Published on 17 July 2023

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 34955/20 Mehmet DEMIR against Türkiye lodged on 22 July 2020 communicated on 28 June 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the refusal of the domestic authorities to grant the applicant, who was detained at the time of the events, permission to receive visits from his school-age child at weekends.

It further concerns the refusal of the prison authorities to hand over to the applicant certain documents, consisting of photocopies and printouts of a judgment of the Court and other international legal materials, that were sent to him by his wife. The authorities mainly considered that the documents did not concern the applicant, that the source of the documents and the manner in which they had been obtained were unknown, and that some of the documents were in a foreign language and could only be handed over after translation at the applicant’s own expense and subsequent review.

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the restrictions on weekend visits. He also complains under Article 10 of the Convention about the prison authorities’ refusal to hand over the documents sent to him, claiming that he intended to use them for his defence in criminal proceedings against him.

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 impugned restriction on weekend visits (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)?

3. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive and impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the prison authorities’ refusal to hand over the documents in question to him (see, mutatis mutandis , Mehmet Çiftci v. Turkey , no. 53208/19, §§ 32 et seq., 16 November 2021)?

4. If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?

The parties are requested to provide information regarding the content of the documents in question and to indicate which of them were in a foreign language. The parties are further invited to provide information on the relevant domestic legal framework, the Turkish Constitutional Court’s case ‑ law, and the practices of prison authorities regarding prisoners’ access to written materials sent to them in a foreign language or in the form of a photocopy.