Constitutional Court Rejects Prisoner’s Appeal on 'Freedom of Communication'

Click to read the article in Turkish

The Constitutional Court has unanimously deemed the application of prisoner H.Ö. regarding his freedom of communication "inadmissible".

H.Ö. applied to the Constitutional Court after his appeal to a court regarding his letters and faxes not being sent for being objectionable was rejected.

Judgeship: Not my duty to investigate the ban

H.Ö. was arrested on the charge of "being a member of a terrorist organization" on July 17, 2016, two days after the coup attempt.

On August 12, 2016, the İstanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office instructed that the suspects of the Fethullahist Terrorist Organization/ Parallel State Structure (FETÖ/PDY) investigations should be banned from using the written communication means during the state of emergency.

The Administration and Observation Commission of the Penal Execution Organization banned written communication in accordance with the instruction of the İstanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office.

H.Ö. applied to the Silivri 2nd Judgeship of Execution against the ban.

In its justification dated May 30, 2017, the Judgeship rejected the appeal on the ground that inspection of the ban is not in their jurisdiction. Silivri Heavy Penal Court rejected H.Ö.'s appeal against this verdict on July 24, 2017.

Constitutional Court: The ban already removed

H.Ö. appealed to the Constitutional Court on September 6, stating that both his right to communicate and his right to family life were violated because of the restriction imposed on his contact visits.

H.Ö. was released on November 10, 2017 with the interim judgement pronounced by the İstanbul 29th Heavy Penal Court.

The ban on communication issued by the İstanbul Chief Public Prosecutor's Office was removed on February 27, 2018.

The justified ruling of the Constitutional Court was published on the Official Gazette today (January 4). The Constitutional Court ruled that the appeal is inadmissible on the ground that all the legal remedies were not exhausted and the mentioned ban was removed.

The court also deemed "the claim regarding the violation of the right to respect to family life" inadmissible on the ground that it is clearly unfounded. (AS/VK)