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 LAWJOINDER 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.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.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, Decides to join the applications ;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;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;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 RegistrarPresident
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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy