Events
The applicant is currently detained on charges of membership in a terrorist organization. In a petition addressed to official institutions, the applicant described one of the prison administrators as “short, quite overweight, broad-faced, broad-bodied, and having difficulty walking due to his weight.” Because of these statements, prison officials took notes and initiated a disciplinary investigation against the applicant. As a result of the disciplinary investigation, the applicant was punished by being barred from participating in certain activities for one month. The applicant appealed to the enforcement judge, requesting that the disciplinary punishment imposed on him be revoked; the enforcement judge decided to reject the appeal. The higher court to which the applicant appealed stated that the decision subject to appeal was in accordance with procedure and law and decided to reject the appeal.
Allegations
The applicant claimed that his punishment with a disciplinary penalty for the statements he made in the petitions he wrote while detained in the penal institution violated his freedom of expression.
The Court’s Assessment
Article 68 of Law No. 5275 on the Enforcement of Criminal Sentences and Security Measures clearly stipulates that letters, faxes, and telegrams sent by prisoners to official authorities are not subject to inspection, thereby attaching particular importance to petitions written by prisoners to official authorities. On the other hand, although an exception to this rule is envisaged for lawyers, no exception is envisaged for petitions written to official authorities.
Pursuant to the relevant legislation, the penal institution is not authorized to read the petitions, nor is it authorized to take any action regarding the words it finds after reading the petitions. However, in the present case, the penal institution monitored the petitions sent by the applicant to official authorities and imposed disciplinary sanctions on the applicant, despite the clear provision of Article 68 of Law No. 5275 and the lack of authority to do so. In this case, it was concluded that there was no legal basis for imposing disciplinary sanctions on the applicant based on the content of the petitions he wrote to official authorities by monitoring them.
The Constitutional Court ruled that freedom of expression had been violated based on the reasons stated.