CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 4 septembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s3B53EBD5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .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 } .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 } .s74FF276F { height:112.9pt } .sB217F559 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:4pt } .s9E5EF7A2 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; 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 } .sA11DACFC { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; 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 } .sADF8F600 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .sCC6087FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .sAF84F600 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:4pt } .s9E2C4F24 { height:78pt }       SECOND SECTION             CASE OF ÇALAĞAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY   (Applications nos. 46162/07 and 9 others ‑ see appended list)                           JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   4 September 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Çalağan 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 3 July 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in ten applications (nos.   46162/07, 21029/08, 41912/08, 53697/08, 38580/09, 44477/09, 60696/09, 3895/10, 46192/11 and   60196/11) 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 twenty three 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.     Between 12 December 2016 and 10 May 2017 the applications were communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicants were serving their prison sentences in various establishments at the time when the applications were lodged. 5.     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”). 6.     Their objections were subsequently rejected by the Enforcement Judges and the Assize Courts, on the basis of the case files, without hearing the applicants or their lawyers, pursuant to Law no. 4675 on Enforcement Judges, dated 16 May 2001. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 7.     A full description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in Yalçınkaya and Others v. Turkey (nos.   25764/09 and 18   others, §§ 12-13, 1 October 2013). THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 8.     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 9.     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. 10.     The Government contested that argument. 11.     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. 12.     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. 13.     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. 14.     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 A.     Damage 15.     In applications nos. 46162/07, 38580/09, 44477/09 and 46192/11, the applicants each claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In applications nos. 21029/08, 41912/08 and 3895/10, the applicants each claimed EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In application no. 53697/08, the applicants each claimed EUR   20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In application no. 60696/09, the applicant claimed a total of 25,000 Turkish Liras (TRY) (equivalent of approximately EUR   5,000) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. In application no. 60196/11, without specifying an amount, the applicant asked the Court to make an award for non-pecuniary damage. 16.     The Government submitted that the amounts claimed by the applicants were speculative and excessive. They therefore invited the Court to dismiss the applicants’ claims. 17.     The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, the Court accepts that the applicants suffered non-pecuniary damage which is not sufficiently compensated for by the finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis and having regard to the circumstances of the cases, the Court awards each of the applicants EUR   2,500 under this head (see Yalçınkaya and Others, cited above, § 53). B.     Costs and expenses 1.     Application no. 46162/07 18.     The applicant claimed 590 Turkish Liras (TRY) (equivalent of approximately EUR   118) in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings. In respect of this claim, he submitted a receipt concerning the lawyer’s fees. 19.     The Court reiterates that according to its case-law applicants are entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. Having regard to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR 100 in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court and the domestic courts. 2.     Other Applications 20.     In applications nos. 38580/09, 44477/09 and 46192/11, the applicants claimed TRY 7,385 (equivalent of approximately EUR   1,477) in respect of costs and expenses for each application. In respect of their claims, they solely referred to the Turkish Bar Association’s tariff of fees for attorneys. In application no. 53697/08, referring to the Istanbul Bar Association’s tariff of fees for attorneys, the applicants claimed EUR   16,000 in respect of costs and expenses. 21.     In applications nos. 2109/08, 41912/08 and 3895/10, the applicants claimed EUR 3,070 in respect of costs and expenses for each application. In application no. 60696/09, the applicant claimed TRY 13,550 (equivalent of approximately EUR   2,710) in respect of costs and expenses. In application no.   60196/11, the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the time-limit set by the Court. 22.     The Government contested the claims. 23.     As regards the costs and expenses claimed by the applicants, According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. The Court observes that despite the fact that some applicants referred Turkish Bar Associations’ scale of fees, they failed to quantify their costs and expenses and to submit any document in support of their claims. The Court therefore makes no award under this head. C.     Default interest 24.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. 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;   4.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, within three months, EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros) plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (b)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicant in application no.   46162/07, within three months, EUR 100 (a hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (c)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;   5.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 September 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.     46162/07 22/10/2007 Hikmet ÇALAĞAN 01/06/1971 Bingöl   Fikret ÇALAĞAN 02/04/2007 17/05/2007 11 days’ solitary confinement Writing a petition to the prison administration in support of Öcalan, in which he praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed. 2.     21029/08   21/04/2008 Fesih ERDEMİRCİ 01/01/1962 Kocaeli   Refik SÜNKÜR 03/02/1975 Bolu   Abdullah RÜZGAR 02/05/1969 Kocaeli   Mehmet Deniz GÜZEL 04/12/1972 Bolu   Mehmet ERBİL 03/09/2007 23/10/2007 11 days’ solitary confinement Writing a petition to the public prosecutor in support of Öcalan, in which they praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed   3.     41912/08 15/08/2008 Murat TÜRK 22/05/1974 Bolu   Hamza YÜNAÇTI 01/01/1976 Kocaeli   Hüseyin KOÇUK 01/01/1987 Kocaeli   Mehmet ERBİL 02/01/2008 29/02/2008 13 days’ solitary confinement Going on a hunger strike and writing a petition to the Ministry of Justice in support of Öcalan, in which they praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed. 4.     53697/08 10/10/2008 Rayif DAMAR 01/01/1967 Kocaeli   Abdulcelil KAÇMAZ 01/03/1967 İzmit   Nevzat GÜNGÖR 01/01/1970 Kocaeli   Fatma KARAKAŞ DOĞAN 05/06/2008 28/08/2008 15 days’ solitary confinement Going on a hunger strike and writing a petition to the Ministry of Justice in support of Öcalan, in which they praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed. 5.     38580/09 22/06/2009 Kayhan AKAN 01/01/1982 Kocaeli   İnan AKMEŞE 30/10/2008 29/12/2008 a) 15 days’ solitary confinement b) two-months ban on participating in certain activities Going on a hunger strike and writing a petition to the prison administration in support of Öcalan, in which he praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed 6.   44477/09 06/07/2009 İhsan KARTAL 20/08/1984 Tekirdag   Diyadin AKDEMİR 01/01/1974 Kocaeli   Hamza AKKAŞ 01/01/1981 Izmit   Lütfü YOLDAŞ 01/01/1982 Tekirdağ   Ahmetcan BAYDENİZ 26/05/1989 Tekirdag İnan AKMEŞE 17/07/2008 23/03/2009 11-15 days’ solitary confinement Writing a petition to the public prosecutor in support of Öcalan, in which they praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed. 7.     60696/09 23/09/2009 Turan GÜNANA 20/09/1981 Kocaeli   Ercan KANAR 17/07/2008 23/03/2009 15 days’ solitary confinement Writing a petition to the public prosecutor in support of Öcalan, in which he praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed 8.     3895/10 05/11/2009 Ergin ATABEY 01/01/1973 Bolu   Metin YAMALAK 10/06/1980 Bolu   Aydın ŞAKA 20/04/1980 Bolu   Mehmet ERBİL 17/07/2008             17/07/2008 (concerning Ergin Atabey) 23/03/2009             24/06/2009 (Concerning Ergin Atabey) 11-15 days’ solitary confinement           15 days’ solitary confinement (Concerning Ergin Atabey) Writing a petition to the public prosecutor in support of Öcalan, in which they praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed.   Writing a petition to the public prosecutor in support of Öcalan, in which he praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed (concerning Ergin Atabey) 9.     46192/11 11/05/2011 İhsan KARTAL 20/08/1984 Tekirdag   İnan AKMEŞE 13/10/2010 10/01/2011 11 days’ solitary confinement Writing a petition to the Ministry of Justice in support of Ocalan , in which he praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed 10.     60196/11 18/07/2011 Hüseyin SARI 05/05/1958 Bolu     12/12/2007 13/07/2011   11 days’ solitary confinement Writing a petition to the Ministry of Justice in support of Ocalan, in which he praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın” meaning esteemed.