Events
The applicant is in pre-trial detention on charges of membership of a terrorist organisation. In his petition to official institutions, the applicant described one of the administrators of the penal execution institution as “short in stature, quite overweight, with a wide face, wide body and difficulty in walking due to his weight”. Because of these expressions used by the applicant, a report was kept by the penal institution officials and a disciplinary investigation was initiated against the applicant. As a result of the disciplinary investigation, the applicant was sentenced to a one-month ban from participating in certain activities. The applicant appealed to the execution judge for the cancellation of the disciplinary penalty; the execution judge rejected the appeal. A higher court, to which the applicant appealed, decided to reject the appeal, stating that the decision subject to the appeal was in accordance with the procedure and the law.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his freedom of expression was violated by the disciplinary penalty imposed on him for the statements contained in the petitions he wrote while he was in detention in a penal institution.
The Court’s Assessment
Article 68 of the Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Criminal and Security Measures explicitly stipulates that letters, faxes and telegrams sent by prisoners to official authorities are not subject to inspection, thus giving special importance to petitions written by prisoners to official authorities. On the other hand, although an exception to this rule is foreseen for lawyers, no exception is foreseen for petitions written to official authorities.
Pursuant to the aforementioned legislation, the penal execution institution is not authorised to read the petitions, nor is it authorised to take any action against the words it detects after reading the petitions. However, in the concrete case, the penal institution inspected the petitions sent by the applicant to the official authorities and imposed a disciplinary penalty on the applicant, despite the clear provision of Article 68 of Law No. 5275 and the lack of authorisation. In this case, it has been concluded that there is no legal basis for inspecting the petitions written by the applicant to the official authorities and imposing disciplinary punishment on the applicant due to the content of the petitions.
The Constitutional Court decided that the freedom of expression was violated for the reasons explained.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.