20 Jun Violation of the prisoners’ right to education due to the authorities’ refusal to allow them access to the computer and the internet

In the case of Mehmet Reşit Arslan and Orhan Bingöl v. Turkey (application no. 47121/06, 18.06.2019) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) to the European Convention on Human Rights. 

The case concerned the right to education of two convicted prisoners. Having been sentenced to life imprisonment and wishing to continue their higher-education studies, which had been interrupted by their conviction, the applicants had asked the prison authorities to allow them to use a computer and access the Internet. Their requests were denied. They appealed to the courts but were unsuccessful. 

The Court reiterated that the importance of education in prison had been acknowledged by the Committee of Ministers in its recommendations on education in prison and in its European Prison Rules. 

The Court also noted that the domestic authorities had relied on various reasons to justify the denial of the applicants’ requests. The request submitted by Mr Arslan had been denied on the basis of the prison authorities’ opinion that he had maintained relations with other prisoners who were members of the same illegal organisation and had not enrolled in any training. Mr Bingöl had not enrolled either and he had also been disciplined on numerous occasions.

The Court observed that the national courts had not carried out any detailed analysis of the security risks. In addition, they had not duly weighed up the various interests at stake and had failed in their duty to prevent any abuse of power by the administration. In those circumstances, the Court was not persuaded by the grounds put forward to justify the authorities’ denial of the requests by Mr Arslan and Mr Bingöl to use audiovisual materials and computers and to have Internet access. The Court concluded that the domestic courts had failed to strike a fair balance between the applicants’ right to education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 on the one hand and the imperatives of public order on the other. It found that there had been a violation of that Article in respect of both applicants.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights