CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 novembre 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 } .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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 2 December 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 8978/19 Murat ERDEM against Türkiye and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 12 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern electronic recording and storage of the applicants’ private correspondence in the National Judicial Network System (UYAP) by the authorities during their detentions. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain about the recording and storage of their private correspondence on UYAP. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life and correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention ( Nuh Uzun and Others v. Turkey , no. 49341/18 and 13   others, § 82, 29   March 2022)?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   Was the litigious measure prescribed by a legislative and administrative provision accessible to the applicants and providing appropriate safeguards to prevent any such disclosure of personal information that might be inconsistent with the guarantees of Article 8 ( Nuh Uzun and Others , cited above, §§ 84-98, see also the Turkish Constitutional Court’s judgment in the application of Ümit Karaduman , no.   2020/20874, §§   64-71, 2   February 2022)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1. 8978/19 Erdem v. Türkiye 01/02/2019 Murat ERDEM 1973 Adana Turkish 2. 31746/20 Tekin v. Türkiye 09/06/2020 Adem TEKİN 1972 Kırıkkale Turkish 3. 50337/20 Gök v. Türkiye 27/10/2020 Veysal GÖK 1966 Osmaniye Turkish