Published on 3 August 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 26933/19
Resul DARAMA
against Türkiye
lodged on 30 April 2019
communicated on 30 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s inability to receive visits from his sister‑in‑law, who was caring for his children during a period in which both the applicant and his wife were detained.
The applicant and his wife had been detained respectively since 8 August 2016 and 7 December 2016, both with the charges related with of FETÖ/PDY (“Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation / Parallel State Structure”). The couple has two children aged seven and fourteen.
On 26 February 2018 the applicant submitted a petition, through the administration of Tekirdağ T-type Prison (“prison administration”), to the public prosecutor’s office, requesting permission to receive visits from his sister‑in‑law. He stated that, since the date of his wife’s detention, his children had been staying at the home of his brother and sister-in-law in Manisa province, and that his sister-in-law had been taking care of his children. Furthermore, due to his brother’s working hours, it was his sister-in-law who brought the children to visit him in prison. Accordingly, he wished to communicate with her regarding his children’s upbringing, including their personal development, education, and psychological well-being, particularly in light of the impact of both parents’ detention and issues related to adolescence.
On 6 March 2018 the prison administration rejected the applicant’s request on the basis of section 6 § 1 (e) of Emergency Decree no. 667.
On 28 March 2018 the enforcement judge dismissed the applicant’s objection to the prison authorities’ decision. The enforcement judge stated in the decision that the applicant’s initial petition had, in fact, been addressed to the public prosecutor’s office rather than to the prison authorities. Accordingly, the petition was forwarded to the public prosecutor’s office.
On 9 April 2018 the public prosecutor’s office rejected the applicant’s request on the ground that it was not within its authority to decide on visits in prisons.
The applicant objected to the public prosecutor’s decision, arguing that, after enumerating the persons permitted to visit detainees charged with terrorism-related offences and offences against the security of the state, section 6 § 1 (e) of Emergency Decree No. 667 stated that these restrictions were without prejudice to the powers of public prosecutors.
On 9 May 2018 the enforcement judge rejected the applicant’s objection to the public prosecutor’s decision, finding it to be in accordance with the law and procedural requirements.
On 7 June 2018, the assize court upheld the enforcement judge’s decision.
On 7 November 2018 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaints under Article 8 of the Convention inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.
Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains about his inability to receive visits from his sister-in-law, who was caring for his children during the period in which both he and his wife were detained.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, due to his inability to receive visits from his sister-in-law, who was caring for his children during the period in which both he and his wife were detained?
If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, did the national authorities take all the measures that could reasonably be expected of them in order to strike a fair balance between the competing interests at stake in the present case (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 106, 110 and 116-19, ECHR 2015; Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, § 108, 6 December 2022; and Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 141, 28 November 2002)?