CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 décembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 8 January 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 27932/23 Turan GÜNANA against Türkiye lodged on 7 July 2023 communicated on 4 December 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal of the prison administration to hand over to the applicant, who was detained in a prison, copies of newspapers, namely “ Evrensel ”, “ Yeni Yaşam ” and “Xwebun ”, sent to him by post. In its decision, the prison administration relied on Article 62 § 4 of Law no. 5275 on the Enforcement of Sentences and Preventive Measures, which prohibits the admission to prison of newspapers that are not granted by the Press Advertisement Institution the right to publish official announcements and advertisements. The applicant’s objection against this decision before the Kocaeli Enforcement Judge and the Kocaeli Assize Court were unsuccessful. Subsequently, the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaint concerning his right to freedom of expression inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court considered that the refusal to hand over the publications to the applicant was justified based on the means of their reception but not on their content. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complained of a violation of his right to freedom of expression.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive information and ideas, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention, due to the refusal of the prison administration to hand over to him various newspapers sent to him by post?   2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?   3.     In particular, did the national courts, in their decisions in the present case, adequately balance the applicant’s right to freedom of expression against other interests at stake in accordance with the principles enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention (see Mehmet Çiftci v. Turkey , no.   53208/19, §§   40 and 41, 16 November 2021; and Osman and Altay v.   Türkiye , nos.   23782/20 and 40731/20, §§ 56-58, 18 July 2023)?