CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 mai 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD73EB0F { width:14.21pt; display:inline-block } .sD6BE18B4 { width:200.44pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF844B0A7 { height:15.15pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 18139/07 by Abdurrahim ATİLLA and 57 other applications against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11   May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Danutė Jočienė,   András Sajó,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Işıl Karakaş,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above applications lodged on 16 April 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A.     The circumstances of the case The applicants are Turkish nationals and at the time of their applications they were all but six [1] in pre-trial detention in Diyarbakır F-type Prison. The names and dates of birth of the applicants appear in the appendix. They were all represented before the Court by Mr M. Şahin and Mr O. Çelik, lawyers practising in Diyarbakır. On 7 September 2006 the applicants announced a collective two-day hunger strike in protest against the conditions of detention of Abdullah Öcalan , leader of the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal, armed organisation. On 11   September 2006 the Diyarbakır F-type Prison Disciplinary Board imposed a disciplinary sanction on the applicants, consisting of a one-month ban on sports activities and conversation in groups (spor ve sohbet etkinlikleri) , for launching a hunger strike and forming a group with a view to breaching the regulations. The applicants lodged appeals, which were rejected by the Diyarbakır Enforcement Court and the Diyarbakır Assize Court on 25   September and 9   October 2006 respectively. The final decision was deposited with the registry of the court on 10 November 2006. B.     Relevant domestic law Law no. 5275 on the Enforcement of Sentences and Preventive Measures provides as follows: Article 40   “1. The penalty of a deprivation of certain activities deprives convicts of the right to participate in the prison workshops and sports activities from one to three months. 2. The acts requiring the penalty of a deprivation of certain activities are as follows: ... (g) launching a hunger strike ...” COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention that the disciplinary punishment which had been imposed on them because they launched a hunger strike had violated their freedom of thought and expression. They contended that the hunger strike had been a peaceful way of expressing their opinions. THE LAW In view of the similarity of the applications, both as regards facts and law, the Court deems it appropriate to join and examine them together. The applicants submitted that the disciplinary punishment imposed on them because they had launched a hunger strike in support of Abdullah Öcalan had infringed their freedom of thought and expression. At the outset the Court considers that these complaints are to be examined solely under Article 10 of the Convention – freedom of expression. The Court finds that the disciplinary punishments did indeed amount to an “interference” with the applicants’ freedom of expression. Such an interference will constitute a breach of Article 10 unless it is “prescribed by law”, pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 and is “necessary in a democratic society” in order to achieve the aim or aims in question. The Court observes that the impugned measure was “prescribed by law”, as it was based on section 40 of Law No. 5275. The Court reiterates that any restrictions on Convention rights must be justified, although such justification may well be found in considerations of security, in particular the prevention of crime and disorder, which inevitably flow from the circumstances of imprisonment (see, for example, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom , 25 March 1983, § 99-105, Series A no. 61, where broad restrictions on the right of prisoners to correspond fell foul of Article 8, but the stopping of specific letters containing threats or other objectionable references was justifiable in the interests of the prevention of disorder or crime; see also, mutatis mutandis, Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no.   2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 69, 6 October 2005). In the circumstances of the present case, the Court finds that the interference pursued the legitimate aim under Article 10 § 2 of preventing disorder. It remains to be determined whether the measure was “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court observes that Law No. 5275 lists punishable acts, the penalties relating to them and the procedure to be followed. In section 40, “launching a hunger strike” had been defined as a punishable act. In the present case, the applicants were disciplined for having breached the prison order protected under the foregoing provision, rather than for having expressed their opinions. The Court queries whether such a blanket restriction on hunger strikes is compatible with Article 10 of the Convention. Nevertheless, given the particular circumstances of the present case, it does not deem it necessary to determine that question. The Court notes that moderate disciplinary punishments were imposed by the State in order to prevent or deter the applicants from launching their hunger strikes and to re-establish order in the prison should a campaign of that kind be initiated. On this point, regard must be had to the collective nature of the applicants’ protest, as well as the type of prisoners involved. Many of these prisoners were apparently supporters of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation. The Court considers that a protest of this nature and scale could reasonably have been seen by the prison authorities as a threat to prison order. Moreover, it is of the view that the penalties imposed, involving a one-month ban on the applicants’ sports activities and conversations in groups, cannot be regarded as disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, namely the prevention of disorder, within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. In the light of the foregoing considerations and the specific circumstances of the case, the Court concludes that the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The applications must therefore be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously   Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.     Sally Dollé   Françoise Tulkens   Registrar   President APPENDIX     Case Name Application Number Name of applicant Date of Birth 1 ATİLLA 18139/07 Abdurrahim Atilla 1980 2 SAVUR 18180/07 Abdullah Savur 1980 3 ALİ 18229/07 Bahtiyar Ali 1984 4 AKINCI 18230/07 Sadun Akıncı 1972 5 YALÇIN 18231/07 Adnan Yalçın 1962 6 IŞIK 18232/07 Alican Işık 1977 7 ÖZDEMİR 18235/07 Nevzat Özdemir 1974 8 ATLI 18236/07 Hacı Atlı 1974 9 KAPLAN 18238/07 İdban Kaplan 1970 10 BALIKÇI 18239/07 Galip Balıkçı 1978 11 AYTİMUR 18240/07 Adem Aytimur 1972 12 BARAN 18244/07 Ömer Baran 1977 13 ALP 18245/07 Ali Alp 1976 14 TAŞ 18246/07 Tarık Taş 1963 15 ADANIR 18247/07 Davut Adanır 1952 16 ENCÜ 18248/07 Ecevit Encü 1986 17 GELNİ 18249/07 Metin Gelni 1966 18 AY 18250/07 Münir Ay 1980 19 BEYAZ 18252/07 Necmettin Beyaz 1973 20 ATEŞ 18255/07 Burhanettin Ateş 1981 21 KILIÇ 18257/07 Zeki Kılıç 1984 22 AY 18260/07 Ayetullah Ay 1980 23 ÜLGER 18261/07 Mehmet Ülger 1969 24 ŞAHİN 18262/07 Baycan Şahin 1974 25 KARA 18263/07 Orhan Kara 1973 26 ÖZGÜN (2) 18284/07 Servet Özgün (No.2) 1980 27 ERDEM 18289/07 Adnan Erdem 1960 28 ÖZER 18290/07 Felat Özer 1980 29 ABİR 18291/07 Fatih Abir 1973 30 KARAASLANLI 18292/07 A. Latif Karaaslanlı 1978 31 KOÇ 18295/07 Mehmet Koç 1979 32 ERDOĞAN 18297/07 Mehmet Erdoğan 1971 33 TURAN 18298/07 İzzet Turan 1975 34 DİBEKLİ 18299/07 İbrahim Dibekli 1972 35 OĞUL 18300/07 Sedat Oğul 1985 36 ÇELİK 18302/07 Ömer Çelik 1984 37 YILMAZ 18304/07 Murat Yılmaz 1979 38 KÖYLÜOĞLU 18305/07 Muhsin Köylüoğlu 1982 39 GÜLTEKİN 18307/07 Mehmet Şirin Gültekin 1966 40 EMİRE 18309/07 Mehmet Sıddık Emire 1973 41 ELİK 18310/07 Rufai Elik 1985 42 AKGÖK 18311/07 Sedat Akgök 1974 43 CENGİZ 18313/07 Abdül Hakim Cengiz 1986 44 SAVAR 18314/07 Hacı Abbas Savar 1974 45 TÜRKAN 18315/07 Yılmaz Türkan 1977 46 GEZİCİ 18318/07 Mahmut Gezici 1981 47 KALIR 18521/07 Şeyhmus Kalır 1956 48 URTEKİN 18523/07 Burhan Urtekin 1984 49 İNANÇ 18525/07 Şeref İnanç 1963 50 USUN 18527/07 Serhat Usun 1987 51 ÇELİK 18480/07 Aydın Çelik 1970 52 YAKIŞAN 18710/07 Erdoğan Yakışan 1970 53 SAKÇI 20368/07 Orhan Sakçı 1970 54 DAŞ 20933/07 Hüseyin Daş 1966 55 BAŞARAN 21172/07 Mehmet Başaran 1985 56 EBEM 21173/07 Hasan Hüseyin Ebem 1961 57 YAŞAR 21174/07 Eyüp Yaşar 1973 58 ÖZCAN 21176/07 Bülent Özcan 1968   [1] .     With the exception of six applicants in cases nos. 18231/07, 18244/07, 18246/07, 18298/07, 18315/07, 18521/07.