CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE — 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 Application no. 53461/21 Selim ÖZTÜRK against Türkiye lodged on 6 October 2021 communicated on 6 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the right of the applicant, who was detained at the time of the events, to confidential communication with his lawyers. Relying on Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that his meetings and interviews with his lawyers were arbitrarily monitored by a guard who was present and listened to them and/or were subject to audio and video recordings. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant also complains of the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect, as he has not received any response from the domestic courts to his complaints since 23   December 2017, but the Turkish Constitutional Court nonetheless dismissed his individual application for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the presence of an officer during the applicant’s consultations with his lawyer 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 ( Canavcı and Others v. Türkiye , nos.   24074/19 and   2   others, §§ 91 and 93-96, 14   November 2023)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (compare, for example, Gorlov and Others v. Russia , nos. 27057/06 and   2   others, §§   109-110, 2 July 2019, and Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no.   29157/09, §   99, 26   July 2011)?