5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and was convicted of attempting to undermine the constitutional order and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. At the time of the events relating to the application, he was serving his sentence in the Edirne F-type prison. 6.  Since his imprisonment the applicant has been represented by his lawyer in respect of several applications, including the present application, before the Court. 7.  On an unspecified date, the applicant’s lawyer sent a package by post to the applicant. The prison administration believed the contents of the package to be suspect and therefore lodged a request on 12 August 2005 with the public prosecutor for a decision to be taken by an enforcement court to determine whether the material sent to the applicant concerned defence-related documents or whether they concerned any objectionable content so as to prevent them from being handed over to the applicant. 8.  On 25 August 2005 the Edirne Enforcement Court allowed an application by the prosecutor and examined the contents of the package, which contained a book entitled Globalisation and Imperialism (Küreselleşme ve Emperyalizm), a magazine with the title Rootless Anational Publication (Köxüz Anasyonal Neşriyat), and a newspaper with the title Express International Sha la la (Express Enternasyonal Şalala). The court held that the material in question did not relate to the rights of the defence and that therefore they should not be handed over to the applicant pursuant to section 5 of Law no. 5351. 9.  On 16 September 2005 the applicant objected to the decision of the Edirne Enforcement Court before the Edirne Assize Court. He submitted that he had asked his lawyer to bring those books and magazines in question simply because he had wanted to read them. He submitted that it had been the prison administration which had told his lawyer that they could not be brought in person and had therefore to be sent by post. He further argued that while it was correct that they had not been related to his rights of defence, they were not illegal publications and there had been no basis for the prison administration to withhold them from him simply because they had been sent by post by his lawyer. 10.  On 30 September 2005, the Edirne Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s objections on the basis of the case file, holding that the decision of the Edirne Enforcement Court had been in accordance with law and procedure. 11.  In the meantime, that is to say on 16 September 2005, the prison administration lodged another request with the public prosecutor in relation to the package sent by the applicant’s lawyer. In that request, it submitted that the applicant’s lawyer’s conduct had been incompatible with her duties as a lawyer and requested that section 5 of Law no. 5351, which provides for an official to be present during consultations between a prisoner and his or her lawyer, be applied to the applicant. 12.  On 23 September 2005, referring to its earlier decision of 25 August 2005, the Edirne Enforcement Court in an examination carried out on the basis of the case file, without holding a hearing and without seeking submissions from the applicant or his lawyer, granted an application on the part of the prison administration and therefore held that an official was to be present during the applicant’s consultations with his lawyer. The decision did not specify how long the restriction was to remain in force. The Edirne Enforcement Court further held that, if requested, a separate decision would be taken as to whether the exchange of documents between the applicant and his lawyer would also be subject to a restriction. 13.  On 24 October 2005 the applicant objected to the decision of 23 September 2005 before the Edirne Assize Court. He submitted that the impugned decision did not explain why it was necessary to restrict the privacy of his consultations with his lawyer. He argued in that connection that a provision which provided for such a restriction could only be applied if it had emerged from documents and other evidence that visits by lawyers to a person convicted of organised crime had been serving as a means of communication within the criminal organisation in question. He argued that no such element had been present in his situation and the court had not conducted any examination in that connection. Lastly, he maintained that there were no legal provisions prohibiting the exchange of legal books and magazines between a prisoner and his lawyer. The applicant did not request that the examination of his case be carried out by holding a hearing. 14.  On 27 October 2005 the Edirne Assize Court dismissed the case on the basis of the case file and without holding a hearing. Without responding to the applicant’s arguments, it held that the Edirne Enforcement Court’s decision of 23 September 2005 had been in accordance with the law and procedure. 15.  On 29 May 2008 the applicant lodged an application with the Edirne Enforcement Court for the restriction on the conversations between him and his lawyer to be lifted. 16.  On 4 June 2008 the applicant’s application was dismissed on the basis of the case file. The court held that the decision of 23 September 2005 had become final and that there was no need for a further examination. 17.  The applicant lodged another application on 2 November 2010 and applied for a hearing in accordance with the new amendments to the procedure before the enforcement courts (see paragraph 27 below). On 6 December 2010 the Edirne Enforcement Court dismissed the applicant’s application for a hearing, holding that the new amendments to the procedure concerned only the examination of objections against disciplinary sanctions, so that in so far as the restriction of 23 September 2005 had not been a disciplinary sanction, no hearing could be held in respect of that complaint. It further dismissed the applicant’s application for the restriction to be lifted, holding that the decision of 23 September 2005 had been final. An appeal against that decision by the applicant was dismissed on 24 August 2011. 18.  On 21 February 2013 the applicant lodged an application again with the Edirne Enforcement Court and repeated his request for the restriction to be lifted. The court dismissed that application on 11 April 2013, holding that there had not been any change in the circumstances of the applicant and the decision relating to the restriction on the consultations with the applicant’s lawyer. In that connection, the court held that there was still a risk in view of the previous decisions taken in respect of the applicant by the enforcement courts as well as the lawyer’s conduct. An appeal by the applicant against that decision was rejected on 10 June 2013. 19.  At time of the adoption of this judgment, the restriction on the applicant’s right to confıdential communications with his lawyer remains in place. 20.  On 17 February 2006 the applicant lodged an application with the Court, complaining about the Edirne Enforcement Court’s decision of 25 August 2005. 21.  On 8 December 2015 the Court delivered an inadmissibility decision on account of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and held that the applicant had to make use of the new domestic remedy established by Law no. 6384 (see Altay and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 9100/06 and 155 others). 22.  On 1 November 2016 the Compensation Commission held that the Edirne Enforcement Court’s decision not to hand over the book and the periodicals sent to the applicant by his lawyer had infringed the applicant’s right to receive information within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention. They held in that connection that the impugned decision had constituted an interference which had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons, notably because the domestic court had not explained in its decision in what respect the books and magazines in question had jeopardised the security of the institution.