ÇETİN v. TURKEY
Inadmissible
Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković
1. The applicant, Mr Seyfettin Çetin, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1972 and is detained in Kırıkkale. 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 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. 7. The relevant provisions of Law no. 5275 provide as follows: “... (2) The acts punishable by prevention from participating in certain activities are the following: ... (g) Going on a hunger strike.” “(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.” “... (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.” 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 present his/her defence submissions in person or through a lawyer. 9. Provisional section 1 of Law no. 6008 provides a further remedy for all those prisoners who had previously lodged objections with enforcement judges concerning disciplinary sanctions imposed on them before the enactment of this law. Accordingly, those who previously lodged objections with enforcement judges against disciplinary sanctions now have the possibility of lodging a fresh objection with an enforcement judge within six months of the enactment of this law, and their cases will be examined in accordance with the new procedures. 10. A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Aydemir and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), nos. 9097/05, 9491/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05, and 9509/05, 9 November 2010). 11. The object of Law no. 6384 is to provide for the settlement, by means of compensation, of applications lodged with the Court 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). 12. The competence ratione materiae of the Compensation Commission was subsequently extended by a decree which came into force on 16 March 2014. The decree extended the competence of the Compensation Commission to the examination of other complaints such as alleged restriction of the right of detainees to correspondence in a language other than Turkish and the prison authorities’ refusal, 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). 13. 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. 14. The Turkish Council of Ministers issued a decree which came into force on 9 March 2016. The decree extended anew the competence ratione materiae of the Compensation Commission. 15. The Compensation Commission is now entitled to examine the following subjects under Article 4 of the decree, which reads as follows: “a) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant’s title deeds because his or her land was classified as part of the public forest area, or as a result of the application of section 2/B of Law no. 6831, or because the land was classified as part of the public forest area in cadastral surveys; b) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant’s title deeds because the impugned land was classified as located within a coastal area; c) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the allocation of the impugned land for public use in local land development plans; d) Applications concerning an alleged breach of an applicant’s right to private and family life on account of the respective disciplinary sanctions imposed on detainees and convicted persons by the prison authorities; 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 drafted in Turkish.”