CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 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 } .s943D4F93 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:21.8pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 17 July 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 29193/20 Ahmet BAL against Türkiye lodged on 30 June 2020 communicated on 28 June 2023   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the domestic authorities to grant the applicant, who was detained at the time of the events, permission to receive visits from his school-age children at weekends. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention. He further complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the enforcement judge who had dismissed his objection regarding the prohibition of weekend visits sat unlawfully in the Akşehir Asssize Court’s bench that considered his appeal against that judge’s decision.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the impugned restriction on weekend visits (see   Subaşı and Others v.   Türkiye , nos.   3468/20 and 18   others, §§   77-79, 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 applicant’s needs and engage with his complaints in accordance with the guarantees inherent in Article 8 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 80-93)? 3.     Having regard to section 6(6) of Law no. 4675 on enforcement judges and to the composition of the bench delivering the decision of 10   October 2019 of the Akşehir Assize Court, was that court an “impartial tribunal established by law”, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1) , 23 May 1991, §§   50-52, Series A no. 204; De Haan v. the Netherlands , 26 August 1997, §§   51-55, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑IV; Toziczka v.   Poland , no. 29995/08, §§ 32-46, 24 July 2012; and Stoimenovikj and Miloshevikj v. North Macedonia , no. 59842/14, §§ 34-43, 25   March 2021)?