CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 août 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 30 August 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 46992/11 Hikmet KALE against Turkey lodged on 1 June 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the monitoring of the correspondence of the applicant (a convict) with his lawyer by the prison authorities, and raises issues under Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Did the authorities at the Tekirdağ F-Type prison (no. 1) open, or attempt to open, the letters addressed by the applicant to his lawyer? If so; a.     Did that conduct constitute an “interference” with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? Was such control exercised in an automatic and systematic manner in respect of prisoners convicted of certain crimes specified in Article 84 of the Regulations on prison management and the execution of sentences in force at the material time? b.     Did the alleged interference have a basis in domestic law and pursue a legitimate aim, and was it proportionate and necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 (see, mutatis mutandis , Eylem   Kaya v. Turkey , no. 26623/07, §§ 41-49, 13 December 2016)? In particular, were there adequate safeguards in place to preserve the confidentiality of the applicant’s correspondence with his lawyer, such as opening the letter in the presence of the prisoner, and was the decision to open the applicant’s letters taken by a judicial authority?