CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 août 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 16 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 34184/20 Mustafa KAHRAMAN against Türkiye lodged on 16 July 2020 communicated on 27 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the confiscation of the applicant’s personal diary that he kept in his prison cell. The prison authorities found the content of the diary inappropriate, considering that it was denigrating the State, compromising prison security, and threatening public order, and sent it to the public prosecutor for further examination. Relying on Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his right to respect for his private life and his freedom of expression had been infringed due to the confiscation of his diary. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant also complains that the confiscation of his personal diary constituted an unjustified interference with his right to protection of his possessions. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 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, by the confiscation of his personal diary in prison? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2 ( see, mutatis mutandis , Chocholáč v. Slovakia , no.   81292/17, §§ 52-78, 7 July 2022 and Soini and Others v. Finland , no.   36404/97, §§ 44-46, 17 January 2006)?