The right to telephone and video calls in prison is exercised by weighing together the institution’s technical infrastructure, the person’s enforcement status, the registration of the relative to be called and the relevant special restrictions. A connection problem in the e-Görüş application is not the same as a legal ban on calls. Identifying the nature of the problem correctly affects both how quickly it can be solved and what the application should contain.
Regular communication with family is particularly important for young children, elderly relatives and families living in another country. Even so, it cannot be said that every convicted prisoner has a right to video calls in all circumstances, or that every technical interruption automatically amounts to a constitutional violation. The explanations below bring together the general framework, the current time allowances and the assessment criteria shown by actual Constitutional Court (AYM) decisions.
The legal framework for telephone calls
Article 66 of Law No. 5275 and Article 74 of the Regulation on the Administration of Penal Institutions and the Execution of Penal and Security Measures are the basic provisions. In closed institutions, family telephone calls take place under the administration’s control; rules on monitoring and recording apply. This system does not mean a right to use one’s own mobile phone. [1, 2]
With whom may telephone calls be made?
The Regulation provides that convicted prisoners in closed institutions may speak, on condition of documentation, with their spouses, their blood relatives and relatives by marriage up to the fourth degree, and their guardians. The third-degree limit for visits and the fourth degree for telephone calls should not be confused. More restricted provisions may apply to aggravated life imprisonment and other special categories. [2]
The degree of kinship, the person in whose name the line is registered and the registration of the telephone number are separate matters. That the line is in another person’s name may require the application to be explained with documents. The subscription and identity documents the institution requires should be learned from its current announcement. One institution’s practice for submitting documents does not mean that the same technical steps exist for all institutions.
Are family calls and attorney calls the same?
No. The rules on listening in on family calls cannot be applied directly to communication with an attorney for the purpose of defense. The confidentiality of attorney communication, the representation relationship and the exceptional measures in the law are assessed separately. For this reason, a problem with attorney communication should not be addressed by changing the family line registration. The article on the confidentiality of attorney meetings contains complementary explanations.
Time allowances for telephone and video calls
Under the general voice-call regime, one call a week not exceeding ten minutes is provided. In institutions that have infrastructure suitable for video calls and are designated by the Ministry, a weekly thirty-minute system applies under Regulation Art. 74/2(g). This time may be divided, provided that it does not exceed a total of three calls in the same week. [2, 3]
Additional time for a week without a visit
For a convicted prisoner who does not use the weekly visit entitlement, an additional thirty minutes is added to the following week’s telephone time, and three more calls may be made for this additional time. The additional time cannot be carried over to later weeks. This rule does not mean that a separate thirty minutes accumulates for each day without a visit. It should be checked which week’s visit record is taken as the basis and whether the additional time has been entered into the system. [3]
Children, mothers and religious holidays
For child prisoners and for women prisoners with a child in the zero-to-six age group, the telephone call time in the relevant sub-paragraph is applied at double. In addition, an extra thirty minutes of calls is provided for use on the religious holidays of the faith to which the person belongs. A claim that a person falls within this scope should be tied to the population and institution records. [3]
| Situation | General rule | Point to check |
|---|---|---|
| Ordinary voice call | Weekly ten-minute regime | Whether a special status exists |
| Video system with suitable infrastructure | Weekly thirty minutes | Applicability to the institution and the person |
| Week without a visit | An additional thirty minutes for the following week | The record and the rule against carrying over |
| Child prisoner or the specified group of mothers | Double time under the relevant sub-paragraph | Age and status documents |
This table does not remove the special enforcement regimes. For dangerous convicts, those convicted as leaders of an organization, and those serving aggravated life imprisonment, the Regulation’s special sub-paragraphs must be read separately. In particular, membership of an organization and leadership of one should not be treated as the same category.
What should be checked first if e-Görüş does not work?
It should be established whether the telephone number is registered and active in the institution’s system. The country code and number entered in the application must match the institution’s record. For blocks arising from a change of line, a change of device or reinstallation, an application should be made under the institution’s current procedure. In the institutions’ official statements, error types arising from no record found, an inactive record and a device registration are shown separately. [3]
How is a technical problem documented?
The date and time of the error, the message the application gave, the registered number and whether the call began at all should be noted. A call that drops after a few seconds and a call that never connects require different technical examination. The device’s internet connection and required permissions should be checked; screenshots containing personal data should not be shared on public platforms.
In the application, it may be requested that the institution’s connection and call records be examined, that the reason for the inactive record be notified and that the applicable solution be explained. It is not always possible for the relative alone to prove all the details of a technical fault. In that case, the information at hand should be submitted and an investigation of the records held by the institution should be expressly requested.
How many devices can be used?
Some institution announcements state that a new application is required after a certain number of successful device registrations. For example, the announcement of Maltepe No. 1 Institution mentions the block after three registrations and its resolution by petition. This should not be presented as an unchangeable statutory provision. The version in use and the institution’s current technical guidance should be checked. Constantly deleting and reinstalling can make the problem worse. [3]
Hours when the child cannot be reached and the Yeliz Erten decision
In its AYM, Yeliz Erten, Application No. 2020/99, March 11, 2021 decision, the Constitutional Court examined a request for hours suitable for telephone communication with school-age children. Both the applicant and the spouse were in a penal institution. A change to the call schedule, which coincided with the hours when the children were at school, was requested; an alternative for after school on weekdays had also been put forward. [4]
What was the reason for the violation?
The basis of the application was not only a wish for weekend calls. It was necessary that communication with the children be actually possible and that the proposed alternative be assessed. General staffing and security grounds were not considered sufficient in the face of the family’s particular circumstances and the weekday alternative. The AYM held that the right to respect for family life had been violated. [4]
The decision does not mean that all institutions must move their telephone schedule to the same hour. The child’s school schedule, age, the reasons why calls cannot be received and the adequacy of other means of communication matter. Instead of merely repeating the statement of a rights violation, the petition may offer more than one workable time slot.
Refusal of video calls and the Serkan Okçu decision
In its AYM Plenary Assembly, Serkan Okçu, Application No. 2022/60965, February 6, 2025 decision, the Constitutional Court examined a complaint about not being allowed video calls. The technical infrastructure and operating conditions at the time of the events, other means of communication and the applicant’s statements were assessed together. The application was declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. [5]
What result does this decision not produce?
The decision cannot be read as meaning that everyone convicted of an organization-related offense can always be excluded from video calls. The conditions on the date of the events in the application and the way the current system operates may differ. The removal of a technical obstacle or a change in personal circumstances may require a fresh assessment. The requirement that the board’s discretion be reasoned and reviewable also remains.
Taking the Yeliz Erten and Serkan Okçu decisions together, the difference is seen between ensuring adequate family communication and demanding unconditional use of a particular technology. The application should explain why other routes have remained inadequate. If there are person-specific needs, such as hearing, speech or sight problems, they should be separately documented.
How to apply against a restriction on calls
The nature of the request should be determined first: correcting a number registration, lifting a device block, changing the call time, correcting the calculation of the time allowance, or lifting a legal restriction. Instead of listing all of these in the same petition without reasons, it should be explained which action is erroneous and why.
Matching documents and requests for the application
| Problem | Information to attach | Concrete request |
|---|---|---|
| Number inactive | Line and kinship documents | Review and correction of the record |
| Call keeps dropping | Date, time and error record | Investigation of the technical records |
| Child at school | Class hours and alternatives | Determining a suitable time |
| Video permission refused | Reasoned decision and personal circumstances | A current individual assessment |
Time limit for complaint and objection
In actions within the scope of Law No. 4675, a complaint period of fifteen days from learning of the action and in any case thirty days from the action itself must be taken into account. The current general time limit for objecting to an enforcement judgeship decision is two weeks from notification. Filing a technical support request with the administration does not by itself stop the time running against a legal refusal decision. [6]
The complaint file should include the earlier petition, the reply, the notification or learning record and an explanation of any documents that could not be accessed. The delivery and dispatch records mentioned in the article on petitions and access to court matter here as well. A new telephone request does not automatically revive a time limit missed against an earlier refusal decision; if there is a new fact, it should be explained separately.
Call records, privacy and family preparation
Bringing another person onto the line during a call
Forwarding a number approved by the institution to another line, or having persons who have no right to a call join the call, should not be thought of as a technical convenience. The Regulation contains restrictions on this and circumstances that may require the call to be cut off. The family should take care that the registered person and the person actually speaking are the same, and observe the institution’s call rules. Unapproved forwarding as a way to solve a problem may create a new dispute. [2]
In a family emergency, must the ordinary schedule be awaited?
Extraordinary situations such as death, serious illness or natural disaster are addressed separately in the relevant provision. The application should explain the nature of the event, the kinship and the urgency. When requesting communication outside the general schedule, an accessible document such as a hospital or death record may be submitted. It should not be assumed that every emergency will be resolved by the same procedure; the institution should be asked to assess the request under the relevant special provision. [2]
When a technical problem and a rights restriction exist together
If the call still cannot take place after the record error is corrected, there may be a second obstacle. For example, a number being active does not mean the board’s decision concerning the person is favorable. In the application, the technical part and the legal part should be headed separately. That way, in a petition answered only with the suggestion to reinstall the application, it can be seen that the actual call request has still not been met.
Other means of communication with the family should also be considered. Visiting rights and correspondence by letter have different safeguards. Their existence does not justify every interruption in telephone calls; but concrete circumstances matter when the effect on communication as a whole is examined.
Conclusion
In problems with telephone and video calls, the legal status, the technical record and the family’s needs must be examined together. Beyond the correct application of the current time allowances, it also matters that the call can actually take place. An effective application is prepared with records showing the effect of the fault or restriction on the person, and with a request for a workable solution.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can every convicted prisoner make video calls for thirty minutes a week?
The infrastructure, whether the institution is covered and the special regime to which the person is subject must be examined. The thirty-minute provision is not an unconditional guarantee of video calls for everyone.
If we do not go to the visit, is the additional call made in the same week?
The relevant provision envisages that the additional thirty minutes are added to the following week’s telephone time. This time cannot be carried over to later weeks.
Whom should one apply to for an e-Görüş block?
The current application procedure of the penal institution to which the registered line is linked should be followed first. A technical record problem must be distinguished from a legal ban on calls.
If the call time coincides with the child’s school hours, can a change be requested?
Yes. An individual assessment may be requested by submitting the school schedule and alternative times. The Yeliz Erten decision shows the importance of the child’s needs in this assessment.
In a technical failure, is the unused time automatically returned?
An automatic result should not be assumed for every failure. A concrete request should be made after investigating whether the call began, the records and the possible means of compensation.
Sources
- Law No. 5275, Arts. 66 and 116.
- Regulation on Penal Institutions, Art. 74, the institution’s official transcription. Considered together with the third source for later amendments.
- Maltepe No. 1 Penal Institution, explanations on video calls and e-Görüş. Technical steps are institutional practice.
- AYM, Yeliz Erten, Application No. 2020/99, March 11, 2021.
- AYM Plenary Assembly, Serkan Okçu, Application No. 2022/60965, February 6, 2025.
- Law No. 4675 on the Enforcement Judgeship, Arts. 5 and 6.