CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 octobre 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 4 November 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 37572/22 Mustafa GÖRMEZ against Türkiye lodged on 7 July 2022 communicated on 17 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the following measures adopted by the authorities during the applicant’s detention: monitoring/recording of the applicant’s conversations with his lawyers pursuant to section 6 of Emergency Legislative Degree no. 667 and electronic recording and storage of the applicant’s private correspondence in the National Judicial Network System (UYAP). Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the above-mentioned measures. 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 lawyers and 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 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 recording and storage of his private correspondence in the National Judicial Network System (UYAP) (see 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 of the Convention? In particular, did the impugned measure have an accessible and foreseeable legal basis providing appropriate safeguards to prevent any arbitrary interferences by public authorities that might be inconsistent with the guarantees of Article 8 of the Convention (ibid.,   §§   84‑98)?