Published on 26 April 202 1

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 9389/19 Emrah UYGUN against Turkey lodged on 7 February 2019 communicated on 7 April 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is convicted at first instance of the offence of membership to an armed terrorist organisation and detained in prison pending appeal proceedings. The application concerns the withholding of a letter addressed by him, to his fiancée, by the prison administration on the grounds that the applicant was keeping his engagement with the terrorist organisation and continued to play an active role. The applicant ’ s objection to that decision before the Muğla Enforcement Court and Muğla Assize Court was dismissed on 26 June 2018 and 16 July 2018, respectively, without any reasons.

On 13 November 2018 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant ’ s individual application manifestly ill-founded in a short-form decision.

Relying on Articles 6 § 2 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains about an alleged lack of respect for his presumption of innocence on account of the wording of the impugned decision upheld by the courts and about an unjustified interference with his right to respect for correspondence.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Is Article 6 § 2 applicable to the impugned proceedings? If so, having regard to the fact that the applicant ’ s conviction at first-instance of the offence of membership of an armed terrorist organisation was not final and pending appeal proceedings at the time of the events, has there been a violation of that provision on account of the decision of the prison authorities deeming the applicable an active member of the terrorist organisation in question (see, for example, Konstas v. Greece , no. 53466/07, § 36, 24 May 2011 and Kemal Coşkun v. Turkey , no. 45028/07, § 44, 28 March 2017)?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see, for example, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, §§ 85-105 and Mehmet Nuri Özen v. Turkey , no. 37619/05, §§ 17-18, 2 February 2010)?