CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 octobre 2024

.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 } Published on 28 October 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 40265/23 Zeyni ARAT against Türkiye lodged on 2 November 2023 communicated on 9 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the prison administration to hand over to the applicant, who was detained at the time of the events, books entitled ‘A Modern History of the Kurds’ , ‘History and Geography of the Kurds – 1 Rojava’ and ‘Handbook on the Kurds’ , which were sent to him by post. The authorities dismissed the applicant’s requests on the basis of section   62 §   3 of Law no. 5275 on the Enforcement of Sentences and Preventive Measures. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains of a violation of his right to freedom of expression on account of the refusal to hand over the books to him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the prison authorities’ refusal to hand over the books to him (see Mehmet Çiftçi v.   Turkey , no. 53208/19, §§   32-33, 16 November 2021, and Osman and Altay v.   Türkiye , nos. 23782/20 and 40731/20, §§ 40-41, 18 July 2023)?   2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 § 2? In particular, did the national authorities and courts adequately balance the applicant’s right to freedom of expression against other interests at stake in accordance with the principles enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention (see Mehmet Çiftçi , cited above, §§   34-45, and Osman and Altay , cited above, §§ 42-59)?