CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 20 mars 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s172EF8F1 { width:208.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sC2958733 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sDAF6D7B3 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8A375D8D { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sB5766D70 { height:46.65pt } .s1358B736 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sC2AB05A3 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sFDFF321F { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .sFC149DF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s292664EC { height:70.4pt } .s2A385318 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA3F71E29 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1F32756B { height:52.85pt } .sA39564EC { height:74.3pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     SECOND SECTION           CASE OF ÖZTOP AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   (Applications nos. 43587/07, 11324/08, 20574/08, 26817/08, 4762/09, 4770/09, 34055/11, 69680/11)                       JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   20 March 2018               This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Öztop and Others v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Ledi Bianku, President,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20 February 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in eight applications (nos. 43587/07, 11324/08, 20574/08, 26817/08, 4762/09, 4770/09, 34055/11 and 69680/11) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by seven Turkish nationals (“the applicants”), whose names and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     On 12 December 2016 the applications were communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicants, whose names are listed in the appendix, are Turkish nationals and and at the time of lodging their applications they were serving their prison sentences in various establishments. 5.     The names and dates of birth of the applicants, as well as the names of their representatives, and the dates of introduction of the applications appear in the appendix. 6.     All of the applicants were found guilty of breaching prison order by decisions of the respective disciplinary boards of prisons in which they were held. Pursuant to the Regulations on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences, the applicants were sentenced respectively between 11 to 15 days’ solitary confinement on the orders of the respective Prison Disciplinary Boards (referred hereafter as “the board”). 7.     Their objections were subsequently rejected by the Enforcement Judges and the Assize Courts, on the basis of the case file, without hearing the applicants or their lawyers, pursuant to Law no. 4675 on Enforcement Judges, dated 16 May 2001. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 8.     A full description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in Bayar and Gürbüz v. Turkey , (no.   37569/06, §§   13-14, 27   November 2012) and Yalçınkaya and Others v. Turkey (nos.   25764/09 and 18   others, §§ 12-13, 1 October 2013). THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 9.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 10.     The applicants complained that the disciplinary punishment imposed on them for using the honorific “sayın” (esteemed) when referring to the imprisoned leader of the PKK in their letters, had constituted an unjustified interference with their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. 11.     The Government contested that argument. 12.     The Court notes that the applications are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. 13.     The applicants complained that the disciplinary sanctions imposed on them, which were based on the Regulations on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences, had infringed their rights under the Convention. 14.     The Court has already examined a similar complaint in the case of Yalçınkaya and Others v. Turkey (nos. 25764/09 and 18 others, §§   26-38, 1   October 2013) and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. It has also examined the present cases and finds no particular circumstances which would require it to depart from its findings in the above-mentioned judgment. 15.     In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     The applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the time-limit set by the Court. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on that account. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the applications admissible;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 March 2018, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Hasan Bakırcı   Ledi Bianku Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant’s name date of birth place of residence Represented by Date of Board’s decision Date of final decision delivered by the Assize Court Type of disciplinary punishment imposed Acts for which disciplinary punishment imposed 1. 43587/07 04/09/2007 Resul ÖZTOP 02/01/1965 Kahramanmaraş     17/04/2006 09/02/2007 15 days’ solitary confinement Writing a petition to the public prosecutor in support of Öcalan, in which the applicant praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed. 2. 11324/08 11/02/2008 İdris ÇALIŞKAN 01/01/1973 İzmir     12/12/2007 15/01/2008 11 days’ solitary confinement Writing a petition to the Ministry of Justice in support of Öcalan, in which the applicant praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed. 3.     20574/08 01/04/2008 Cemal YILMAZ 04/01/1965 Bolu   Mazlum DİNÇ 05/02/2008 31/05/2011 (After the Law no.6008 (dated 22 July 2010), amending Section 6 of the Law on Enforcement Judges came into force). 11 days’ solitary confinement Going on a hunger strike and writing a petition to the Ministry of Justice in support of Öcalan, in which the applicant praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed. 4.   26817/08 16/05/2008 Fesih YAVAŞ 08/04/1971 İzmir   Murat VARGÜN 29/01/2008 05/03/2008 11 days’ solitary confinement Going on a hunger strike and writing a petition to the Ministry of Justice in support of Öcalan, in which the applicant praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed. 5.     4762/09 28/04/2008 Hayrettin ADLIĞ 18/03/1971 Batman     12/12/2007   15/01/2008 11 days’ solitary confinement Writing a petition to the Ministry of Justice in support of Öcalan , in which the applicant praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed 6.     4770/09 28/04/2008 Hayrettin ADLIĞ 18/03/1971 Batman   28/03/2008 30/04/2008 12 days’ solitary confinement Going on a hunger strike and writing a petition to the Ministry of Justice in support of Öcalan, in which the applicant praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed 7.   34055/11 28/04/2011 Kasım ELÇİ 03/04/1968 Siirt     a) 14/07/2010 b) 21/10/2010 a) 18/01/2011 b) 22/02/2011 a) 11 days’ solitary confinement and 2 months ban on participation in certain activities.   b) 11 days’ solitary confinement a) Going on a hunger strike and writing a petition in support of Ocalan, in which the applicant praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed. b) Writing a petition to the Ministry of Justice in support of Öcalan , in which the applicant praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed 8.     69680/11 23/09/2011 Cemal AYDIN 03/07/1977 Tekirdag   Celal AYDIN 17/07/2008 24/05/2011 (After the Law no.6008 (dated 22 July 2010), amending Section 6 of the Law on Enforcement Judges came into force).   15 days’ solitary confinement Writing a petition to the public prosecutor in support of Öcalan, in which the applicant praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed