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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 12 January 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 55068/19 Ahmet EVRENS against Türkiye lodged on 3 October 2019 communicated on 17 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the restriction imposed on the applicant’s visiting rights and right to make telephone calls by the prison administration. On 26 July 2018 the Administration and Monitoring Board of Bingöl Prison (“the Board”) decided, inter alia , to limit the visiting rights of the detainees pending trial and the persons that were detained pending appeal of their convictions ( hükümözlü ) charged with terrorism-related offences or crimes against state security to once every two months. Furthermore, their right to make telephone calls was limited to once every fifteen days. On 30 July 2018 the applicant lodged an objection against the Board’s decision. Both the Bingöl Enforcement Judge and the Bingöl Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s objection. On 5 September 2018 the applicant filed an individual application with the Constitutional Court complaining under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention that his visiting rights were limited to once every two months while the persons convicted by a final judgment of the same charges were able to use their visiting rights once every month. Furthermore, he complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the limitation on his right to make telephone calls, arguing that the fifteen-day-limitation was a measure applied in accordance with Emergency Decree no.   667, which was no longer in force since the state of emergency had been lifted on 19 July 2018. In its decision of 20 May 2019, the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaints concerning his right to respect for private and family life and correspondence inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. Relying on Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   8 of the Convention the applicant complained that he suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the grounds of his status as a remand detainee who was able to receive open visits only once every two months, compared to prisoners convicted by a final judgment, who were able to receive open visits once every month. Furthermore, relying on Article   8 of the Convention, the applicant complained of a violation of his right to respect for private and family life due to the continued restriction on his right to make telephone calls after the end of the state of emergency.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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 by the restriction on his right to make telephone calls in prison? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see, for the general principles, Lebois v. Bulgaria , no.   67482/14, § §   60-68, 19 October 2017, and Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye , nos.   3468/20 and 18 others, §§ 100 and 105-08, 6   December 2022)?   2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the grounds of his status as a remand detainee compared to finally convicted prisoners contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention (see Laduna v. Slovakia , no.   31827/02, §§ 49-73, 13 December 2011; Chaldayev v. Russia , no.   33172/16, §§ 70-83, 28 May 2019, and Vool and Toomik v. Estonia , nos.   7613/18 and 12222/18, §§   82-113, 8 March 2022)?