BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

European Court of Human Rights


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> AKYOL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY - 24227/09 (Judgment : Freedom of expression-{general} : Second Section Committee) [2020] ECHR 349 (26 May 2020)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2020/349.html
Cite as: CE:ECHR:2020:0526JUD002422709, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:0526JUD002422709, [2020] ECHR 349

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]


 

 

 

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF AKYOL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

(Applications nos. 24227/09 and 14 others - see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

26 May 2020

 

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


In the case of Akyol and Others v. Turkey,

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

          Egidijus Kūris, President,
          Ivana Jelić,
          Darian Pavli, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 24 March 2020,

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

THE FACTS

1.  The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

2.  The Government were represented by their Agent.

3.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4.  The applicants were all convicted of membership of an illegal organisation. At the time of lodging their applications they were serving prison sentences. The applicants wrote letters to domestic authorities, in which they praised the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by using the honorific “sayın”, meaning esteemed. Pursuant to the regulations on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences, they were all found guilty and sentenced each to eleven days’ solidarity confinement as a disciplinary measure. Their appeal requests were rejected by the enforcement and assize courts respectively. The details of the applications appear in the annexed table.

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE

5.  A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in Yalçınkaya and Others v. Turkey (nos. 25764/09 and 18 others, §§ 12‑13, 1 October 2013).

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

6.  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 OF THE CONVENTION

7.  The applicants complained that the disciplinary punishments imposed on them for using the honorific “sayın” (esteemed) when referring to the imprisoned leader of the PKK in their letters, had constituted an unjustified interference with their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.

8.  The Government contested that argument.

9.  The Court notes that the applications are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

10.  The applicants complained that the disciplinary sanctions imposed on them, which were based on the Regulations on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences, had infringed their rights under the Convention.

11.  The Court has already examined a similar complaint in the case of Yalçınkaya and Others v. Turkey (nos. 25764/09 and 18 others, §§ 26‑38, 1 October 2013) and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. It has also examined the present cases and finds no particular circumstances which would require it to depart from its findings in the above-mentioned judgment.

12.  In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  In application no. 24227/10, the applicant claimed 1,500 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 15,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, EUR 200 in respect of costs and EUR 3,000 in respect of legal fees. In support of her claim, the applicant submitted a time-sheet and a cost-sheet drafted by her representative.

In application no. 44358/09, the applicant claimed EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 1,800 in respect of legal fees and EUR 400 in respect of costs and expenses. In support of his claim regarding legal fees, the applicant’s lawyer referred to the Turkish Bar Association’s tariff of fees for attorneys and he further submitted a cost-sheet drafted by his representative.

In application no. 71753/10, the first applicant Mr Çirik, claimed EUR 8,000 in respect of pecuniary compensation and EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

14.  The remaining applicants did not submit a just satisfaction claim.

15.  The Government contested the claims.

16.  In respect of applications nos. 24227/10 and 71753/10, the Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.

17.  In respect of applications nos. 24227/10, 44358/09 and 71753/10, the Court accepts that the applicants suffered non-pecuniary damage which is not sufficiently compensated for by the finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis and having regard to the circumstances of each case, the Court awards EUR 2,000 each to Ms Münever Akyol (application no. 24227/10), Mr Abdullah Günay (application no. 44358/09) and Mr Faik Çirik (application no. 71753/10).

18.  As regards the costs and expenses claimed by the applicants in respect of applications nos. 24227/10, 44358/09 and 71753/10, according to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. The Court observes that the applicants failed to justify their costs and expenses and to submit any document in support of their claims. The Court therefore makes no award under this head.

19.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications ;

2.      Declares the applications admissible;

3.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;

4.      Holds

(a)   that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) each to Ms Münever Akyol, Mr Abdullah Günay and Mr Faik Çirik in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

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

5.      Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 May 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

   Hasan Bakırcı                                                                      Egidijus Kūris
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President

 


Appendix

List of cases

 


No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant name

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

Type of sanction imposed on the applicant

Date of Board’s decision

Date of final decision delivered by the Assize Court

 

24227/09

10/04/2009

Münever AKYOL

01/01/1968

İZMİR

Türkan ASLAN

11 days’ solitary confinement

30/10/2008

26/12/2008

 

44358/09

29/06/2009

Abdullah GÜNAY

25/0/1979

KIRIKKALE

Mehmet ERBİL

15 days’ solitary confinement

17/07/2008

23/03/2009

 

54216/10

03/08/2010

Barış KILIÇ

01/03/1976

ESKİŞEHİR

 

11 days’ solitary confinement

29/01/2010

12/03/2010

 

70936/10

19/08/2010

Halil ARSLAN

02/08/1975

BANDIRMA

 

11 days’ solitary confinement

29/01/2010

12/03/2010

 

70937/10

19/08/2010

Abdulvahap YILMAZ

01/06/1967

ADIYAMAN

 

11 days’ solitary confinement

29/01/2010

12/03/2010

 

70938/10

18/08/2010

Sinan GÜL

10/12/1975

ADIYAMAN

Umut GÜL

11 days’ solitary confinement

29/01/2010

18/05/2011

 

70939/10

18/08/2010

Mehmet ATEŞ

01/01/1970

ADIYAMAN

 

11 days’ solitary confinement

29/01/2010

12/03/2010

 

70940/10

16/08/2010

Nihat ŞAHİN

03/03/1972

TEKİRDAĞ

 

 

71753/10

19/08/2010

a)  Faik ÇİRİK

29/10/1965

KIRIKKALE

 

b)  Kazım ÇALIŞIR

01/10/1966

ADIYAMAN

 

 

11 days’ solitary confinement

29/01/2010

12/03/2010

 

74518/10

22/11/2010

Ali Ejder ELYAKUT

04/03/1978

KARABÜK

 

11 days’ solitary confinement

07/07/2010

23/08/2010

 

12713/11

06/01/2011

a)  İsmail BİÇEN

04/02/1973

ADIYAMAN

 

b)  Yılmaz DEMİR

10/02/1971

ERMENEK

 

c)  Hamdin DEMİRKIRAN

15/03/1971

ADIYAMAN

 

d)  Abdulselam SÜSİN

10/06/1969

KARABÜK

 

e)  Cevzet DERSE

16/12/1973

ADIYAMAN

 

f)  Hüseyin ÇOBAN

03/06/1978

ADIYAMAN

 

Ünsal TANRIVERDI

11 days’ solitary confinement

07/07/2010

23/08/2010

 

13271/11

29/11/2010

Kadri ALKOÇ

01/04/1972

ADIYAMAN

 

 

11 days’ solitary confinement

07/07/2010

23/08/2010

 

13292/11

29/11/2010

Ahmet Abdi İBRAHİM

01/09/1972

BOLU

 

 

11 days’ solitary confinement

07/07/2010

23/08/2010

 

40180/11

29/11/2010

Ali Haydar ELYAKUT

02/05/1976

ADIYAMAN

 

11 days’ solitary confinement

07/07/2010

23/08/2010

 

9578/12

11/01/2011

Kutsi ÇAĞIŞ

03/03/1968

ADIYAMAN

 

11 days’ solitary confinement

07/07/2010

23/08/2010

 


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2020/349.html