CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 novembre 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 15 December 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 58395/21 Onur MEŞE against Türkiye lodged on 18 November 2021 communicated on 25 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged monitoring and recording by the prison authorities of the applicant’s closed visits and telephone calls. The applicant is convicted of membership of FETÖ/PDY (“Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation / Parallel State Structure”). He is detained in Izmir T-Type Closed Prison. On 23 July 2020 the applicant filed a petition before the Administration and Monitoring Board of the Prison (“the Board”) complaining about the monitoring and recording of his closed visits and telephone calls with his relatives under Articles 66 and 83 of Law no. 5275 on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures and the relevant regulations, and requested these measures to be ceased. The Board rejected the applicant’s request on the grounds that these records would be used to ascertain whether his ties with the terrorist organisation have been cut off, which would be considered in the context of his requests for conditional release or transfer to an open prison. Both the Karşıyaka enforcement judge and the Karşıyaka Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s objection to the Board’s decision. On 12 July 2021 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s individual application, in which he had complained of a breach of his right to respect for family life and correspondence inadmissible as unsubstantiated. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the monitoring and recording of his closed visits and telephone calls by the prison authorities. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the Constitutional Court’s decision that declared the applicant’s complaints inadmissible for being unsubstantiated, can the applicant be considered to have exhausted domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant invoke before the Constitutional Court, at least in substance, the rights under Articles 8 of the Convention on which he now wishes to rely before the Court (see, for the general principles, Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, § 72, 25 March 2014)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, due to the monitoring and recording of his closed visits and telephone calls by the prison authorities?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Enea v.   Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 143, ECHR 2009; Doerga v.   the Netherlands , no.   50210/99, §§ 43-53, 27 April 2004; Wisse v.   France , no. 71611/01, §§   24-34, 20   December 2005; and Canavcı and Others v.   Türkiye , nos.   24074/19 and two others, §§   93-109, 14 November 2023)?