ARSLAN A OSTATNÍ proti Turecku

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 22575/05
Bayram ARSLAN against Turkey
and 47 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 October 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Nebojša Vučinić, President,
Valeriu Griţco,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. A list of the applicants and their representatives is set out in the appendix. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

A. The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

3. The applicants were all serving their prison sentences or were in pre-trial detention when the present applications were lodged. Disciplinary boards of respective prisons decided to impose on the applicants’ correspondence several types of monitoring measures such as stopping, destroying or censoring their private letters.

4. The applicants challenged the prison authorities’ decisions before the enforcement judges and the assize courts respectively. The domestic courts dismissed the applicants’ objections and ruled that the impugned restrictions were consistent with the domestic laws and regulations and were justified by reasons of order and security in the prisons, prevention of offences and protection of third parties.

B. Relevant domestic law

5. A description of the domestic law regarding the new remedy introduced by Law no. 6384 can be found in Sayan v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 49460/11, §§ 6-12, 14 June 2016).

COMPLAINTS

6. The applicants invoked Articles 8, 9, 10 and/or 14 of the Convention and complained that the restrictions imposed on their correspondence breached, in a discriminatory manner, their right to respect for their correspondence solely or together with their right to freedom of thought and their right to free expression. Some of the applicants also invoked Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and complained about the ineffectiveness and unfairness of the procedures before the national courts. Finally, based on the same facts some of the applicants invoked Articles 1, 3, 17 and 18 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 3 of Protocol No.7.

THE LAW

7. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, at the outset the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

8. The Court will examine the applications solely from the standpoint of Article 8 of the Convention (see Asan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38453/09, 30 August 2016).

9. The Government noted that pursuant to Law no. 6384 a new Compensation Commission had been established to deal with applications concerning the length of proceedings and the non-execution of judgments. They further noted that the competence of the Compensation Commission was subsequently enlarged by a decree adopted on 9 March 2016 to examine complaints relating to, among other things, the alleged breach of the right to respect for correspondence of detainees or convicted persons, on account of the prison administration’s refusal to receive or send letters or similar correspondence that are drafted in Turkish. Accordingly, they maintained that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, as they had not made any application to the Compensation Commission.

10. The Court has examined similar applications against Turkey on several occasions and found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on the grounds that the interference was not “in accordance with the law” (see Tan v. Turkey, no. 9460/03, §§ 24-26, 3 July 2007, and Tur v. Turkey, no. 13692/03, §§ 23-25, 11 June 2013) or was not “necessary in a democratic society” (see Fazıl Ahmet Tamer v. Turkey, no. 6289/02, §§ 54‑56, 5 December 2006, and Mehmet Nuri Özen v. Turkey, no. 37619/05, §§ 18-19, 2 February 2010).

11. Furthermore, the Court also notes that in its decision in the case of Ümmühan Kaplan (no. 24240/07, § 77, 20 March 2012), it stressed that it could nevertheless examine, under its normal procedure, applications of that type which had already been communicated to the Government. However, taking into account the Government’s objection with regard to the applicants’ failure to make use of the new domestic remedy established by Law no. 6384, the Court reiterates its conclusion in the cases of Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 47-59, 26 March 2013), Çakır and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 51274/07, § 6, 25 June 2013), Yöyler and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 10783/07, §§ 11-13, 16 December 2014), Yıldız and Yanak ((dec.), no. 44013/07, § 29-38, 27 May 2014), and Sayan v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 49460/11, 14 June 2016).

12. In view of the above, the Court concludes that the applications should be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 17 November 2016.

Hasan Bakırcı Nebojša Vučinić
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX