CASE OF KURT AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF KURT AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

(Applications nos. 29715/19 and 9 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

24 September 2024

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

In the case of Kurt and Others v. Türkiye,

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

 Jovan Ilievski, President,
 Diana Sârcu,
 Gediminas Sagatys, 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 complaint 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, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;

the parties’ observations;

the decision of 14 December 2023 to strike application no. 60583/19 out of the Court’s list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention and the decision of 4 April 2024 to restore application no. 60583/19 to the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention;

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

Having deliberated in private on 3 September 2024,

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. In application no. 27416/20 the enforcement judge found it not necessary to deliver a decision regarding the complaint of the applicant Mehmet Hakyemez.

5.  The Constitutional Court declared the individual applications lodged by the applicants inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

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

7.  The applicants 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.

8.  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.

9.  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 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.

10.  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).

11.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  The applicants submitted the following just satisfaction claims:

- Application no. 29715/19: 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 euros in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court, including the lawyer’s fees. The applicant did not submit any document to support his claims in respect of costs and expenses.

- Application no. 60583/19: EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

- Application no. 13438/20: EUR 12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, EUR 2,000 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court, including the lawyer’s fees. In support of his claims, the applicant submitted a legal fee agreement and the minimum lawyer fee tariff published by the Union of Turkish Bar Associations for 2024.

- Application no. 14814/20: EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

- Application no. 15379/20: EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, EUR 20,000 and 400 Turkish Liras (TRY) in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court, including the lawyer’s fees. In support of his claims, the applicant submitted a legal fee agreement.

- Application no. 27416/20: EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

- Application no. 41244/20: EUR 12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, EUR 2,000 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court, including the lawyer’s fees. In support of his claims, the applicant submitted a legal fee agreement and the minimum lawyer fee tariff published by the Union of Turkish Bar Associations for 2024.

- Application no. 52862/20: EUR 12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, EUR 2,000 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court, including the lawyer’s fees. In support of his claims, the applicant submitted a legal fee agreement and the minimum lawyer fee tariff published by the Union of Turkish Bar Associations for 2023-2024.

- Application no. 53143/20: EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

- Application no. 28157/21: EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, EUR 2,000 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court, including the lawyer’s fees. The applicant did not submit any document to support his claims in respect of costs and expenses.

13.  The Government contested those claims.

14.  The Court considers that in the circumstances of the present case, the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged (see Nuh Uzun and Others, cited above, § 111).

15.  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 were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. The applicants’ claims in applications nos. 29715/19 and 28157/21 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. However, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants in applications nos. 13438/20, 15379/20, 41244/20 and 52862/20 the sum of EUR 500 for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before it, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, and dismisses the remainder of the claims.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants in applications nos. 13438/20, 15379/20, 41244/20 and 52862/20, within three months, EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, 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;

(a)  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 24 September 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Dorothee von Arnim Jovan Ilievski
 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.

29715/19

Kurt v. Türkiye

10/05/2019

Sami KURT
1978
Kocaeli
Turkish

Ümit ÖZKAN

2.

60583/19

Şahin v. Türkiye

09/11/2019

Ömer Said ŞAHİN
1983
Trabzon
Turkish

Mehmet ÜSTÜNDAĞ

3.

13438/20

Ayar v. Türkiye

13/02/2020

Adem AYAR
1979
Osmaniye
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

4.

14814/20

Türk v. Türkiye

09/03/2020

Kenan TÜRK
1980
Osmaniye
Turkish

5.

15379/20

Çolaker v. Türkiye

27/02/2020

Mustafa ÇOLAKER
1974
Istanbul
Turkish

Ümran DOĞAN

6.

27416/20

Hakyemez v. Türkiye

12/06/2020

Mehmet HAKYEMEZ
1968
Yalova
Turkish

Burhan DEMİRCİ

7.

41244/20

Şanlı v. Türkiye

27/08/2020

Sedat ŞANLI
1985
Osmaniye
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

8.

52862/20

Şahin v. Türkiye

13/11/2020

Erhan ŞAHİN
1980
Istanbul
Turkish

Kadir ÖZTÜRK

9.

53143/20

Gülerden v. Türkiye

10/11/2020

Ömer Faruk GÜLERDEN
1993
Hatay
Turkish

10.

28157/21

Sulukan v. Türkiye

26/05/2021

Coşkun SULUKAN
1978
Tokat
Turkish