CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sEA321EE2 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sE8D23146 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s69AE3175 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sAE011EF4 { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEA7BCE7D { border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s906CA806 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } Communicated on 20 September 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 49341/18 Nuh UZUN against Turkey and 19 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE All the applications listed below (see appendix) concern the electronic recording and storage of the applicants’ private correspondence in the National Judicial Network System (UYAP) by the authorities during their detention. One application (no. 7360/19) concerns the alleged control of the applicant’s correspondence with his lawyer and the electronic recording and storage of this correspondence in UYAP. The applications nos. 10539/19, 11959/19, 12723/19, 14603/19, 15626/19, 16803/19, 17838/19, 19405/19, 19843/19 and 20101/19 also concern the non-communication of the public prosecutors’ written opinions during the proceedings before the enforcement judges and/or the assize courts. The cases raise issues under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES As regards all the applications 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life and correspondence, 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, the Government are invited to provide the following information: -     the reasons justifying the electronic recording and storage of the applicants’ private letters, -     the persons and/or public authorities entitled to have access to these letters and the period of storage of these letters, -     whether there are appropriate safeguards to prevent any such disclosure of personal information that might be inconsistent with the guarantees of Article 8. As regards application no. 7360/19 2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence with his lawyer, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention (see, for instance, Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, §§   32 ‑ 54, Series A no. 233)? As regards applications nos. 10539/19, 11959/19, 12723/19, 14603/19, 15626/19, 16803/19, 17838/19, 19405/19, 19843/19 and 20101/19 3.     Did the applicants have an opportunity to present their opinions before the enforcement judges and assize courts and were the written opinions of the public prosecutors communicated to the applicants? If not, has there been a breach of the applicants’ right to adversarial proceedings on account of the non-communication of these opinions and the lack of opportunity to submit their observations (see Günana and others v. Turkey , no.   70934/10 and 4 others, §§ 82-85, 20 November 2018)?   4.     In this regard, did the non-communication of the public prosecutors’ opinions amount to “a significant disadvantage” within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Günana and others cited above §§   78-81, Kılıç and Others v. Turkey (dec.) , no.   33162/10, §§ 19-32, 3   December 2013 and Çançar v. Turkey (dec.), no.   45027/05, §§ 15-17, 28   June 2016)?   APPENDIX     No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1 49341/18 Uzun v. Turkey 27/09/2018 Nuh UZUN 22/09/1988 Kahramamaraş Turkish Recep ÇINAR 2 59185/18 Kıldan v. Turkey 28/11/2018 İsmail Turgut KILDAN 01/01/1983 Antalya Turkish Emre AKARYILDIZ 3 2368/19 Taşdan v. Turkey 06/12/2018 Mehmet Nafi TAŞDAN 19/05/1984 Ankara Turkish   4 6239/19 Hallaçoğlu v. Turkey 02/11/2018 Ruhi HALLAÇOĞLU 09/10/1975 Osmaniye Turkish   5 7360/19 Arıç v. Turkey 24/01/2019 Mehmet ARIÇ 15/08/1980 Balıkesir Turkish Numan ARIÇ 6 10539/19 Kurtgöz v. Turkey 28/01/2019 Ahmet KURTGÖZ 03/03/1969 Mersin Turkish   7 11837/19 Özkan v. Turkey 01/02/2019 Mustafa ÖZKAN 11/08/1983 Konya Turkish   8 11950/19 Sakman v. Turkey 15/02/2019 Mustafa SAKMAN 26/02/1971 Osmaniye Turkish   9 11959/19 Tüzün v. Turkey 22/01/2019 Soner TÜZÜN 24/05/1984 Aksaray Turkish   10 12723/19 Öğütalan v. Turkey 19/02/2019 Ersin ÖĞÜTALAN 10/02/1987 Nevşehir Turkish   11 14603/19 Sazıl v. Turkey 04/03/2019 Selami SAZIL 10/01/1972 Adana Turkish   12 15626/19 C.A. v. Turkey 01/03/2019 C.A. 10/01/1973 Konya Turkish   13 16548/19 Aslan v. Turkey 04/03/2019 Mustafa ASLAN 19/07/1972 Ankara Turkish   14 16803/19 Kökten v. Turkey 22/02/2019 Mustafa KÖKTEN 02/04/1981 Osmaniye Turkish   15 17838/19 Tonbul v. Turkey 11/03/2019 Mehmet TONBUL 20/05/1974 Hatay Turkish   16 19085/19 Yazar v. Turkey 27/03/2019 Yusuf YAZAR 29/02/1972 Osmaniye Turkish     17 19405/19 Fesli v. Turkey 25/03/2019 Muhammed Hamza FESLİ 06/03/1992 Mersin Turkish   18 19843/19 Göksan v. Turkey 28/03/2019 Mehmet Fatih GÖKSAN 13/03/1990 Aydın Turkish     19 20101/19 Korkmaz v. Turkey 29/03/2019 Enis KORKMAZ 01/10/1984 İzmir Turkish   20 24060/19 Özdemir v. Turkey 11/04/2019 Hasan ÖZDEMİR 01/01/1984 Kütahya Turkish