CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 novembre 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 2 December 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 34529/20 Mehmet Nuri ÖZEN against Türkiye lodged on 14 July 2020 communicated on 14 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the prison administration to send four of the applicant’s letters. The first letter, dated 1 February 2017, was addressed to a friend of the applicant and described certain prison practices that he claimed were objectionable. The second letter, dated 27 February 2017, was addressed to a journalist, and contained similar complaints about the prison’s allegedly objectionable practices. The third and fourth letters, both dated 27 March 2017, were addressed to two different lawyers, one of whom the applicant claimed to be his own. These letters also outlined allegedly objectionable prison practices. One of these letters further requested the lawyer to take the necessary actions with the relevant authorities regarding these practices, while the other letter also mentioned an ongoing hunger strike in prison. The matters were brought before four different enforcement judges and assize courts through separate domestic proceedings. As to the first and second letters, the domestic courts rejected the applicant’s claims, holding that the letters in question contained incorrect information and aimed to damage the reputation of the institution. As to the third and fourth letters, the domestic courts held that these letters were not related to the applicant’s defence, intended to facilitate communication of a terrorist organisation, and posed a security risk to the institution. The Constitutional Court examined all four individual applications in a single judgment and found no violation of the applicant’s rights. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complained of a violation of his right to respect for correspondence by the prison administration’s refusal to send his letters. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence by the prison administration’s refusal to send his letters, contrary to Article   8 § 1 of the Convention? If so,   (a)     Was the interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   (b)     Were appropriate safeguards in place to mitigate the effect of the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence (see, for instance, Halit Kara v. Türkiye , no. 60846/19, §§ 43-59, 12   December 2023; Eylem Kaya   v. Turkey , no.   26623/07, §§ 26-48, 13   December 2016; and Ekinci and Akalın v. Turkey , no.   77097/01, §§   37 ‑ 47, 30 January 2007)?