CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mai 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .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 } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 25 May 2020 Published on 15 June 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 29055/19 Ömer BOZOĞLU against Turkey and 6 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE All the applications concern the applicants’ right to respect for their correspondence under Article 8 of the Convention. In this regard, all the applicants complain of a blanket ban on sending and receiving letters and faxes while they were detainees. This ban was imposed by different public prosecutors, for the duration of the state of emergency, on detainees suspected of being members of the FETÖ/PDY (“Gülenist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”). Three applicants (applications nos. 29067/19, 44539/19 and 45991/19) also complain of the ban of their right to correspondence with their lawyers. The applicants filed a petition against the ban imposed by the public prosecutors before the relevant judicial authorities without success. They subsequently applied to the Constitutional Court which rejected their petitions on the grounds that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies. In most of the cases, the Constitutional Court specifically mentioned the remedy provided for by Article 141/3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (entitled “ compensation claims ”). The application no. 37557/19 also concerns the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention. The applicant complains of the non-communication of the public prosecutors’ written opinions during the proceedings before the enforcement judge and the assize court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES As regards all applications   1.     Have the applicants exhausted domestic remedies? In this regard, was the compensation remedy provided by Article 141/3 of the Criminal Code of Procedure considered an effective remedy for the applicants’ complaints? If so, the Government are invited to provide copies of decisions granting compensation in cases raising similar issues. 2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their 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 (see, Silver and Others v.   the United Kingdom , 25 March 1983, § 85-105, Series A no. 61)? Would it have been possible to achieve the aim sought by any other means?   As regards applications nos. 29067/19, 44539/19 and 45991/19   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their correspondence with their lawyers, within the meaning of Article 8   §   1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Campbell v.   the United Kingdom , 25   March 1992, §§ 32-64, Series A no. 233)? In particular, did the contested blanket ban also concern the applicants’ right to correspondence with their lawyers? If so, can that interference be considered to have been in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   As regards application no. 37557/19   4.     Did the applicant have an opportunity to present his opinion before the enforcement judge and assize court and were the written opinions of the public prosecutors communicated to the applicant? If not, has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to adversarial proceedings on account of the non-communication of these opinions and the lack of opportunity to submit his observations (see Günana and others v. Turkey , no.   70934/10 and   4   others, §§ 82-85, 20 November 2018)? 5.     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)?     No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1 29055/19 Bozoğlu v. Turkey 14/05/2019 Ömer BOZOĞLU 1980 İzmir Turkish 2 29067/19 Sel v. Turkey 06/05/2019 Mehmet SEL 1976 İstanbul Turkish 3 37557/19 Uğur v. Turkey 16/05/2019 Mustafa UĞUR 1978 Bursa Turkish 4 41443/19 Efe v. Turkey 21/06/2019 Yavuz EFE 1983 Zonguldak Turkish 5 44536/19 Aydoğmuş v. Turkey 06/08/2019 Tahir AYDOĞMUŞ 1981 Istanbul Turkish 6 44539/19 Örer v. Turkey 05/08/2019 Vedat ÖRER 1973 Manisa Turkish 7 45991/19 Çapa v. Turkey 05/08/2019 Ömer ÇAPA 1980 Edirne Turkish