| Applicant name | NAMIK YÜKSEL |
| Applicant type | prisoner |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | TÜRKİYE |
| Application no. | 28791/10 |
| Date | 27/08/2024 |
| Judges | rnfinn Bårdsen, President, Jovan Ilievski, Pauliine Koskelo, Saadet Yüksel, Lorraine Schembri Orland, Davor Derenčinović, Gediminas Sagatys |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | no violation |
| Reason | Fair balance; adequate procedure |
| Type of privacy | Relational privacy; procedural privacy |
| Keywords | Contact child prisoner |
| Facts of the case | The application concerns the alleged breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life. The applicant, serving a prison sentence at the time of the events, complained that the national authorities had not allowed him to spend sufficient time with his four-year-old son staying with his wife in the same prison. The case raises issues under Article 8 of the Convention. |
| Analysis | As to the question of whether, in the present case, the national authorities struck a fair balance between the interests at stake, attaching particular importance to the best interests of the child, the Court takes note of the following points. It observes that, at the time of the events, both the applicant and his wife were serving prison sentences following their conviction to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation. The national authorities, in allowing a request by the applicant’s wife in this regard, placed her and their son in a section of the Gebze prison which was designated for prisoners convicted of ordinary offences rather than terrorism-related offences, even though the applicant’s wife had also been convicted of a terrorism-related offence. Furthermore, the Court notes that while he was in the Amasya Prison, the applicant requested to be transferred to the Gebze Prison, where his wife and son were, in order to maintain regular contact with them. Regarding the decision-making process, the Court finds it noteworthy that the members of the observation board included the prison’s doctor, teacher and psychologist, who were in the best position to assess the best interests of the child, as they were in direct contact with him and familiar with the conditions of the prison in question. The observation board of the prison administration, considering the relevant legislation and the fact that the child was staying in the women’s section of the prison with his mother, took measures to allow the applicant to spend time with his son every week and the whole family to reunite every month in non-contact visits. Subsequently, the applicant had also the possibility to file objections to the prison administration decision and to present his additional contact requests with his son before the enforcement judge and assize court against, which found appropriate the contact arrangements put in place by the observation board. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | – |
| Documents | Judgment |