The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 January 2017 as a Chamber composed of: Julia Laffranque, President, Işıl Karakaş, Nebojša Vučinić, Valeriu Griţco, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Georges Ravarani, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 4 April 2011 and 25 April 2012 respectively, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicants are Turkish nationals, who were both born in 1968. The first applicant, Mr Fethi Oktay, was detained in the Bolu F-type prison and the second applicant, Mr Bülent Özçan, was detained in the Kırıkkale F- type prison when the present applications were lodged. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 2 OKTAY v. TURKEY AND ÖZÇAN v. TURKEY...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 26293/11 and 30248/12 Fethi OKTAY against Turkey and Bülent ÖZÇAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 January 2017 as a Chamber composed of: Julia Laffranque, President, Işıl Karakaş, Nebojša Vučinić, Valeriu Griţco, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Georges Ravarani, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 4 April 2011 and 25 April 2012 respectively, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicants are Turkish nationals, who were both born in 1968. The first applicant, Mr Fethi Oktay, was detained in the Bolu F-type prison and the second applicant, Mr Bülent Özçan, was detained in the Kırıkkale F- type prison when the present applications were lodged. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
2 OKTAY v. TURKEY AND ÖZÇAN v. TURKEY DECISION Application No: 26293/11 3. On 21 January 2011 the Bolu prison disciplinary board decided to withhold the first applicant’s letter addressed to the Iranian Embassy in Turkey on the ground that the letter contained defamatory statements. The disciplinary board based its decision on Article 68 (3) of Law no. 5275 on the execution of sentences and preventive measures. 4. On 17 February 2011 the Bolu Enforcement Judge dismissed the applicant’s objection. Subsequently, on 21 March 2011 the Bolu Assize Court dismissed a further appeal lodged by the applicant. Application No: 30248/12 5. On 27 December 2011 the Kırıkkale prison disciplinary board decided to withhold the second applicant’s letter addressed to a journalist, on the ground that the letter contained statements praising a terrorist organisation (PKK) and its leader. The disciplinary board based its decision on Article 68 (3) of Law no. 5275 on the execution of sentences and preventive measures and Article 123 § 3 of the Regulations on prison management and execution of sentences. 6. On 20 January 2012 the Kırıkkale Enforcement Judge dismissed the applicant’s objection, and on 24 February 2012 the Kırıkkale Assize Court dismissed a further appeal lodged by the applicant. B. Relevant domestic law and practice 7. A full description of the domestic law and practice at the relevant time may be found in Sayan v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 49460/11, §§ 6-12, 7 July 2016). COMPLAINT 8. The applicants complained that the respective prison administrations had prevented them from sending letters and had thus breached their right to communication. They did not invoke any specific article of the Convention. THE LAW 9. Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the present cases, the Court decides to join the applications and consider them in a single decision.
OKTAY v. TURKEY AND ÖZÇAN v. TURKEY DECISION 3 10. The applicants maintained that the respecti...