CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 octobre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 8 November 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 61957/19 Mehmet KEÇECI against Turkey lodged on 27 September 2019 communicated on 13 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the imposition on the applicant, detained in a prison at the time of events, of a disciplinary sanction, consisting of a ban from participating in social activities for two months, on the ground that he had spoken to people other than the one person he was allowed to speak on the phone by prison authorities. Without referring to any Article of the Convention, the applicant complains about the sanction inflicted on him. He argues that the act for which he was sanctioned was not regulated as a disciplinary offence in the relevant legislation. Under Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant also complains of the non-communication of the public prosecutors’   written opinions during the proceedings before the domestic courts. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 § 1 of the Convention? Considering the Constitutional Court’s finding that the applicant did not exhaust available domestic remedies, what other remedies were available and accessible to the applicant?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant`s right to respect for his private life guaranteed by Article   8 of the Convention   on account of the disciplinary penalty imposed on him?   3.     Did the applicant have an opportunity to present his opinion before the enforcement judge and Osmaniye 1. 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) ?   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)?