Published on 3 August 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 4071/21
Selin Zehra BOZKURT
against Türkiye
lodged on 31 December 2020
communicated on 29 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the questioning by two police officers of a six‑year-old child (the applicant) at her school, in the context of a criminal investigation concerning her father.
According to the applicant’s submissions, on 7 December 2018, two police officers in civilian clothes went to the school of the applicant, who was then in the first grade. Her mother, G.B., worked as a teacher at the same school.
The police officers requested address information relating to the teachers from the school administration, including that of G.B. On the same day, they entered the applicant’s classroom and asked her and her classmates questions regarding their names and surnames, their parents’ names, and whether they came to school by school bus or with their parents.
On 8 December 2018 the police officers arrested the applicant’s father at his home on terrorism-related charges. The applicant realised that the police officers carrying out the arrest were the same persons who had come to her classroom the previous day and asked questions about her family.
On 8 February 2019 the applicant’s father filed a criminal complaint on behalf of the applicant, arguing that the police officers had asked questions to her at school in a manner that had caused her fear and psychological trauma.
On 25 February 2019 the public prosecutor issued a decision of non‑prosecution.
On 28 March 2019, ruling on the applicant’s opposition to the decision of non‑prosecution, the magistrate’s court ordered the prosecution to resume the investigation on the grounds that only one of the police officers had been heard and that the statement of the second officer was also required. On 4 April 2019 the public prosecutor took the statement of the second police officer and resubmitted the investigation file to the magistrate’s court. During these proceedings, the prosecutor focused on the allegations concerning the applicant’s father, without making a separate assessment of the allegations specifically concerning the applicant.
On 24 April 2019 the magistrate’s court upheld the decision of non‑prosecution.
On 23 May 2019 the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, raising complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.
On 2 July 2020 the Constitutional Court declared the complaints under Article 3 inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, and the complaints under Article 8 inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, without specifying which remedies had not been exhausted.
Relying on Article 3 and Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains about her questioning by the police officers at her school. She alleges that this questioning exposed her to emotional distress and psychological harm. Furthermore, she complains that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into her allegations concerning the police officers.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant complied with the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of her complaint about the police officers’ questioning of her at school (Vučković and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 69‑77, 25 March 2014)?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of her being questioned by two police officers at her school? In particular, did the treatment complained of entail adverse effects on the applicant’s psychological or moral integrity that were sufficient to raise an issue pertaining to her right to respect for private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see, for the general principles, Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 126, 25 June 2019, with further references; and F.O. v. Croatia, no. 29555/13, §§ 57-61, 22 April 2021)? If so, was the interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in a democratic society as required by Article 8 § 1 (see, generally, Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos. 47621/13 and 5 others, § 265, 8 April 2021)?
3. Did the State have a positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations? If so, was the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the police officers compatible with the procedural obligations inherent in Article 8 of the Convention (see Manukyan v. Armenia, no. 5778/17, §§ 65‑67, 13 November 2025; M.Ș.D. v. Romania, no. 28935/21, § 125, 3 December 2024; M.D. and Others v. Spain, no. 36584/17, § 58, 28 June 2022; F.O. v. Croatia, cited above, § 91; and H.M. v. Turkey, no. 34494/97, §§ 26-30, 8 August 2006)?