| Applicant name | ÇİFTÇİ |
| Applicant type | prisoner |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | TÜRKİYE |
| Application no. | 27553/19 |
| Date | 24/09/2024 |
| Judges | Jovan Ilievski, President, Diana Sârcu, Gediminas Sagatys |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | |
| Type of privacy | informational privacy |
| Keywords | |
| Facts of the case | he application concerns the monitoring and recording of the applicant’s meetings with his lawyer in prison and the monitoring of the documents exchanged between him and his lawyer, according to a legislative decree which had been adopted under the state of emergency declared in the aftermath of the attempted coup d’état on 15 July 2016. The application raises an issue under Article 8 of the Convention. |
| Analysis | The Court has already concluded that the interpretation and application by the domestic authorities of section 6(1) (d) of Decree no. 667 – given that the discretion enjoyed by the public prosecutors in imposing restrictions on detainees’ communication with their lawyers was not subject to any conditions, that the scope of that discretion and the manner of its exercise were not defined and that no other specific guarantees were provided in that regard – was liable to be arbitrary and incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness under Article 8 § 2. As to Article 15 of the Convention referred to by the Government in the context of the derogation deposed by the Government in relation to the emergency state declared in the aftermath of the attempted coup d’état on 15 July 2016, the Court considers that the absence of any safeguards against arbitrariness and abuse in section 6 (1) (d) of Emergency Legislative Decree no. 667 cannot be regarded as having been justified by the respondent State’s derogation of 21 July 2016 under Article 15 of the Convention. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 9,750 (nine thousand seven hundred fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; |
| Documents | Judgment |