CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 novembre 2018

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 223 November 2018 Günana and Others v. Turkey - 70934/10, 6560/11, 23599/12 et al. Judgment 20.11.2018 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Lack of a legal basis for seizing documents handwritten by prisoners: violation Facts – The applicants are three prisoners, who complained that the prison authorities (either on the occasion of cell inspections, or when they were attempting to hand over the document to a visitor) had seized handwritten documents prepared by the applicants during their imprisonment on sheets of paper or in a notebook, on the grounds that these writings promoted a terrorist organisation. Law – Article 10: Written by the applicants, the seized documents were undoubtedly the result of their exercise of their right to freedom of expression. The contested seizures thus amounted to interference with that right. None of the legal provisions relied on by the Government or the prison authorities provided for the seizure of a prisoner’s handwritten manuscript, in any circumstances. In particular, the legal provisions identified by the Government as the legal bases for the contested measures concerned the sending and receipt by prisoners of letters, faxes or telegrams, and not the seizure of their manuscripts, whether in the course of cell inspections or when any such document was being handed over to a visitor. Moreover, the prison authorities had relied on different legal grounds for seizing the applicants’ manuscripts, even when the cases were similar. In short, the Government had not shown that there existed a relevant legal basis in domestic law for seizing a manuscript that belonged to a prisoner and did not have the nature of straightforward correspondence. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also concluded unanimously, for one of the applicants, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention. Article 41: EUR 2,000 and EUR 1,500 respectively to the first two applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage (third applicant’s claim submitted out of time); claims in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes