CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 octobre 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 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s1AA00776 { height:59.1pt } .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 } .sCC45E8B1 { height:47.8pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA5FFE089 { height:71.45pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 4 November 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25406/22 Abdi CENGİZ against Türkiye and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 16 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the right of the applicants, who were detained at the time of the events, to confidential communication with their family members. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain about the monitoring by an officer or the recording by means of technical devices of their meetings with their family members during their visits in prison. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life and/or correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the presence of an officer during the applicants’ meetings with their family members 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 (see, for example,   Doerga v. the Netherlands , no.   50210/99, §§ 43-53, 27 April 2004, and Wisse v. France , no.   71611/01, §§   24-34, 20 December 2005)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1. 25406/22 Cengiz v. Türkiye 10/05/2022 Abdi CENGİZ 1965 Ankara Turkish 2. 6297/23 Aktürk v. Türkiye 26/01/2023 Mehmet Emin AKTÜRK 1990 Adana Turkish 3. 11027/23 Küçüksolak v. Türkiye 17/02/2023 Erkan KÜÇÜKSOLAK 1975 İzmir Turkish