Communicated on 5 September 2017

SECOND SECT ION

Applications nos. 4536/06 and 53282/07 Mehmet Ali AYHAN and others against Turkey and Mehmet Ç İ FTÇ İ and Others against Turkey lodged on 19 October 2006 and 21 November 2007 respectively

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

A. The circumstances of the case

1. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows.

2. At the time of the events giving rise to the application, the applicants were serving prison sentences in the Edirne F-type Prison.

1. Background information

3. On 21 June 2005 the disciplinary board of the Edirne F-Type Prison decided to intercept the letters sent by an association to the applicants on the grounds that their content included propaganda for an [ illegal ] organisation and mentioned activities in support of the [ illegal ] organisation and people on a “fast to the death”.

4. On 28 June 2005 the Enforcement Judge of Edirne dismissed the appeal made by the applicant, M. A. Altay, against that decision.

5. On 18 July 2005 the 2 nd Assize Court of Edirne upheld the Enforcement Judge of Edirne ’ s decision.

2. Application no. 4536/06

6. On 14 and 15 September 2005 F.A. Tamer, the applicants ’ representative, wrote to the applicants asking them to fill out and sign the authority form, attached to the letter, to authorise him to lodge on their behalf an application with the Court concerning the disciplinary board ’ s decision to intercept the letters sent by the association.

7. On 21 September 2005 the Edirne F-Type Prison administration applied to the Enforcement Judge of Edirne seeking a decision on whether to forward the letters to the applicants.

8. On 25 October 2005 the Enforcement Judge of Edirne decided that the said letters should not be given to the applicants. The court considered that F.A. Tamer ’ s request to have the applicants ’ signature on authority forms for the purpose of bringing an application before the Court was not protected by professional freedom but instead pressured and incited the applicants.

9. On 29 November 2005 the 2 nd Assize Court of Edirne dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicants M. A. Altay, M. Çiftçi and Z. Şahin and upheld the Enforcement Judge of Edirne ’ s decision.

10. In the meantime, on 23 November 2005, F.A. Tamer wrote to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe informing the latter that the Edirne F-Type Prison administration ’ s refusal to give the prisoners the impugned letters had impaired his ability to lodge an application with the Court and constituted a violation of the European Agreement relating to Persons Participating in Proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights.

3. Application no. 53282/07

11. On 18 April 2007 G. T. Güneş , the applicants ’ representative in the first application no. 4536/06, wrote to the applicants M.A. Altay, M. Ali Ayhan , C. Kumanlı and M. Çiftçi , asking them to sign authority forms, attached to her letter, in order to complete application no. 4536/06.

12. Upon the Edirne F-Type Prison administration ’ s request, the Enforcement Judge of Edirne issued a ruling on 9 May 2007 in respect of these letters and held that they should not be given to the applicants on the same grounds as those of its previous decision dated 25 October 2005.

13. On 1 June 2007 the 2 nd Assize Court of Edirne dismissed t he appeal made by M. A. Altay and M. Çiftçi and upheld the Enforcement Judge of Edirne ’ s decision.

4. Developments after the application no. 4536/06 was lodged with the Court

14. G.T. Güneş submitted to the Court the authority forms, which were signed by all the applicants, on 5 April and 21 October 2010, respectively to complete the application no. 4536/06.

B. Relevant law

1. Domestic law

15. The relevant law regarding the interception of correspondence to and from prisoners by prison administrations can be found in the judgment Sarıgül v. Turkey , no. 28691/05, § 27, 23 May 2017.

2. International law

16. Article 3 of the European Agreement Relating to Persons Participating in Proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights reads as follows:

1. The Contracting Parties shall respect the right of the persons referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 1 of this Agreement to correspond freely with the Commission and the Court.

2. As regards persons under detention, the exercise of this right shall in particular imply that:

a) if their correspondence is examined by the competent authorities, its despatch and delivery shall nevertheless take place without undue delay and without alteration;

b) such persons shall not be subject to disciplinary measures in any form on account of any communication sent through the proper channels to the Commission or the Court;

c) such persons shall have the right to correspond, and consult out of hearing of other persons, with a lawyer qualified to appear before the courts of the country where they are detained in regard to an application to the Commission, or any proceedings resulting therefrom.

3. In application of the preceding paragraphs, there shall be no interference by a public authority except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, for the detection or prosecution of a criminal offence or for the protection of health.

COMPLAINT

The applicants in the first application, invoking Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, and the applicants in the second application, invoking Articles 6 § 1, 8 and 13 of the Convention, complain that the domestic authorities intercepted their correspondence with their representative concerning their prospective and pending applications before the Court.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the decisions of the domestic authorities to intercept the letters and their enclosures which were sent to the applicants by their representatives concerning their prospective and pending applications before the Court hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application, guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Shtukaturov v. Russia , no. 44009/05, § 147, 27 March 2008; Trosin v. Ukraine , no. 39758/05, §§ 54-56, 23 February 2012; Yefimenko v. Russia , no. 152/04 , § 163-165, 12 February 2013; and Kopanitsyn v. Russia , no. 43231/04 , § § 42-44, 1 2 March 2015 ) ?

Appendix

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant ’ s name

date of birth

place of residence

4536/06

23/11/2005

Mehmet Aytunç ALTAY

20/03/1951

Edirne

Mehmet Ali AYHAN

01/01/1961

Edirne

Cengiz KUMANLI

03/08/1959

Edirne

Mehmet ÇİFTÇİ

01/10/1952

Edirne

Zeki ÅžAHÄ°N

09/04/1963

Edirne

53282/07

21/11/2007

Mehmet ÇİFTÇİ

01/10/1952

Edirne

Mehmet Aytunç ALTAY

20/03/1951

Edirne

Mehmet Ali AYHAN

01/01/1961

Edirne

Cengiz KUMANLI

03/08/1959

Edirne