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 14 August 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Seyfettin Çetin, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1972 and is detained in Kırıkkale. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3. At the time of the introduction of this application, the applicant was serving a prison sentence in Kırıkkale. 4. On 6 April 2009 the disciplinary board of the Kırıkkale F-type prison decided to impose a disciplinary sanction on the applicant for going on...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 47768/09 Seyfettin ÇETİN 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 14 August 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Mr Seyfettin Çetin, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1972 and is detained in Kırıkkale. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3. At the time of the introduction of this application, the applicant was serving a prison sentence in Kırıkkale. 4. On 6 April 2009 the disciplinary board of the Kırıkkale F-type prison decided to impose a disciplinary sanction on the applicant for going on a hunger strike in order to protest against measures taken against prisoners in
2 ÇETİN v. TURKEY DECISION the Erzurum F-type prison. Relying on sections 40(2)(g), 42(1) and 48(2) of Law no. 5275 on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures, the disciplinary board prohibited the applicant from receiving and sending letters, making telephone calls and using other means of communication for a period of one month. 5. On 4 May 2009 the Kırıkkale Enforcement Court dismissed an objection lodged by the applicant. 6. On 25 May 2009 the Kırıkkale Assize Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant. B. Relevant domestic law and practice 1. Law no. 5275 on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures, published in the Official Gazette on 29 December 2004 7. The relevant provisions of Law no. 5275 provide as follows: Section 40 “... (2) The acts punishable by prevention from participating in certain activities are the following: ... (g) Going on a hunger strike.” Section 42 “(1) The penalty of deprivation or restriction of access to means of communication consists of completely or partly depriving the convict, for one month to three months, of receiving and sending letters, fax messages and telegrams, watching television, listening to the radio, making telephone calls and using other means of communication.” Section 48 “... (2) Each time a convict commits another act punishable by a disciplinary penalty within the period at the end of which a previous finalised disciplinary penalty may be lifted, he or she shall be liable to the next heaviest penalty.” 2. Law no. 6008 amending section 6 of the Law on Enforcement Judges, published in the Official Gazette on 25 July 2010 8. Under section 5 of Law no. 6008, following the lodging of an objection against a disciplinary sanction, the enforcement judge will deliver his/her decision after hearing the defence submissions of the prisoner concerned and collecting all the evidence. The prisoner can pres...