| Applicant name | İLERDE AND OTHERS |
| Applicant type | Natural person (prisoner) |
| Number of applicants | 11 |
| Country | Turkey |
| Application no. | 35614/19, 5885/20, 6489/20, 7540/20 10977/20, 11422/20, 14798/20, 16554/20 16577/20, 18001/20, 40294/20 |
| Date | 05/12/2023 |
| Judges | Arnfinn Bårdsen, President, Egidijus Kūris, Pauliine Koskelo, Saadet Yüksel, Lorraine Schembri Orland, Frédéric Krenc, Diana Sârcu |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Domestic decision making |
| Type of privacy | Procedural privacy; Relational privacy |
| Keywords | Double even if; move prisoner |
| Facts of the case | The applicants Davut Tek and Deniz Aktaş alleged a violation of their right to respect for family life on account of the hardship involved for their families in visiting them, because of the considerable distance between their places of detention and their families’ places of residence, and their inability to obtain transfers elsewhere. |
| Analysis | The Court finds that there has been an interference because it was difficult for his family to visit him after he had been transfered more than a 1.000 km away. It proceeds on the assumption that there was a legal basis and the assumption that the interference served a legitimate aim. While the Court is not in a position to doubt the veracity of the reasons advanced by the Government, it notes that the applicant himself was not provided with any reasoning when he was first transferred to İzmir Menemen and then İzmir no. 2 T-type Prison from Nevşehir E-type Prison, which was close to the location of his trial as well as his family. It therefore follows that the applicant’s transfer to those prisons took place in the absence of procedural safeguards against arbitrary interference with his right to respect for family life. As regards the applicant’s subsequent requests to be transferred to the prisons in Kocaeli or Maltepe, which were made while he was detained in İzmir no. 2 T-type Prison, the Court considers that the prison administration’s refusals of those requests were based on relevant and pressing reasons related to prison overcrowding. However, the domestic authorities did not make any concrete assessment of whether the applicant could be allocated to another prison relatively closer to his family, or whether any alternative means of making up for the fewer visits he received would be possible, such as longer visits (as recommended as a general measure in the decision of the Ombudsman) or even longer telephone calls. |
| Other Article violation? | No violation 3 ECHR |
| Damage awarded | (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i) in respect of non-pecuniary damage: EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to Ahmet İlerde; EUR 2,300 (two thousand three hundred euros) to Ruhi Hallaçoğlu; EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) to Davut Tek; EUR 10,900 (ten thousand nine hundred euros) to Aşkın Şanlı; EUR 10,700 (ten thousand seven hundred euros) to Kemalettin Erel; EUR 7,300 (seven thousand three hundred euros) to Harun Altun; EUR 5,700 (five thousand seven hundred euros) to Kahraman Yıldırım; and EUR 7,600 (seven thousand six hundred euros) to Deniz Aktaş; (ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) each to Ahmet İlerde, Davut Tek, Aşkın Şanlı, Kemalettin Erel and Harun Altun, in respect of costs and expenses; |
| Documents | Judgment |