CASE OF AKTAŞ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF AKTAŞ AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

(Applications nos. 7199/20 and 6 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

23 September 2025

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

In the case of Aktaş and Others v. Türkiye,

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

 Tim Eicke, President,
 Jovan Ilievski,
 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications (nos. 7199/20, 8616/20, 25645/20, 32728/20, 7004/21, 14071/21 and 13061/22) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the dates indicated in the appended table by six Turkish nationals, Mr Veysi Aktaş (“the first applicant”), Mr Turan Günana (“the second applicant”), Mr Ramazan İlter (“the third applicant”), Mr Engin Gökoğlu (“the fourth applicant”), Mr İbrahim Bektaş (“the fifth applicant”) and Mr Barış İnan (“the sixth applicant”), who were detained in different prisons at the relevant time;

the decisions to give notice of the complaint under Article 10 of the Convention to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the time, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, former Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye, in applications nos. 7199/20, 8616/20, 25645/20 and 32728/20, and by their Agent, Mr Abdullah Aydın, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye, in application nos. 7004/21, 14071/21 and 13061/22, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;

Having deliberated in private on 2 September 2025,

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

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES

1.  The case concerns the refusal by the prison authorities to hand over to the applicants, who were detained in different prisons, certain publications sent to them by post.

2.  At the material time, the first applicant, Mr Veysi Aktaş, was serving a prison sentence in İmralı Prison for the offence of carrying out activities to remove part of the national territory from the State’s control.

3.  By a decision of 13 May 2016, the Education Board of İmralı Prison decided not to hand over to the first applicant a book entitled Demokratik Ulus (“Democratic Nation”), whose author was Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned leader of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation), and issue no. 16/2016 of the periodical Demokratik Modernite (“Democratic Modernity”), both of which had been sent to him by post.

4.  The Board stated that the content of the publications encouraged propaganda disseminated in favour of a terrorist organisation and was therefore of such a nature as to endanger the order and security of the prison. In adopting its decision, the Board relied on section 62 of the Law on the execution of sentences and preventive measures (Law no. 5275; see for the text of this provision Osman and Altay v. Türkiye, nos. 23782/20 and 40731/20, § 15, 18 July 2023) and regulation 87 (3) of the Regulations on the administration of penal institutions and the execution of sentences and preventive measures (“the Regulations on execution”), which provides that “[T]he publications found by the education board to endanger institutional security or to contain obscene news, articles, photographs, or comments shall not be delivered to convicted persons”.

5.  The first applicant lodged a complaint against the above-mentioned decision with the Bursa enforcement judge and subsequently with the Bursa Second Assize Court. The domestic courts dismissed his objections, holding that the Board’s decision was in line with law and procedure.

6.  At the material time, the second applicant, Mr Turan Günana, was serving a prison sentence in Kocaeli F-type Prison for several offences committed within the scope of the activities of the PKK.

7.  By a decision of 8 October 2018, relying, in particular, on section 62 of Law no. 5275 and sections 11(b) and 12 of the Directive on prison libraries and bookshelves (“the Directive”; see for the text of these provisions Mehmet Çiftci v. Turkey, no. 53208/19, §§ 14-15, 16 November 2021), the Education Board of Kocaeli Prison decided not to hand over to him a book entitled Kürdistan Devrim Manifestosu (“Kurdistan Revolution Manifesto”), whose author was Abdullah Öcalan, and the issues of 30 July, 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 31 August, and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 24 September 2018 of the daily newspaper Yeni Yaşam, which had been sent to him by post.

8.  The Board noted that on 4 March 2016 the Mersin Third Magistrates’ Court had ordered that the book in question be seized and removed from circulation. As to the relevant issues of the daily newspaper Yeni Yaşam, the Board considered that their content contained statements which put pressure on prisons and other State institutions and undermined those institutions; triggered feelings of hatred and hostility; disrupted the internal peace and threatened security within institutions; degraded State authorities and law‑enforcement officers; and contained separatist and discriminatory expressions in the form of propaganda on behalf of the terrorist organisation.

9.  The Kocaeli enforcement judge dismissed an objection by the second applicant against the decision not to hand over the publications in question. The judge noted that the issues of the newspaper contained statements endangering security within the prison, whereas the book had been prohibited by a decision of the Mersin First Magistrates’ Court and that it was not possible to allow a prohibited book into the prison. The Kocaeli First Assize Court subsequently found that decision was in line with law and procedure.

10.  At the material time, the third applicant, Mr Ramazan İlter, was in detention on remand in Menemen T-type Prison for the offence of being a member of an armed terrorist organisation.

11.  By two separate decisions given on 3 April 2019, relying on section 62 of Law no. 5275 and regulations 43 (1) and 87 of the Regulations on execution (see for the text of regulation 43 (1) Osman and Altay, cited above, § 18), the Education Board of Menemen Prison decided not to hand over to the third applicant two books which had been sent to him by post, namely novels entitled Fi and Çi, but to withhold them instead. The Board considered that several pages in those books contained obscene passages (particularly on pages 15, 16, 19, 20, 24 and 34 of the former, and 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67 and 74 of the latter).

12.  The third applicant objected to the above-mentioned decisions of the Board before the Karşıyaka enforcement judge and subsequently before the Karşıyaka First Assize Court. The domestic courts dismissed his objections, holding that the Board’s decisions were in line with law and procedure.

13.  At the material time, the fourth applicant, Mr Engin Gökoğlu, was detained in Tekirdağ T-Type Prison no. 2 for the offence of membership of an armed terrorist organisation.

14.  By a decision given on 10 September 2019, relying on section 62(3) of Law no. 5275 and sections 11(b) and 12 of the Directive, the Education Board of Tekirdağ Prison decided not to hand over to the fourth applicant the issues nos. 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 30 of the newspaper “Kızıl Bayrak” and the issues nos. 21, 22 and 28 of the newspaper “Yüksel”.

15.  In its reasoning, the Board asserted that the content of the newspapers in question was of a nature that endangered the order and security of the prison. The Board highlighted that the newspapers contained emblems, images or symbols associated with a terrorist organisation, as well as expressions glorifying such organisations and legitimising their methods. Moreover, the newspapers were found to incite violence against public officials and to include articles and commentary aimed at undermining the indivisible unity and integrity of the Republic of Türkiye. The Board concluded that those publications facilitated communication among members of terrorist organisations and that it was not feasible to hand over the remaining content to the applicant after redacting the non-disclosable sections.

16.  The fourth applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with the Tekirdağ enforcement judge and subsequently with the Tekirdağ First Assize Court. The domestic courts dismissed his objections, holding that the Board’s decisions were in line with law and procedure.

17.  At the material time, the fifth applicant, Mr İbrahim Bektaş, was detained in Akhisar T-Type Prison for the offence of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order.

18.  By a decision given on 21 July 2020, referring, in particular, to section 62 of Law no. 5275, regulation 8 of the Regulation on items permitted in prisons, and sections 11 and 12 of the Directive, the Akhisar Education Board decided not to hand over to the fifth applicant the following books: Tehlikeli Masallar Dört Mevsim Sonbahar (“Dangerous Fairytales Four Seasons Autumn”, Sudaki İz (“Trace in the Water”), and Üç Din Üç Tanrı (“Three Religions, Three Gods”). In its reasoning, the Board stated that pages 192, 193, 200, and 201 of the first book, 177, 178, 184, and 185 of the second book, and 146 and 147 of the third book, in particular, and the content of the books in general, contained obscene expressions and comments.

19.  The fifth applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with the Akhisar enforcement judge and subsequently with the Akhisar Assize Court. The domestic courts dismissed his objections, holding that the Board’s decisions were in line with law and procedure.

20.  At the material time, the sixth applicant, Mr Barış İnan, was detained in Kocaeli F-Type Prison no. 2 for attempting to overthrow the constitutional order, forgery of an official document and making a false statement in the preparation of an official document.

21.  By decisions given on 17 October 2019, 8 November 2019 and 9 December 2019, relying, in particular, on section 62 of Law no. 5275 and sections 11 and 12 of the Directive, the Kocaeli Education Board decided not to hand over to the sixth applicant the issues nos. 396, 397 and 402 of the newspaper “Atılım”. In its reasoning, the Board, referring to the relevant page numbers, stated that the news articles and photographs in the issues concerned conveyed messages to members of an (unspecified) organisation, incited hatred and hostility among convicts and detainees within the institution, sought to undermine the institution’s functioning, and promoted terrorism and violence. Accordingly, it concluded that the issues posed a threat to the security of the institution.

22.  The sixth applicant lodged separate complaints against those three decisions. The Kocaeli enforcement judge dismissed his objections, holding that it was not possible to remove only the non-disclosable sections and hand over the publications to the applicant and that the Board’s decisions were therefore in line with the law. The Kocaeli Assize Court subsequently upheld the decisions rendered by the enforcement judge.

23.  Each of the applicants lodged a separate individual application with the Constitutional Court, arguing that their right to freedom of expression had been infringed as a result of the prison authorities’ refusal to hand over the publications in question.

24.   The Constitutional Court declared the applicants’ individual applications inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded on various dates, as follows: in application no. 7199/20 on 18 July 2019 (served on 30 July 2019), in application no. 8616/20 on 22 July 2019, in application no. 25645/20 on 22 April 2020, in application no. 32728/20 on 15 June 2020, in application no. 7004/21 on 27 July 2020, in application no. 14071/21 on 25 December 2020, and in application no. 13062/22 on 16 November 2021). In doing so, except for the decision in respect of the first applicant, which contained no case-law references at all, the Constitutional Court referred to its leading İbrahim Kaptan (2) decision (no. 2017/30723, 12 September 2018), in which it had held that the withholding of publications sent to prisoners by post in breach of legal procedures met a pressing social need to ensure the security of prisons and the measure was proportionate, given the substantial burden placed on prisons to monitor such publications (for the İbrahim Kaptan (2) decision of the Constitutional Court, see Osman and Altay, cited above, § 25).

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

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

26.  The applicants, relying on Article 10 of the Convention, complained about the prison administrations’ decisions to withhold publications which had been sent to them by post.

27.  The Government raised several objections as to admissibility. Firstly, as regards the first applicant (no. 7199/20) and the third applicant (nos. 25645/20 and 32728/20), they raised a plea of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, arguing that at no point before the domestic courts had they raised their complaints concerning their right to freedom of expression.

28.  The Court cannot but note that the Constitutional Court examined the merits of the applicants’ complaints concerning the right to freedom of expression and declared them inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, rather than for non-exhaustion of remedies (see paragraph 24 above). The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objection in that connection (see, mutatis mutandis, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 118, ECHR 2007-IV, and Jalloh v. Germany (dec.), no. 54810/00, 26 October 2004).

29.  The Government further contended that the applications should be rejected on the grounds that none of the applicants had suffered a significant disadvantage and that the applicants in applications nos. 7199/20, 8616/20, 25645/20 and 32728/20 did not have victim status.

30.  The Court observes that the Government raised identical objections in Mehmet Çiftci (no. 53208/19, §§ 21-22, 16 November 2021) and Osman and Altay (cited above, §§ 28-30) and it dismissed those objections in those cases (§ 25 and § 33, respectively). The Court sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present applications.

31.  Lastly, noting the principle of subsidiarity, the Government submitted that the applications should be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill‑founded, since the national authorities had duly examined the complaints on the merits.

32.  The Court considers that the arguments put forward as regards the latter objection concern questions requiring an examination of the merits of the complaint under Article 10 of the Convention (see Mehmet Çiftci, § 26, and Osman and Altay, § 34, both cited above).

33.  The Court further notes that this part of the applications is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

34.  As regards the merits of the case, the applicants maintain that the withholding of the publications in question had not been reasonably justified by the national authorities, which, in their view, constituted a breach of their right to receive information and ideas.

35.  The Government contended that there had been no interference with the exercise of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression in the instant case. Even if the Court were to accept that there had been an interference, it had been provided for by law and it had pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of national security, public safety, the prevention of disorder and crime and the rehabilitation of the convicted persons.

36.  As to the necessity of the interference, the Government asserted that there was no general prohibition on the applicants’ access to periodical or non-periodical publications, that the majority of the applicants had been convicted of terrorism-related offences, that the applicants had failed to request the purchase and delivery of the publications through the prison as required by law and that the national authorities had duly examined the applicants’ objections to the contested decisions of the Education Boards. That being so, the Government maintained that the measures in question were necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued.

37.  The Court considers that the decisions by the prison administration to withhold publications sent to the applicants constituted an interference with their right to receive information and ideas under Article 10. It further notes that such an interference is prescribed by law, namely section 62 of Law No. 5275, regulations 43 and 87 of the Regulations on execution, regulation 8 of the Regulation on items permitted in prisons, and sections 11 and 12 of the Directive, and pursues the legitimate aims of the protection of national security and the prevention of disorder or crime (see Mehmet Çiftci, §§ 33-34 and Osman and Altay, §§ 41-42, both cited above).

38.  The Court refers to the principles set out in Mehmet Çiftci (cited above, §§ 35-38) and Osman and Altay (cited above, §§ 43-51) concerning the necessity of an interference with prisoners’ right to receive publications. In particular, the domestic courts must give sufficient reasons, having regard to the criteria recognised in the Court’s case-law for restricting access to publications (including incitement to or justification of violence, endangering prison security or order or facilitating communication between members of criminal organisations), for refusing to hand out publications sent to prisoners. The passages of the retained publication must be both expressly identified and be subject to an analysis capable of revealing a concrete link between the censored content and the said criteria. Accordingly, a simple enumeration of the numbers of the pages containing the parts of the publication in question considered as problematic is not sufficient (Osman and Altay, cited above, §§ 53-54 and 46).

39.  In the light of those considerations, the Court first observes that none of the decisions given by the Education Boards in the present case provided a content-specific analysis capable of justifying the interference. That shortcoming is particularly evident in the Board decisions pertaining to applications nos. 7199/20 and 7004/21, which merely referred in abstract terms to the general content of the publications without identifying any specific pages or passages deemed non-disclosable or explaining how the content in question could be considered to incite violence, jeopardise prison order or security or facilitate illicit communication. Such general references fall short of the standard of necessity set out in the Court’s case-law.

40.  Regarding application no. 8616/20, the Court notes that the prison administration withheld the book at issue on the basis of a seizure and withdrawal order issued by the Mersin Third Magistrates’ Court on 4 March 2016 (see paragraph 8 above). The Court notes that in its judgment of 25 June 2014 (Abdullah Öcalan, no. 2013/409), the Constitutional Court had previously found a violation of the author’s right to freedom of expression on account of a seizure of the same book (see Aktaş v. Türkiye [Committee], no. 64870/19, § 7, 9 July 2024). The Court further concluded that neither the prison administration nor the domestic courts – including the Constitutional Court – in the subsequent proceedings conducted any assessment of this fact. The Court sees no reason to depart from its findings in Aktaş (cited above, §§ 16-18) in application no. 8616/20. In view of its conclusion in Aktaş – which concerned different decisions of the domestic courts in respect of the same applicant as in application no. 7199/20 apparently in respect of the same book – and its above findings regarding a further issue of a periodical not handed out to that applicant (see paragraph 39 above), the Court does not need to examine the complaint as regards the book in question in application no. 7199/20 (see, mutatis mutandis, Aktaş, cited above, § 19).

41.  As for applications nos. 25645/20, 32728/20, 14071/21 and 13061/22, the Court notes that the Education Boards confined their reasoning to citing the page numbers of the texts deemed non-disclosable. The Court reiterates that merely citing page numbers containing passages deemed problematic is insufficient; an examination that comprehensively applies the relevant criteria (see paragraph 38 above) must be employed in all cases (see Osman and Altay, cited above, § 54).

42.  The Court further observes that the decisions subsequently handed down by the enforcement judges and the assize courts did not offer sufficient reasoning to remedy the deficiencies in the decisions of the Education Boards (see Mehmet Çiftci, § 40, and Osman and Altay, § 56, both cited above). What is more, the Court notes that the Constitutional Court dismissed the applications with summary decisions with quite succinct reasoning. While the summary decision of the Constitutional Court in application no. 7199/20 contains no reference to any case-law whatsoever, the remainder of the applications were rejected with a mere reference to the İbrahim Kaptan (2) decision (see paragraph 24 above). At this juncture, the Court reiterates that it has rejected the approach taken in that decision, according to which the confiscation of publications was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued simply because they had been sent to the applicants in disregard of the relevant legal procedures (see Osman and Altay, cited above, §§ 53 and 56).

43.  In the light of the foregoing, the Court has not found any fact or argument in the present applications capable of persuading it to depart from its conclusions in Mehmet Çiftci and Osman and Altay (both cited above). Accordingly, the Government failed to demonstrate that the national courts gave relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the interference with the applicants’ right to receive information. The impugned measures were therefore not necessary in a democratic society.

44.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

45.  The third applicant (applications nos. 25645/20 and 32728/20) claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) and EUR 7,000, respectively, in respect of pecuniary damage.

46.  As for non-pecuniary damage, the first applicant claimed EUR 5,000; the second applicant claimed 50,000 liras (TRY) (approximately EUR 1,850); the third applicant claimed EUR 50,000 (for each of his applications); the fourth applicant claimed EUR 15,000; the fifth applicant claimed EUR 10,000; and the sixth applicant claimed EUR 8,000.

47.  Regarding costs and expenses, the first applicant claimed EUR 5,000 but failed to provide supporting documents for his claim; the second applicant claimed TRY 12,750 (approximately EUR 1,131 at the relevant time) and submitted the Istanbul Bar Association’s scale of lawyers’ fees and a time and a cost sheet drafted by his representative; the fourth applicant claimed EUR 1,075 and provided an invoice drawn up for the indicated amount of TRY 38,800 (approximately EUR 1,075 at the relevant time); and the sixth applicant claimed a sum of EUR 1,734 (EUR 1,697 for representation fees, EUR 30 for stationary expenses and EUR 7 for courier fees) and submitted the recommended fee scales for legal representation published in the Official Gazette in September 2023 and a receipt of TRY 102 (approximately EUR 7) paid for postal services. The third and the fifth applicants made no claims in this regard.

48.  The Government contested the applicants’ claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive.

49.  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged by the third applicant; it therefore rejects this claim.

50.  With regard to non-pecuniary damage, noting that the applicants presented no evidence or argument that would make it possible to assess the damage they had allegedly suffered as a result of the measure at issue, the Court considers that, having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged (see, mutatis mutandis, Murat Türk v. Turkey [Committee], no. 20686/19, § 19, 5 April 2022; İncedere and Altay v. Türkiye [Committee], nos. 58778/19 and 2 others, § 16, 12 December 2023; Aktaş, cited above, § 23; and Necdet Vural v. Türkiye [Committee], no. 35555/19, § 29, 17 December 2024).

51.  The Court reiterates that applicants are 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. It accordingly considers it reasonable to award the second and the fourth applicants a sum of EUR 500 each and the sixth applicant EUR 7 for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court and rejects the remaining claims.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, to the applicants in applications nos. 8616/20 and 7004/21 EUR 500 (five hundred euros) each and to the applicant in application no. 13061/22 EUR 7 (seven euros), in respect of costs and expenses, 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 23 September 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Dorothee von Arnim Tim Eicke
 Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases:

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality

Represented by

1.

7199/20

Aktaş v. Türkiye

21/01/2020

Veysi AKTAŞ
1969
Bursa
Turkish

Raziye TURGUT

2.

8616/20

Günana v. Türkiye

15/01/2020

Turan GÜNANA
1981
Antalya
Turkish

Ercan KANAR

3.

25645/20

İlter v. Türkiye

05/06/2020

Ramazan İLTER
1990
Istanbul
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

4.

32728/20

İlter v. Türkiye

10/07/2020

Ramazan İLTER
1990
Istanbul
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

5.

7004/21

Gökoğlu v. Türkiye

21/12/2020

Engin GÖKOĞLU
1985
Tekirdağ
Turkish

Fatih GÖKÇE

6.

14071/21

Bektaş v. Türkiye

23/02/2021

İbrahim BEKTAŞ
1990
Bodrum
Turkish

7.

13061/22

İnan v. Türkiye

28/02/2022

Barış İNAN
1973
Kocaeli
Turkish

Faruk Nafiz ERTEKİN