24227/09;44358/09;54216/10;70936/10;70937/10;70938/10;70939/10;70940/10;71753/10;74518/10;12713/11;13271/11;13292/11;40180/11;9578/12

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 LAW JOINDER 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 Registrar President   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