CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 juin 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC769D9E0 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s85D2D43C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt }       SECOND SECTION Application no. 34417/10 Abdullah YALÇIN against Turkey lodged on 24 May 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Abdullah Yalçın, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Diyarbakır. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was a convict who had been in detention for more than eleven years and was serving his sentence in the Diyarbakır High Security Prison at the date of introduction of this application. In a previous application lodged by the same applicant the Court has already found a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on the ground that the length of the applicant’s detention on remand was excessive ( Abdullah Yalçın v.   Turkey , no. 2723/07, § 7, 21 April 2009). On 23 March 2010 the applicant filed a petition with the Diyarbakır High Security Prison Administration and requested permission to perform Friday prayers ( cuma namazı ) in a room on the premises of the prison. He noted that as a male Muslim he had to perform the congregational Friday prayer in order to fulfil one of the requirements of his religion, Islam. In a letter dated 7 April 2010 the Director of the Diyarbakır High Security Prison informed the applicant that his request was rejected on the grounds that the prison was a high security establishment, that there were risks in collective gatherings, that such a congregation would pose security risks and that there was no appropriate room for such a gathering. The applicant appealed. In a decision dated 30 April 2010 the Diyarbakır Law Enforcement Judge dismissed the applicant’s appeal for the reasons given by the Director of the Diyarbakır High Security Prison. The applicant filed an objection against this decision. On 13 May 2010 the Diyarbakır Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s objection, holding that the decision was in accordance with the law. B.     The relevant domestic law and practice Law no. 5275 of 13 December 2004 on the Execution of Penalties and Security Measures provides as follows: Freedom of religion and conscience “ARTICLE 70.- (1)     In the penal execution institution, the convict may freely perform his religion’s worship without disturbing order and preventing work and may obtain and keep articles used in worship as well as books and works required for his religious life. (2)     The convict shall be permitted to be visited by officers of his religion and to communicate with them on condition that the security of the institution is not thereby endangered.” COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 9 of the Convention that his right to freedom of religion had been breached as a result of the authorities’ refusal to make the necessary arrangements in the Diyarbakır High Security Prison in order to enable him to perform the congregational Friday prayers, which was one of the requirements of his religion, Islam. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Did the authorities’ refusal to make the necessary arrangements to enable the applicant to perform congregational Friday prayers in the Diyarbakır High Security Prison amount to an interference with the exercise of his “freedom ... to manifest his religion or belief” within the meaning of Article   9 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was this interference “in accordance with the law” as required by Article 9 § 2 of the Convention and justified in pursuit of a legitimate aim?   3.     Alternatively, did the State have a positive obligation under Article 9 of the Convention to make appropriate arrangements to enable the applicant to perform congregational Friday prayers in the Diyarbakır High Security Prison? If it did, can the authorities be considered to have struck a fair balance between the competing interests of the applicant and those of the authorities, namely the applicant’s right to manifest his religion and the authorities’ need to ensure order and security in the said prison?