ALTINTOP A OSTATNÍ proti Turecku

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF ALTINTOP AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

(Applications nos. 39386/20 and 28 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

20 January 2026

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Altıntop and Others v. Türkiye,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Péter Paczolay, President,
Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,
Hugh Mercer, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the individuals listed in Appendix I (“the applicants”) on the various dates indicated therein;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the prison authorities’ restriction on visits and/or telephone calls at weekends, under Article 8 of the Convention in respect of all applicants and the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the registration and storage of private correspondence in the National Judicial Network System in respect of application no. 7331/21 to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr Abdullah Aydın, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 16 December 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The applications mainly concern the decisions of prison authorities to restrict visits and/or telephone calls at weekends. All applicants complained that they had been unable to maintain contact with their school-age children on account of the above-mentioned restriction. In application no. 7331/21, the applicant further complained that his private correspondence had been registered and stored in UYAP (Ulusal Yargı Ağı Bilişim Sistemi – the National Judicial Network System).

1. facts common to all applicants regarding the complaint concerning the restrictions on visits and/or telephone calls at weekends

2. At the time of the events giving rise to the present applications, the applicants were detained in various prisons either awaiting trial or decisions on appeal, or because of their conviction for terrorism-related offences in connection with the attempted coup of 15 July 2016.

3. The applicants brought individual proceedings on various dates before the respective enforcement judges complaining about the decisions of the relevant prisons’ administration and observation boards (“the prison administration”) to restrict visits and/or telephone calls with their children at weekends. The enforcement judges rejected their complaints, endorsing the reasons given by the prison administrations such as security concerns, insufficient staff, and the capacity of the prison to accommodate visits at weekends, and noting that the legal framework provided that visits could take place only during ordinary working hours. The applicants’ objections to the decisions of the enforcement judges were dismissed by the respective assize courts.

4. The applicants subsequently lodged individual applications before the Constitutional Court, complaining of the restrictions on visits and/or telephone calls at weekends. On various dates, the Constitutional Court dismissed their individual applications as manifestly ill-founded on the grounds that there was no interference with, or violation of, fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

2. additional facts specific to applicaTION NO. 7331/21

5. In addition to his complaints regarding the weekend visits, on 3 February 2020 the applicant in application no. 7331/21 submitted complaints to the enforcement judge about the systematic registration of his private correspondence, both outgoing and incoming, in the UYAP system (for the UYAP system, see Nuh Uzun and Others v. Turkey, nos. 49341/18 and 13 others, § 11, 29 March 2022). The enforcement judge and subsequently the assize court rejected the applicant’s complaints. On 27 October 2020 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaints concerning the registration of his correspondence inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on the grounds that there was no interference with, or violation of, fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF rESTRICTIONS ON WEEKEND VISITS and/or telephone calls

7. All of the applicants complained that their right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention had been violated owing to the decisions of the national authorities to restrict their visiting rights and/or telephone calls with their children at weekends.

1. Admissibility
   1. No significant disadvantage and victim status

(a) Objection regarding all of the applications

8. With regard to all applicants, the Government contended that they had not suffered a significant disadvantage on the grounds that they had still had the opportunity to receive weekday visits from their children and had not been deprived of other means of communicating with them, such as through telephone calls or correspondence. They further submitted that the situation was of a temporary nature as the applicants had been unable to see their school - age children at weekends because of prison capacity and personnel numbers and for reasons of security.

9. The Court notes that similar objections have already been dismissed in Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye (nos. 3468/20 and 18 others, §§ 61-63, 6 December 2022). It sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present cases. These objections must, accordingly, be dismissed.

(b) Objection regarding 23 applications

10. The Government further contended in respect of applications nos. 39386/20, 45125/20, 50078/20, 50233/20, 51478/20, 52064/20, 52247/20, 55566/20, 95/21, 186/21, 271/21, 7205/21, 7331/21, 8960/21, 24468/21, 25612/21, 32259/21, 33568/21, 39857/21, 45638/21, 11855/22, 20170/22 and 25697/23 that the applicants concerned had not suffered a significant disadvantage, and challenged their victim status given that schools in the country had been closed several times after the COVID-19 pandemic had broken out and their children had therefore not had to attend school on those days. According to information submitted by the Government, during the 2019/20 academic year, pre-schools (okul öncesi eğitim) were closed for 49 days, elementary schools (ilköğretim) for 98 days, and secondary schools (alt ortaöğretim) and high schools (üst ortaöğretim) for 113 days. During the 2020/21 academic year, pre-schools were closed for nine days, elementary schools and secondary schools for 24 days, and high schools for 38 days.

11. In response to the Government’s objections, some of the applicants stated that they were detained for long periods, in most cases for several years. They argued that having regard to their overall detention periods, they had suffered a significant disadvantage. They further claimed that they had maintained their victim status as the school closure dates corresponded only to a limited part of their detention periods.

12. The Court observes that the Government submitted these preliminary objections by providing general information regarding the COVID - 19 measures in the country. They did not provide any case-specific information in respect of the periods during which each applicant had not been able to see his children at weekends that did not correspond to the school closure dates. In this connection, the Court takes note of the applicants’ argument that the school closure dates only constituted a limited part of their total detention periods.

13. The Court also notes that the school closure dates due to the pandemic were not considered in the domestic courts’ decisions in respect of the applicants’ complaints about the restrictions on weekend visits and/or telephone calls. In any case, the Court notes that even if in-class lessons in schools were suspended, the children were still obliged to join remote lessons which could have required them to stay at home on weekdays.

14. In view of the above, the Court considers that these objections must also be dismissed.

(c) Objection regarding applications nos. 322/21, 3178/21, 21890/21 and 30846/21

15. The Government contended in respect of applications nos. 322/21, 3178/21, 21890/21and 30846/21, that the applicants concerned had not suffered a significant disadvantage, and challenged their victim status, given that there had been some weekends on which the applicants had been able to meet with their children. In the case of the applicant in application no. 21890/21, the applicant had been able to receive four visits from his school - age children at weekends, after the enforcement judge set aside a decision of the prison administration refusing his requests for weekend visits. In the cases of the other three applicants, the applicants had been able to receive between two and five visits, respectively, from their children following decisions of the relevant prison administrations that allowed weekend visits once a month.

16. The applicants responded to the Government’s submissions stating that they were detained in prison for long periods of time, of approximately two to five years. Accordingly, even if visits from their children had been permitted for a few weekends, considering the remaining detention periods during which visits were not permitted, they suffered significant disadvantage and retained their victim status.

17. The Court notes that similar objections have already been dismissed in Subaşı and Others (cited above, §§ 67-68). In accordance with the Court’s considerations therein, the Government’s objections in respect of the above-mentioned applicants must also be dismissed.

(d) Objection regarding application no. 14491/21

18. Lastly, as regards application no. 14491/21, the Government challenged the victim status of the applicant and alleged that he had not suffered a significant disadvantage given that he had not made any requests regarding weekend visits to the prison administration of Sincan L - Type prison, where he was temporarily transferred from Manisa T-Type prison to facilitate his attendance at his hearings between 25 January and 13 July 2019.

19. The applicant did not provide any explanation in response to this objection.

20. The Court observes that the applicant was detained in Manisa T - Type prison between 27 November 2018 and 28 May 2022, and that he was taken to Sincan L-Type prison on a temporary basis, only for a few months during the period of his hearings. Considering that the applicant brings his complaints in any case in respect of his weekend visiting rights in Manisa T-Type prison, the Court dismisses the Government’s objections.

2. Non-compliance with the six-month rule

(a) Objection regarding application no. 39857/21

21. The Government invited the Court to declare application no. 39857/21 inadmissible because of its non-compliance with the six-month rule. They submitted that the Constitutional Court’s decision, as the final domestic decision, was notified to the applicant on 27 January 2021, which was more than six months before the applicant lodged his application with the Court on 28 July 2021.

22. The applicant contested the Government’s claims regarding the date on which he was notified of the Constitutional Court’s decision. He submitted that the Constitutional Court’s decision was dated 29 January 2021, proving that it could not have been notified to him before that date.

23. The Court observes that the decision of the Constitutional Court in question was indeed dated 29 January 2021. The Court further notes that the applicant stated in his application form that 27 January 2021 was the date on which he was notified of the Constitutional Court’s decision on his request for an interim measure, not the date on which he was notified of the Constitutional Court’s decision concerning his individual application.

24. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this objection.

(b) Objection regarding application no. 3178/21

25. The Government contended in respect of application no. 3178/21 that the applicant was notified of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 25 February 2020 on 28 February 2020, whereas the date his application was lodged with the Court was 8 December 2020, which exceeded the six-month time-limit.

26. The applicant argued that he had submitted more than one individual application to the Constitutional Court and that the decision of 25 February 2020, which was referred to by the Government, was not related to the present application. He argued that he had lodged his application with the Court following a decision of the Constitutional Court of 22 July 2020 concerning the individual application which related to the present application before the Court. Accordingly, even assuming that the six-month period had started to run as of 22 July 2020, his application had been submitted within the period allowed.

27. After examining the documents submitted by the applicant with the application form, the Court accepts that the applicant lodged his application contesting the Constitutional Court’s decision of 22 July 2020, which is the relevant decision with respect to the present application. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection in this regard.

3. Conclusion

28. The Court considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds in respect of all applications. It must therefore be declared admissible in respect of these applications.

2. Merits

29. The Court notes that in the leading case of Subaşı and Others (cited above, §§ 77-93 and 105-09), it examined the similar complaints of a group of prisoners who were denied permission to receive visits from their school ‑ age children and to make telephone calls at weekends. In that case, the Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention as the impugned restrictions affecting the applicants were taken solely on the basis of the capacity of the prisons and without taking into account the prisoners’ right to respect for their family life and their relationships with their children (ibid., § 90) and as the domestic courts reviewing those restrictions failed to make a Convention-compliant assessment (ibid., § 91). It concluded that the domestic legal framework as applied in that case did not provide the applicants with sufficient protection against arbitrary interference with their right to respect for family life, as required by the Convention (ibid., § 93) and was thus not necessary in a democratic society.

30. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the merits of the present complaints (see for similar conclusions, Kaçır and Others v. Türkiye [Committee], nos. 9587/19 and 36 others, § 59, 10 June 2025). There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF THE registration and storage of private correspondence

31. The applicant in application no. 7331/21 further complained that the registration and storage of his private correspondence on the UYAP system had infringed his right to respect for private life and correspondence under Article 8 of the Convention.

1. Admissibility

32. The Government invited the Court to declare this complaint inadmissible for the reasons they had raised in Nuh Uzun and Others v. Turkey (nos. 49341/18 and 13 others, § 29-34, 29 March 2022); Dağlı and Others v. Turkey ([Committee], nos. 25820/18 and 89 others, §§ 7‑8, 26 September 2023); and Kaçır and Others (cited above, § 63).

33. The Court reiterates that it has already dismissed identical objections (see Nuh Uzun and Others, cited above, §§ 40-44 and 82; Dağlı and Others, cited above, §§ 10-13; and Kaçır and Others, cited above, § 63). The Court sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present application and therefore considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

34. As regards the merits, the Court notes that it examined a similar complaint in the leading case of Nuh Uzun and Others (cited above, §§ 79‑99) and found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, as the impugned interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives and their correspondence by the registration and storage on the UYAP system of correspondence sent and received by them could not be regarded as having been “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.

35. The Court sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present application. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

36. All applicants requested compensation ranging from 1,500 euros (EUR) to EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, within the time - limit allowed by the Court. Some of the applicants also claimed compensation in respect of pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses. In respect of costs and expenses, the applicant in application no. 39386/20 claimed a total of EUR 4,865.39 in respect of legal costs and expenses, submitting a contract signed with his representative; the applicants in applications nos. 45125/20 and 50078/20 claimed EUR 2,118 in respect of the work carried out by their representatives, submitting a contract, and EUR 3,520 for translations, submitting a contract; the applicant in application no. 51478/20 claimed EUR 580 in respect of the work carried out by his representative, submitting a contract; the applicants in applications nos. 52064/20, 7205/21 and 14491/21 claimed EUR 1,000 in respect of the work carried out by their representatives, submitting a contract; the applicant in application no. 52247/20 claimed EUR 2,200 in respect of the work carried out by his representative, submitting a contract; the applicants in applications nos. 55566/20 and 33568/21 claimed EUR 500 in respect of the work carried out by their representatives, submitting a contract; and the applicant in application no. 322/21 claimed EUR 6,000 in respect of the work carried out by his representative, submitting a contract. The remaining applicants either made no claims for costs and expenses or have not submitted any relevant supporting documents.

37. The Court rejects any claims for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage as it does not discern a causal link between the violations found and the pecuniary damage alleged (compare also Subaşı and Others, cited above, § 135).

38. As regards compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awards each applicant EUR 1,500 under that head (compare Subaşı and Others, cited above, § 135, and Kaçır and Others, cited above, § 70), plus any tax that may be chargeable.

39. Regarding the applicants’ claims for costs and expenses, in accordance with the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the amount of legal work necessary, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 500 to the applicants in applications nos. 39386/20, 45125/20, 50078/20, 51478/20, 52064/20, 52247/20, 55566/20, 322/21, 7205/21, 14491/21 and 33568/21, plus any tax that may be chargeable to these applicants (compare Subaşı and Others, cited above, § 148). As regards the remaining applicants who either made no claims for costs and expenses or have not submitted any relevant supporting documents, the Court does not award them any sum under this head.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares all applications admissible in respect of the complaints submitted under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the restrictions on visits and telephone calls at weekends and application no. 7331/21 also admissible in respect of the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the registration and storage of private correspondence on the UYAP system;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in all applications on account of the restrictions on visits and telephone calls at weekends;
4. Holds that there has also been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in application no. 7331/21 on account of the registration and storage of private correspondence on the UYAP system;
5. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i) EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to all of the applicants;

(ii) EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses to the applicants in applications nos. 39386/20, 45125/20, 50078/20, 51478/20, 52064/20, 52247/20, 55566/20, 322/21, 7205/21, 14491/21 and 33568/21;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 January 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Dorothee von Arnim Péter Paczolay
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases: