The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25 January 2011 as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Danutė Jočienė, András Sajó, Nona Tsotsoria, Işıl Karakaş, Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by some of the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: 2 MURAT ARSLAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION THE FACTS A. The circumstances of the case The applicants are Turkish nationals and at the time of lodging their applications they were serving their prison sentences in various establishments. The dates of introduction of the applications appear in the table below. The names and dates of birth of the applicants, as well as...
SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 9486/05 and 59 other applications Murat ARSLAN and others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25 January 2011 as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Danutė Jočienė, András Sajó, Nona Tsotsoria, Işıl Karakaş, Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by some of the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows:
2 MURAT ARSLAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY DECISION THE FACTS A. The circumstances of the case The applicants are Turkish nationals and at the time of lodging their applications they were serving their prison sentences in various establishments. The dates of introduction of the applications appear in the table below. The names and dates of birth of the applicants, as well as the names of their representatives appear in the appendix. All of the applicants were found guilty of breaching prison order by decisions of the respective disciplinary boards of prisons in which they are held. Pursuant to the Regulations on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences, various types of disciplinary sanctions were imposed on them. Their appeal requests were rejected respectively by the Enforcement Judges and the Assize Courts, on the basis of the case file, without hearing the applicants or their lawyers, pursuant to Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judges, dated 16 May 2001. The details of the applications as well as the complaints raised by the applicants appear in the table below. Application no. and case name Disciplinary Act committed Type of sanction imposed on the applicant Date of Board’s decision Date of final decision delivered by the Assize Court Introduction Date of the application Complaints raised by the applicant 9486/05 Murat Arslan v. Turkey Pressing emergency buttons in his cell and refusing to participate in social activities, prison workshops 15-day ban on correspondence 29 December 2004 26 January 2005 22 February 2005 Articles 6 and 8 9501/05 Çelik v. Turkey Pressing emergency buttons in his cell and refusing to participate in social activities and prison workshops 15-day ban on correspondence 29 December 2004 26 January 2005 22 February 2005 Articles 6 and 8 9508/05 Akcan v. Turkey Pressing emergency buttons in his cell and refusing to participate in social activities, prison workshops 15-day ban on correspondence 29 December 2004 26 January 2005 22 February 2005 Articles 6 and 8 12794/05 Avşar v. Turkey Pressing emergency buttons in his cell and refusing to participate in social activities and prison workshops 15-day ban on correspondence 29 December 2004 26 January 2005 7 March 2005 Article 6 12797/05...