Background
Salih Benli was detained in July 2016 on suspicion of membership in the organisation that Turkish authorities considered responsible for the attempted coup of 15 July 2016. After his transfer to Şanlıurfa T-Type High-Security Prison, his meetings with his lawyer were monitored by an officer under an emergency legislative decree and a prosecutorial notice. Between September 2016 and his release in March 2018, all fifteen such meetings were monitored.
The prison administration also electronically recorded and stored Benli’s incoming and outgoing correspondence on the National Judicial Network System, known as UYAP. Benli unsuccessfully challenged both measures before an enforcement judge and the Şanlıurfa Assize Court. The Constitutional Court later declared his application inadmissible, after which he applied to the European Court of Human Rights under Article 8 of the Convention.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously held that monitoring Benli’s lawyer meetings violated Article 8. The measure interfered with his private life, and its legal basis did not satisfy the Convention’s lawfulness requirement: prosecutors’ discretion was not subject to defined conditions, its scope and manner of exercise were insufficiently delineated, and adequate safeguards against arbitrariness were absent. Türkiye’s emergency derogation under Article 15 did not justify that deficiency. Because the interference was not lawful, the Court did not examine whether it pursued a legitimate aim or was necessary in a democratic society.
The Court also unanimously held that recording and storing Benli’s private correspondence on UYAP violated Article 8. The measure rested on Ministry of Justice administrative letters that had not been communicated to prisoners and therefore failed the “quality of law” requirement, providing neither adequate protection nor the legal certainty needed to prevent arbitrary interference. The Court rejected the Government’s admissibility objections, including its reliance on the deletion in 2022 of stored letters not connected to an investigation or prosecution, because safeguards permitting deletion entered into force long after the measures affecting Benli.
Key Takeaways
- Confidential lawyer-client communication in prison falls within Article 8, and monitoring must rest on accessible, sufficiently defined rules containing safeguards against arbitrariness.
- An emergency derogation does not cure a legal framework that lacks safeguards against arbitrary or abusive interference.
- Recording and storing prisoners’ correspondence on UYAP was unlawful where the administrative letters authorising the practice were not communicated to prisoners and did not provide adequate protection or legal certainty.
Why It Matters
The judgment applies the Court’s established reasoning in Canavcı and Others v. Türkiye and Nuh Uzun and Others v. Turkey to prison practices adopted after the 2016 attempted coup. It confirms that emergency conditions do not displace Article 8’s requirement that interference with lawyer communications and private correspondence have a sufficiently clear legal basis and effective safeguards against arbitrariness.
The Court awarded Benli EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses, plus any applicable tax.