CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 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 15 November 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 53335/08 LAMBDAISTANBUL LGBTI SOLIDARITY ASSOCIATION against Turkey lodged on 22 October 2008 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant (LAMBDA İstanbul Lezbiyen Gey Biseksüel Travesti Transseksüel Kadın ve Erkekler Arası Dayanışma Derneği) is an association supporting LGBTI rights. The case concerns the search carried out at its premises, and the seizure of its books and documents, following a complaint by a third person, who claimed that the association was involved in unlawful activities in that it was frequented by transsexual persons. The applicant association complains of a violation of its rights under Articles 8, 11 and 14 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant association exhausted the domestic remedies as regards its complaints under Articles 8 and 11 of the Convention? Were there any effective domestic remedies whereby it could challenge the search carried out at its premises, besides objecting to the search warrant issued by the Magistrates’ Court?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant association’s right to respect for its home, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2? In particular, were there relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the impugned search? Was the applicant association provided with appropriate and sufficient safeguards against abuse (see, among others, Smirnov v. Russia , no.   71362/01, § 44, 7 June 2007)?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of association, within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   11 § 2?   4.     Has the applicant association suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of its Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 8 and/or 11 of the Convention?