CEDH, ÖZTÜRK c. TÜRKIYE, 6 septembre 2024, 53461/21

CEDH, Affaire communiquée 6 septembre 2024

Arguments

Le contenu a été généré à l’aide de l’intelligence artificielle. Pensez à vérifier son exactitude.

Signaler une erreur.

Accepté
Interférence avec le droit au respect de la vie privée
La cour a estimé que la présence d'un agent de l'État et l'enregistrement des conversations entre le requérant et son avocat constituent une ingérence dans le droit au respect de la vie privée, qui n'était pas justifiée par des raisons légales suffisantes.
Accepté
Absence de recours effectif
La cour a jugé que le requérant n'avait pas bénéficié d'un recours effectif pour ses plaintes, ce qui constitue une violation de l'article 13 de la Convention.

Commentaire • 0

Augmentez la visibilité de votre blog juridique : vos commentaires d’arrêts peuvent très simplement apparaitre sur toutes les décisions concernées.

Sur la décision

Référence :	CEDH, 6 sept. 2024, n° 53461/21
Numéro(s) :	53461/21
Type de document :	Affaire communiquée
Niveau d’importance :	Importance faible
Opinion(s) séparée(s) :	Non
Conclusion :	Affaire communiquée
Identifiant HUDOC :	001-236124
Télécharger le PDF original fourni par la juridiction

Texte intégral

Published on 23 September 2024

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 53461/21
Selim ÖZTÜRK
against Türkiye
lodged on 6 October 2021
communicated on 6 September 2024

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the right of the applicant, who was detained at the time of the events, to confidential communication with his lawyers.

Relying on Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that his meetings and interviews with his lawyers were arbitrarily monitored by a guard who was present and listened to them and/or were subject to audio and video recordings.

Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant also complains of the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect, as he has not received any response from the domestic courts to his complaints since 23 December 2017, but the Turkish Constitutional Court nonetheless dismissed his individual application for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the presence of an officer during the applicant’s consultations with his lawyer and/or the recording of their conversations?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (Canavcı and Others v. Türkiye, nos. 24074/19 and 2 others, §§ 91 and 93-96, 14 November 2023)?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (compare, for example, Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 109-110, 2 July 2019, and Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, § 99, 26 July 2011)?