The ECHR judgment of 23 May 2017 in the case of Sarigul v. Turkey (application No. 28691/05).
In 2005, the applicant was assisted in the preparation of the application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to Turkey.
In the case, the complaint on the uncertainty of the grounds, to which the prison administration referred for removing the manuscript of his novel from the prisoner, was successfully considered. The case involved a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
In 2004, while in prison, the applicant handed over the manuscript of the novel to the prison administration so that it was sent outside the prison for publication. The prison administration examined the manuscript (about 200 pages) in the context of supervision of prisoners' correspondence, referring to it as a regular letter. The administration, concluding that the text supported an illegal separatist organization and contained insults to the police, obscene and inappropriate vocabulary, including statements against women, public morals and beliefs, decided to withdraw it. In 2006, after the prosecutor's decision to dismiss the charge against the applicant, the manuscript was returned to him.
ISSUES OF LAW
The Court considers that the case is to be examined in terms of freedom of expression (Article 10 of the Convention), and not from the point of view of the right to respect for correspondence (Article 8 of the Convention), even though the notice of the complaint was sent under the second provision of the Convention.
The Disciplinary Council did not directly refer to any legal basis, making an order for the withdrawal of the applicant's manuscript, explaining only that the text contained inappropriate words and expressions in accordance with a pre-established checklist for correspondence.
Recalling that the rules governing the control of correspondence of detainees that do not provide certainty in part of its limits and do not define what is "inadequate" can not meet the requirement of predictability (see Tan v. Turkey ) of 3 July 2007, complaint No. 9460/03), the Court has reached a similar conclusion in the present case. Intervention, therefore, was not "prescribed by law".
In the case there was a violation of the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention (unanimously adopted).