Individual Application

The Facts

The applicants held in high-security prisons were denied access to certain issues of the periodicals such as journals and newspapers, which they had purchased, by virtue of the decisions taken by the educational boards of the prisons. Nevertheless, there is no decision issued to recall or seize these periodicals.

In the decisions taken by the educational board of the relevant prisons, it was indicated that these periodicals contained expressions praising a terrorist organization and its leaders as well as amounting to dissemination of terrorist propaganda.

The incumbent magistrate judges dismissed the applicants’ challenges against the decisions issued by the educational board. Their appeals against the dismissal decisions were also rejected by the relevant assize courts.

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicants complained of the violation of their constitutional rights as they had been arbitrarily denied access to the periodicals, which they had subscribed to or purchased, without any justification.

The Court’s Assessment

By its previous judgments, the Court has established its case-law on access to publications in prisons and admission of publications to prisons and also underlined the principles concerning the publications of which prisoners may avail themselves.

It has been found out that some of the decisions issued by the prison administrations and the inferior courts whereby the applicants were denied access to the relevant periodicals included assessments failing to satisfy the criteria set by the Court. It has been further observed that in these decisions, the parts of the periodicals, which had been found inconvenient, were not pointed, and assessments were made not on the basis of concrete elements but instead worded in abstract terms.

In some of these decisions, the prison administrations and the inferior courts specified the pages where the inconvenient parts were included but failed to provide any ground compatible with the principles laid down in the Court’s established case-law. Besides, in these decisions, it was not discussed whether it was possible to hand over the publications to the applicants after the parts found inconvenient had been extracted.

Regard being had to the decisions issued by the relevant administrations and incumbent courts as a whole, it appears that not the applicants’ personal situations but categorical reasons such as their conviction of terrorist offences and their placement in high-security prisons were taken as a basis in denying their access to the impugned periodicals.

In addition, it has been observed that the considerations as to whether a publication should be handed over to all prisoners of the same status in all prisons throughout the country are extremely variable.

It has been accordingly concluded that there is no mechanism capable of precluding arbitrariness in delivery of periodicals to detainees and convicts in prisons, ensuring equal treatment among those who are of the same legal status as well as of securing clear, guiding and stable administrative practices.

Consequently, it has been observed that as for the impugned practice whereby the prisoners are allowed to access to periodicals, no uniform assessments satisfying the criteria set out by the Court could be made.

Besides, in spite of its several judgments finding a violation in respect of the same issue, the Court still receives individual applications lodged against such kind of interferences, which apparently results from a structural problem concerning the current practice on allowing access to periodicals in prisons.

It is clear that if an effective mechanism whereby the prisoners are ensured to receive periodicals in a uniform and fair manner which satisfies the criteria set by the Court is not operated, the said structural problem will continue to exist, which would undoubtedly amount to a continued violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the Court has found a violation of the freedom of expression safeguarded by Article 26 of the Constitution.