CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 décembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s7B0B20EB { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 12 January 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 10968/20 Mehmet POLAT against Türkiye and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 17 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications mainly concern the decisions of the prison authorities to prohibit visits and/or telephone calls during weekends which allegedly prevented the applicants from maintaining contact with their school-age children. They also concern the fairness of proceedings before the Enforcement Judges and the Assize Courts. Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants allege a breach of their right to respect for their private and family life and correspondence on account of the impugned restrictions on weekend visits and telephone calls. They also complain under Article 6 that the decisions of the Enforcement Judges and/or the Assize Courts had not included sufficient reasons concerning the restriction on weekend visits. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant in application no.   10968/20 further complains about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinions and about not having had the opportunity to present his arguments against these opinions during both the proceedings concerning visits and/or telephone calls and the proceedings concerning his inability to receive occasional gifts from outside before the Enforcement Judges and the Assize Courts.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life and correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, on account of the impugned restrictions on weekend visits of, and telephone calls with their school-age children (see Subaşı and Others v.   Türkiye , nos.   3468/20 and 18 others, §§ 77-79 and   105, 6   December 2022)?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic authorities make a concrete assessment of the applicants’ needs and engage with their complaints in accordance with the guarantees inherent in Article   8 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 80-93 and 106‑09)?   2.     Did the applicant in application no. 10968/20 have an opportunity to present his views during the proceedings before the Osmaniye Enforcement Judge and the Osmaniye 1st Assize Court and were the written opinions of the public prosecutor communicated to the applicant? If not, has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to adversarial proceedings under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention on account of the non ‑ communication of these opinions and the lack of an opportunity to submit his observations (see Günana and   Others v.   Turkey , no.   70934/10 and 4 others, §§ 82 ‑ 85, 20   November 2018)?   In this regard, did the applicant suffer “a significant disadvantage” within the meaning of Article   35 § 3 (b) of the Convention as a result of the non ‑ communication of the public prosecutor’s opinions (see Günana and   Others , cited above, §§ 78-81, and Kılıç and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no.   33162/10, §§   19-32, 3   December 2013)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 10968/20 Polat v. Türkiye 16/01/2020 Mehmet POLAT 1991 Kayseri Turkish Kadir ÖZTÜRK 2. 27619/20 Köksalan v. Türkiye 15/06/2020 Mustafa KÖKSALAN 1972 Osmaniye Turkish Mehmet Fatih ARSLAN 3. 52001/20 Arukan v. Türkiye 30/10/2020 Ali ARUKAN 1980 Kastamonu Turkish   4. 2009/21 Yayla v. Türkiye 24/12/2020 Sadık YAYLA 1984 Uşak Turkish