CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 février 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 2 March 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 35672/19 Osman KANDEMİR against Türkiye and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 12 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the alleged illegality of police searches conducted at the applicants’ houses and/or offices, as specified in the annexed table. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the searches conducted at their homes and/or offices were in breach of their right to respect for private life as they did not comply with legal requirements. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for home and/or private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the searches conducted in their houses and/or offices? In   particular, were the searches carried out in accordance with the law in terms of Article   8   §   2 (see Budak v.   Turkey , no.   69762/12, §§ 51-59, 16   February 2021; Tercan v. Turkey , no.   6158/18, §§ 189-202, 29 June 2021)?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality (ID Card) Represented by Relevant Legal Framework Search and seizure measures, domestic remedies and specific complaints 1. 35672/19 Kandemir v. Türkiye Osman KANDEMİR 1974 Denizli Turkish 21670949222 Kadir ÖZTÜRK Articles 116 et seq., 127 and 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The applicant is a judge. He complains that despite the issuance of a one-time search warrant, a second search of his house was conducted, alongside a body search; and certain items were seized. 2. 5164/20 Kavut v.   Türkiye Kemal KAVUT 1991 Çanakkale Turkish 48943439846   Article 3 of Emergency Legislative Decree no. 668 The applicant is a lawyer. He complains that an unlawful search warrant was issued in disregard of his lawyer status, and a search was conducted in his office 3. 29256/20 Esad v.   Türkiye Muhammed Şadi ESAD 1975 Hatay Syrian 99549055220 Nidal HÜZMELİ HADIMOĞLU Articles 119 and 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The applicant complains that the search of his house had lacked a legal basis owing to the absence of two attesting witnesses, as required by Article 119 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. 53578/20 Yılmaz v.   Türkiye Kutluhan YILMAZ 1976 Erzincan Turkish 44233067324   Article 3 of Emergency Legislative Decree no. 668 and Articles 127, 128 and 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The applicant complains that a search and seizure warrant was issued solely on the grounds that the prosecutor deemed any delay detrimental, without considering the existence of strong suspicion based on concrete evidence or the lack of alternative means to obtain it. He further complains that numerous digital materials were seized without determining whether they belonged to the applicant; the bags were not sealed, and no imaging process was carried out. 5. 6310/21 Bulut v.   Türkiye Ömer BULUT 1986 Erzurum Turkish 30277575994   Article 3 of Emergency Legislative Decree no. 668 and Articles 116, 117, 119, 127 and 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The applicant complains that the search commenced at 09:00, but the prosecutor did not issue the warrant until 09:45; there was no judicial authorization, nor was the matter submitted for judicial approval, thereby denying him the right to appeal; and the search was recorded on the personal phone of the police officers, and digital materials were seized.