The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14 June 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Julia Laffranque, President, Işıl Karakaş, Paul Lemmens, Valeriu Griţco, Ksenija Turković, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Georges Ravarani, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 May 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Ali Sayan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1989 and lives in İzmir. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3. When the present application was lodged, the applicant was in pre- trial detention in the Ankara F-type prison. On 7 January 2011 the prison disciplinary board decided to destroy a postcard sent to him, allegedly to celebrate the new year, on the grounds that the postcard...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 49460/11 Ali SAYAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14 June 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Julia Laffranque, President, Işıl Karakaş, Paul Lemmens, Valeriu Griţco, Ksenija Turković, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Georges Ravarani, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 May 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Ali Sayan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1989 and lives in İzmir. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3. When the present application was lodged, the applicant was in pre- trial detention in the Ankara F-type prison. On 7 January 2011 the prison disciplinary board decided to destroy a postcard sent to him, allegedly to celebrate the new year, on the grounds that the postcard “would stir up trouble” (sakıncalı) because the picture on it incited violence.
2 SAYAN v. TURKEY DECISION 4. On 19 January 2011 the Ankara Enforcement Judge dismissed an objection lodged by the applicant. 5. On 28 February 2011 the Ankara Assize Court dismissed a further appeal lodged by the applicant. B. Relevant domestic law and practice 1. Prisoners’ right to correspondence 6. Prisoners’ right to correspondence is mainly set forth in section 68(3) of Law no. 5275 on the execution of sentences and preventive measures and Article 91 § 3 of the Regulations on prison management and execution of sentences. Under that law, prisoners’ correspondence is monitored by a letter-reading committee and may be subjected to restrictions in the following circumstances: • if its content is considered to be a threat to order and security in the prison; • if it singles out prison officials as targets; • if it allows communication between terrorist or other criminal organisations; • if it contains false or misleading information likely to cause panic in individuals or institutions; or • if it contains threats or insults. 7. A full description of the domestic law and practice at the relevant time may be found in Mehmet Nuri Özen and Others v. Turkey (nos. 15672/08, 24462/08, 27559/08, 28302/08, 28312/08, 34823/08, 40738/08, 41124/08, 43197/08, 51938/08 and 58170/08, §§ 30-34, 11 January 2011). 2. Compensation Commission established by Law no. 6384 and decree of 16 March 2014 8. Under Law no. 6384 a Compensation Commission was set up in Turkey to resolve, by means of compensation, applications lodged with the Court. Initially, the Commission’s competence ratione materiae was limited to applications concerning length of judicial proceedings and non- enforcement or delayed enforcement of judicial decisions. A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013). 9. The competence ratione materiae of...