SECOND SECTION
CASE OF HALLAÇOĞLU AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE
(Applications nos. 6239/19 and 2 others - see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 April 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Hallaçoğlu and Others v. Türkiye,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Egidijus Kūris, President,
Pauliine Koskelo,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications 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”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”) on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention regarding the electronic recording and storage of the applicants’ letters to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye to the European Court of Human Rights, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;
the parties’ observations;
the decision to dismiss the Government’s objection to the examination of the applications by a Committee;
Having deliberated in private on 14 March 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present applications concern the electronic recording and storage of the applicants’ correspondence on the computer system of the National Judicial Network (UYAP) by the applicants’ respective prison administrations during their detention.
2. At the material time the applicants were detained in various prisons in Türkiye on charges of membership of an organisation referred to by the Turkish authorities as FETÖ/PDY (“Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”) following the attempted coup d’état of 15 July 2016.
3. During the applicants’ detention, with reference to letters from the General Directorate of Prisons and Detention Centres of the Ministry of Justice, the relevant prison administrations recorded the applicants’ correspondence – both incoming and outgoing – on the UYAP system.
4. The applicants objected to the above-mentioned practice of the prison administrations before the relevant enforcement judges and subsequently before the assize courts. The domestic courts dismissed their objections, holding that the practice was in line with law and procedure.
5. The Constitutional Court declared individual applications lodged by the applicants inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. Those decisions were notified to the applicants on 30 October 2018, 17 November 2018 and 12 November 2018 respectively.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS6. 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 8 OF THE CONVENTION7. The applicants in applications nos. 6239/19 and 16548/19 complained that the recording and storage of their private correspondence on the UYAP system had infringed their right to respect for private life and correspondence under Article 8 of the Convention. Under the same provision, the applicant in application no. 7360/19 complained that his correspondence with his lawyer had been monitored through being recorded on the UYAP system.
8. The Government argued that the applicant in application no. 7360/19 had not exhausted domestic remedies, as he had not applied to the Constitutional Court for rectification under Article 82 of its Internal Regulations, even though that court did not make any assessment of his complaint concerning the recording of his correspondence with his lawyer.
9. The Court notes that the applicant raised this complaint before the Constitutional Court, which explicitly noted it in its decision and examined it on the merits. It therefore dismisses the Government’s objection on this point.
10. As regards all the applications, the Government invited the Court to declare this complaint inadmissible for the reasons they had raised in Nuh Uzun and Others v. Turkey (nos. 49341/18 and 13 others, §§ 29-34, 29 March 2022). The Court notes that it dismissed the Government’s objections in that case (ibid., §§ 39-44 and 82) and sees no reason to depart from those findings in the present applications. The Court therefore considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
11. As to the merits of the applications, the Court notes that it examined a similar complaint in the leading case of Nuh Uzun and Others (ibid., §§ 79‑99) and found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, as the impugned interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives and their correspondence by the recording and storage on the UYAP system of correspondence sent by and received by them could not be regarded as having been “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.
12. As regards application no. 7360/19, in addition to the circulars indicated in Nuh Uzun and Others (cited above) the Government referred to two such letters from the Ministry of Justice as the legal basis for the recording of the applicant’s correspondence with his lawyer. They submitted in that connection that the circular of 30 March 2007 concerning “National Judicial Network and statistics processes” of the Directorate General for Prisons and Detention Centres of the Ministry of Justice and circular no. l24/l of 10 November 2011 of the Department of Information Technologies of the Ministry of Justice had constituted the legal basis for recording the applicant’s correspondence with his lawyer. However, the Court observes that when adopting their decision on the impugned measure, the domestic authorities did not refer to those circulars. Above all, the Court notes that the circulars did not contain any instruction regarding the recording of prisoners’ correspondence with their lawyers on the UYAP system.
13. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to depart from its approach in Nuh Uzun and Others (cited above).
14. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Application nO. 6239/1915. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the time-limit set by the Court. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.
Applications nOS. 7360/19 and 16548/1916. The applicant in application no. 7360/19 claimed 38,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 52,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He also claimed a total of EUR 10,000 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court, including lawyer’s fees. In support of his claims, he submitted the domestic court’s decision ordering his detention.
17. The applicant in application no. 16548/19 claimed EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He also claimed a total of EUR 3,758 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court, including lawyer’s fees. He submitted a letter from his lawyer, fee scales for individual applications before the Constitutional Court and records of his hospital visits.
18. The Government contested those claims.
19. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. As regards non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that in the present circumstances the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged (compare Nuh Uzun and Others, cited above, § 111).
20. Lastly, the applicants’ claims in respect of costs and expenses must be rejected, regard being had to the terms of Rule 60 § 2 of the Rules of Court and the applicants’ failure to provide the Court with any documents in support of their claims.
21. In particular, as regards the lawyers’ fees claimed, the Court notes that the applicants failed to submit any documentary evidence, such as bills, receipts, contracts, fee agreements or timesheets showing the hours spent by their lawyers on the case. Accordingly, the Court rejects these claims.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants;Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 April 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Dorothee von Arnim Egidijus Kūris
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of cases:
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
1.
6239/19
Hallaçoğlu v. Türkiye
02/11/2018
Ruhi HALLAÇOĞLU
1975
Adana
2.
7360/19
Arıç v. Türkiye
24/01/2019
Mehmet ARIÇ
1980
Istanbul
Numan ARIÇ
3.
16548/19
Aslan v. Türkiye
04/03/2019
Mustafa ASLAN
1972
Ankara
Yasemin GENÇ