CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 janvier 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 January 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 43394/20 Aziz YALÇIN against Türkiye lodged on 15 September 2020 communicated on 11 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the prison authorities’ decision to prohibit the applicant from using any language other than Turkish in his telephone conversations due to the statements he had made during a phone call with his brother. The applicant complains of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life and correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, on account of the impugned decision (see Nusret Kaya and Others v. Turkey , nos. 43750/06 and 4 others, §§ 35-36, ECHR   2014 (extracts))?   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 prison authorities and domestic courts fulfil their task of balancing the competing interests at stake and adduce relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the restriction in question (see, for the general principles, ibid., §§   49-55)?   The parties are invited to clarify, by providing relevant documentation, whether the restriction in question concerned only phone conversations with the applicant’s brother or applied to all of his phone conversations.