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 are 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...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 14046/05 Murat ARSLANOĞLU against Turkey and 124 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 are 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.
2 ARSLANOĞLU v. TURKEY AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION 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, 5, 7, 17 and 18 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 and Protocols nos. 4, 6, 7 and 13. 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 no...