Convicts and detainees do not lose their freedom of expression and their right to receive information entirely when they enter a penal institution (ceza infaz kurumu). However, the admission, procurement and use of publications are subject to the conditions set out in the enforcement legislation. Refusing a newspaper, refusing a book because of its content and library access are not the same transaction. The application must be prepared according to the ground for refusal and the type of publication.
This article addresses the provisions on publications in Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures and the decision in Mustafa Koca, Application No. 2021/38039, July 26, 2022. In that decision the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM) found no violation. The outcome of that decision does not mean that every other publication dispute will be resolved in the same way.
What Is the Legal Framework for Access to Publications in Prison?
Article 61 of Law No. 5275 regulates the opportunities to use libraries and benefit from publications, and Article 62 regulates access to periodical and non-periodical publications. Purchase, free publications from the bodies specified in the legislation and library use are separate channels. For detainees, the application of the relevant provisions is assessed within the framework of Article 116 of the same Law.
The system in Article 62 recognises the right to obtain, against payment, publications that have not been banned by the courts. At the same time, it contains limitations relating to institutional discipline, order, security and other statutory conditions. For newspapers, a separate provision concerns the right to publish official notices and advertisements through the Press Advertising Institution (Basın İlan Kurumu). That provision makes a separate exception for the temporary suspension of notices and advertisements. Disciplinary penalties imposed in prison because of protests and hunger strikes are examined separately in the article on disciplinary penalties for protest and hunger strikes in prison.
The Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı) also explains these distinctions in Article 62 in its written answer to a parliamentary question dated January 7, 2026. An administrative explanation does not replace the law; it helps to understand current practice. Whether a particular newspaper had a particular status on a particular date must be checked separately in the transaction concerning that publication.
Is content screening the same as the procurement condition?
No. A claim that the content of a publication is objectionable for institutional security is different from a claim that a newspaper does not meet the statutory condition for admission. In the first case, what matters is which part of the publication creates which concrete risk. In the second case, the relevant legal status of the publication and the conditions of the law are examined.
Legal classification: An application prepared without correctly classifying the ground of a refusal may not address the actual dispute. A content assessment of a book and the official-notice condition for a newspaper cannot be used in place of one another. The separate regulation on publications in foreign languages should not be overlooked either.
What Was the Concrete Dispute in the Mustafa Koca Decision?
The applicant wished to buy the newspaper Evrensel through the institution where he was held. The request was refused on the basis of the newspaper's status concerning its right to publish official notices, under the fourth paragraph of Article 62 of Law No. 5275. The Constitutional Court considered the purpose of the new regulation, the diversity of publications and the applicant's opportunities to receive information.
The decision does not concern the refusal of a book sent by a relative because of its content. What was examined was the newspaper's status on the relevant date and the purchase request. Describing the facts differently also leads to the choice of the wrong criteria.
Direct quotation from the decision
“There is no doubt that, in the conditions in which convicts and detainees find themselves, newspapers are one of their most important links to the outside world.”
Source of the quotation: AYM, Mustafa Koca, Application No. 2021/38039, July 26, 2022, § 64.
While accepting the importance of the right to receive information, the Court also assessed the burden placed on institutions to procure and supervise publications. The reasoning in §§ 62–66 of the decision is linked to the purpose of the adopted system, the diversity of publications available at the time, and the judicial review of the relevant status decisions.
The AYM's ruling and its scope
The AYM's ruling: It was decided unanimously that the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 26 of the Constitution was not violated. The applicant's request for legal aid was accepted, and a separate ruling was made on litigation costs. This decision should not be presented as a finding of violation or as a retrial decision.
Our assessment: The numbers of newspapers and the statistics used in the decision belong to the period it examined. Repeating them as data valid today would not be correct. In a current dispute, the publications the person can actually reach and the current legal status of the newspaper concerned must be determined afresh.
Why Was Retention Examined Separately in the 2026 Pilot Decision?
The official press release on the AYM's decision in Bişar Bilen and Others, Application No. 2019/789, February 19, 2026 explains that the admission of publications to the institution and the retention of documents are separate problems. According to the press release, Articles 35 and 62 of Law No. 5275 do not provide sufficient legal basis for the retention measures that were the subject of the application. The fact that a publication was not handed to the person does not by itself answer which power and which procedure the administration may use to keep it.
Official outcome stated in the press release: It was decided that freedom of expression had been violated and that the pilot judgment procedure should be applied. The announcement also states that the structural problem identified in earlier decisions on access to publications, and the need for an effective and consistent review mechanism, continue to exist. This section is a summary of the AYM's official statement, not a direct quotation from the binding decision text.
Our assessment: The outcome on the newspaper admission condition in the Mustafa Koca decision cannot be used as an automatic justification for retaining a different document. In a new file, the type of publication, the refusal act, the duration of the retention and its legal basis should be shown separately. The pilot decision should not be presented as a general permission for the unconditional delivery of all publications either.
Can Every Refusal Be Defended on the Same Reasoning?
No. The outcome of the Mustafa Koca decision does not mean that every book, magazine or newspaper may be refused without reasons. The type of publication, the channel of the request, the ground for refusal and the provision applied may all differ. The applicant's specific objections must also be assessed within the decision.
A restriction imposed because of content may not be sufficiently justified by merely stating the general political line of the publication. A relationship must be shown between the content that creates a given risk and the scope of the measure. The examination must take into account the publication as a whole and the conditions in which the person is held.
On the other hand, the fact that a publication may be freely sold outside does not mean that all admission and use conditions inside the penal institution have disappeared. Circulation outside and internal regulation within the institution are different legal areas. This difference does not confer arbitrary power either; any restriction must be lawful and proportionate.
Textbooks and publications connected with education
Article 62 of Law No. 5275 contains a special safeguard for the textbooks of convicts who are continuing their education or training. The genuine connection between the request and the education being pursued can be explained by the relevant programme and the nature of the book. A textbook and any publication that the person says they wish to read for educational purposes do not automatically fall into the same category.
For requests linked to education, a student certificate, a list of courses or a statement from the relevant educational institution may be added to the file. This makes concrete the specific provision under which the request falls. The safeguard should not be applied merely by looking at a book's cover or its general subject heading.
How Should a Publication Request and a Refusal Decision Be Documented?
The request should clearly state the title of the publication, its author or publisher, the date and issue number for newspapers and magazines, and whether the request concerns purchase or library access. Where different editions of the same title exist, distinguishing details matter. If payment or deposit account transactions are required, the records of those transactions should be kept.
A written copy of the refusal decision and the date of its notification should be obtained. It should be clear which body issued the decision, which provision it relies on and which publications it covers. If a single decision was issued for several publications, it should be assessed whether the status of each one was examined.
The application must respond directly to the reasoning of the decision. If a content risk has been raised, the relevant section should be addressed; if the newspaper's status has been raised, its status on that date should be addressed; if the nature of a textbook has been disputed, the link to education should be explained. A general assertion of rights is more effective when it is tied to the concrete dispute.
What Are the Complaint and Objection Time Limits for the Enforcement Judgeship?
Under Article 5 of Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships, a complaint may be made to the enforcement judgeship (infaz hâkimliği) within fifteen days from learning of the relevant act or activity and, in any event, within thirty days from the date it was carried out. The concrete nature of the publication act and its dates must be identified. It should not be assumed that filing a new petition restarts an entire expired period.
The complaint may be filed directly with the enforcement judgeship or through the bodies designated in the law. A record showing that the petition was delivered is important. Under the current regulation, an objection to the enforcement judgeship's decision may be made to the High Criminal Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi) within two weeks from notification. The one-week period found in older sources should not be used as the current period for decisions issued on or after June 1, 2024.
These periods are not the time limit for an individual application to the AYM. In general, after effective ordinary remedies have been exhausted, the thirty-day period from learning of the final decision applies to an individual application. The stages of a request to the administration, a complaint to the enforcement judgeship, an objection and an individual application should be shown separately.
Which constitutional problem should be set out in an AYM application?
The application should show which publication could not be accessed, why the grounds for refusal were insufficient or disproportionate, and which essential objection the courts failed to assess. Whether a request was not examined at all, was placed in the wrong legal category, or disregarded the concrete content are different problems.
The AYM is not a distribution authority that directly grants every publication request. The review concerns whether the fundamental rights safeguards have been observed. If a violation is found, the remedy is determined by the scope of the decision; in the Mustafa Koca decision, however, no violation was found.
For more on this subject, see our articles on qualified rights in Constitutional Court decisions, refusal and objection under the right to information and the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. Our firm's work in this field can be found on the Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights applications page.
Conclusion
The right of access to publications in prison must be assessed concretely, on the basis of the type of publication and the ground for refusal. The Mustafa Koca decision is an example in which no violation was found regarding the admission conditions of one particular newspaper; it is not a general approval of all publication restrictions. An effective application is prepared with accurate publication details, a written refusal decision, a date record and a specific objection to the reasoning.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can every newspaper and book be obtained in prison without conditions?
No. The law sets out different conditions for different types of publication and different ways of procuring them. A refusal must, however, also rest on the relevant provision and contain reasoning that fits the specific dispute.
Did the Mustafa Koca decision find that freedom of expression was violated?
No. The AYM found no violation of freedom of expression with respect to the specific request to buy a newspaper. That result cannot be applied automatically to other publication files.
Is the temporary suspension of a newspaper's official notices the same as the absence of this right?
The law distinguishes between these situations. The temporary suspension case is separately excepted in the fourth paragraph of Article 62. The status of the newspaper on the date of the transaction must be determined.
What is the time limit for a complaint to the enforcement judgeship?
Fifteen days from learning of the act or activity and, in any event, thirty days from the date it was carried out. An objection to the enforcement judge's decision is assessed separately.
Does an old one-week period apply to an objection to an enforcement judgeship decision?
For decisions made on or after June 1, 2024, the current period is two weeks from notification. The calculation should be made from the date of the decision and the notification document.
Sources and legal bases
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Articles 13 and 26.
- Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi, AYM), Mustafa Koca, Application No. 2021/38039, July 26, 2022, §§ 49–67 and the operative part; the link may require a session.
- AYM, press release on the pilot decision in Bişar Bilen and Others, Application No. 2019/789, February 19, 2026. This section's source is the press release; it does not replace the full decision text.
- Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures, Articles 61, 62 and 116; Ministry of Justice written answer to a parliamentary question, January 7, 2026, on the use of publications.
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships, Articles 5–6; time limit amended by Law No. 7499.
- Directorate General of Prisons and Detention Houses (CTE), Sesleniş (Address) magazine, February 2023, explanation of the complaint procedure; CTE, Sesleniş, June 2024, the updated two-week objection period.
- AYM, Qualified Rights: Summaries of Decisions (Nitelikli Haklar: Karar Özetleri), June 2025, section on access to publications in penal institutions.