Gülmez v. Turkey (16330/02)
| Date | 20080520 |
|---|---|
| Article | 6(1), 8 |
| Decision | violation |
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)
Violation of Article 8
Gülmez v. Turkey (no. 16330/02)
The applicant, Ali Gülmez, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and is serving a prison sentence in Sincan F-type Prison in Ankara.
In March 2000 the applicant was placed in detention on remand on suspicion of murder, armed robbery and membership of an illegal organisation. During his detention on remand in 2001 six disciplinary sanctions were imposed on him for damaging prison property, chanting slogans and refusing to be searched. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of the disciplinary proceedings brought against him and the ensuing restriction on his visiting rights for approximately one year. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Further relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he also complained about the conditions of his detention in Sincan Prison.
The Court noted that no public hearing had been held during the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and his submissions in his defence had only been taken into account just before the Disciplinary Board had imposed the sanctions. Nor had the applicant been given the opportunity to defend himself through a lawyer before the courts which had examined his appeals. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
It further noted that the relevant legal provisions on which the restrictions on the applicant’s visiting rights had been based had not indicated in precise terms those acts which were punishable and their related penalties. The Court was therefore not convinced that those provisions, as they had been in force in 2001, had been sufficiently clear and detailed to appropriately protect a detainee from any wrongful interference with his or her right to family life. The Court therefore further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8.
Mr Gülmez was awarded EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application under Article 3 was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)