CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 mai 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 207 May 2017 Sarıgül v. Turkey - 28691/05 Judgment 23.5.2017 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Vagueness of grounds relied on by prison authorities for seizing prisoner’s novel: violation Facts – In 2004, while he was in prison, the applicant deposited a handwritten draft of a novel, to be sent outside the prison with a view to publication, with the prison administration. The prison authority examined the draft (about 200   pages) in the context of its supervision of inmates’ correspondence, treating it as an ordinary letter. The administration, taking the view that the text supported an illegal separatist organisation, insulted the police and used abusive and inappropriate language, including expressions that were directed against women, public morals and beliefs, decided to seize it. In 2006, after the public prosecutor had decided not to prosecute the applicant, the draft was returned to him. Law – Article 10: The Court took the view that the case had to be examined in terms of freedom of expression (Article   10) rather than respect for correspondence (Article   8) even though notice of the application had been given under the latter provision. The disciplinary board had not expressly relied on any statutory basis in ordering the seizure of the applicant’s manuscript, explaining only that the text in question contained inappropriate words and expressions according to the administration’s pre-established correspondence checklist. Reiterating that rules governing scrutiny of prisoners’ correspondence which provide no precision as to its scope and do not define what is meant by “inappropriate” cannot meet the requirement of foreseeability (see Tan v.   Turkey , 9460/03, 3   July 2007, Information Note   99 ), the Court reached a similar conclusion in the present case. The interference had not therefore been “prescribed by law”. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.   © 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