CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 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 23 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 16058/19 and 29949/20 Salim KAYA against Türkiye and Salih BENLİ against Türkiye lodged on 28 February 2019 and 29 June 2020 respectively communicated on 6 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the following measures adopted by the authorities during the applicants’ detention: monitoring/recording of the applicants’ conversations with their lawyers pursuant to section 6 of Emergency Legislative Degree no. 667 and electronic recording and storage of the applicants’ private correspondence with their family in the National Judicial Network System (UYAP). Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain about the above-mentioned measures. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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, 14 November 2023)?   2.     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 electronic recording and storage of their private correspondence with their family in the UYAP?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? (see Nuh Uzun and Others v.   Turkey , no.   49341/18 and 13 others, §§   82‑98, 29 March 2022)?