 has ruled by a 4-3 majority that Turkish prison authorities’ refusal to deliver internet printouts and photocopied documents sent to a prisoner did not violate his right to receive information.){kind=link}
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled by a 4-3 majority that Turkish prison authorities’ refusal to deliver internet printouts and photocopied documents sent to a convicted prisoner did not violate his right to receive information, the TR724 news website reported on Tuesday.
Tuesday’s judgment in the case of Tergek v. Türkiye, delivered by the court’s second section, has attracted attention due to a strong dissenting opinion by three judges, who argued that the prison’s refusal to deliver the materials failed to meet the necessity and proportionality requirements under Article 10 (right to freedom of expression and the right to receive information) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The applicant, Abdül Samed Tergek, a Turkish national, is currently serving a sentence at a prison in Kocaeli Prison following his conviction for alleged membership in the Gülen movement, which the Turkish government labels a “terrorist organization.”
He filed the application after prison officials withheld printed documents enclosed in two letters from his sister and wife in 2018. According to Tergek, the materials — which included physiotherapy exercises and study notes on real estate management — were essential for his rehabilitation and ongoing education.
Although the letters themselves were eventually delivered, the prison administration permanently withheld the attached materials on security grounds, citing a risk of “intra-organizational communication” and administrative burden. Tergek argued that this denial constituted a violation of his right to receive information under Article 10 of the ECHR.
Although the majority of the ECtHR, judges Saadet Yüksel, Jovan Ilievski, Davor Derenčinović and Stéphane Pisani, acknowledged that prisoners generally retain all fundamental rights under the ECHR except the right to liberty, they found that the interference in Tergek’s case was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate given the state’s margin of appreciation.
They referred to the Turkish Constitutional Court’s Diyadin Akdemir judgment, which distinguishes internet printouts and photocopies from published materials, noting the additional security and verification challenges these formats pose.
In their view, the absence of an explicit legal regulation in Turkish law concerning such materials did not render the interference unlawful, as the domestic authorities had applied existing legal frameworks with sufficient justification and proportionality.
However, the three dissenting judges, Arnfinn Bardsen, Anja Seibert-Fohr and Juha Lavapuro, issued a joint opinion, warning that the majority’s decision marked a retreat from the ECtHR’s established case law. They argued that the refusal amounted to a “blanket ban” that did not consider the content or purpose of the materials and thus failed to meet the necessity and proportionality requirements under Article 10.
The judgment reveals a growing rift within the ECtHR over how to reconcile prison security concerns with the protection of fundamental rights, especially in politically sensitive cases in Turkey.
Tuesday’s ruling comes amid continued criticism of the ECtHR’s second section for its handling of Turkey-related cases. Recently, the section’s controversial decision in Şaban Yasak v. Türkiye was referred to the Grand Chamber for further review. In that case the court initially found no violation of the ECHR regarding Yasak’s conviction and detention over alleged ties to the Gülen movement. However, the ruling sparked widespread backlash for its failure to uphold fair trial guarantees and for seeming to endorse Turkey’s expansive use of counterterrorism laws.
Yasak’s case has garnered attention for its broader implications regarding Turkey’s crackdown on Gülen movement followers and ongoing concerns about the country’s use of counterterrorism laws to silence dissent.
The Turkish government accuses the movement, inspired by the late Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen, of orchestrating a coup attempt on July 15, 2016, an allegation the movement denies. Since then, tens of thousands of people have faced prosecution based on alleged links to the group, often with little evidence beyond witness statements or association with Gülen-affiliated institutions.