Background
Gürkan Ekicikol was detained in İzmir T-Type Prison following a conviction for terrorism-related offences connected with the attempted coup of 15 July 2016. In September 2018, the prison adopted a general policy barring weekend visits, citing overcrowding, weekend staffing shortages and security concerns.
Ekicikol challenged the policy, arguing that it prevented meaningful contact with his two daughters. His older daughter had begun first grade in the 2018-19 school year and had to miss school to visit on weekdays. The domestic enforcement judge and assize court upheld the restriction, and the Constitutional Court rejected his individual application as manifestly ill-founded.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously held that the blanket restriction on weekend visits violated Article 8 of the Convention. It rejected the Government’s objections that Ekicikol had suffered no significant disadvantage because weekday visits and other forms of contact remained available, and found that his older daughter was already in compulsory formal education when the restriction was imposed.
Applying its earlier reasoning in Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye, the Court found that the restriction had been based solely on prison capacity considerations without adequate regard to the applicant’s family life and relationship with his children. The domestic courts had not carried out a Convention-compliant assessment, so the interference was not necessary in a democratic society. Although this case concerned a distinct earlier ban from a later restriction litigated in another application, the Court made no monetary award because Ekicikol had already received EUR 1,500 in that later case; the finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction here.
Key Takeaways
- A general prohibition on weekend prison visits can violate Article 8 where it fails to account for prisoners’ relationships with school-age children.
- Weekday visits, telephone calls and correspondence do not by themselves eliminate the disadvantage caused by a weekend-visit restriction.
- Prison capacity, staffing and security concerns require an individualized, Convention-compliant balancing of family-life interests.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces the Court’s scrutiny of prison visiting policies that force school-age children to choose between education and in-person contact with a detained parent. Administrative pressures may justify restrictions in some circumstances, but they cannot replace a genuine assessment of proportionality and family ties.
It also confirms that separate prison decisions covering different periods and different restrictions may give rise to separate applications, even when they concern the same applicant and the same general right.