CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 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 30 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 15499/20 Emre YAVAŞ against Türkiye lodged on 11 February 2019 communicated on 9 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the two-month visiting ban imposed by the prison administration on the applicant’s wife who was seven months pregnant. The prison authorities found that the applicant’s wife had breached the prison rules by taking notes on her wrist, which might have contained a cipher message. According to the official report, the written notes were: ‘birthday, clothes, money, telephone, Denizli photography, workplace, workplace petition, when, implicit rejection, 60 days pregnancy, petition for the TCC application’ . Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his right to respect for private and family life with his wife had been infringed, particularly considering the fragility of the course of her pregnancy. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the impugned visiting ban? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, did the domestic authorities make a concrete assessment of the applicant’s needs and engage with his complaints in accordance with the guarantees inherent in Article 8 of the Convention (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 116-126, ECHR 2015; Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye , nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, §§ 80-93, 6   December 2022, and Deltuva v. Lithuania , no. 38144/20, §§ 46-49, 21   March 2023)?