Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 108
May 2008
Gülmez v. Turkey - 16330/02
Judgment 20.5.2008 [Section II]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Civil rights and obligations
Fair hearing
Disciplinary proceedings resulting in restriction on family visits to prison: Article 6 applicable; violation (unfair proceedings)
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Disciplinary proceedings resulting in restriction on family visits for almost a year: violation
Article 46
General measures
Ensure the effective protection of the right to a fair hearing in disciplinary proceedings against prisoners: bring the national legislation in line with the principles set out in the European Prison Rules.
Facts: In 2001 the applicant, a prisoner in Ankara Sincan F-type Prison, was found guilty on five different occasions of various disciplinary offences (including damaging prison property and chanting slogans). For each offence he was prohibited from receiving visits for a certain period, amounting to almost a year in all. He appealed to the Ankara State Security Court against each of the sanctions, but to no avail.
Law
Article 6 – Since the disciplinary proceedings did not involve the determination of a criminal charge against the applicant, it was necessary to establish whether they concerned a genuine and serious “dispute” over civil rights or obligations recognised under domestic law. The restriction of the applicant’s visiting rights clearly fell within the sphere of his personal rights and was therefore civil in nature. Moreover, since the domestic law provided judicial remedies against disciplinary sanctions imposed on prisoners, the applicant had the right to challenge those sanctions before the domestic courts. The above sufficed for the Court to conclude that Article 6 was applicable to the applicant’s case. As to the merits, the Court drew particular attention to Article 59 (c) of the European Prison Rules, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 11 January 2006, according to which prisoners charged with disciplinary offences should be allowed to defend themselves in person or through legal assistance when the interests of justice so required. Pursuant to the domestic law at the material time, prisoners’ appeals against disciplinary sanctions were examined on the basis of the case file, without a public hearing. The applicant’s defence submissions were only taken into account before imposing various sanctions and he was not afforded the opportunity of defending himself through a lawyer before the domestic courts which decided his disciplinary appeals. In conclusion, the applicant could not effectively follow the proceedings against him.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 8 – Save for the right to liberty, prisoners generally continued to enjoy all the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, including the right to respect for family life. In the present case, the restrictions imposed on the applicant’s visiting rights lasting almost one year were based on applicable regulations which, as in force at the material time, did not indicate in precise terms the punishable acts or related penalties, leaving the domestic authorities a wide degree of discretion in this respect. In these circumstances the Court concluded that the domestic regulations failed to meet the “quality of law” requirement.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Article 46 – Domestic legislation concerning disciplinary offences committed in prison, as in force since January 2005, provided a sufficiently clear and detailed list of punishable acts and sanctions relating to them. However, the procedure to be followed in such proceedings remained unchanged and the charged prisoners were still not allowed to defend themselves in person or through legal assistance. Having regard to the systematic situation identified and with a view to ensuring the effective protection of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, the Court considered it desirable for the respondent State to bring its legislation in line with the principles set out in Articles 57 § 2 (b) and 59 (c) of the European Prison Rules.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy