Öcalan c. Turquie (no 2), nos 24069/03, 197/04, 6201/06 et 10464/07, §§ 154-164, 18 mars 2014, Trosin, précité, §§ 43-47, Messina c. Italie (no 2), no 25498/94, § 61, CEDH 2000-X, Ouinas c. France, no 13756/88, décision de la Commission du 12 mars 1990, Décisions et rapports (DR) 65, p. 265, et X c. Royaume-Uni, no 8065/77, décision de la Commission du 3 mai 1978, Décisions et rapports 14, p. 246. Une très petite majorité a accepté, dans l'affaire Oçalan (n° 2), que l'article 25 de la loi no 5275 du 13 décembre 2004 relative à l'exécution des peines et des mesures préventives (citée au paragraphe 67 de l'arrêt), selon laquelle le requérant pouvait recevoir une visite tous les quinze jours - même si, en pratique, seules quatorze visites en 2005, treize en 2006, sept en 2007 et deux entre janvier et octobre 2011 ont été autorisées - n'étaient pas incompatible avec les droits du requérant au titre de l'article 8.

Such restrictions as limitations put on the number of family visits, supervision over those visits and, if so justified by the nature of the offence, subjection of a detainee to a special prison regime or special visit arrangements constitute an interference with his rights under Article 8 but are not, by themselves, in breach of that provision (ibid. §§ 62-63; see also X v. the United Kingdom, no. 8065/77, Commission decision of 3 May 1978, Decisions and Reports 14, p. 246).

Such restrictions as limitations put on the number of family visits, supervision over those visits and, if so justified by the nature of the offence, subjection of a detainee to a special prison regime or special visit arrangements constitute an interference with his rights under Article 8 but are not, by themselves, in breach of that provision (ibid. §§ 62-63; see also X v. the United Kingdom, no. 8065/77, Commission decision of 3 May 1978, Decisions and Reports 14, p. 246).

Restrictions such as limitations put on the number of family visits, supervision of those visits and, if so justified by the nature of the offence, subjection of a detainee to a special prison regime or special visit arrangements, constitute an interference with his rights under Article 8 but are not of themselves in breach of that provision (ibid. §§ 62-63; see also X v. the United Kingdom, no. 8065/77, Commission decision of 3 May 1978, Decisions and Reports 14, p. 246).

17.5.85), X v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 8065/77, Dec.