CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 décembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 12 January 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 34854/24 Okan ATAOĞLU against Türkiye lodged on 5 November 2024 communicated on 17 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the prison administration’s refusal to allow the applicant to receive books over a prolonged period due to the Covid ‑ 19 Pandemic. Upon the prison administration’s refusal to grant the applicant’s requests to receive books for approximately seven months, he lodged an objection with the enforcement judge on 25 June 2020. By a decision of 8 July 2020, the enforcement judge found that there was no need to rule on the complaint since the prison administration’s practice in question was of a temporary nature. The judge referred to a general instruction issued by the Central Prison Authority on 27 March 2020, which ordered all prison administrations to suspend activities or interactions of prisoners with the outside world with a view to preventing the spread of the Covid ‑ 19 virus. On 30 July 2024 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint under Article 10 of the Convention as manifestly ill-founded. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the refusal of the penitentiary authorities to allow him to receive books and the failure of the prison administration to respond to his requests.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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 the books sent to him during the Covid-19 pandemic (see Mehmet Çiftci 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)?   2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2? In particular, did the interference have a legal basis which meets the quality of law-requirements (see, for the general principles, Maestri v.   Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I, and Kudrevičius and Others v.   Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 108-10, ECHR   2015)? In addition, 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 Çiftci , cited above, §§ 34-45, and Osman and Altay , cited above, §§   42-59)?   The Government are invited to submit copies of all relevant documents concerning the applicant’s allegations, including, but not limited to, the Central Prison Authority’s instruction issued on 27 March 2020 and the decision of the Assize Court of 12 August 2020. The Government are also requested to submit general information about access of prisoners to books in Turkish prisons during the Covid-19 pandemic.