CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 juillet 2024

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 22 July 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 21529/19 Fatih Cihan ŞILA against Türkiye lodged on 11 April 2019 communicated on 1 July 2024   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the prison administration’s confiscation of two books, The Art of War (Sun Zi) and The Honourable Departure from the Ideological Neighbourhood to Türkiye , which the applicant wanted to give to his wife during her visit. The prison authorities based their decisions on the fact that these books contained notes that might have negative consequences. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his right to respect for his private life and correspondence with his wife had been infringed. He further complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the lack of reasoning in the domestic courts’ decisions. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant also complains that the confiscation order constituted an unjustified interference with his right to protection of his possessions.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 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, on account of the confiscation of the books the applicant wished to give to his wife?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (compare Halit Kara v. Türkiye , no. 60846/19, §§   43 ‑ 47, 12   December 2023; see also Vlasov v. Russia , no. 78146/01, §§   135-139, 12   June 2008)?