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. 56893/19 and 50127/20 Baymyrat SOLTANOV against Türkiye and Vahip ARI against Türkiye lodged on 16 October 2019 and 2 October 2020 respectively communicated on 6 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern electronic recording and storage of the applicants’ private correspondence in the National Judicial Network System (UYAP) by the authorities during their detention. They also concern the measure of monitoring of the applicants’ communication with their lawyers during their detention. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain about the recording and storage of their private correspondence in the UYAP. Under the same Article, they also complain about the monitoring of their communication with their lawyers. 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 recording and storage of their private correspondence in the National Judicial Network System (UYAP) ( Nuh Uzun and Others v. Turkey , no. 49341/18 and 13 others, § 82, 29   March 2022)?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   In particular, was the litigious measure prescribed by a legislative provision accessible to the applicants and providing appropriate safeguards to prevent any arbitrary interferences by public authorities that might be inconsistent with the guarantees of Article 8 ( Nuh Uzun and Others , cited above, §§ 91-98, see also the Turkish Constitutional Court judgment in the application of Ümit   Karaduman , no.   2020/20874, §§   64-71, 2/2/2022)?   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 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)?