CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 octobre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC3D571B0 { width:197.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 22575/05 Bayram ARSLAN against Turkey and 47 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11   October 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Nebojša Vučinić, President,   Valeriu Griţco,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants and their representatives is set out in the appendix. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3.     The applicants were all serving their prison sentences or were in pre-trial detention when the present applications were lodged. Disciplinary boards of respective prisons decided to impose on the applicants’ correspondence several types of monitoring measures such as stopping, destroying or censoring their private letters. 4.     The applicants challenged the prison authorities’ decisions before the enforcement judges and the assize courts respectively. The domestic courts dismissed the applicants’ objections and ruled that the impugned restrictions were consistent with the domestic laws and regulations and were justified by reasons of order and security in the prisons, prevention of offences and protection of third parties. B.     Relevant domestic law 5.     A description of the domestic law regarding the new remedy introduced by Law no. 6384 can be found in Sayan v. Turkey ((dec.), no.   49460/11, §§ 6-12, 14 June 2016). COMPLAINTS 6.     The applicants invoked Articles 8, 9, 10 and/or 14 of the Convention and complained that the restrictions imposed on their correspondence breached, in a discriminatory manner, their right to respect for their correspondence solely or together with their right to freedom of thought and their right to free expression. Some of the applicants also invoked Articles   6 and   13 of the Convention and complained about the ineffectiveness and unfairness of the procedures before the national courts. Finally, based on the same facts some of the applicants invoked Articles 1, 3, 17 and 18 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 3 of Protocol No.7. THE LAW 7.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, at the outset the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 8.     The Court will examine the applications solely from the standpoint of Article 8 of the Convention (see Asan v. Turkey (dec.), no.   38453/09, 30   August 2016). 9.     The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 a new Compensation Commission had been established to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings and the non-execution of judgments. They further noted that the competence of the Compensation Commission was subsequently enlarged by a decree adopted on 9 March 2016 to examine complaints relating to, among other things, the alleged breach of the right to respect for correspondence of detainees or convicted persons, on account of the prison administration’s refusal to receive or send letters or similar correspondence that are drafted in Turkish. Accordingly, they maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had not made any application to the Compensation Commission. 10.     The Court has examined similar applications against Turkey on several occasions and found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on the grounds that the interference was not “in accordance with the law” (see Tan v. Turkey , no. 9460/03, §§ 24-26, 3 July 2007, and Tur v.   Turkey , no.   13692/03, §§ 23-25, 11 June 2013) or was not “necessary in a democratic society” (see Fazıl Ahmet Tamer v. Turkey , no.   6289/02, §§   54 ‑ 56, 5 December 2006, and Mehmet Nuri Özen v.   Turkey , no.   37619/05, §§ 18-19, 2 February 2010). 11.     Furthermore, the Court also notes that in its decision in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan (no. 24240/07, § 77, 20 March 2012), it stressed that it could nevertheless examine, under its normal procedure, applications of that type which had already been communicated to the Government. However, taking into account the Government’s objection with regard to the applicants’ failure to make use of the new domestic remedy established by Law no. 6384, the Court reiterates its conclusion in the cases of Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 47-59, 26 March 2013), Çakır and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 51274/07, § 6, 25 June 2013), Yöyler and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 10783/07, §§ 11-13, 16 December 2014), Yıldız and Yanak ((dec.), no. 44013/07, § 29-38, 27 May 2014), and Sayan v.   Turkey ((dec.), no. 49460/11, 14 June 2016). 12.     In view of the above, the Court concludes that the applications should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 17 November 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Nebojša Vučinić Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   22575/05 30/05/2005 Bayram ARSLAN 31/03/1972 Ordu     25307/05 27/06/2005 Tekin TANGÜN 01/05/1969 Tekirdağ Taylan TANAY   37714/05 29/09/2005 Serhat ÇETİNER 23/10/1972 Kırıkkale Sertaç ÇETİNER   26677/06 25/05/2006 Turgut KOYUNCU 10/10/1974 İzmir Hesin DURSUN   10912/07 19/02/2007 Mehmet Şerif ÖNER 01/01/1975 İzmir Türkan ASLAN   14111/07 13/03/2007 Kemal YİĞİT 20/10/1982 İzmir Esin ASLAN   14118/07 13/03/2007 Murat IŞIK 01/01/1979 İzmir Nezahat PAŞA BAYRAKTAR   22257/07 15/05/2007 Eren YILDIZ 01/01/1973 Edirne Fazıl Ahmet TAMER   26229/07 05/06/2007 Süleyman TATAR 02/04/1970 Ankara Fazıl Ahmet TAMER             41318/07 09/08/2007 Kemal YİĞİT 20/10/1982 İzmir Esin ASLAN             47146/07 09/10/2007 Cengiz Sinan Halis ÇELİK 16/04/1974 Muğla Ercan KANAR             49409/07 25/10/2007 Mustafa ÇAÇAN 01/01/1973 Diyarbakır               10000/08 18/02/2008 Hüseyin AYYILDIZ 01/01/1966 Istanbul               10367/08 23/01/2008 Hikmet KALE 08/12/1970 Tekirdağ Hasan ŞAHİNGÖZ 10/10/1971 Tekirdağ   Gülizar TUNCER             13804/08 19/02/2008 Kemal YİĞİT 20/10/1982 İzmir Esin ASLAN             15645/08 10/03/2008 Kamuran Reşit BEKİR 01/01/1971 Ankara Fahriye Belgün BABA             19169/08 31/03/2008 Erdener DEMİREL 21/11/1980 Tekirdağ Metin FİLORİNALI             19639/08 01/04/2008 Hayati KAYTAN 01/05/1968 Ankara               20071/08 15/04/2008 Cebbar PALABIYIK 29/09/1969 Ankara                 26976/08 02/05/2008 Murat KARAYEL 10/05/1971 Kırıkkale   Fazıl Ahmet TAMER             42121/08 15/05/2008 Nedim ÖZALP 01/04/1963 Bolu Murat VARGÜN             42692/08 26/08/2008 Sinan İYİT 06/11/1973 Ankara Murat VARGÜN             42701/08 13/06/2007 Fermani ÇETİN 01/03/1972 Bolu               42709/08 09/11/2007 İbrahim ŞAHİN 01/05/1975 Kocaeli Gül ALTAY             42717/08 16/05/2007 Resul DEMİR 02/02/1974 Bitlis               50594/08 31/10/2006 Serhat ÇETİNER 23/10/1972 Kırıkkale Sertaç ÇETİNER             56246/08 22/08/2008 Cahit İLBOĞA 20/06/1973 Erzurum Abdullah GÜZEL             56361/08 30/10/2008 Turgut KOYUNCU 10/10/1974 İzmir Hesin DURSUN             60855/08 03/12/2008 Barış İNAN 05/02/1973 Kandıra Faruk Nafiz ERTEKİN             3812/09 25/11/2008 Mehmet YAVUZ 11/02/1969 İzmir               5495/09 03/11/2008 Mehmet Şirin TEKMENÜRAY 02/05/1970 Karaman       Ömer GÜNEŞ             5883/09 05/03/2008 Mehmet Şirin TEKMENÜRAY 02/05/1970 Karaman Ömer GÜNEŞ             6160/09 16/02/2009 Muhammed ŞORLİ 01/01/1987 Tekirdağ İnan AKMEŞE             6567/09 24/01/2009 Mehmet Emin ERSOY 22/02/1967 Erzurum               6798/09 02/12/2008 Mehmet Çelebi ÇALAN 01/09/1967 Bolu Murat VARGÜN             6804/09 25/11/2008 Ömer YILDIRIM 01/05/1962 Karaman               9942/09 28/10/2008 Ali İhsan DOST 20/11/1974 İzmir Hesin DURSUN             10771/09 31/12/2008 Mehmet Şirin TEKMENÜRAY 02/05/1970 Karaman Ömer GÜNEŞ             11457/09 31/03/2004 Mehmet Reşit ARSLAN 01/06/1966 Ankara               11550/09 06/12/2006 Mehmet Şirin TEKMENÜRAY 02/05/1970 Karaman Ömer GÜNEŞ             12864/09 12/02/2009 Musa ÖZER 01/07/1968 Osmaniye                 13910/09 23/02/2009 Tekin İREZ 14/06/1968 Balıkesir               16962/09 18/03/2009 Mehmet Nuri ÖZEN 10/05/1976 İzmir Murat VARGÜN             18149/09 17/03/2009 Ali ADIMAN 03/03/1965 Bolu               29165/09 29/04/2009 Musa KAYA 05/05/1973 Kırıkkale               33508/09 25/05/2009 Musa KAYA 05/05/1973 Kırıkkale               50108/09 16/07/2009 Giyasettin AYDIN 15/12/1972 Kırıkkale Emel SAYIN             25958/15 29/03/2006 Soydan AKAY 20/01/1974 Diyarbakır   Canan CENGİZ ORUÇ