LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
ATILLA v. TURKEY
Doc ref: 18139/07, 18180/07, 18229/07, 18230/07, 18231/07, 18232/07, 18235/07, 18236/07, 18238/07, 18239/07, ... • ECHR ID: 001-98989
Document date: May 11, 2010
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 1
ATILLA v. TURKEY
Doc ref: 18139/07, 18180/07, 18229/07, 18230/07, 18231/07, 18232/07, 18235/07, 18236/07, 18238/07, 18239/07, ... • ECHR ID: 001-98989
Document date: May 11, 2010
Cited paragraphs only
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 18139/07 by Abdurrahim ATÄ°LLA and 57 other applications against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens , President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto , Danutė Jočienė , András Sajó , Nona Tsotsoria , Işıl Karakaş , Kristina Pardalos , judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above application s lodged on 16 April 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
A. The circumstances of the case
The applicant s are Turkish national s and at the time of their applications they were all but six [1] in pre-trial detention in Diyarbakır F-type Prison. The names and dates of birth of the applicants appear in the appendix . They were all represented before the Court by Mr M. Şahin and Mr O. Çelik , lawyers practising in Diyarbakır .
On 7 September 2006 the applicants announced a collective two-day hunger strike in protest against the conditions of detention of Abdullah Öcalan , leader of the PKK (the Workers ’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal, armed organisation. On 11 September 2006 the Diyarbakır F-type Prison Disciplinary Board imposed a disciplinary sanction on the applicants, consisting of a one-month ban on sports activities and conversation in groups (spor ve sohbet etkinlikleri) , for launching a hunger strike and forming a group with a view to breaching the regulations. The applicants lodged appeals, which were rejected by the Diyarbakır Enforcement Court and the Diyarbakır Assize Court on 25 September and 9 October 2006 respectively. The final decision was deposited with the registry of the court on 10 November 2006.
B. Relevant domestic law
Law no. 5275 on the Enforcement of Sentences and Preventive Measures provides as follows:
Article 40
“1. The penalty of a deprivation of certain activities deprives convicts of the right to participate in the prison workshops and sports activities from one to three months.
2. The acts requiring the penalty of a deprivation of certain activities are as follows:
...
(g) launching a hunger strike ...”
COMPLAINTS
The applicant s complained under Article s 9 and 10 of the Convention that the disciplinary punishment which had been imposed on them because they launched a hunger strike had violated their freedom of thought and expression. They contended that the hunger strike had been a peaceful way of expressing their opinions.
THE LAW
In view of the similarity of the applications, both as regards facts and law, the Court deems it appropriate to join and examine them together.
The applicants submitted that the disciplinary punishment imposed on them because they had launched a hunger strike in support of Abdullah Öcalan had infringed their freedom of thought and expression.
At the outset the Court considers that these complaints are to be examined solely under Article 10 of the Convention – freedom of expression.
The Court finds that the disciplinary punishments did indeed amount to an “interference” with the applicants ’ freedom of expression. Such an interference will constitute a breach of Article 10 unless it is “prescribed by law”, pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 and is “necessary in a democratic society” in order to achieve the aim or aims in question.
The Court observes that the impugned measure was “prescribed by law”, as it was based on section 40 of Law No. 5275.
The Court reiterates that a ny restrictions on Convention rights must be justified, although such justification may well be found in considerations of security, in particular the prevention of crime and disorder, which inevitably flow from the circumstances of imprisonment (see, for example, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom , 25 March 1983, § 99-105 , Series A no. 61 , where broad restrictions on the right of prisoners to correspond fell foul of Article 8, but the stopping of specific letters containing threats or other objectionable references was justifiable in the interests of the prevention of disorder or crime ; see also, mutatis mutandis , Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 69, 6 October 2005). In the circumstances of the present case, the Court finds that the interference pursued the legitimate aim under Article 10 § 2 of preventing disorder.
It remains to be determined whether the measure was “necessary in a democratic society”.
The Court observes that Law No. 5275 lists punishable acts, the penalties relating to them and the procedure to be followed. In section 40, “launching a hunger strike” had been defined as a punishable act. In the present case, the applicants were disciplined for having breached the prison order protected under the foregoing provision, rather than for having expressed their opinions.
The Court queries whether such a blanket restriction on hunger strikes is compatible with Article 10 of the Convention. Nevertheless, given the particular circumstances of the present case, it does not deem it necessary to determine that question.
The Court notes that moderate disciplinary punishments were imposed by the State in order to prevent or deter the applicants from launching their hunger strikes and to re-establish order in the prison should a campaign of that kind be initiated. On this point, regard must be had to the collective nature of the applicants ’ protest, as well as the type of prisoners involved. Many of these prisoners were apparently supporters of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation. The Court considers that a protest of this nature and scale could reasonably have been seen by the prison authorities as a threat to prison order. Moreover, it is of the view that the penalties imposed, involving a one-month ban on the applicants ’ sports activities and conversations in groups, cannot be regarded as disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, namely the prevention of disorder, within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.
In the light of the foregoing considerations and the specific circumstances of the case, the Court concludes that the interference with the applicants ’ freedom of expression does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The applications must therefore be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these re asons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the application s inadmissible.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens Registrar President
APPENDIX
Case Name
Application Number
Name of applicant
Date of Birth
1ATÄ°LLA
18139/07
Abdurrahim Atilla
1980
2SAVUR
18180/07
Abdullah Savur
1980
3ALÄ°
18229/07
Bahtiyar Ali
1984
4AKINCI
18230/07
Sadun Akıncı
1972
5YALÇIN
18231/07
Adnan Yalçın
1962
6IÅžIK
18232/07
Alican Işık
1977
7ÖZDEMİR
18235/07
Nevzat Özdemir
1974
8ATLI
18236/07
Hacı Atlı
1974
9KAPLAN
18238/07
Ä°dban Kaplan
1970
10BALIKÇI
18239/07
Galip Balıkçı
1978
11AYTÄ°MUR
18240/07
Adem Aytimur
1972
12BARAN
18244/07
Ömer Baran
1977
13ALP
18245/07
Ali Alp
1976
14TAÅž
18246/07
Tarık Taş
1963
15ADANIR
18247/07
Davut Adanır
1952
16ENCÜ
18248/07
Ecevit Encü
1986
17GELNÄ°
18249/07
Metin Gelni
1966
18AY
18250/07
Münir Ay
1980
19BEYAZ
18252/07
Necmettin Beyaz
1973
20ATEÅž
18255/07
Burhanettin AteÅŸ
1981
21KILIÇ
18257/07
Zeki Kılıç
1984
22AY
18260/07
Ayetullah Ay
1980
23ÃœLGER
18261/07
Mehmet Ãœlger
1969
24ÅžAHÄ°N
18262/07
Baycan Åžahin
1974
25KARA
18263/07
Orhan Kara
1973
26ÖZGÜN (2)
18284/07
Servet Özgün (No.2)
1980
27ERDEM
18289/07
Adnan Erdem
1960
28ÖZER
18290/07
Felat Özer
1980
29AB Ä° R
18291/07
Fatih Abir
1973
30KARAASLANLI
18292/07
A. Latif Karaaslanlı
1978
31KOÇ
18295/07
Mehmet Koç
1979
32ERDOÄžAN
18297/07
Mehmet ErdoÄŸan
1971
33TURAN
18298/07
Ä°zzet Turan
1975
34DÄ°BEKLÄ°
18299/07
Ä°brahim Dibekli
1972
35OÄžUL
18300/07
Sedat OÄŸul
1985
36ÇELİK
18302/07
Ömer Çelik
1984
37YILMAZ
18304/07
Murat Yılmaz
1979
38KÖYLÜOĞLU
18305/07
Muhsin Köylüoğlu
1982
39GÃœLTEKÄ°N
18307/07
Mehmet Şirin G ültekin
1966
40EMÄ°R E
18309/07
Mehmet Sıddık E mire
1973
41ELÄ°K
18310/07
Rufai Elik
1985
42AKGÖK
18311/07
Sedat Akgök
1974
43CENGÄ°Z
18313/07
Abdül Hakim Cengiz
1986
44SAVAR
18314/07
Hacı Abbas Savar
1974
45TÃœRKAN
18315/07
Yılmaz Türkan
1977
46GEZÄ°CÄ°
18318/07
Mahmut Gezici
1981
47KALIR
18521/07
Şeyhmus Kalır
1956
48URTEKÄ°N
18523/07
Burhan Urtekin
1984
49İNANÇ
1 8525/07
Şeref İnanç
1963
50USUN
18527/07
Serhat Usun
1987
51ÇELİK
18480/07
Aydın Çelik
1970
52YAKIÅžAN
18710/07
Erdoğan Yakışan
1970
53SAKÇI
20368/07
Orhan Sakçı
1970
54DAÅž
20933/07
Hüseyin Daş
1966
55BAÅžARAN
21172/07
Mehmet BaÅŸaran
1985
56EBEM
21173/07
Hasan Hüseyin Ebem
1961
57YAÅžAR
21174/07
Eyüp Yaşar
1973
58ÖZCAN
21176/07
Bülent Özcan
1968[1] . With the exception of six applicants in cases nos. 18231/07, 18244/07, 18246/07, 18298/07, 18315/07, 18521/07.
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
