CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 16 June 2025   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 41656/20 and 36296/21 Emre YAVAŞ against Türkiye and Ömer Faruk AKDENIZ against Türkiye lodged on 28 August 2020 and 30 June 2021 respectively communicated on 26 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the refusal of the prison authorities to hand over to the applicants certain documents that their lawyers intended to transmit to them. In application no. 41656/20, the documents were not accepted by the prison authorities on the grounds that they were in English and might contain encrypted contents. According to the applicant, the documents contained a report published by the European Union and observations of the Government in an application he had lodged with the Court. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the prison authorities’ refusal to hand over the documents in question to him violated his right to receive information. In application no. 36296/21, the documents were not accepted by the authorities on the grounds that they comprised 252 pages of photocopies and their examination would impose such a burden on the prison authorities that could affect the proper administration of the prison. The applicant complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, about the prison authorities’ refusal to hand over the documents, claiming that they concerned criminal proceedings against him and that he intended to use them to lodge an individual application with the Constitutional Court.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, and/or their right to receive information, within the meaning of Article 10 §   1 of the Convention, on account of the authorities’ refusal to hand over to them the documents sent by their lawyers (see, in respect of Article 8, Eylem Kaya v.   Turkey , no.   26623/07, § 28, 13 December 2016, and Halit Kara v.   Türkiye , no.   60846/19, §§ 48, 12 December 2023; and in respect of Article 10, mutatis mutandis , Mehmet Çiftci v. Turkey , no. 53208/19, § 33, 16 November 2021, and Osman and Altay v. Türkiye , nos. 23782/20 and 40731/20, § 41, 18   July 2023)? 2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, and/or their right to receive information, within the meaning of Article 10 §   1 of the Convention, on account of the authorities’ refusal to hand over to them the documents sent by their lawyers (see, in respect of Article 8, Eylem Kaya v.   Turkey , no.   26623/07, § 28, 13 December 2016, and Halit Kara v.   Türkiye , no.   60846/19, §§ 48, 12 December 2023; and in respect of Article 10, mutatis mutandis , Mehmet Çiftci v. Turkey , no. 53208/19, § 33, 16 November 2021, and Osman and Altay v. Türkiye , nos. 23782/20 and 40731/20, § 41, 18   July 2023)?