CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 août 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 } Published on 25 August 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 32276/19 Ercan BİNAY against Türkiye lodged on 28 May 2019 communicated on 4 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of proceedings before the enforcement judge, where the applicant challenged a disciplinary sanction of eleven days of solitary confinement imposed by the prison administration for an alleged assault on a prison officer. He claims that he was unable to effectively challenge the sanction because he was denied the opportunity to confront the witnesses against him, and the enforcement judge failed to examine security camera footage of the incident, despite the Assize Court’s instruction to do so in its reversal decision. On 15 February 2019 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s individual application. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant argues that he was unable to effectively contest the disciplinary sanction during the proceedings before the enforcement judge. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was Article 6 of the Convention applicable, under its civil or criminal limb, to the disciplinary proceedings in question (see, in particular,   Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and   40086/98, §   82, ECHR 2003-X;   Štitić v. Croatia , no. 29660/03, §§ 51-63, 8 November 2007;   Gülmez v.   Turkey , no.   16330/02, §§ 26-31, 20 May 2008; and   Mariusz Lewandowski v. Poland , no.   66484/09, §§ 27-31, 3   July 2012)? If so, were the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms respected, given the applicant’s allegation that, despite the Assize Court’s instruction, the enforcement judge failed to examine surveillance camera footage and to allow him to cross-examine the witnesses (see,   mutatis mutandis , De   Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium , 24 February 1997, §§   53 and 58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I)?