CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juillet 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 } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 21 July 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 54634/20 İsmail AYDIN against Türkiye and 6 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 3 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications mainly concern the applicants’ allegations of ill ‑ treatment due to strip searches conducted by the prison authorities. One of the applications (no. 54634/20) further concerns the monitoring of a meeting of the first applicant with his lawyer. Another application (no.   14762/21) also concerns the fourth applicant’s inability to have telephone calls with his school-age children at weekends. At the time of the events, the applicants were detained in different prisons (see the appendix). The first, fourth and seventh applicants submit that they were subjected to systematic strip searches on their return to prison from the courthouse or after the weekly open visits. The second, third, fifth and sixth applicants claim that they were subjected to a strip search once, during their admission to a new prison following their transfer. On various dates, the domestic courts rejected the applicants’ complaints concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the strip searches, the monitoring of the first applicant’s meeting with his lawyer, and the restriction on the fourth applicant’s ability to have weekend telephone calls with his children. The Constitutional Court found all the applicants’ individual applications inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded. All the applicants allege that the prison authorities conducted strip searches without putting forward any legitimate purpose. In that regard, the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants rely on Article 3 of the Convention and the seventh applicant relies on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. The first, second, third, fourth, fifth and seventh applicants also invoke Articles 6 and/or 13 of the Convention, arguing that the investigations into their claims were not effective. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the first applicant further argues that his meeting with his lawyer was arbitrarily subjected to audio and video recordings, and the fourth applicant alleges that his right to respect for private and family life was violated on account of the prison authorities’ restriction on his ability to have telephone calls with his school-aged children at weekends. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the strip searches carried out by the prison authorities? In particular, have the authorities put forward any legitimate purpose for the applicants’ strip searches (see Frérot v. France , no.   70204/01, §§ 35-48, 12 June 2007, and Roth v.   Germany , nos.   6780/18 and 30776/18, §§ 64-72, 22   October 2020)?   The Government are invited to provide information on the nature of the strip searches carried out by the prison authorities, as well as the number of such searches the applicants went through.   2.     Alternatively, has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the strip searches carried out by the prison authorities? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article   8   §   2 of the Convention (see Dejnek v. Poland , no. 9635/13, §§ 70-77, 1   June 2017)?   3.     Has there been a violation of the first applicant’s right to respect for his private life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the monitoring and/or recording of his consultation with his lawyer (see   Canavcı and Others v. Türkiye , nos. 24074/19 and two others, §§   91 ‑ 109, 14   October 2023)?   4.     Has the fourth applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, been infringed by the restrictions placed on his ability to have telephone calls with his school ‑ age children at weekends? Did the national authorities adopt all the measures that could reasonably be required of them to ensure that a fair balance was struck between the various interests at stake in the case (see   Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye , nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, §§   105-09, 6   December 2022)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Prison 1. 54634/20 Aydın v. Türkiye 20/11/2020 İsmail AYDIN 1980 Karabük Turkish Zonguldak M-Type Prison 2. 6297/21 Karahasanoğlu v.   Türkiye 07/12/2020 Mehmet Yücel KARAHASANOĞLU 1973 Ankara Turkish Kars T-Type Prison 3. 14167/21 Taş v. Türkiye 26/02/2021 Ali TAŞ 1969 İzmir Turkish Eskişehir L ‑ Type Prison 4. 14762/21 Saracoğlu v.   Türkiye 17/02/2021 Fatih SARACOĞLU 1978 Ankara Turkish Marmara* 7th L-Type Prison 5. 39596/21 Fındık v. Türkiye 30/06/2021 Dursun FINDIK 1985 Balıkesir Turkish Kars T-Type Prison 6. 6851/22 Anıt v. Türkiye 23/12/2021 Esabil ANIT 1977 Osmaniye Turkish Osmaniye 2nd T-Type Prison 7. 9789/23 Güney v. Türkiye 07/02/2023 Hami GÜNEY 1967 Istanbul Turkish Marmara* 8th L-Type Prison * Formerly known as Silivri Prison.