CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 novembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 7 November 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 46154/10 Barış İNAN against Turkey lodged on 22 June 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence under Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant was detained in prison at the time of lodging this application. He complained that his letters, sent from his lawyer and from the Registry of European Court of Human Rights concerning his previous applications lodged with that Court, had been unlawfully read and controlled by the prison authorities. He maintained that his objections to the Enforcement Judge and the Assize Court were rejected on the ground that there was no restriction under domestic law on the control of letters sent from outside to detainees. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, within the meaning of   Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the alleged surveillance of the letters he had received from his lawyer and the Court (see, for instance, Campbell v. the United Kingdom , 25   March 1992, §§ 32-64, Series A no. 233)?   If so, can that interference be considered to have been in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2, in the light of the Court’s case ‑ law (see, among others, Campbell , cited above; Piechowicz v.   Poland , no.   20071/07, §§ 232-240, 17 April 2012; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, §§ 197-202, 22 May 2012)? In particular, were there adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse by the authorities (see, for instance, Erdem v. Germany, no. 38321/97, § 65, ECHR 2001 ‑ VII (extracts))?