SAYAN v. TURKEY
Inadmissible
Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković
1. The applicant, Mr Ali Sayan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1989 and lives in İzmir. 3. When the present application was lodged, the applicant was in pre-trial detention in the Ankara F-type prison. On 7 January 2011 the prison disciplinary board decided to destroy a postcard sent to him, allegedly to celebrate the new year, on the grounds that the postcard “would stir up trouble” (sakıncalı) because the picture on it incited violence. 4. On 19 January 2011 the Ankara Enforcement Judge dismissed an objection lodged by the applicant. 5. On 28 February 2011 the Ankara Assize Court dismissed a further appeal lodged by the applicant. 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). 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 enforcement of judicial decisions. A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Turgut and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 4860/09, §§ 19-26, 26 March 2013). 9. The competence ratione materiae of the Compensation Commission was extended by a decree which came into force on 16 March 2014. The Compensation Commission could thus examine other complaints such as alleged restriction of prisoners’ right to respect for correspondence in a language other than Turkish and refusal by the prison authorities, on different grounds, to hand over periodicals. A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 44013/07, §§ 9-17, 27 May 2014). 10. Furthermore, according to Article 5 § 2 of Law no. 6384, an applicant may apply to the Compensation Commission within one month following the official notification of the Court’s inadmissibility decision by the Government. 11. The Turkish Council of Ministers issued a decree which was published in the Official Gazette and came into force on 9 March 2016. The new decree further extended the competence ratione materiae of the Compensation Commission. 12. Article 4 of the decree entitles the Compensation Commission to examine, among others, complaints concerning alleged breaches of the right to respect for correspondence of detainees or convicted persons on account of the non-transmission of correspondence drafted in Turkish. The relevant part of the provision reads as follows: “Article 4 ... e) Applications concerning an alleged breach of the right to respect for correspondence on account of the prison administration’s refusal to receive or send letters or similar correspondence that are drafted in Turkish.”