CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;FRA;FRE — 8 juin 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 26 June 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 39631/20 Abdül Samed TERGEK against Türkiye and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 8 June 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the refusal by prison authorities to allow the applicants to send or receive documents consisting of photocopies and web page printouts. The Turkish Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ individual applications referring to its case-law on the matter (see Diyadin Akdemir, application no. 2015/9562, 4 April 2018). Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicants complained of a violation of their right to receive and impart information. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular their right to receive and impart information and ideas, by the refusal of the prison authorities to allow the applicants to send or receive the documents consisting of photocopies and web page printouts in question within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention ( Mehmet   Çiftci v.   Turkey, no. 53208/19, §§ 32 et seq. , 16 November 2021)?   2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?   The parties are invited to provide information and relevant documents on the Turkish Constitutional Court’s case-law and the practice of prison authorities in similar cases.     APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1. 39631/20 Tergek v. Türkiye 03/12/2020 Abdül Samed TERGEK 1989 Istanbul Turkish 2. 40647/21 Aygün v. Türkiye 29/07/2021 Uğur AYGÜN 1990 İzmir Turkish 3. 52500/21 Aygün v. Türkiye 01/10/2021 Uğur AYGÜN 1990 İzmir Turkish 4. 60976/21 Aygün v. Türkiye 19/11/2021 Uğur AYGÜN 1990 İzmir Turkish