Published on 2 March 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 35672/19
Osman KANDEMİR against Türkiye
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 12 February 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the alleged illegality of police searches conducted at the applicants’ houses and/or offices, as specified in the annexed table.
Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the searches conducted at their homes and/or offices were in breach of their right to respect for private life as they did not comply with legal requirements.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for home and/or private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the searches conducted in their houses and/or offices? In particular, were the searches carried out in accordance with the law in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Budak v. Turkey, no. 69762/12, §§ 51-59, 16 February 2021; Tercan v. Turkey, no. 6158/18, §§ 189-202, 29 June 2021)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
(ID Card)
Represented by
Relevant Legal Framework
Search and seizure measures, domestic remedies and specific complaints
1.
35672/19
Kandemir v. Türkiye
Osman KANDEMİR
1974
Denizli
Turkish
21670949222
Kadir ÖZTÜRK
Articles 116 et seq., 127 and 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The applicant is a judge. He complains that despite the issuance of a one-time search warrant, a second search of his house was conducted, alongside a body search; and certain items were seized.
2.
5164/20
Kavut v. Türkiye
Kemal KAVUT
1991
Çanakkale
Turkish
48943439846
Article 3 of Emergency Legislative Decree no. 668
The applicant is a lawyer. He complains that an unlawful search warrant was issued in disregard of his lawyer status, and a search was conducted in his office
3.
29256/20
Esad v. Türkiye
Muhammed Şadi ESAD
1975
Hatay
Syrian
99549055220
Nidal HÜZMELİ HADIMOĞLU
Articles 119 and 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The applicant complains that the search of his house had lacked a legal basis owing to the absence of two attesting witnesses, as required by Article 119 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4.
53578/20
Yılmaz v. Türkiye
Kutluhan YILMAZ
1976
Erzincan
Turkish
44233067324
Article 3 of Emergency Legislative Decree no. 668 and Articles 127, 128 and 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The applicant complains that a search and seizure warrant was issued solely on the grounds that the prosecutor deemed any delay detrimental, without considering the existence of strong suspicion based on concrete evidence or the lack of alternative means to obtain it. He further complains that numerous digital materials were seized without determining whether they belonged to the applicant; the bags were not sealed, and no imaging process was carried out.
5.
6310/21
Bulut v. Türkiye
Ömer BULUT
1986
Erzurum
Turkish
30277575994
Article 3 of Emergency Legislative Decree no. 668 and Articles 116, 117, 119, 127 and 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The applicant complains that the search commenced at 09:00, but the prosecutor did not issue the warrant until 09:45; there was no judicial authorization, nor was the matter submitted for judicial approval, thereby denying him the right to appeal; and the search was recorded on the personal phone of the police officers, and digital materials were seized.