Published on 22 June 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 19411/19
Enver EVREN
against Türkiye
lodged on 26 March 2019
communicated on 1 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the monitoring of the applicant’s letters by the prison authorities.
At the time of the events, the applicant was detained in Tekirdağ Closed Prison, awaiting trial on terrorism-related charges in connection with the attempted coup of 15 July 2016.
On 5 June 2018 he filed a petition with the Tekirdağ enforcement judge, complaining that his letters to and from private persons and public institutions had been opened and read by the prison authorities. In his petition, he also stated that a letter he had sent to the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, containing his further submissions regarding a pending application he had formerly introduced before the Court, had also been opened.
On 26 June 2018 the enforcement judge dismissed his complaint in accordance with Section 68 of Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Preventive Measures, which stipulates that letters sent or received by prisoners shall be monitored by a reading committee.
On 13 August 2018 the Tekirdağ Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s objection to that decision.
On 27 August 2018 the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, complaining about the opening of his letters by the prison authorities and the alleged lack of reasonings of the judicial authorities’ decisions, referring to Articles 8 and 6 of the Convention, respectively.
On 19 December 2018 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s both complaints inadmissible for being manifestly ill founded in a summary decision.
The applicant complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, about the prison authorities’ opening and reading of his letters to and/or from private persons, public institutions, and the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, and, invoking Article 6 of the Convention, about the domestic courts’ decisions being insufficiently reasoned.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the monitoring of his letters to and/or from private persons, public institutions, and the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights?
If so, can that interference be considered to have been in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2, in the light of the Court’s case‑law (see, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 197-202, 22 May 2012; A.V. v. Switzerland, no. 37639/19, §§ 30-40, 6 November 2025; Valašinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 128-30, 24 July 2001; and Campbell v. the United Kingdom, no. 13590/88, 25 March 1992, §§ 55-64, Series A no. 233)?