CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 novembre 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 2 December 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 5963/22 Bahadır KILINÇ against Türkiye lodged on 13 December 2021 communicated on 14 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the prison authorities to hand over to the applicant certain documents brought to him by his attorney. These documents included photocopies and printouts of the Rules of Court, the UN Human Rights Commission’s Turkey Reports from 2017 and 2018, the European Commission’s Turkey Progression Report of 2019, the ECHR’s Hate Speech Information Note, the ECHR’s Evaluation Report of 2018, and the Constitutional Court’s Selçuk Özdemir judgment. The authorities dismissed his requests on the grounds that the documents were not textbooks and their originality and relevance to his ongoing trials could not be determined, as doing so would impose significant burdens on them. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention about the prison authorities’ refusal to hand over the documents sent to him. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 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 to the applicant certain documents brought to him by his attorney (see, mutatis mutandis , 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)? 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, §§   40 and 41, and   Osman and Altay , cited above, §§ 56-58)?