CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 juin 2023

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s943D4F93 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:21.8pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .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 }   Published on 17 July 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 21166/20 Beytullah ALTUNTEPE against Türkiye and 6 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 28 June 2023   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the refusal of the domestic authorities to grant the applicants, who were detained at the time of the events, permission to have telephone calls with their school-age children at weekends or outside of school hours. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life and correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the impugned restrictions on telephone calls (see Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye , nos. 3468/20 and 18   others, § 105, 6 December 2022)? 2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic authorities make a concrete assessment of the applicants’ needs and engage with their complaints in accordance with the guarantees inherent in Article 8 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 106‑09)? In application no. 3759/21, the parties are also requested to submit a copy of the relevant document(s) specifying the date of service of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 2 July 2020.   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Represented by 1. 21166/20 Altuntepe v. Türkiye 28/04/2020 Beytullah ALTUNTEPE 1975   2. 44587/20 Pekel v. Türkiye 25/09/2020 Şevket PEKEL 1974   3. 48209/20 Halitoğlu v. Türkiye 29/09/2020 Coşkun HALİTOĞLU 1973   4. 54635/20 Öztürk v. Türkiye 20/11/2020 Osman ÖZTÜRK 1979   5. 55622/20 Erten v. Türkiye 09/11/2020 Derviş ERTEN 1982   6. 3425/21 Akdemir v. Türkiye 31/12/2020 Sedat AKDEMİR 1976   7. 3759/21 Kufacı v. Türkiye 11/01/2021 Murat KUFACI 1977 Selim MORAVA