Published on 19 July 202 1

SECOND SECTION

Applications nos. 24514/19 and 55569/19 Ruhi HALLAÇOĞLU against Turkey and Mehmet DEM İ R against Turkey lodged on 8 January 2019 and 30 September 2019 respectively c ommunicated on 30 June 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern the right of the applicants, who were detained at the time of the events, to confidential communication with their lawyers. The applicants alleged that documents they were exchanging or examining with their lawyers during their meetings were controlled by the prison officers pursuant to Article 6 (1) (d) of Emergency Legislative Decree No. 667, which entered into force on 23 July 2016. This article provided inter alia that, in certain circumstances, officers may be made present, during the interviews between the detainee and his/her lawyer with a view to monitoring the interview, documents or document templates and files given by the detainee to his/her lawyer.

Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, one applicant (application no. 24514/19) allege s a violation of his right to private life and correspondence and claims that the above-mentioned practice continued after the state of emergency in Turkey was lifted. The other applicant (application no. 55569/19) alleges that the monitoring of his documents before and after the visit of his lawyer constitutes a violation of his right to privacy. He refers to Article 4 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for confidential communication with their lawyers, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see Altay v. Turkey (No. 2 ), no. 11236/09, § 57, 9 April 2019)?

2. If so, under the circumstances of the state of emergency, was that interference proportionate and necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?

As regards application no. 24514/19

3. Does that interference continues after the lifting of the state of emergency? If so, what is the legal basis for the restrictions of the confidentiality of the applicant ’ s meetings with his lawyer and is that interference necessary and proportionate in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 8 § 2?