CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 avril 2025

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Legal summary September 2025 Tergek v. Türkiye (referral) - 39631/20 Judgment 29.4.2025 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for correspondence Prison authorities’ refusal to hand over to a prisoner voluminous internet printouts posted to him by his wife: case referred to the Grand Chamber The case concerns the refusal of the prison authorities to hand over to the applicant, a prisoner convicted for membership of an armed terrorist organisation, voluminous internet printouts posted to him by his wife. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s individual application as being manifestly ill-founded. The applicant complained under Article   8. In a judgment delivered on 29   April 2025, a Chamber of the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article   10 of the Convention. It found that the interference with the applicant’s right to receive information and ideas had a legal basis under domestic law, had pursued the legitimate aims of the protection of national security, the prevention of disorder and the prevention of crime, and had been proportionate. In respect to the latter, the Chamber considered that the Constitutional Court had balanced the right of prisoners to access information and ideas with the duties and workload of the prison authorities, as well as the serious risks associated with intra‑organisational communication. It acknowledged that reviewing a large volume of printed or photocopied documents, in addition to the regular publications sent to prisoners, could overwhelm prison staff, impede their duties, and place an excessive burden on the judiciary, including the Constitutional Court. The Chamber also took note of the various means available to prisoners for obtaining publications in accordance with the relevant domestic law. Accordingly, the Chamber found that it had been reasonable for the national authorities to regulate the manner in which prisoners might obtain photocopied or printed documents, a matter which fell within their margin of appreciation, in order to ensure the efficient functioning of all prison services. On 15   September 2025 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .