Published on 22 June 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 10901/24
Filiz MENTEŞ SIRÇA
against Türkiye
lodged on 4 April 2024
communicated on 1 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the searches conducted in the applicant’s house and office, as well as seizure of her property, in the aftermath of the attempted coup d’etat of 15 July 2016, while the applicant was serving as a judge.
Acting on the instructions of the Ankara public prosecutor’s office, the regional and provincial prosecutors’ offices initiated criminal investigations in respect of individuals suspected of being involved in the attempted coup and in respect of other individuals, such as the applicant in the present case, who were not directly involved in the attempt but were alleged to have links to the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation / Parallel State Structure” (Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması), which was considered by the authorities to be behind the coup attempt.
Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the searches conducted in her house and office claiming that they had been contrary to section 88 of Law no. 2802, which prohibits searches of judges’ houses or persons, except in cases of the discovery of an offence in flagrante delicto within the jurisdiction of the assize courts.
The applicant also complained that the seizure and retention of her mobile phone and pistol constituted a violation of her right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the searches conducted in her house and office? If so, was the interference in accordance with the law in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, were the searches carried out in accordance with the relevant legislation (see Tercan v. Turkey, no. 6158/18, §§ 196-202, 29 June 2021)?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on account of the seizure of her mobile phone and pistol? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?