The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 30 August 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 application lodged on 30 June 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr İdris Aşan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1985. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3. The applicant was serving a prison sentence in the Ankara F-type prison when the present application was lodged. On 13 May 2009, the prison disciplinary board decided to destroy a letter which the applicant had written in Turkish and addressed to a newspaper, on the grounds that it “would stir up trouble” (sakıncalı) because it contained false...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 38453/09 İdris AŞAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 30 August 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 application lodged on 30 June 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr İdris Aşan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1985. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3. The applicant was serving a prison sentence in the Ankara F-type prison when the present application was lodged. On 13 May 2009, the prison disciplinary board decided to destroy a letter which the applicant had written in Turkish and addressed to a newspaper, on the grounds that it “would stir up trouble” (sakıncalı) because it contained false statements about the prison that might mislead public opinion. The disciplinary board based its decision on section 68 (3) of Law no. 5275 on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures and Article 91 § 3 of the Regulations on prison administration and enforcement of sentences.
2 AŞAN v. TURKEY DECISION 4. On 21 May 2009 the Ankara Enforcement Judge dismissed an objection lodged by the applicant. 5. On 1 June 2009 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 enforcemen...