CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 27 September 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 24074/19 Mehmet Ali CANAVCI against Turkey and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 10 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the right of the applicants, who were detained at the time of the events, to confidential communication with their lawyers. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, all the applicants allege that their meetings and interviews with their lawyers were arbitrarily monitored by a guard who was present and listened to them and/or were subject to audio and video recordings. Relying on Article 13, three applicants (applications   nos.   24074/19, 44839/19 and 90077/20 ) complain about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this respect. Relying on Article   6   §   3   b) and c), one applicant (application no.   27553/19) alleges that he was not allowed to receive documents from his lawyer or hand over documents to his lawyer, without these documents being subject to control by the prison administration.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted domestic remedies, as required under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? Considering the Constitutional Court’s finding that the applicants did not exhaust available domestic remedies, what other remedies should the applicants have exhausted?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life contrary to Article   8 of the Convention   on account of the presence of an officer during the applicants’ consultations with their lawyers and/or the recording of their conversations?   As regards application no. 27553/19   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention on account of the monitoring of the documents exchanged with his lawyer?   As regards applications nos. 24074/19, 44839/19 and 9077/20   4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?     APPENDIX     No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Represented by 1. 24074/19 Canavcı v. Turkey 01/04/2019 Mehmet Ali CANAVCI Tarık Said GÜLDIBI 2. 27553/19 Çiftçi v. Turkey 06/05/2019 Gürkan ÇİFTÇİ   3. 44839/19 Çaylı v. Turkey 20/09/2018 Ramazan ÇAYLI   4. 9077/20 Altun v. Turkey 03/02/2020 Harun ALTUN