CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } Communicated on 2 October 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 35794/19 Eray ÇEKEREK against Turkey lodged on 25 June 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the prison administration’s seizure of the two letters sent to the applicant by his sister. The applicant brought proceedings against the prison administration before the Tavşanlı Enforcement Court; however, that court rejected the applicant’s case on the ground that it had been lodged outside the applicable fifteen day time-limit. The applicant submits in that respect that he received the decision of the prison administration on 2 February 2018 and lodged his request with the Tavşanlı Enforcement Court on 16 February 2018. He further complains that neither the appeal court nor the Constitutional Court examined his Convention complaints. The application raises issues under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Tavşanlı Enforcement Court’s dismissal of the applicant’s case? In particular, given the applicant’s complaint set out above, was the domestic court’s approach manifestly erroneous?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his 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 (see, for example, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, §§ 85-105)?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?