CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sA10C00D6 { width:14.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sBF00426D { width:118.41pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s935FFEBF { width:7.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sDCEB1D12 { width:138.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s72832412 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sD8909BE6 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 52089/20 Necati YENİCE against Türkiye and 5 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18   September 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Gediminas Sagatys , President ,   Stéphane Pisani,   Juha Lavapuro , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants’ complaints under Article 8 of the Convention, concerning decisions of the prison authorities to prohibit visits and/or telephone calls at weekends and the complaint of the applicant in application no. 52089/20 under Article 3 of the Convention concerning allegedly inadequate conditions of his detention were communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letters. By letters dated 16 April 2025, sent via the Court’s Electronic Communication Service (eComms) and by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations expired on 14 March 2025 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicants or their representatives have downloaded the eComms letters, except for application no. 15322/21 (even though the previous correspondence was successfully downloaded), and received the letters sent by post on various dates. However, no response has followed. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications. Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 October 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Gediminas Sagatys   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth   Represented by 1. 52089/20 Yenice v. Türkiye 12/11/2020 Necati YENİCE 1971   Semra KISA 2. 3542/21 Çelenli v. Türkiye 30/12/2020 Engin ÇELENLİ 1983   Muhammed Talha YILMAZ 3. 4205/21 Sağır v. Türkiye 16/11/2020 Kemal SAĞIR 1974   Mustafa ARIKAN 4. 11924/21 Avcı v. Türkiye 18/02/2021 Zeki AVCI 1977   Ömer Faruk DÖNMEZ 5. 12922/21 Söylemez v. Türkiye 12/01/2021 Halit SÖYLEMEZ 1986     6. 15322/21 Öztürk v. Türkiye 10/02/2021 Oğuz ÖZTÜRK 1985   Zeynep Betül EROĞUL