CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s6E0F97D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 10 July 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 19272/22 Zeki AVCI against Türkiye lodged on 4 April 2022 communicated on 20 June 2023   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the electronic recording and storage of the applicant’s private correspondence in the National Judicial Network System (UYAP) by the authorities during his detention. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Nuh Uzun and Others v. Turkey , no. 49341/18 and 13 others, §   82, 29 March 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 impugned measure have an accessible and foreseeable legal basis providing appropriate safeguards to prevent any disclosure of personal information that might be inconsistent with the guarantees of Article 8 of the Convention (ibid., §§   84‑98)?