CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 novembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; 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 18 December 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 7004/21 Engin GÖKOĞLU against Türkiye and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 27 November 2023   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the refusal of the prison administrations to hand over to the applicants, who were detained in a prison, various publications sent to them by post. The applicants’ objections against those decisions before the relevant enforcement judges and assize courts were unsuccessful. Subsequently, the Constitutional Court declared their complaint concerning a breach of their right to freedom of expression inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded. That court considered the refusal to hand over the publications to the applicants justified not because of the content of the publications, but because of the manner of their reception at the respective prisons. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention the applicants complained of a violation of their right to freedom of expression.   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, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention, due to the refusal of the prison administrations to hand over to the applicants, who were detained in a prison, various publications sent to them by post?   2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?   3.     In particular, did the national courts, in their decisions in the present cases, adequately balance the applicants’ right to freedom of expression against other interests at stake in accordance with the principles enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention (see Mehmet Çiftci v. Turkey , no. 53208/19, §§   35-45, 16   November 2021; and Osman and Altay v.   Türkiye , nos.   23782/20 and 40731/20, §§ 43-59, 13   July 2023)?   APPENDIX List of cases:   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Represen-ted by Nationality 1. 7004/21 Gökoğlu v. Türkiye 21/12/2020 Engin GÖKOĞLU 1985 Tekirdağ   Turkish 2. 14071/21 Bektaş v. Türkiye 23/02/2021 İbrahim BEKTAŞ 1990 Bodrum   Turkish 3. 9250/22 İnan v. Türkiye 24/01/2022 Barış İNAN 1973 Kocaeli Faruk Nafiz ERTEKIN Turkish 4. 11475/22 İnan v. Türkiye 16/02/2022 Barış İNAN 1973 Kocaeli Faruk Nafiz ERTEKIN Turkish 5. 13061/22 İnan v. Türkiye 28/02/2022 Barış İNAN 1973 Kocaeli Faruk Nafiz ERTEKIN Turkish 6. 14765/22 Emen v. Türkiye 22/02/2022 Habil EMEN 1968 Şanlıurfa   Turkish