Published on 29 September 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 47370/21
Ali Baz KÖSMENE
against Türkiye
lodged on 10 December 2020
communicated on 11 September 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the decision of the prison authorities to prohibit visits and telephone calls at weekends. In their decision, the authorities relied on considerations of institutional security and order, the high number of inmates and the insufficient number of prison staff.
Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant, who was detained in Osmaniye T-Type Prison at the relevant time, mainly complains of his inability to maintain contact with his school-age children on account of the said prohibition.
Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant also complains about the non‑communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion during the procedure before the Assize Court and about the lack of an opportunity to present his opinion before the Assize Court.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life and correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the impugned restrictions on weekend visits and telephone calls (see Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, §§ 77-79 and 105, 6 December 2022)?
If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic authorities make a concrete assessment of the applicant’s needs and engage with his complaints in accordance with the guarantees inherent in Article 8 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 80‑93 and 106‑09)?
2. Did the applicant have an opportunity to present his opinion before the Osmaniye 1st Assize Court and was the written opinion of the public prosecutor communicated to the applicant? If not, has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to adversarial proceedings on account of the non‑communication of this opinion and the lack of opportunity to submit his observations (see Günana and Others v. Turkey, no. 70934/10 and 4 others, §§ 82‑85, 20 November 2018)?
In this regard, did the applicant suffer “a significant disadvantage” within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention as a result of the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion (see Günana and Others, cited above, §§ 78-81; Çançar v. Turkey (dec.), no. 45027/05, §§ 15-17, 28 June 2016; and Kılıç and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 33162/10, §§ 19-32, 3 December 2013)?