European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF GÜLMEZ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

(Applications nos. 27499/20 and 6 others - see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

16 January 2025

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

 

In the case of Gülmez and Others v. Türkiye,

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

          Davor Derenčinović, President,
          Gediminas Sagatys,
          Stéphane Pisani, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 5 December 2024,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The Turkish Government ("the Government") were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants complained of the seizure of manuscripts by prison administration.

THE LAW

I.        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 § 1 of the Convention

6.  The applicants complained of the seizure of manuscripts by prison administration. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 10 of the Convention.

7.  The Court considers that the seizure of the applicants' manuscript constituted an interference with the right to freedom of expression (see Sarıgül v. Turkey, no. 28691/05, § 43, 23 May 2017, and Günana and Others v. Turkey, nos. 70934/10 and 4 others, §§ 60-61, 20 November 2018).

8.  The Court reiterates that it has already found that there was no legal basis in Turkish domestic law for the seizure of a detainee's manuscript under any circumstances (see Günana and Others, cited above, § 67, and also Murat Türk v. Turkey [Committee], no. 20686/19, § 14, 5 April 2022) and found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (Günana and Others, cited above, §§ 68-69 and Murat Türk, cited above, §§ 15-16).

9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the disputed interference was not "prescribed by law" within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.

10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.

III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

11.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Murat Türk, cited above), the Court considers that the finding of a violation is sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and it further finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to some of the applicants in respect of the costs and expenses incurred.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Declares the applications admissible;

3.      Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the seizure of manuscripts by prison administration;

4.      Holds that the finding of the violation constitutes in itself sufficient compensation for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants;

5.      Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants in applications nos. 9243/21 and 16615/21, within three months, the amounts for costs and expenses indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

                       

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                          Davor Derenčinović

    Acting Deputy Registrar                                                President

 

                       

 

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention

(seizure of manuscripts by prison administration)