CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 octobre 2024

.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 } Published on 12 November 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 36961/20 Sinan KOÇUM against Türkiye lodged on 11 August 2020 communicated on 22 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a convict who was serving his prison sentence at the time of lodging the present application. On 12 March 2018 the prison administration imposed a disciplinary sanction, in the form of a withdrawal of communication rights for three months (except for visits), on the grounds that the applicant and thirteen other inmates had shouted the slogan “stop arbitrary practices” while banging on the doors for a duration of six minutes. The applicant challenged the disciplinary sanction before the Enforcement Court, arguing mainly that he was exercising his right to protest against the prison’s arbitrary practices. On 30 March 2018 the applicant was informed that the Enforcement Court would hold the hearing via the video-conference system known as “SEGBİS” and that it would examine the case without taking the applicant’s statement in the event of his failure to appear. The applicant wrote a petition to the Enforcement Court explaining that he wanted to participate in the proceedings in person and not by video-conference. On the same day, the Enforcement Court held the hearing via SEGBİS in the absence of the applicant and dismissed his objection to the impugned sanction, noting that the acts of the applicant and the other inmates had disturbed the prison order. The Constitutional Court examined the applicant’s individual application, which had been submitted under Articles 6, 10 and   13 of the Convention, under the aspect of freedom of thought and expression only and rejected it for being manifestly ill-founded. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complains that the Enforcement Court held the hearing in his absence despite the fact that he had refused to participate in the proceedings by video-conference. He further complains under Article 10 of the Convention of an infringement of his right to freedom of expression on account of the imposition of the disciplinary sanction. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to a public hearing within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Enforcement Court rendering its decision without holding a hearing in person? In particular, in the circumstances of the present case, did the hearing via SEGBİS meet the requirements of the right to a public hearing (see, mutatis mutandis , Gülmez v. Turkey , no. 16330/02, §§   26-31 and 34-39, 20   May 2008; and Altay v. Turkey (no. 2) , no.   11236/09, §§ 74-82, 9   April 2019)?   2.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see, among others and mutatis mutandis, Mehmet Çiftçi and Suat Incedere v. Turkey , nos.   21266/19 and 21774/19, §§ 19-22, 18 January 2022)?