CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 avril 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 27 April 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 14058/21 Cemalettin ÖZER against Türkiye lodged on 15 February 2021 communicated on 7 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the prison authorities to grant the applicant permission to receive visits from both of his children during weekends. At the material time, the applicant was serving a prison sentence. On 24 February 2020 the applicant submitted a petition to the prison administration requesting that his visiting days be scheduled on weekends instead of weekdays. He argued that one of his two daughters was of school ‑ age and was required to attend school on weekdays. On the same day, the prison administration decided that the applicant could receive visits from his school‑age daughter, accompanied by an adult, at weekends. On 6 March 2020 the applicant lodged an objection with the enforcement judge seeking the annulment of the prison administration’s decision on the grounds that it authorised visits only from his school-age daughter on weekends. He argued that convicted prisoners were entitled to receive visits once a week under the Regulation on Visits. Therefore, if he were visited by his school‑age daughter accompanied by an adult on the weekend, as permitted by the prison administration, he would be unable to receive a visit from his pre‑school‑age daughter during that week. He claimed that the decision disregarded the fact that he had two daughters. On 10 March 2020 the enforcement judge rejected the applicant’s objection finding the decision of the prison administration to be in accordance with the law. On 19 March 2020 the Assize Court rejected the applicant’s objection to the enforcement judge’s decision. On 4 September 2020 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaints under Article 8 of the Convention inadmissible, relying on its case ‑ law in the Orhan   Alagöz case, which concerned restrictions on weekend visits by school‑age children (see, for further information regarding the Orhan Alagöz case, Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye , nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, §   41, 6   December 2022). Invoking Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant alleges a breach of his right to respect for his private and family life and his correspondence on account of his inability to receive visits from both his school‑age daughter and his pre ‑ school ‑ age daughter at weekends. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the restriction on weekend visits from both of his children (see Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye , nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, §§   77-79, 6 December 2022)?   2.     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)?