Communicated on 17 October 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 11236/09 Mehmet Aytunç ALTAY against Turkey lodged on 17 February 2006

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is a convict, who was serving life sentence in prison at the time of lodging the present application. The prison administration, after confiscating a book and three magazines sent to him by his lawyer, requested the Enforcement Judge of Edirne to place a restriction on his consultations with his lawyer on the grounds that the lawyer breached the rules of professional conduct by sending materials that are not relevant to his defence. The judge granted the prison administration ’ s request and held that an officer should be present during the applicant ’ s consultations with his lawyer. The applicant appealed against the decision, but the Assize Court of Edirne upheld the decision.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the manner in which the national courts decided to restrict his consultations with his lawyer were unfair. He argues that the national courts did not hold a hearing or allow him or his lawyer to present his opinions in reply to the prison administration ’ s request or to adduce counter evidence. He further claims that he was not given an opportunity to comment on the opinions of the prosecutor. The applicant also submits that the national courts did not adequately state the reasons why they found it necessary to impose a restriction on his consultations with his lawyer. Moreover, the applicant complains that this restriction violated his right to confidentiality with his lawyer and therefore was in breach of his right to respect for private life, as guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention.

QUESTION tO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 applicable to the impugned proceedings? If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular,

(a) Has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right to a public hearing within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of national courts rendering their decisions on the basis of the case file without holding a hearing (see, mutatis mutandis , Gülmez v. Turkey , no. 16330/02, §§ 37-39, 20 May 2008 )?

(b) Did the applicant have an opportunity to present his opinions on the prison administration ’ s request and were the opinions of the prosecutor 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 Göç v. Turkey [GC ], no. 36590/97, §§ 43-52, ECHR 2002 ‑ V, Meral v. Turkey , no. 33446/02, §§ 34-39, 27 November 2007) ?

(c) Did national courts adequately state the reasons as to why they found it necessary to impose a restriction on the applicant ’ s consultations with his lawyer? In that connection, how did the courts determine whether the transmission of the impugned materials to the applicant constitute any of the grounds stipulated in the applicable legislation for placing the applicant ’ s consultations with his lawyer under supervision?

2. Is Article 8 applicable in the present case? If so, has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention on account of the presence of an officer during the applicant ’ s consultations with his lawyer?