Events
The applicant is currently detained on charges of membership in a terrorist organization. In a petition addressed to official institutions, the applicant stated that one of the prison administrators was “short, quite overweight, broad-faced, large-built, and had difficulty walking due to his weight.” Based on these statements, prison administrators took minutes and initiated a disciplinary investigation against the applicant. As a result of the disciplinary investigation, the applicant was punished by being banned from certain activities for one month. The applicant appealed to the enforcement judge requesting that the disciplinary punishment imposed on him be lifted; the enforcement judge decided to reject the appeal. The higher court to which the applicant appealed upheld the decision, stating that the decision subject to appeal was in accordance with procedure and law.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that the disciplinary penalty imposed on him for statements made in petitions he wrote while detained in the prison violated his freedom of expression.
The Court’s Assessment
Article 68 of Law No. 5275 on the Enforcement of Criminal Sentences and Security Measures explicitly stipulates that letters, faxes, and telegrams sent by convicts to official authorities are not subject to inspection and attaches special importance to petitions written by convicts to official authorities. On the other hand, while an exception to this rule is provided for lawyers, no exception is provided for petitions written to official authorities.
In accordance with the relevant legislation, the penal institution does not have the authority to read petitions, nor does it have the authority to take any action regarding the statements it identifies after reading the petitions. However, in the specific case, the penal institution monitored the petitions sent by the applicant to official authorities and imposed disciplinary sanctions on him, despite the provision clearly stated in Article 68 of Law No. 5275. In this case, it was concluded that there was no legal basis for imposing disciplinary sanctions based on the content of the petitions sent by the applicant to official authorities.
The Constitutional Court ruled that freedom of expression had been violated for the reasons explained above.