CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 juin 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 24 June 2024   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 28912/20 and 3938/21 Abdurrahman GÜNER against Türkiye and İlhan KEKLIK against Türkiye lodged on 2 July 2020 and 31 December 2020 respectively communicated on 4 June 2024 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. A measure of monitoring/recording of the applicants’ conversations with their lawyers was adopted by the penitentiary authorities pursuant to Article 59 of Law no. 5275. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain about the monitoring by an officer of their lawyers’ visits and the recording of those meetings by means of technical devices. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life and correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 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?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (compare Campbell v. the United Kingdom , 25 March 1992, §§ 33-53, Series   A no. 233; Altay v. Turkey (no. 2) , no. 11236/09, §§   49-52, 9 April 2019; and Canavcı and Others v. Türkiye , nos. 24074/19 and 2 others, §§ 91 and 93-96, 16 November 2023)?