with the principles and procedures set out in the regulations ... This right may be restricted in respect of dangerous prisoners and those convicted of organised crime. ...” Section 83 “(1) A convicted prisoner may be visited by his or her spouse [and] relatives of up to the third degree ... once a week during working hours, for a minimum duration of half an hour and a maximum of one hour. ... (3) Visits shall be of one of two types, non-contact or contact, with the conditions and duration set out in the regulations issued by the Ministry of Justice.” Section 114 “... (2) Remand prisoners may have visits in accordance with the general order of the detention institution. At the investigation stage, the public prosecutor – and at the prosecution stage, the judge or the court – may prohibit a remand prisoner from having visitors or may restrict his or her rights in that respect for the proper administration of justice. (3) Remand prisoners’ written communications and telephone conversations may be restricted by a public prosecutor at the investigation stage and by a judge or a court at the prosecution stage.” Section 116 “The provisions of sections ... 66-76 [and] 78-83 ... of this Law may also be applicable to remand prisoners in so far as they are compatible with their status.” Regulation no. 28458 on prisoners’ right to visits, published in the Official Gazette of 17 June 2005 34.     Under Regulation no. 28458 (“the Regulation on Visits”), remand and convicted prisoners are entitled to have visits once a week from their relatives and other persons, as set out in the Law. The Regulation on Visits provides for one contact visit per month, the day of which is to be determined by the prison administration, and the remaining weekly visits during the month are to be non-contact visits (section 5(d)). Contact visits may be allowed only once every two months by a decision of the prison administration for those charged with or convicted of terrorism-related offences or offences against the security of the State (section 5(e)). 35.     The visiting days and hours and the number of visitors a remand or convicted prisoner may receive at the same time is determined by the prison administration, having regard to the capacity of the institution (sections 10 and 14). 36.     A new provision was added to the Regulation on Visits on 14   September 2021, published in the Official Gazette on the same day, providing prison administrations with the possibility of allowing visits during weekends for those remand and convicted prisoners who have children attending school, taking into account the prison population and its security and staffing capacity (section 5(p)). Regulation no. 26131 on the management of prisons and the execution of sentences and preventive measures, published in the Official Gazette of 6 April 2006 37.     In accordance with Regulation no. 26131, each prison has an administration and observation board (“the prison administration”), which is composed of the prison governor, deputy governor, administration officer, in-house doctor, psychologist, social worker, teacher, enforcement officer and a technician chosen by the prison governor (section 34(1)). The prison administration has the authority to restrict telephone conversations, as well as the use of radio, the Internet and television, by those prisoners who are convicted of terrorism-related offences or those whom it considers dangerous (section 40(1)). The latter provision is also applicable, mutatis mutandis , to remand prisoners. 38.     Section 88 of the Regulation, as in force at the relevant time, set out the rules governing telephone conversations in prisons. Accordingly, the dates and times of telephone calls were determined by the administration, which was to take into account the number of telephones in the institution, the order of the telephone requests and the level of security of the institution. The right to a telephone conversation was limited to once a week for a duration of ten minutes to a single telephone number. Prisoners did not have a right to receive incoming calls. Relevant case-law Court of Cassation’s decision of 1 July 2019 (case no.   E. 2019/1773, K.   2019/3469) 39 .     This case concerned the Bandırma Prison administration’s decision to dismiss a request by a convicted prisoner to exercise his right to have visits from his school-age children at weekends. The First Division of the Court of Cassation in Criminal Matters found the decision to be unlawful, noting that the essence of the constitutional right to family reunion had been interfered with by the prison administration, which had used its discretion to determine the days of the visits without giving any concrete reasons. The Court of Cassation noted that the prison administration could not use its discretion in a manner which made it impossible for the applicant to exercise his right to meet with his children, given that they went to school on weekdays. Constitutional Court decisions in the context of individual appeal proceedings (a)    Inadmissibility decision of 23 May 2018 in the case of Müjdat Gürbüz 40 .     In this case, in which an individual appeal lodged by a detained individual under different Articles of the Convention regarding, inter alia , the prohibition by the prison administration of weekend visits and the alleged violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, the Constitutional Court declared the relevant part of the complaint inadmissible, as the applicant did not have any children. (b)    Inadmissibility decision of 20 September 2018 in the case of Orhan Alagöz 41 .     In this case, an individual appeal lodged by a remand prisoner under Article   8 of the Convention regarding the decision of a prison administration to restrict prisoners’ visits from their school-age children, hitherto conducted at weekends, to weekdays during the state of emergency was declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded by the Constitutional Court. In its examination, it noted that the restriction in question had constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, given the difficulty he had experienced over a period of seven months in meeting with his children on weekdays while they were at school. It then found that the interference had a basis in Law no. 5275, as well as in the Regulation on Visits, which provided that visits could be restricted by a decision of the prison administration and further restrictions could be put in place for detainees charged with terrorism-related offences. Having regard to the nature of the terrorism-related offence with which the applicant had been charged, the ongoing nature of the state of emergency, and the constraints faced by the prison in terms of prison population and staff shortages, it found that the impugned measure, which had been put in place to maintain security and order in the prison, had a legitimate aim. As regards proportionality, it noted that the prison administration’s decision had contained concrete reasons which appeared reasonable. It then noted that the restriction had been limited to the state of emergency and applied to all prisoners. Lastly, noting that visits had not been altogether suspended but rather restricted to weekdays and only for the duration of the state of emergency, the Constitutional Court found that the restriction had not been disproportionate. (c)    Inadmissibility decision of 3 July 2018 in the case of Bayram Sivri 42 .     This case concerned an individual appeal by a detained individual regarding a prison administration’s decision to limit telephone rights to fifteen days during the state of emergency for those charged with terrorism-related offences or offences against the security of the State on the basis of section 6(1)(e) of Emergency Decree no. 667. Examining the case from the standpoint of Articles 8, 14 and 15 of the Convention, the Constitutional Court found that the measure, which had been introduced during the state of emergency and had been limited to that period and only for certain categories of offenders, was in accordance with the law, pursued the legitimate aim of preserving security and order in the institution and was not disproportionate, given that the applicant had not been completely prevented from making telephone calls and the permissible duration of a call had remained the same as before the restriction had been put in place (that is to say ten minutes). The Constitutional Court further considered that the measure had not been discriminatory, given that certain categories of offences could be subject to different types of correctional regimes depending on the gravity of the offence and the security concerns of the prisons. Considering the correlation between the attempted coup and the offences falling within the scope of that measure, the Constitutional Court further concluded that there had been no violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life and correspondence. (d)    Decision on the merits of 29 May 2019 in the case of Ümit Balaban (no. 3) 43.     This case concerned a convicted prisoner’s individual appeal under Article   8 of the Convention regarding a decision by the domestic authorities refusing to allow him to exercise his right to telephone calls with his daughter at weekends. The events giving rise to that application predated the attempted coup and the ensuing state of emergency. The applicant had been convicted of a non-terrorism-related offence and was serving his sentence in the Tekirdağ F-type prison, approximately 500 km away from İzmir, where the applicant’s daughter lived with her mother and studied at a high school. The applicant did not have custody of his daughter and had limited visiting rights during certain weekends, religious holidays and part of the summer vacation period. In his requests to the domestic authorities, he explained that because of his incarceration, it was his family who looked after his daughter during certain weekends, which was the only time he could talk to her on the telephone; however, the prison administration only allowed prisoners to make calls on weekdays between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. He further added that his divorce made it difficult for him to call his ex-wife’s house to talk to his daughter on the telephone on weekdays. In any event his daughter was at school between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. and the remaining two-hour window was not always sufficient to coordinate the calls. The applicant further argued that the prison where he had previously served part of his sentence had allowed him to exercise his right to have telephone conversations at weekends. In its examination, the Constitutional Court noted that the prison administration had dismissed the applicant’s request on the grounds of security and shortage of staff during weekends. In the Constitutional Court’s view, the reasons put forward by the domestic authorities had been too general and the courts reviewing those decisions had not taken into account the applicant’s individual circumstances, specifically the substantial difficulty he had had in maintaining his relationship with his daughter. Moreover, there had been no discussion of the fact that the applicant’s request had been granted by a prison where he had previously served his sentence, nor had the authorities fulfilled their positive obligation to put in place measures to secure the applicant’s right to maintain contact with his daughter. (e)    Decision on the merits of 11 March 2021 in the case of Yeliz Erten 44 .     This case concerned a prison administration’s refusal of the applicant’s request to have the time slot of her weekly telephone call to be determined in such a way as to enable her to talk to her school-aged children. Similar to the events in the cases of the present applications, in that applicant’s case, the prison administration by way of its general decision of 28   January 2019 had decided that all telephone calls would be held on the weekdays. In the case of the applicant, the time slot determined for telephone calls was between 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. on Wednesdays. The applicant’s individual request to be able to make a telephone call either on a weekday between 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. or at weekends given that her children attended pre-school was refused on the basis of similar reasons as the ones given by the enforcement judges in the present applications. The Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family right, noting that the authorities had not justified their decision to restrict the telephone calls to weekdays other than referring to some general security concerns. The high court underlined that the primary consideration that the child’s best interests be taken into account in all actions or decisions relating to children had been disregarded in the proceedings and that the applicant’s request to have her time slot be arranged to a later time of the day so as to enable her to make a telephone call had not been considered at all neither by the prison administration nor during the judicial review proceedings. council of europe ınstruments 45 .     The relevant parts of Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member States concerning children with imprisoned parents, adopted on 4 April 2018, states as follows: “II. Basic principles ... 3. Whenever a parent is detained, particular consideration shall be given to allocating them to a facility close to their children. ... IV. Conditions of imprisonment ... Allocation, communication, contact and visits 16. Apart from considerations regarding requirements of administration of justice, safety and security, the allocation of an imprisoned parent to a particular prison, shall, where appropriate, and in the best interests of their child, be done such as to facilitate maintaining child-parent contact, relations and visits without undue burden either financially or geographically. 17. Children should normally be allowed to visit an imprisoned parent within a week following the parent’s detention and, on a regular and frequent basis, from then on. Child-friendly visits should be authorised in principle once a week, with shorter, more frequent visits allowed for very young children, as appropriate. 18. Visits shall be organised so as not to interfere with other elements of the child’s life, such as school attendance. If weekly visits are not feasible, proportionately longer, less frequent visits allowing for greater child-parent interaction should be facilitated. ... 22. When a child’s parent is imprisoned far away from home, visits shall be arranged in a flexible manner, which may include allowing prisoners to combine their visit entitlements. ... 26. Rules for making and receiving telephone calls and other forms of communication with children shall be applied flexibly to maximise communication between imprisoned parents and their children. When feasible, children should be authorised to initiate telephone communications with their imprisoned parents. ... 30. Special measures shall be taken to encourage and enable imprisoned parents to maintain regular and meaningful contact and relations with their children, thus safeguarding their development. Restrictions imposed on contact between prisoners and their children shall be implemented only exceptionally, for the shortest period possible, in order to alleviate the negative impact the restriction might have on children and to protect their right to an emotional and continuing bond with their imprisoned parent. ... Policy development 45. Any new policies or measures designed by or for the prison administration which may impact child-parent contact and relations shall be developed with due regard to children’s rights and needs. ...” 46 .     Recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the European Prison Rules, adopted on 11   January 2006, and revised and amended by the Committee of Ministers on 1 July 2020, reads as follows: Part II “... Contact with the outside world 24.1 Prisoners shall be allowed to communicate as often as possible – by letter, telephone or other forms of communication – with their families, other persons and representatives of outside organisations, and to receive visits from these persons. 24.2 Communication and visits may be subject to restrictions and monitoring necessary for the requirements of continuing criminal investigations, maintenance of good order, safety and security, prevention of criminal offences and protection of victims of crime, but such restrictions, including specific restrictions ordered by a judicial authority, shall nevertheless allow an acceptable minimum level of contact. ... 24.4 The arrangements for visits shall be such as to allow prisoners to maintain and develop family relationships in as normal a manner as possible. 24.5 Prison authorities shall assist prisoners in maintaining adequate contact with the outside world and provide them with the appropriate welfare support to do so. ...” THE LAW         JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 47.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly. ALLEGED VIOLATIONs OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 48.     All the applicants complained that their right to respect for their private and family life had been violated as a result of the decisions of the national authorities to restrict their visiting rights with their children at weekends. The applicants in application nos. 5898/20 and 7270/20 further complained about the restriction on making telephone calls at weekends. They relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life ... and his correspondence. 2.     There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 49.     With respect to the period to be taken into consideration for the examination of the applications, the Government argued that the starting-point should be the date when the applicants had raised their complaints before the competent authorities – be it the prison administration where that administration had not issued any prior general decisions or the enforcement judge where there had been a prior general decision – and not on the date when the applicants had first been admitted to the respective prisons. The Government also noted that the relevant period should be considered to have ended when the Constitutional Court had examined the individual complaints, unless the applicants had been released prior to that court’s decision or unless the prisons had meanwhile started allowing visits or telephone calls. They provided the Court with a date range for each application following this approach (see appendices I and II). 50.     Some applicants disagreed with the Government’s assessment. In their view, the complaint should instead be assessed from the date on which the prison administration had put in place the restrictions regarding weekend visits until the date on which those restrictions had been terminated. 51.     The Court finds that the relevant period to be taken into consideration with respect to the alleged interference with the applicants’ rights under Article   8 of the Convention began on the date on which the restrictions were introduced and ended on the date when the applicants were no longer affected by them, that is to say, when the restrictions were lifted or when the applicants were released or when they were transferred to a different detention facility. However, as it is not possible to identify from the case file the exact point in time when the restrictions were put into practice by each prison administration, the Court will take as the starting-point of the relevant period the date of the general decision by the prison administration for the applicants who were affected by such a decision and, for the remainder of the applicants, the date when they first submitted a request to have their weekly visits or telephone calls at the weekends, should that request have been submitted prior to the general decision of the administration or where no general decision was issued. The date range for each applicant in accordance with the Court’s approach is indicated in column 7 of Appendix II. Complaint concerning restrictions on weekend visits Admissibility (a)    No significant disadvantage in respect of all applicants (i)       The parties’ arguments 52.     The Government submitted that none of the applicants had suffered a significant disadvantage, given that they had been able to receive visits from their children on weekdays and they had not been deprived of the possibility of using other means of communicating with their children, such as by telephone or corresponde