CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 janvier 2026

.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 2 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 28716/21 Mehmet KIZILKURT against Türkiye lodged on 27 May 2021 communicated on 16 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a restriction imposed on the applicant’s right to receive collective open visits. The applicant serves an aggravated life sentence in Diyarbakır closed prison. On 28 January 2020 he filed a petition with the Diyarbakır enforcement judge requesting to authorise his relatives to visit him collectively, rather than one by one. In his petition, he noted that there was a recent judgment of the Court of Cassation stating that prisoners convicted of aggravated life sentences should be allowed to receive collective open visits (in which physical contact is permitted). According to that judgment, Regulation no.   28458 on prisoners’ rights to visits restricted collective visits only in respect of closed visits. No restriction was envisaged in the Regulation as regards the regime applicable to open visits. On 5 February 2020 the Diyarbakır enforcement judge accepted the applicant’s request to be granted collective open visits. On 6 June 2020, accepting an objection made against the enforcement judge’s decision by the public prosecutor, the Diyarbakır Assize Court rejected the applicant’s request by a final decision. The court noted that open visits were more sensitive compared to closed visits, and therefore any restriction envisaged for closed visits under the restrictive legal regulations must be applied to open visits. On 25 December 2020 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaints under Article 8 of the Convention inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. The applicant complains before the Court under Article 8 of the Convention about his relatives’ inability to visit him collectively in prison during his open visits. He argues in particular that this restriction had no legal basis in domestic law. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the refusal to grant him collective family visits? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, was the law on which the restriction was based foreseeable as to its effects (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§   123-26, ECHR 2015, and the cases cited therein; and Altay v.   Turkey (no.   2) , no.   11236/09, §§ 54-57, 9 April 2019)?