European Court of Human Rights

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

I. 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.

II. 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.

III. 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,

1.      Decides to join the applications ;

2.      Declares the applications admissible;

3.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;

4.      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;

5.      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