CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 octobre 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 27 October 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 4505/25 Mustafa ERTUĞRUL against Türkiye lodged on 7 January 2025 communicated on 6 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a restriction on the applicant’s non-contact visits in the context of emergency measures, as well as the alleged lack of an effective remedy for the restoration of visitation rights denied during that period and for compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered. The applicant who was a detainee at the relevant time, complained on 29   January 2018 before the Ankara enforcement judge and subsequently before the Ankara Assize Court that the prison administration’s practice of restricting visitation rights to one non-contact visit every two weeks, with reference to the state of emergency legislation, had been unlawful. On 15 February 2018 the Ankara Assize Court, ruling as the final instance, upheld the applicant’s complaint, noting that the state of emergency had not introduced any restrictions with respect to the frequency of non-contact visits and that therefore the applicant was entitled to have one non-contact visit per week. Subsequently, the applicant lodged a compensation claim before the Ankara Administrative Court with a view to seeking non-pecuniary damage for the period during which he had been unlawfully deprived of his weekly non-contact visits, that is to say, between 1 August 2016 to 15 February 2018. He also asked the authorities to restore the visits he had missed. In a decision of 1 October 2020, the Ankara Administrative Court rejected the case, noting that the administrative courts were not competent to rule in respect of prison practices and that the claim must be pursued before civil courts. However, when the applicant pursued his claims before the Ankara civil court, and subsequently before Ankara Criminal Assize Court, the former rejected his case on jurisdictional grounds and the latter noted that the relevant legal requirements were not met. On 27 December 2024 the Constitutional Court declared applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention inadmissible on the ground that he had failed to bring his complaints before an enforcement judge. Relying on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he has been arbitrarily deprived of his visitation rights for the period in question and that the domestic courts failed to examine the merits of his complaints despite the fact that he has resorted to several domestic remedies. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 on account of the judicial authorities’ rejection of his restitution and compensation claims (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§   178-92, ECHR   2006-V)?   2.     If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   8 (see, mutatis mutandis , Gorlov and Others v. Russia , nos.   27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 106-10, 2 July 2019)?