Communicated on 25 May 2020 Published on 15 June 2020

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 29055/19 Ömer BOZOĞLU against Turkey and 6 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

All the applications concern the applicants ’ right to respect for their correspondence under Article 8 of the Convention.

In this regard, all the applicants complain of a blanket ban on sending and receiving letters and faxes while they were detainees. This ban was imposed by different public prosecutors, for the duration of the state of emergency, on detainees suspected of being members of the FETÖ/PDY (“ Gülenist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”). Three applicants (applications nos. 29067/19, 44539/19 and 45991/19) also complain of the ban of their right to correspondence with their lawyers.

The applicants filed a petition against the ban imposed by the public prosecutors before the relevant judicial authorities without success. They subsequently applied to the Constitutional Court which rejected their petitions on the grounds that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies. In most of the cases, the Constitutional Court specifically mentioned the remedy provided for by Article 141/3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (entitled “ compensation claims ”).

The application no. 37557/19 also concerns the applicant ’ s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention. The applicant complains of the non-communication of the public prosecutors ’ written opinions during the proceedings before the enforcement judge and the assize court.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

As regards all applications

1. Have the applicants exhausted domestic remedies? In this regard, was the compensation remedy provided by Article 141/3 of the Criminal Code of Procedure considered an effective remedy for the applicants ’ complaints? If so, the Government are invited to provide copies of decisions granting compensation in cases raising similar issues.

2. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their 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, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom , 25 March 1983, § 85-105, Series A no. 61)?

Would it have been possible to achieve the aim sought by any other means?

As regards applications nos. 29067/19, 44539/19 and 45991/19

3. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to respect for their correspondence with their lawyers, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Campbell v. the United Kingdom , 25 March 1992, §§ 32-64, Series A no. 233)?

In particular, did the contested blanket ban also concern the applicants ’ right to correspondence with their lawyers? If so, can that interference be considered to have been in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

As regards application no. 37557/19

4. Did the applicant have an opportunity to present his opinion before the enforcement judge and assize court and were the written opinions of the public prosecutors communicated to the applicant? If not, has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right to adversarial proceedings on account of the non-communication of these opinions and the lack of opportunity to submit his observations (see Günana and others v. Turkey , no. 70934/10 and 4 others, §§ 82-85, 20 November 2018)?

5. In this regard, did the non-communication of the public prosecutors ’ opinions amount to “a significant disadvantage” within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Günana and others cited above §§ 78-81, Kılıç and Others v. Turkey ( dec. ) , no. 33162/10, §§ 19-32, 3 December 2013 and Çançar v. Turkey ( dec. ), no. 45027/05, §§ 15-17, 28 June 2016)?

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of Birth

Place of Residence

Nationality

1

29055/19

BozoÄŸlu v. Turkey

14/05/2019

Ömer BOZOĞLU

1980Ä°zmir

Turkish

2

29067/19

Sel v. Turkey

06/05/2019

Mehmet SEL

1976Ä°stanbul

Turkish

3

37557/19

UÄŸur v. Turkey

16/05/2019

Mustafa UÄžUR

1978Bursa

Turkish

4

41443/19

Efe v. Turkey

21/06/2019

Yavuz EFE

1983Zonguldak

Turkish

5

44536/19

AydoÄŸmuÅŸ v. Turkey

06/08/2019

Tahir AYDOÄžMUÅž

1981Istanbul

Turkish

6

44539/19

Örer v. Turkey

05/08/2019

Vedat ÖRER

1973Manisa

Turkish

7

45991/19

Çapa v. Turkey

05/08/2019

Ömer ÇAPA

1980Edirne

Turkish