Published on 27 April 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 48125/20
Talha ALTINTOP
against Türkiye
lodged on 29 September 2020
communicated on 7 April 2026
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 wife, who was a teacher, during the weekends.
At the time of the events, the applicant was detained awaiting trial on account of terrorism-related offences in connection with the attempted coup of 15 July 2016.
On 25 December 2019 the applicant brought proceedings before the enforcement judge, requesting an order for the prison administration to allow him to receive weekend visits. He argued that it was very difficult for his wife, who had to attend school as a teacher, to visit him during weekdays.
On 14 February 2020 the enforcement judge dismissed the applicant’s request, finding the decision of the prison administration to be in accordance with the law and the security needs of the prison.
On 28 February 2020 the Assize Court rejected the applicant’s objection to the enforcement judge’s decision.
On 16 September 2020 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaints under Article 8 of the Convention inadmissible, relying on its case‑law in Orhan Alagöz, which concerned restrictions on weekend visits by school‑age children (see, for further information regarding the Orhan Alagöz case, Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, § 41, 6 December 2022).
Invoking Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant alleges a breach of his right to respect for his private and family life and correspondence by the refusal to allow him to receive weekend visits from his wife and complains of the domestic courts’ insufficient reasoning of their decisions in that regard.
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)?