CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 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 } Published on 9 December 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 38334/20 Veysi AKTAŞ against Türkiye lodged on 17 August 2020 communicated on 19 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the prison administration to hand over certain web page printouts sent to the applicant by his lawyer via post. The Bursa Assize Court held that the documents in question did not meet the criteria outlined in section 87 § 2 of the Regulations on the Administration of Penitentiary Institutions. This section allows newspapers, books and other publications from official institutions, universities, organisations with public institution status, foundations which have been granted tax exemption or associations working for the public benefit to be distributed in prisons free of charge. The Assize Court also cited section 87 § 3 of the same Regulations, which permits prison authorities to withhold documents if they are deemed a threat to prison security or are obscene. Relying on Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains of a violation of his right to receive information and ideas as well as his right to respect for his correspondence with his lawyer. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence with his lawyer by the refusal of the prison administration to hand over certain web page printouts sent to the applicant by that lawyer, contrary to Article   8 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Campbell v. the United Kingdom , 25   March 1992, §§   32 ‑ 54, Series A no. 233; Ekinci and Akalın v. Turkey , no.   77097/01, §§   37-47, 30   January 2007 and Eylem Kaya v. Turkey , no.   26623/07, §§ 24-48, 13   December 2016)? If so,   (a)     Was the interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 ( Halit Kara v. Türkiye , no. 60846/19, §§ 51-58, 12   December 2023)?   (b)     Were appropriate safeguards in place to mitigate the effect of the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence (see Eylem Kaya   v. Turkey, no.   26623/07, §§   41 ‑ 48, 13   December 2016)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, by the refusal of the prison administration to hand over certain web page printouts sent to the applicant by his lawyer? If so,   (a)     Was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?   (b)     In particular, did the national courts, in their decisions in the present case, adequately balance the applicant’s right to freedom of expression against other interests at stake in accordance with the principles enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention (see Mehmet Çiftci v.   Turkey , no.   53208/19, §§   32-45, 16 November 2021; and Osman and Altay v.   Türkiye , nos.   23782/20 and 40731/20, §§   40-59, 18 July 2023)?