SECOND SECTION

CASE OF MEHMET NURİ ÖZEN AND OTHERS v. TUR KEY

( Applications nos. 15672/08, 24462/08, 27559/08, 28302/08, 28312/08, 34823/08, 40738/08, 41124/08, 43197/08, 51938/08 and 58170/08)

(Extrac ts)

JUDGMENT

This version was rectified on 15 March 2011

u nder Rule 81 of the Rules of Cour t

STRASBOURG

11 January 2011

FINAL

11/04/2011

This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision .

In the case of Mehmet Nuri Özen and Others v. Turkey ,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens, P r e sident , Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Danutė Jočienė, Dragoljub Popović, András Sajó, Işıl Karakaş, Guido Raimondi, ju d ges , and Stanley Naismith, S ection Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 7 December 2010 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date :

PROC E DURE

1 . The case originated in eleven applications (nos. 15672/08, 24462/08, 27559/08, 28302/08, 28312/08, 34823/08, 40738/08, 41124/08, 43197/08, 51938/08 and 58170/08 ) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by ten Turkish nationals, Mr Mehmet Nuri Özen ( no. 15672/08), Mr Abdulkadir Uçar ( no. 24462/08), Mr Nezir Adıyaman ( no. 27559/08), Mr Canar Yurtsever ( no. 28302/08), Mr Erol Yılmaz ( no. 28312/08), Mr Zafer Balcı ( no. 34823/08), Mr Mehmet Nuri Tanış ( no s . 40738/08 and 43197/08), Fevzi Abo ( no. 41124/08), Mr Engin Babayiğit ( no. 51938/08) and Mr Ergün Karaman ( no. 58170/08) ( “the applicants” ) , respectively on 6 August 2008 ( no. 40738/08) , 14 May 2008 ( no. 15672/08), 17 May 2008 ( no. 24462/08), 27 May 2008 ( nos. 27559/08, 28302/08 and 28312/08), 16 June 2008 ( nos. 34823/08 and 41124/08), 19 August 2008 ( no. 43197/08), 28 August 2008 ( no. 51938/08) and 6 N ovemb er 2008 ( no. 58170/08) .

2 . The applicant s were repr e sent ed by Mr M. Erbil ( nos. 24462/08 , 27559/08, 28302/08, 28312/08, 34823/08, 41124/08 and 51938/08) and Mr M. Vargün and Mr D. Bayır ( nos. 15672/08, 40738/08, 43197/08 and 58170/08), lawyers practising in I stanbul and Ankara respective ly . The Turkish Government ( “the Government” ) were repr e sent ed by their A gent.

3 . The applicant s all eged that they had suffered a discriminato ry breach of their right to respect for their correspond e nce (A rticles 8 and 14). Several of them also complained that the national authorities had lacked ind e pend e nce and impartialit y , that the disciplina ry proc e edings had not been public , and that the national courts had failed to give reasons for their d e cisions (A rticle 6 § 1). Some also alleged that the proceedings had bee n unfair (A rticle 6 § 3 ( a), ( b) and ( c)) and that they had not had access to an effective remedy ( Article 13). Lastly , certain applicant s relied on A rticles 9, 10, 17 and 18 of the Convention.

4 . On 11 May 2009 the P r e sident of the Second S ection decided to give n otice of the applications to the Government . In accordance with Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it was decided that the admissibility and the merits of the case would be examined at the same time .

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRC UM STANCES OF THE CASE

5 . The applicant s are Turkish nationals .

6 . They are all serving sentences in Turkish high-security prisons, where the authorities refused to dispatch their letters written in a language other than Turkish . They all brought proceedings before the comp e tent domestic courts to oblige the prison authorities to dispatch their letters, but to no avail .

7 . A t the time they lodged their applications, the applicant s were serving their sentences in the F - type prison in TekirdaÄŸ or the Bolu prison high ‑ security prison.

1. Mehmet Nuri Özen

8 . On 14 January 2008 the Disciplinary Board at the applicant ’ s prison proceeded, in accordance with section 68 § 3 of Law no. 5275 on the execution of sentences and preventive me a sures (“Law no . 5275 ” ) , to check a letter the applicant had written to another prisoner in Kurdish . After reminding him that letters should in princip l e be written in Turkish , they informed him that they could not have the letter translated, for lack of staff, so they were unable to ascertain , as required under Rule 122 § 1 of the Regulations on prison management and the execution of sentences (“the Prison Regulations ”), whether the content of the letter was “inoffensive” . They therefore decided to return the letter to the applicant .

9 . On 28 January 2008, on the basis of the case file , the Bolu enforcements judge dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal against that d e cision.

10 . On 12 February 2008 the Bolu Assize Court , also dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant against that d e cision.

2. Abdulkadir Uçar, Nezir Adıyaman, Canar Yurtsever and Erol Yılmaz

11 . On 21 and 26 S eptemb er 2007 the Disciplinary Board d e cid ed to keep one letter written by each of the applicants in Kurdish . Arguing that the prison had neither the staff nor the money to have them translated, the y explained that the let ter s could be sent once they had been translated, at the applicants ’ expense, by a sworn translator and their content had been found to be inoffensive.

12 . On 6 N ovemb er 2007, based on the case file , the Tekirdağ enforcements judge dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant s. That decision was reached after the judge examin ed the public prosecutor ’ s submissions, according to which “it [was] n e cessa ry to have the correspond e nce – which was written in a language other than the official language – tra nsl ated in order to have it verified in accordance with section 68 § 3 of Law no. 5275; there [were] no legal provisions requiring the prison to cover the cost of the translation ; as the interested parties themselves had not paid for a translation , there [was] nothing unlawful about the impugned d e cisions ” .

13 . On 19 and 27 N ovemb er 2007, based on the case file , the TekirdaÄŸ Assize Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant against that decision , having found no legal or procedural defect .

3. Zafer Balcı

14 . On 10 O ctob er 2007 the Disciplinary Board d e cided , pursuant to section 68 § 3 of Law no. 5275 and Rule 91 § 3 of the Prison Regulations, to seize a lett er the applicant had written to his mother in K urd ish . They explained that they had been unable to decipher the content of the letter because the p rison staff did not understand Kurdish .

15 . On 22 N ovemb er 2007, based on the case file , the enforcements judge dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant . That decision was reached after the judge examined the public prosecutor ’ s submissions, according to which “it [was] necessary to have the correspondence – which was written in a language other than the official language – translated in order to have it verified in accordance with section 68 § 3 of Law no. 5275; the prison [ had ] no budget for translation costs. A s the interested part y had not paid for a translation himself , there [was] nothing wrong with the impugned decision”.

16 . On 18 D e cemb er 2007, based on the case file , the Assize Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant against that decision, having found no legal or procedural defect .

4. Mehmet Nuri Tanış

17 . On 2 May 2008, the Disciplinary Board decided not to send a letter the applicant had written to his mother in Kurdish , because they were unable to have it translated and thus to understand its content and determine whether it was “ inoffensive ” .

18 . On 26 May 2008 they reached a similar decision concerning a letter written by the applicant to his sister in Kurdish .

19 . On 20 May and 18 June 2008 respective ly , on the basis of the case file , the Bolu enforcements judge dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal against th ose decision s not to send his letters , considering that the Board ’ s d e cisions were fully in keeping with section 68 § 3 of Law no. 5275 and Rule 123 § 1 of the Prison Regulations , as it had not been possible to d e termin e whether the content of the letters matched any of the criteria set forth in section 68 § 3 of Law no. 5275.

20 . On 6 June and 11 July 2008 respective ly, basing itself on the case file , the Bolu Assize Court rejected the applicant ’ s complaint against these d e cisions , noting that the refus al to dispatch the letters had been based not on the fact that they were written in Kurdish but on the fact that their content was incompr e hensible and therefore impossible to verify having regard in particular to the imperatives of order and security .

5. Fevzi Abo

21 . On 10 O ctob er 2007 the Disciplinary Board d e cid ed to seize a letter the applicant had written in Kurdish , in conformity with section 68 § 3 of Law no. 5275 and rule 91 § 3 of the Prison Regulations , on the grounds that they had been unable to decipher the content of the letter because the prison staff did not understand Kurdish .

22 . On 20 N ovem ber 2007, based on the case file , the enforcements judge reje cted the applicant ’ s appeal . That decision was reached after the judge examined the public prosecutor ’ s submissions, according to which “it [was] necessary to have correspondence which was written in a language other than the official language translated , in order to have it checked in accordance with section 68 § 3 of Law no. 5275 . T he prison [had] no budget for translation costs. As the interested party had not paid for a translation himself, there [was] nothing wrong with the impugned decision . ”

23 . On 18 D e cemb er 2007, based on the case file , the Assize Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant against that d e cision, finding that there had been no procedural defect or error of law .

6. Engin BabayiÄŸit

24 . On 21 January 2008, relying on Ru les 91, 122 and 123 of the Prison Regulations , the Disciplinary Board decided not to send a letter the applicant had written in Kurdish . They explained that the prison had no staff to translate the letter and took note of the prisoner ’ s refusal to cover the cost of translation himself .

25 . On 6 February 2008, based on the case file , the Kocaeli enforcements judge found that the Board ’ s decision was in conformity with p rison R ule s 91, 122 and 123 .

26 . On 28 February 2008, on the basis of the case file , the Kocaeli Assize Court rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant .

7. Ergün Karaman

27 . On 2 May 2008, the Disciplinary Board decided to refuse to send a letter the applicant had written to his father in Kurdish , on the grounds that they could not understand its content and d e termine, as required by Rule 122 § 1 , whether it was “ inoffensive ” . After pointing out that correspond e nce should, in princip l e be written in Turkish , they explained that they did not have any staff to translate the letter .

28 . On 20 May 2008, noting that the letter in question contained characters which were not in the Latin alphabet , the Bolu enforcements judge dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal , point ing out that while the right to corresponde nce was guaranteed , it was not un limit e d , and that in this particular case it was not possible to ascertain whether the conten t of the letter fell within the scope of the restrictions set forth in section 68 § 3 of Law no. 5275.

29 . On 10 June 2008 the Bolu Assize Court observed that the reason behind the d e cision not to send the let ter was not the fact that it was written in Kurdish but the fact that its content was in compr e hensible, making it impossible to carry out the verification provided for in section 68 § 3 of Law no. 5275.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

“ 1. With the exception of the restrictions set forth in this section , convicted prisoners shall have the right , at their own expense , to send and receive lett er s, faxes and t e l e grams.

2. The letter s, faxes and telegram s sent or received by prisoners shall be monitored by the reading commi ttee in those prisons that have such a body , or, in those which do not, by the highest authority in the prison.

3. If l etter s, faxes and telegram s to prisoners are a threat to order and s e curit y in the prison, single out serving officials as targets , perm it communication between terrorist o r criminal organisations , contain false or misleading information likely to cause pani c in individuals or institutions, o r contain threats or insults, they shall not be forwarded to the addressee.

Nor shall [ letter s, faxes and telegram s of the type described above ] written by prisoners be dispatched .

... ”

31 . Rule 91 of the Prison Regulations of 20 March 2006 on prison management and the execution of sentences , publi shed in the Official Gazette on 6 April 2006, reads as follows :

“ 1. C onvicted prisoners shall have the right, at their own expense, to send and receive letters, faxes and telegrams .

2. The letter s, faxes and telegram s sent or received by prisoners shall be monitored by the reading commi ttee in those prisons that have such a body , or, in those which do not, by the highest authority in the prison .

3. If letters, faxes and telegrams to prisoners are a threat to order and security in the prison, single out serving officials as targets, permit communication between terrorist or criminal organisations, contain false or misleading information likely to cause panic in individuals or institutions, or contain threats or insults, they shall not be forwarded to the addressee .

... ”

32 . Rule 122 § 1 of the Prison Regulations reads as follows :

“ In the framework of the right to send and receive correspondence under section 91 above , letter s, faxes and telegram s written by prisoners shall be handed , in open envelopes to the staff responsible for surveillance and s e curit y , who shall transmit them to the reading commi t tee ... A ‘ s e en ’ stamp shall be affixed to those letter s which , upon exami n ation , appear inoffensive . [ Such letter s] shall be plac e d in envelope s and given to the postal services ... ”

33 . Ru le 123 of the Prison Regulations reads as follows :

“ 1. Th os e incoming or outgoing letter s which are not considered inoffensive by the reading committee shall be transmitted to the Disciplinary Board within 24 hours . If the Disciplinary Board finds a letter to be offensive in full or in part , the letter shall be kept until the time-limit for filing a complaint or an objection has expired , without the original being altered or destroyed. If a letter is found to be offensive in part , the original shall be kept by the prison authorities and a photocop y delivered – with the offending passages struck out in such a way as to be illegible – together with the Board ’ s d e cision . If the whole letter is f ound to be offensive , only the d e cision of the Disciplinary Board is delivered . The Disciplinary Board ’ s d e cision shall become final upon expiry of the time-limit for applying to the enforcements judge , which shall start to run on the date of delivery . If the matter is sent before the enforcements judge , his decision shall become final upon expiry of the time-limit for appeal, which shall start to run on the date of the d e cision of the enforcements judge . If an appeal is made to set aside the d e cision of the enforcements judge , the d e cision of the court examining the appeal shall apply .

2. T he noti ce given to the prisoner must inform him that if no complaint is lodged with the enforcements judge within fifteen days of the Disciplinary Board ’ s decision being served , or if no appeal against the decision of the enforcements judge is lodged with the Assize Court within one week of its being served , the d e cision of the Disciplinary Board shall become final , and that the letter concerned will be forwarded after the offending passages have been deleted and rendered illegible , o r that the whole letter is considered offensive and will not be delivered .

3. Th os e letter s consid e r e d offensive in full or in part shall be kept by the prison authorities for use if an appeal is lodged at the national or international level . ”

34 . On 13 O ctob er 2009 the Prison Service of the Ministry of Justice sent public prosecutors and prison governors as well as enforcements judge s , a circula r concerning translation costs . Referring to A rticles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the relevant passages read as follows :

“ There are certain things we wish to bring to your attention ... , in order to put a stop to any uncertainty concern ing the exercise of the right to receive or send publications, letter s, faxes or telegram s written in a dialect or language other than Turkish ... .

...

Examination of prison budgetary practices reveals that there is no budg e t provision for the translation into Turkish of p e riodi cal or non-periodical publications and correspondence written in a dialect or language other than Turkish . If a prison is unable to provide this service using local resources , it is possible to solve the probl em by charging the cost to the “purchase of service s” budget head, under the sub-head ‘ purchase of other services ’ , which includes the item ‘ expenditure on translations not counted as author ’ s rights ’ .

In this connection ,

1. It is s ufficient to provide a “summary re port ” summarising the g e n e ral content of documents such as periodi cal or non-periodical publications , letter s, faxes and telegram s written in a language other than Turkish ;

2. If there are prison staff with a knowledge of the langu ag e or dialect concerned , they should be asked to prepare the summary report ;

3. If the probl em cannot be resolved in the manner described in the preceding paragraph , it is possible, for a ‘ reasonable ’ fee:

( a) to make use of local re sources and , at this stage , take advantage of the skills of staff working in other administrati ve entities ;

( b) if that also proves impossible, to have recourse to reliable persons in the area or district who are familiar with the langu ag e or dialect concerned.”

THE LAW

I. JO INDER OF THE CAS ES

35 . In view of the simil arity between the cases in terms of the facts and substantive issues they raise, the Court , b y virtue of Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court , decides to join them .

I I . ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION

36 . The applicant s all alleged that their right to freedom of correspond e nce had been violated . In applications nos. 24462/08 , 27559/08, 28302/08, 28312/08, 34823/08, 41124/08 and 51938/08 the applicant s object ed to the Turkish authorities ’ failure to pay for the translation of their correspond e nce into Turkish . They relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows :

“ 1. Everyone has the right to respect for ... his correspond e nce.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety ... the prevention of disorder or crime ... or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

37 . The Government disagreed .

...

B. The merits

1. Whether there was interference

38 . The Government disputed that there had been any interference with the applicant s ’ right to respect for their correspond e nce, in so far as the refus al to send their letter s had been based not on their content but on the fact that they had not been translated . In the Government ’ s submission, therefore , no issue ar ose under Article 8.

39 . The Court note s that it is not in dispute that the prison authorities refus e d to forward the applicant s ’ letter s to their addressees, and that the courts concerned upheld those d e cisions ( see paragraph s 8-29 above ).

40 . The Court has already held that the mere monitoring of prisoners ’ correspondence by the authorities amount s to an “interference” with their right to respect for their correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 ( see , for example , Calogero Diana v . Ital y , 15 N ovemb er 1996, § 28 , Reports of Judgments and D e cisions 1996-V ). This means that the actual conten t of the correspondence is immaterial in d e termin ing whether a restrictive me a sure constitut es an “ interference ” : what counts is whether the private correspondence was interfered with ( see Fr e rot v . France , no. 70204/01, 12 June 2007, § 54).

41 . Clearly, therefore, the d e cisions not to send the letters amounted to an interference .

2. Whether the interference was justified

42 . Such an interference will violate Article 8 unless it is “in accordance with the law”, pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 8 and is “ n e cessa ry in a d e mocrati c society” to achieve those aims .

a. T he Government ’ s submissions

43 . The Government pointed out that the Court did not prohibit all interference with prisoners ’ correspondence . Its case-law acknowledged that some me a sure of control over prisoners ’ correspondence was called for to preserve ord er in prisons and was not , of itself, incompatible with the Convention ( Silver and Others v . the United Kingdom , 25 March 1983, Se rie s A no. 61, and Campbell v . the United Kingdom , 25 March 1992, Se rie s A no. 233 ).

44 . The Government argued that, were the Court to find that there had been interference , the interference was justifi e d under the second paragraph of Article 8. In their submission it was in accordance with the law , pursued a l e gitim at e aim , namely preventing d i sord er and crime, and was necessary in a d e mocrati c society . The Government explained that there were legal guarantees to protect people against arbitra ry interference by the public authorities . Lastly, they submitted that the State was under no obligation to cover the cost of translating prisoners ’ correspondence , no such obligation being provided for in the Convention .

b. The applicant s ’ submissions

i. Submissions of Mehmet Nuri Özen, Mehmet Nuri Tanış and Ergün Karaman

45 . Relying on the cases of Hirst v. the United Kingdom ( no. 2) ( [GC], no. 74025/01, ECHR 2005 ‑ IX ) and Yankov v . Bulgari a ( no. 39084/97 , ECHR 2003 ‑ XII), the applicant s submitted that their conviction did not de prive them of their rights under the Convention. They were therefore entitled to respect for their correspondence . As their visiting hours were restricted , the possibilit y of exchanging correspond enc e with the outside world was their main way of keeping in touch with their families. Referring to the Chishti v . Portugal case ((d e c.), no. 57248/00, 2 O ctob er 2003), they alleged that there was no law prohibiting correspond ence in a langu ag e other than Turkish . In their submission the interference with their rights was therefore arbitra ry as there was no l e gal basis for it .

46 . In addition, while the applicants acknowledged that some supervision of correspondence was necessary to guarantee s e curit y i n prison and pr e ven t crime, they argued that this could not justif y prohibiting prisoners from correspond ing with their families in a langu ag e other than Turkish . In their submission this ban on written communication was i n contradiction with the pra c ti c e of aut horising oral communication in another langu ag e. There were laws which authorised prisoners to speak Kurdish on the t e l e phone or when they had visitors . This surely indicated that the interference with their correspondence pursued no l e gitim at e aim for the purposes of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, as the right to speak Kurdish was already acknowledged in prisons .

47 . The applicant s also criticised the authorities ’ refusal to examine the conten t of the correspondence when they were equipped to do so for other forms of communication . The y alleged that the authorities ’ reluctance to examine the content of their letter s was based on the arbitra ry as sumption that all correspondence written in another langu ag e was potenti ally danger ous . In this particular case there was no pressing social need capable of justifying the attitude of the domestic authorities .

48 . They further submitted that the States should make allowance for the linguisti c, cultural and religi o us specificities of prisoners , particul arly those who belonged to a minorit y group. Lastly , they contended that the Government ’ s argument that the State should not have to pay the cost of translation was contradictory considering the pra c ti c e in respect of oral communications . Expecting detainees to pay the cost of translations placed an excessive burden on them , and a burden which, in their submission, was not imposed on foreign prisoners.

ii. Submiss ions of Abdulkadir Uçar, Nezir Adıyaman, Canar Yurtsever, Erol Yılmaz, Zafer Balcı, Fevzi Abo and Engin Babayiğit

49 . The applicant s submitted that their mother tongue was Kurdish and they were more fluent in that language . They further submitted that the Government had failed to explain what criteria they had used , and why a letter written in a language other than Turkish and therefore incompr e hensible to the authorities was likely to jeopardise prison s e curit y. Nor had they explained what pr e ventive aim the measures pursued.

c. T he Court ’ s assessment

50 . The Court refers to the basic princip l es enshrined in its case-law on the matter ( see Silver and Others , cited above , §§ 85-90; Calogero Diana , cited above, §§ 28, 32 and 33 ; Petra v . Romani a , 23 S eptemb er 1998, § 37, Reports 1998 ‑ VII ; and CotleÅ£ v . Romani a , no. 38565/97, § § 59 and 61-65, 3 June 2003). It will examine the case in the light of these princip l es.

51 . It points out, f ir st of all, that some measure of control over prisoners ’ correspondence is called for and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention, regard being ha d to the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment ( see Campbell , cited above , § 45). In that connection it observe s that under Turkish law prisoners ’ correspondence is subject to a checking process before it is forwarded.

52 . Any letter sent to or by a prisoner which is considered offensive may thus, by d e cision of the prison ’ s Disciplinary Board , be partly censored or not be sent at all ( see paragraphs 30-33 above ). T he Court notes, however, that the domestic laws governing such matters give an exhaustive list of the circ um stances in which a letter written by a prisoner may be withheld from the addressee.

53 . Only correspondence the content of which is a threat to order and security in the prison, single s out serving officials as targets, permit s communication between terrorist or criminal organisations, contain s false or misleading information likely to cause panic in individuals or institutions, or contain s threats or insults , may be withheld from the addressee ( see paragraph s 30 and 31 above ).

54 . Examination of the domestic court d e cisions , however, reveals that the d e cisions not to forward the applicant s ’ letters were based on none o f the above criteria . Although they referred to section 68 § 3 of Law no. 5275 and Rule 91 of the Regulations on prison management and the execution of sentences to explain their d e cisions, it nevertheless remains – and the Government have acknowledged this ( see paragraph 39 above ) – that the domestic authorities refus e d to send the letter s not because their conten t failed to satisfy the above-mentioned requirements concerning s e curit y and the pr e vention of crime , but because the authorities concerned were unable to understand the letters .

56 . T he Court reiterates that it has already held that while a law which confers a discretion must indicate the scope of that discretion, it is impossible to attain absolute certainty in the framing of the law, and the likely outcome of any search for certainty would be excessive rigidity ( se e , among other authorities, Calogero Diana , cited above , § 32). The law must be able to keep pace with changing circumstances , and the Court accepts that many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice ( see , for example , Silver and Others , cited above, § 88).

57 . In the instant case, however, it observe s that no law or regulat ion envisages the possibility of prisoners using a language other than Turkish in their written correspondence, or prohibits it or applies any restrictions in the matter . So w hile under domestic law the attribution to custodial facilities of the power to monitor and censor correspondence hinge s only on the content thereof , in this particular case the authorities paid no heed to the content of the letters concerned . Their d e cisions not to forward the applicant s ’ correspondence were not based on any of the grounds listed in the law or r egulations.

58 . The Court accordingly concludes that the interference complained of was not “in accordance with the law” .

59 . The Court also observe s that at the material time , in the absence of any legal framework giv ing instructions for processing correspondence written in a language other than Turkish , the procedure was left entirely to the discr e tion of the prison authorities, who de velop ed the practice of requiring such correspondence to be translated at the prisoners ’ expense. T he Court considers that such a practice, as applied in this case, is incompatible with Article 8 because it automatically exclude s from the protection afforded by that provision an entire category of private correspondence which prisoners might wish to use .

60 . The adoption of a ministerial circular apparently aimed at removing any restriction on letters written in a language other than Turkish does not alter that finding , as the circular concerned was adopted in 2009 and post ‑ date s the facts complained of ( see paragraph 34 above ).

61 . T he Court accordingly holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

...

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

...

3 . Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;

...

Done in French , and notified in writing on 11 January 2011 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court .

Stanley Naismith Françoise Tulkens Registrar Pr e sident