CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 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 } Published on 23 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 39094/22 Mehmet Yücel KARAHASANOĞLU against Türkiye lodged on 10 June 2022 communicated on 6 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the right of the applicant, who was detained at the time of the events, to confidential communication with his lawyer. A   measure of monitoring/recording of the applicant’s conversations with his lawyer was adopted by the penitentiary authorities pursuant to Article   59 of Law no.   5275. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the monitoring by an officer of his lawyer’s visits and the recording of those meetings by means of technical devices. QUESTION 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 presence of an officer during the applicant’s consultations with his lawyer and/or the recording of their conversations?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (compare Campbell v. the United Kingdom , 25   March 1992, §§ 33-53, Series   A no. 233; Altay v. Turkey (no. 2) , no.   11236/09, §§   49-52, 9 April 2019; and Canavcı and Others v. Türkiye , nos.   24074/19 and 2 others, §§ 91 and 93-96, 14 November 2023)?