Published on 21 July 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 54634/20
İsmail AYDIN against Türkiye
and 6 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 3 July 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applications mainly concern the applicants’ allegations of ill‑treatment due to strip searches conducted by the prison authorities. One of the applications (no. 54634/20) further concerns the monitoring of a meeting of the first applicant with his lawyer. Another application (no. 14762/21) also concerns the fourth applicant’s inability to have telephone calls with his school-age children at weekends.
At the time of the events, the applicants were detained in different prisons (see the appendix). The first, fourth and seventh applicants submit that they were subjected to systematic strip searches on their return to prison from the courthouse or after the weekly open visits. The second, third, fifth and sixth applicants claim that they were subjected to a strip search once, during their admission to a new prison following their transfer.
On various dates, the domestic courts rejected the applicants’ complaints concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the strip searches, the monitoring of the first applicant’s meeting with his lawyer, and the restriction on the fourth applicant’s ability to have weekend telephone calls with his children. The Constitutional Court found all the applicants’ individual applications inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded.
All the applicants allege that the prison authorities conducted strip searches without putting forward any legitimate purpose. In that regard, the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants rely on Article 3 of the Convention and the seventh applicant relies on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. The first, second, third, fourth, fifth and seventh applicants also invoke Articles 6 and/or 13 of the Convention, arguing that the investigations into their claims were not effective.
Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the first applicant further argues that his meeting with his lawyer was arbitrarily subjected to audio and video recordings, and the fourth applicant alleges that his right to respect for private and family life was violated on account of the prison authorities’ restriction on his ability to have telephone calls with his school-aged children at weekends.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the strip searches carried out by the prison authorities? In particular, have the authorities put forward any legitimate purpose for the applicants’ strip searches (see Frérot v. France, no. 70204/01, §§ 35-48, 12 June 2007, and Roth v. Germany, nos. 6780/18 and 30776/18, §§ 64-72, 22 October 2020)?
The Government are invited to provide information on the nature of the strip searches carried out by the prison authorities, as well as the number of such searches the applicants went through.
2. Alternatively, has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the strip searches carried out by the prison authorities? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Dejnek v. Poland, no. 9635/13, §§ 70-77, 1 June 2017)?
3. Has there been a violation of the first applicant’s right to respect for his private life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the monitoring and/or recording of his consultation with his lawyer (see Canavcı and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 24074/19 and two others, §§ 91‑109, 14 October 2023)?
4. Has the fourth applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, been infringed by the restrictions placed on his ability to have telephone calls with his school‑age children at weekends? Did the national authorities adopt all the measures that could reasonably be required of them to ensure that a fair balance was struck between the various interests at stake in the case (see Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, §§ 105-09, 6 December 2022)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Prison
1.
54634/20
Aydın v. Türkiye
20/11/2020
İsmail AYDIN
1980
Karabük
Turkish
Zonguldak M-Type Prison
2.
6297/21
Karahasanoğlu v. Türkiye
07/12/2020
Mehmet Yücel KARAHASANOĞLU
1973
Ankara
Turkish
Kars T-Type Prison
3.
14167/21
Taş v. Türkiye
26/02/2021
Ali TAŞ
1969
İzmir
Turkish
Eskişehir L‑Type Prison
4.
14762/21
Saracoğlu v. Türkiye
17/02/2021
Fatih SARACOĞLU
1978
Ankara
Turkish
Marmara* 7th L-Type Prison
5.
39596/21
Fındık v. Türkiye
30/06/2021
Dursun FINDIK
1985
Balıkesir
Turkish
Kars T-Type Prison
6.
6851/22
Anıt v. Türkiye
23/12/2021
Esabil ANIT
1977
Osmaniye
Turkish
Osmaniye 2nd T-Type Prison
7.
9789/23
Güney v. Türkiye
07/02/2023
Hami GÜNEY
1967
Istanbul
Turkish
Marmara* 8th L-Type Prison
* Formerly known as Silivri Prison.