CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 mai 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } Published on 30 May 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 27603/20 İsmail AYDIN against Türkiye and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 11 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern requests by the applicants, who are prisoners, to receive the daily newspaper “Yeni Asya”. The prison administrations refused to purchase or deliver the newspaper to the applicants on the grounds that it would pose a security risk or for other administrative or operational reasons. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicants complained of a violation of their right to receive information and ideas. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular their right to receive information and ideas, by the refusal of the authorities to purchase or deliver the newspaper in question within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?   3.     In particular, in view also of the Turkish Constitutional Court’s case-law (see Yavuz Şen and others , no. 2017/20009, 12 January 2022), did the national courts in their decisions carry out an appropriate balancing of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression against other interests at stake in accordance with the principles enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention (compare Mehmet Çiftci v. Turkey, no. 53208/19, §§ 35-45, 16 November 2021)? APPENDIX   List of applications   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1. 27603/20 Aydın v. Türkiye 17/06/2020 İsmail AYDIN 1980 Karabük Turkish 2. 51816/20 Tali v. Türkiye 06/11/2020 Ramazan TALİ 1978 Erzurum Turkish 3. 1944/21 Özdemir v. Türkiye 22/12/2020 Eren ÖZDEMİR 1989 Diyarbakır Turkish 4. 26993/21 Çiçin v. Türkiye 30/04/2021 Aydın ÇİÇİN 1974 Tekirdağ Turkish