CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 janvier 2026

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 16 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 17239/25 İhsan KAÇAN against Türkiye lodged on 9 May 2025 communicated on 30 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged breach of the presumption of innocence in connection with the assessment made by the prison authorities in the determination of the prison regime and, in particular, the applicant’s placement in the penal facility. The applicant was convicted of aiding a terrorist organisation without being part of its hierarchical structure. By the same judgment, the criminal courts acquitted him of the offence of membership of a terrorist organisation, FETÖ/PDY (Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation/ Parallel State Structure). During the admission to the penal facility, the applicant underwent a prisoner classification procedure laid down in Articles 23 and 24 of the Law no.   5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures, and Articles   19-24 of the Regulation for Classification and Rehabilitation Centres and Assessment of Prisoners. In a decision of 10 September 2024, the prison authorities considered that the applicant failed to demonstrate a sincere renunciation of his involvement with the terrorist organisation and therefore classified him as an “offender of terrorism”. He objected to this decision before the Execution Judge to no avail, arguing that the offence he was convicted of did not fall within the scope of this procedure since it was not a “terrorism offence” and that he had never been convicted of the offence of membership of a terrorist organisation. On 14 February 2025 the Constitutional Court declared his individual application inadmissible for being incompatible ratione materiae with Article   6 of the Convention. The applicant complains that the statements used in the prison authority’s decision failed to respect his presumption of innocence protected under Article   6   §   2 of the Convention since they imputed him criminal liability for the offence of membership of a terrorist organisation, of which he was acquitted. He further complains that classifying him as an “offender of terrorism” damaged his reputation and subjected him to a different prison regime affecting his communication rights with his relatives. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention on account of the assessment made by the domestic authorities regarding the failure of the applicant to demonstrate a renunciation of his involvement with a terrorist organisation despite his acquittal for the offence of membership of a terrorist organisation and the language used therein? (see, for the general principles, Nealon and Hallam v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 32483/19 and   35049/19, §§ 102-109 and §§ 168-169, 11 May 2024; Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09, §§ 92-136, 12 June 2013; and mutatis mutandis , Böhmer v. Germany , no. 37568/97, § 55, 3 October 2002 and; Müller v. Germany , no. 54963/08, §§ 50-55, 27 March 2014)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention on account of the adverse effects of his classification as a “terrorism offender” on his reputation and the prison regime applicable to him (see, Allen , cited above, § 94; Van der Ven v. the Netherlands , no. 50901/99, §§ 69-72, 4 February 2003; Taliadorou and Stylianou v. Cyprus , nos. 39627/05 and 39631/05, §   56, 16   October 2008; and, Danilevich v. Russia , no. 31469/08, § 51, 19   October 2021)?   The Government are invited to submit any relevant   case-law   concerning the legal basis for which a convict may be regarded as an “offender of terrorism”.