CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 9 December 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 17962/20 Ahmet KURTGÖZ against Türkiye lodged on 17 April 2020 communicated on 21 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly inadequate conditions of the applicant’s detention due to insufficient space in his prison cell. It also concerns electronic recording and storage of the applicant’s private correspondence in the National Judicial Network System (UYAP) by the authorities during his detention; and the decision of the prison authorities to prohibit visits during weekends. It concerns moreover the prison administration’s refusal to hand over to the applicant the Yeni Asya newspaper and books published by the Yeni Asya publishing house. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains of allegedly inadequate conditions of his detention due to insufficient space in his prison cell. Under Article 8 of the Convention, he complains about the recording and storage of his private correspondence in the UYAP and of the decision of the prison authorities to prohibit visits during weekends. Moreover, invoking Article 10 of the Convention, he complains about the prison administration’s refusal to hand over to him the Yeni Asya newspaper and books published by the Yeni Asya publishing house.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the conditions of the applicant’s detention, having regard, in particular, to the personal space available in view of the number of prisoners placed in the same multi-occupancy units, amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Muršić v.   Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 136-140, 20 October 2016; and İlerde and Others v.   Türkiye , nos. 35614/19 and 10 others, §§ 169-199, 5 December 2023)?   The Government is requested to provide the Court information with respect to the floor space that was available to the applicant in the prison cell he stayed in by specifying the period of his detention in accordance with the methodology applied in the Court’s İlerde and Others judgment (ibid, §§   173-176).   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) ( 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?   Was the litigious measure prescribed by a legislative and administrative provision accessible to the applicant and providing appropriate safeguards to prevent any such disclosure of personal information that might be inconsistent with the guarantees of Article 8 ( Nuh Uzun , cited above, §§   84 ‑ 98, see also the Turkish Constitutional Court’s judgment in the case of Ümit   Karaduman , no. 2020/20874, §§ 64-71, 2 February 2022)?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life and correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8   §   1 of the Convention, on account of the impugned restrictions on weekend visits (see Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye , nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, §§   77-79, 6 December 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 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 (ibid., §§   80-93)?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the prison authorities’ refusal to hand over to him Yeni Asya newspapers and publications (see Mehmet Çiftçi v. Turkey , no. 53208/19, §§   32-33, 16   November 2021 and Osman and Altay v. Türkiye , nos. 23782/20 and   40731/20, §§ 40-41, 18 July 2023)?   If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 § 2? Did the national authorities and courts adequately balance the applicant’s right to freedom of expression against other interests at stake in accordance with the principles enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention (see   Mehmet Çiftçi , cited above, §§   35-45)?