SECOND SECTION

CASE OF TÜRK AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE

(Applications nos. 4625/21 and 3 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 January 2026

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Türk and Others v. Türkiye,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Stéphane Pisani, President,
 Juha Lavapuro,
 Hugh Mercer, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

• PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

• THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants complained of the seizure of written materials by prison administration.

• THE LAW
  1.         JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2.      ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 of the Convention

6.  The applicants complained of the seizure of their private written materials by the prison administration. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 10 of the Convention.

7.  The Court considers that the seizure of the applicants’ private written materials constituted an interference with the right to freedom of expression (see Sarıgül v. Turkey, no. 28691/05, § 43, 23 May 2017, and Günana and Others v. Turkey, nos. 70934/10 and 4 others, §§ 60-61, 20 November 2018).

8.  The Court has already found that there was no legal basis in Turkish domestic law for the seizure of a detainee’s private written materials under any circumstances (see Günana and Others, cited above, § 67, and also Murat Türk v. Turkey [Committee], no. 20686/19, § 14, 5 April 2022) and found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (Günana and Others, cited above, §§ 68-69 and Murat Türk, cited above, §§ 15-16).

9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the disputed interference was not “prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.

10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.

3.    APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

11.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Murat Türk, cited above), the Court considers that the finding of a violation is sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and it further finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to some of the applicants in respect of the costs and expenses incurred.

• FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;
2.      Declares the applications admissible;
3.      Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 10 of the Convention concerning the seizure of written materials by prison administration;
4.      Holds that the finding of the violation constitutes in itself sufficient compensation for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants;
5.      Holds
   1.   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants in applications nos. 4625/21 and 15763/21 within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, as respect of the costs and expenses incurred, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
   2.   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Stéphane Pisani

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 of the Convention

(seizure of private written materials by prison administration)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.