| Applicant name | DAĞLI and others |
| Applicant type | natural person (prisoner) |
| Number of applicants | 46 |
| Country | Turkey |
| Application no. | 25820/18, 55274/18, 57124/18, 35844/19 40356/19, 45443/19, 46239/19, 51515/19 55576/19, 58736/19, 60798/19, 5477/20 7338/20, 11415/20, 11680/20, 13444/20 16161/20, 16251/20, 16400/20, 17517/20 23099/20, 25647/20, 26644/20, 26816/20 27574/20, 27615/20, 27807/20, 28760/20 29794/20, 31598/20, 31807/20, 32738/20 32741/20, 33531/20, 33543/20, 33892/20 34287/20, 34975/20, 37284/20, 38276/20 38331/20, 39520/20, 40268/20, 41709/20 42387/20, 42535/20, 44936/20, 45152/20 45960/20, 46330/20, 48839/20, 49312/20 49318/20, 50673/20, 50677/20, 50683/20 50782/20, 51845/20, 52000/20, 52025/20 52068/20, 53141/20, 53667/20, 54838/20 55063/20, 55191/20, 1529/21, 6303/21 10205/21, 12234/21, 12253/21, 12263/21 12987/21, 14599/21, 15781/21, 19118/21 21888/21, 21933/21, 21941/21, 24918/21 24953/21, 25163/21, 28926/21, 36212/21 36407/21, 37082/21, 39143/21, 47685/21 48270/21, 12172/22 |
| Date | 26/09/2023 |
| Judges | Egidijus Kūris, président, Pauliine Koskelo, Frédéric Krenc |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | No legal basis |
| Type of privacy | Informational privacy |
| Keywords | Surveillance; chilling effect |
| Facts of the case | During their detention, the applicants applied to the competent judicial authorities (execution judge and assize court) to request an end to the practice of systematically recording their correspondence, but the domestic courts refused. |
| Analysis | As to the question of whether there has been an interference, the Court finds that the applicants belonged to the group that was at risk of having its correspondence monitored. Interestingly, the Court also notes the potential chilling effect, namely that applicants would limit their correspondence because they know they were at risk of having their communication monitored. The fact that the correspondence was subsequently deleted did not mean that the applicants were no longer a victim. The Court also rejects the de minimis defence by the government, given that the applicants’ correspondence could contain personal information relevant to of the protection of their private lives and that this correspondence could be stored for a considerable period of time. Refering to previous jdugment, the Court finds a violation on the prescribed by law criterion, rejecting the defence under Article 15 ECHR. |
| Other Article violation? | No |
| Damage awarded | that the respondent State must pay, within three months, 500 EUR (five hundred euros) to each of the applicants listed in list B in the annex, 5 EUR (five euros) to each of the applicants Mustafa Özkan and Mehmet Polat ( applications nos. 55274/18 and 58736/19), 30 EUR (thirty euros) to Enes Yılmaz (application no. 19118/21), 50 EUR (fifty euros) to Erdinç Zincirkıran (application no. 27574/20), and 25 EUR (twenty ‑five euros) to İdris Biçici (application no. 45152/20), plus any amount that may be due on these sums by way of tax, for costs and expenses, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable to the date of settlement; |
| Documents | Judgment |