Individual Application

The Facts

The applicant convicted of membership of a terrorist organization sought to use canteen service on a continuous basis. However, the incumbent execution judge rejected the applicant’s request as there was a short-term interruption because of understaffing at the penitentiary institution in summers. The applicant’s challenge against the decision of the execution judge was dismissed by the relevant assize court. Thereafter, he lodged an individual application.     

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicant maintained that his right to private and family life had been violated as he had been denied the rights to use canteen and to receive visits.

The Court’s Assessment

Pursuant to the Code no. 6216 on the Establishment and Rules of Procedures of the Constitutional Court, individual applications where the applicant has failed to substantiate the alleged violations and where there is no interference with fundamental rights shall be considered manifestly ill-founded.

In the present case, the applicant was held in a penitentiary institution located in İmrali Island which is accessible only by sea. Therefore, in the examination of the present application, physical conditions of the penitentiary institution must be taken into consideration.

Regard being had to the decision of the execution judge and the reply of the penitentiary institution as a whole, it has been observed that the penitentiary institution in question had no canteen, and prisoners’ needs were met through an external canteen; and that weather conditions had an impact on the short-term interruptions experienced in the context of the exercise of the rights to use canteen and to receive visits. Besides, it has been found established that the penitentiary administration did not issue an order imposing any restriction on these rights.

Besides, the applicant failed to submit any document or information in support of his claims that he could not enjoy these rights on a continuous basis and that the State had failed to remove the said interruptions. On the other hand, he exercised his rights to receive visits and to use canteen under the above-cited conditions of the penitentiary institution.

Consequently, the Court declared the alleged violation of the right to private and family life inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded.