CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 novembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 8 November 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 23016/08 Berivan DOĞAN against Turkey lodged on 24 April 2008 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the search of the computer used by the applicant during her work at the Istanbul Directorate of Education and the subsequent disciplinary sanction, namely a reprimand, imposed on her on account of the songs, marches and poems found in the hard drive of that computer. The applicant complains of a violation of her rights under Articles 8 and   13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life and/or correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8   §   1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, were there “relevant and sufficient” reasons to justify the search of the applicant’s work computer? Was the applicant provided with appropriate and sufficient safeguards against abuse (see, mutatis mutandis , Bărbulescu v. Romania [GC], no.   61496/08, 5   September 2017 (extracts))?   2.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention in view of the legislation in force at the time, which precluded any application to the administrative courts for the purpose of challenging the lawfulness of the disciplinary sanction of a warning or a reprimand imposed under section 125 of Law no. 657 (see, among others, Karaçay v. Turkey , no. 6615/03, 27 March 2007, and Sadrettin Güler v.   Turkey , no. 56237/08 , 24 April 2018)?