Here’s a breakdown of the Kacır and Others v. Türkiye decision:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined 37 applications concerning detention conditions in Turkish prisons following the attempted coup in 2016. The core issue was the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to inadequate detention conditions, particularly overcrowding. Some applicants also raised concerns under Article 8 regarding the right to family life, including issues like distance from family, restrictions on weekend visits with children, and the recording of private correspondence. The Court found violations of Article 3 for applicants with less than 3 sq. m of personal space and violations of Article 8 in specific cases related to restrictions on family visits and recording of correspondence.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter:** Defines the context of the applications, focusing on detention conditions and related issues under Articles 3 and 8.
* **Facts Common to All Applicants:** Details the domestic remedies pursued by the applicants, including applications to enforcement judges and the Constitutional Court.
* **Additional Facts Specific to Five Applicants:** Outlines the individual circumstances of the applicants who raised complaints under Article 8, such as Adnan Şimşek (distance from family), Davut Şen, Abdulvaris Altun, and Turgut Ergitürk (restrictions on weekend visits), and Fatih Ensaroğlu (recording of correspondence).
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** Decides to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Government’s Request to Strike Out Certain Applications:** Rejects the government’s request to strike out applications based on lack of representation.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 3:**
* Summarizes the parties’ submissions regarding overcrowding, sanitary conditions, and other issues.
* Addresses the government’s admissibility objections, particularly concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies.
* Presents the Court’s merits assessment, categorizing applicants based on personal space (less than 3 sq. m, between 3-4 sq. m, and more than 4 sq. m).
* **Alleged Violation of Article 8:** Examines the complaints related to family life, weekend visits, and recording of correspondence, assessing admissibility and merits separately for each applicant.
* **Application of Article 41:** Addresses the applicants’ claims for compensation, awarding non-pecuniary damages and costs/expenses where appropriate.
**3. Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Minimum Personal Space:** The decision reinforces the standard that less than 3 sq. m of personal space in detention creates a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3.
* **Restrictions on Family Life:** The decision highlights that restrictions on family visits, especially when not justified by individualized assessments or alternative measures, can violate Article 8.
* **Recording of Correspondence:** The ruling confirms that systematic recording and storage of private correspondence on the UYAP system, without a sufficient legal basis, violates Article 8.
* **Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies:** The Court clarifies its position on exhaustion, particularly regarding the need to raise complaints before enforcement judges and the Constitutional Court.
* **Derogation under Article 15:** The Court considers the Turkish government’s derogation under Article 15 but finds that the measures in question were not strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.
**** This decision is related to the conditions of detention of Turkish citizens, but it can be used as a precedent in cases related to Ukraine and Ukrainians, especially in the context of the armed conflict and occupation, where similar issues of detention conditions and restrictions on family life may arise.
