CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 novembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Published on 4 December 2023   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 39094/20 and 52433/21 Abdül Samed TERGEK against Türkiye and Ali Efendi PEKSAK against Türkiye lodged on 19 August 2020 and 13 October 2021 respectively communicated on 16 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the monitoring by prison authorities of the correspondence between applicants, who were detained pending trial at the material time, and their lawyers. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complained of a violation of their right to respect for correspondence. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence with his lawyer, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention (see, for instance, Campbell v. the United Kingdom , 25 March 1992, §§   32 ‑ 54, Series A no. 233; Ekinci and Akalın v. Turkey , no.   77097/01 , §   47, 30   January 2007; and Eylem Kaya v. Turkey , no.   26623/07 , §§ 41-48, 13   December 2016)?