CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 5 February 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 20039/22 Gökhan ACAR against Türkiye lodged on 11 April 2022 communicated on 15 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the retention of information about the applicant’s past criminal conviction dating back to 2000 in an official database managed by the Ministry of the Interior. 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 private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the retention of information about his past criminal conviction in the database in question (see, for example, M.M. v. the United Kingdom , no.   24029/07, §§   187-188 and 190, 13 November 2012 , and N.F. and Others v.   Russia , nos. 3537/15 and 8 others, § 38, 12 September 2023, with further references)?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   2.1.     In particular, was the domestic law, notably the Directive governing the collection and retention of the information at issue ( İçişleri Bakanlığı Kaçakçılık, İstihbarat, Harekat ve Bilgi Toplama Daire Başkanlığı Bilgi Toplama Yönergesi ), published and adequately accessible to the public (see   S.   and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and   30566/04, §§   95-96, ECHR 2008, and   Shimovolos v. Russia , no. 30194/09, §§ 67-70, 21   June 2011)?   2.2.     Did the domestic law provide clear and detailed rules governing the scope and application of the relevant measures, as well as sufficient safeguards concerning, inter alia , duration, storage, usage, access of third parties, procedures for preserving the integrity and confidentiality of data and procedures for their destruction (see M.M. , cited above, §   195)?