CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juin 2023

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } Published on 3 July 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 4837/21 Yavuz ÇİLTAŞ against Türkiye and 13 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 12 June 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the refusal of the domestic authorities to grant the applicants, who were detained at the time of the events, permission to have telephone calls with their school-age children at weekends or outside of school hours. Applications nos. 8108/21 and 9563/21 also concern the authorities’ refusal to allow visits at weekends. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life and correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the impugned restrictions on telephone calls and weekend visits (see Subaşı and Others v.   Türkiye , nos.   3468/20 and 18   others, §§ 77-79 and 105, 6 December 2022)?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic authorities make a concrete assessment of the applicants’ needs and engage with their complaints in accordance with the guarantees inherent in Article 8 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 80-93 and 106‑09)?   APPENDIX List of cases:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Represented by 1. 4837/21 Çiltaş v. Türkiye 31/12/2020 Yavuz ÇİLTAŞ 1977   2. 4850/21 Uluçay v. Türkiye 17/12/2020 Ali ULUÇAY 1979   3. 5213/21 Sönmez v. Türkiye 06/01/2021 Tuncer SÖNMEZ 1975   4. 5718/21 Dilevci v. Türkiye 11/12/2020 Gündüz DİLEVCİ 1977   5. 8108/21 Kunt v. Türkiye 18/01/2021 Mehmet Akif KUNT 1984   6. 8849/21 Kar v. Türkiye 29/12/2020 Bekir KAR 1987   7. 9563/21 Dertli v. Türkiye 28/12/2020 Abdullah DERTLİ 1984 Emre AKARYILDIZ 8. 12741/21 Çelik v. Türkiye 19/02/2021 Yunus ÇELİK 1986   9. 15819/21 Kızılgül v. Türkiye 03/03/2021 Atalay KIZILGÜL 1977   10. 16886/21 Keskin v. Türkiye 03/03/2021 Lokman KESKİN 1973   11. 26893/21 Ekinci v. Türkiye 04/05/2021 Eyüp EKİNCİ 1988 Haşim EKİNCİ (not lawyer) 12. 34850/21 İslam v. Türkiye 25/06/2021 Ali İSLAM 1968   13. 36699/21 Yavaş v. Türkiye 07/06/2021 Emre YAVAŞ 1984   14. 39628/21 Çakar v. Türkiye 06/07/2021 Zafer ÇAKAR 1977 İhsan MAKAS