CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 février 2025

.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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 17 March 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 10047/21 Şaban CİNOĞLU against Türkiye and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 28 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence with official institutions by prison authorities. Application no. 10047/21 concerns the monitoring of an envelope sent to the applicant by the Court. Application no. 39111/22 relates to the monitoring of a petition submitted to the public prosecutor’s office, and application no.   34563/22 involves the monitoring of petitions addressed to the Ombudsman Institution and the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Türkiye. The applications nos. 39111/22 and 34563/22 also concern the prison authorities’ refusal to forward petitions. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain of an infringement of their right to respect for their correspondence due to the actions and decisions of the prison authorities. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, due to the monitoring or interception of their petitions by the prison authorities?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? Did the Turkish law contain a proper regulatory framework, ensuring the sufficient level of confidentiality of the correspondence of prisoners with official institutions, including the Court?   If so, was that interference necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, did the national authorities carry out a sufficient examination and adequate balancing of the applicants’ right to respect for their correspondence and other interests at stake in the light of the criteria set out and applied by the Court in similar cases (see, mutadis mutandis , Eylem   Kaya v. Turkey , no. 26623/07, §§ 24-48, 13 December 2016; mutadis mutandis , Halit Kara v. Türkiye , no. 60846/19, §§ 51-59, 12   December 2023)?   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality (ID Card) Represented by 1. 10047/21 Cinoğlu v.   Türkiye 05/01/2021 Şaban CİNOĞLU 1978 Gaziantep Turkish   2. 34563/22 Ödemişli v.   Türkiye 31/05/2022 Ahmet ÖDEMİŞLİ 1979 Antalya Turkish Halil İbrahim ÖDEMİŞLİ 3. 39111/22 Aygün v.   Türkiye 10/06/2022 Uğur AYGÜN 1990 İzmir Turkish