SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 23772/13 Cengiz Sinan Halis ÇELİK against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 16 June 2015 as a Chamber composed of:

András Sajó , President, Işıl Karakaş , Nebojša Vučinić , Helen Keller, Paul Lemmens, Egidijus Kūris , Jon Fridrik Kjølbro , judges, and Stanley Naismith , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 March 2013 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Cengiz Sinan Halis Çelik , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1974 and is currently serving a prison sentence.

A. The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3. On 24 April 2012, based on Rule 123 of the Prison Regulations, the reading committee of the Tekirda ÄŸ F-Type prison decided that a document posted to the applicant by a third person and which had been drafted in Kurdish should not be remitted to the applicant, as it was considered that the content of the document might be offensive.

4. On 30 May 2012 the Tekirdağ Enforcement Judge dismissed the applicant ’ s objection.

5. On 12 September 2012 the Tekirdağ Assize Court further dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

1. Regarding the prisoners ’ right to correspondence

6 . 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 .

2. Regarding the competency of the Compensation Commission established by Law no. 6384

7 . 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.

COMPLAINTS

8. The applicant submitted that a document posted to him by a third party was not remitted to him upon the order of the prison authorities as the document was in Kurdish and the authorities failed to understand whether the content was offensive or not. He invoked Articles 6, 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention.

THE LAW

9. The applicant mainly alleged that his right to correspondence had been violated. In this connection, he relied on Articles 6, 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention.

10. The Court observes that it has already examined a similar application in the case of 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, 11 January 2011 ) and held that no law or regulation envisaged the possibility of prisoners using a language other than Turkish in their correspondence, or prohibited it or applied any restrictions in the matter. As the interference with the applicants ’ correspondence was not based on any of the grounds listed in the law or regulations, the Court concluded that the interference complained of was not “in accordance with the law” (see §§ 57-58) and found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

11 . The Court further reiterates that the purpose of the exhaustion rule, contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court. Accordingly, this rule requires applicants first to use the remedies provided by the national legal system, thus dispensing States from answering before the European Court for their acts. The assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court. However, as the Court has held on many occasions, this rule is subject to exceptions, which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case (see Aydemir and Others v. Turkey ( dec. ), nos. 9097/05, 949 1/05, 9498/05, 9500/05, 9505/05, and 9509/05, 9 November 2010 ; Vučković and Others v. Serbia [GC], no. 17153/11, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014; and Yıldız and Yanak v. Turkey ( dec. ), no. 44013/07, §§ 25-27, 27 May 2014 ).

12 . The Court also observes that following the pilot judgment procedure applied in the case of Ãœmmühan Kaplan v. Turkey , (no. 24240/07, 20 March 2012), on 9 January 2013 the Turkish National Assembly enacted Law no. 6384 on the resolution, by means of compensation, of applications lodged with the Court concerning length of judicial proceedings and non ‑ enforcement or delayed enforcement of judicial decisions. The competence of the Compensation Commission was subsequently enlarged by a decree adopted on 16 March 2014. The Court notes in this connection that the Compensation Commission has the competence to examine complaints relating to the restriction of the right of detainees to correspondence in a language other than Turkish (see Yıldız and Yanak , cited above, § 16).

13 . The Compensation Commission is therefore empowered to award compensation to all individuals in line with the Court ’ s practice (see Turgut and others ( dec. ), no. 4860/09, 26 March 2013 ; Demiroğlu v. Turkey ( dec. ), no. 56125/10, 4 June 2013 ; and Bozkurt v. Turkey ( dec. ), no. 38674/07, §§ 12-21, 10 March 2015 ). The compensation awarded by the Compensation Commission will be paid by the Ministry of Justice within three months after the decision becomes final and will be exempt from any tax or charges. An appeal can be lodged against the Compensation Commission ’ s decision with the Regional Administrative Court, which should decide on the case within three months.

14 . The Court further notes that the applicant may bring an individual application to the Constitutional Court against the decision of the Regional Administrative Court (see Ahmet Erol v. Turkey ( dec. ), no. 73290/13, 6 May 2014).

15 . Moreover , the Court draws attention to the fact that should the compensation granted at the domestic level be insufficient in comparison with the amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases, it would be open to the applicant to claim that he was still a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention and to introduce a fresh application before the Court.

16 . All of the above considerations lead the Court to conclude that the applicant should seek redress for his C onvention complaints by using this new remedy under Law no. 6384.

17 . It follows that the application should as a whole be rejected for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

F or these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 9 July 2015 .

Stanley Naismith András Sajó Registrar President